The Theology of Heinrich Bullinger [1 ed.] 9783666564826, 9783525564820

Citation preview

William Peter Stephens

The Theology of Heinrich Bullinger

Reformed Historical Theology Edited by Herman J. Selderhuis in Co-operation with Emidio Campi, Irene Dingel, Benyamin F. Intan, Elsie Anne McKee, Richard A. Muller, and Risto Saarinen

Volume 59

William Peter Stephens

The Theology of Heinrich Bullinger Edited by Jim West and Joe Mock

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek: The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: https://dnb.de. © 2019, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Theaterstraße 13, D-37073 Göttingen All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Typesetting: 3w+p, Rimpar Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage | www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com ISSN 2197-1137 ISBN 978-3-666-56482-6

Contents

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15

Chapter 1: Bullinger’s Life and Ministry . University of Cologne 1519–1522 . . . . Kappel 1523–1528 . . . . . . . . . . . . Bremgarten 1529–1531 . . . . . . . . . Zurich – The Early Years . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

19 20 22 25 26

Chapter 2: The Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Authority of the Bible in Bullinger’s Early Works A Discussion of Authority in 1538 . . . . . . . . . . . The Authority of the Bible in Bullinger’s Later Works The Decades (1549) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evangelical and Papal Teaching (1551) . . . . . . . . The Evangelical Churches (1552) . . . . . . . . . . . . The Grace of God (1554) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Christian Religion (1556) . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Catechism (1559) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Firm Foundation (1563) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Further Discussion of the Authority of the Bible . . The Interpretation of the Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interpretation in Other Early Works . . . . . . . . . . Instruction for Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bullinger’s Later Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Decades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Evangelical Churches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Christian Religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sermons on the Apocalypse . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

31 33 38 47 49 51 52 54 55 56 57 58 67 68 74 82 82 85 86 88

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

6

Contents

The Second Helvetic Confession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

89 90

Chapter 3: God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Origin of Error in the Worship of Saints and Images Providence, Predestination, Grace, and Freewill . . . . . The Decades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Knowledge of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . God – One and Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . God: Creator of All Things and Governor of All Things. The Providence of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Worshipping God Alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Second Helvetic Confession and Later Works . . . Reply to Traheron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

93 96 100 102 103 106 111 112 114 116 120

Chapter 4: Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Context for the Doctrine of Christ Bullinger’s Early Works . . . . . . . . The Person and Work of Christ . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

125 129 131 134

Chapter 5: The Holy Spirit . . . . . . . . . . . . The Holy Spirit and the Doctrine of the Trinity The Holy Spirit and the Bible . . . . . . . . . . The Holy Spirit and the Word . . . . . . . . . The Holy Spirit and the Sacraments . . . . . . The Holy Spirit and Salvation . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

141 142 144 147 150 157

Chapter 6: Predestination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Predestination in Bullinger before 1536 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Predestination in ‘Providence, Predestination, Grace, and Freewill’ A Comparison between Zwingli and Bullinger . . . . . . . . . . . The Decades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bullinger’s Later Works: True Faith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reply to Traheron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Zurich Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Second Helvetic Confession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bullinger and Zwingli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

161 161 165 169 173 178 181 183 185 188

Chapter 7: The Covenant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Influences on Bullinger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

193 194

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

7

Contents

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

196 211 215 215 220

Chapter 8: Sin and the Fall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sin in ‘Anabaptist Teaching’ and ‘The Providence of God’ ‘The Christian Religion’ and ‘The Decades’ . . . . . . . . Sin from Man not God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Origin, Progress, and Effect of Sin . . . . . . . . . . Original Sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Actual Sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Punishment of Sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sin in Bullinger’s Later Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Free Will . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

225 227 230 231 234 235 236 239 240 244

Chapter 9: The Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Early Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘The Christian Religion’ and ‘The Decades’ The Law and the Law of Nature . . . . . Moral, Ceremonial, and Judicial Laws . . The Judicial Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . Later Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

249 249 254 254 257 261 267

Chapter 10: Justification and Good Works Justification in Zwingli . . . . . . . . . . The Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Expositions of Justification . . . . . . . Justification and Sanctification . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

269 269 272 277 289

Chapter 11: The Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Context for Understanding Bullinger’s Teaching on the Church The Church – Catholic and Holy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Marks of the Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Church as One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Images of the Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Christ and the Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

293 294 298 302 305 312 313

The Covenant in Bullinger’s Earlier Works The Covenant in Bullinger’s Later Works . The Character of the Covenant . . . . . . . The Centrality of the Covenant . . . . . . A Unilateral or Bilateral Covenant . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

8

Contents

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

315 316 317 318 320 323 325 326 333 333 334 337 339 339 340 342

Chapter 13: The Word and The Sacraments . . . . . . . . . . . . The Role of Word and Sacrament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Word in the Confessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Word in ‘The Decades’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Word in Bullinger’s Commentaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sacraments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Sacraments in the 1530s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Sacraments in the 1540s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . True Confession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Zurich Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Sacraments in the 1550s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evangelical and Papal Teaching and Questions about Religion The Christian Religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Decades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Second Helvetic Confession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

345 345 347 349 349 351 351 355 355 357 360 360 361 364 367

Chapter 14: Baptism . . . . . . . . Baptism and the Covenant in 1525 Baptism in the 1530s . . . . . . . Baptism in the 1540s . . . . . . . Bullinger’s Later Works . . . . . . The Baptism of Infants . . . . . . On Baptism . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

371 373 375 377 379 384 385

Chapter 12: The Ministry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Prophet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Ministry in the 1530s . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anabaptist Teaching (1530) . . . . . . . . . . . The Prophet (1532) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Synod in 1532 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The First Helvetic Confession . . . . . . . . . . The Institution and Ministry of Bishops (1538) General Presentations of the Ministry . . . . . The Salvation of Believers . . . . . . . . . . . The Christian Religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘The Christian Religion’ and Earlier Works . Bullinger’s Later Works . . . . . . . . . . . . Sermons on the Apocalypse . . . . . . . . . . . The Anabaptists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Second Helvetic Confession . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

9

Contents

Anabaptist Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Baptism of Infants in Bullinger’s Later Works . . . . . . . . . . . . Bullinger and Zwingli on Infant Baptism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

387 392 402

Chapter 15: The Eucharist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

405

Chapter 16: The State . . . . . . . . Early Works . . . . . . . . . . . . The Anabaptist and Papal Context The Anabaptist Context . . . . . The Papal Context . . . . . . . . . Government in The Decades . . The Second Helvetic Confession The Prophet . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

411 412 418 418 424 433 439 440

Chapter 17: The Last Things . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Christian Religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Sleep of the Soul in the 1520s and 1530s . . . . . Antichrist in the 1530s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Instruction for the Sick (1535) . . . . . . . . . . . . . Matthew (1542) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . True Confession (1545) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Last Judgment (1555) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sermons on the Apocalypse (1557) . . . . . . . . . . . Bullinger’s ‘Firm Foundation’ (1563) and Later Works

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

449 449 454 457 459 463 468 469 474 479

Select Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

483

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

Abbreviations1

English title 1 Corinthians 1 John 1 Peter 2 Thessalonians (1526) 2 Thessalonians A Discourse on Scripture A Friendly Exhortation to Righteousness A Letter to Albrecht Margrave of Brandenburg A Refutation of the Papal Bull Acts Against Anabaptists Against Idolatrous Bread An Accusation of Almighty God Anabaptist Teaching Baptism (1525) Comparison of Ancient and Contemporary Heresies Council of Trent Descent into Hell Diary Ephesians (1526)

Original title Commentarius in priorem Pauli ad Corinthios epistolam Expositio in epistolam Ioannis Commentarius in Petri epistolam utramque

HBBibl no 53 37 52 Staedtke 285 81

Commentarii in Pauli ad Thessalonicenses, Timotheum, Titum et Philemonem epistolas De scripturae sanctae dignitate 565 Freundliche Ermahnung zur Gerechtigkeit 2 An den durchlüchtigen hochgebornen fürsten herrn/Herrn Albrecht Refutatio Bullae papisticae contra Angliae Reginam Elizabetham Commentarius in Acta apostolorum Der Wiedertäufer Ursprung Wider das Götzenbrot Anklag und ernstliches Ermahnen Gottes Vom dem unverschämten Frevel der Widertäufer Vom dem Touff Vergleichung der uralten und unser zyten kåtzeryen

1532 562 43 394–401 HBTS 2 3 28–32 HBTS 2 1

Concilium Tridentium non institutum esse 230 De articulo fidei «Descendit ad inferna» HBTS 2 Heinrich Bullingers Diarium (Annales vitae) 764 der Jahre 1504–1574 Staedtke 285

1 Professor Stephens used his own system of abbreviations and they do not sometimes match the standard abbreviations. Further, many of the works he cites have never been translated into English. As a result, the editors thought it wise to provide a table of Stephens’ idiosyncratic system.

12

Abbreviations

(Continued) English title

Original title

HBBibl no

Ephesians

Commentarii in epistolas Pauli ad Galatas, Ephesios, Philippenses et Colossenes Epitome temporum et rerum ab orbe condito Antithesis et compendium evangelicae et papisticae doctrinae Fundamentum firmum In piam et eruditam Pauli ad Hebraeos Ratio Studiorum Bericht der Kranken Isaias excellentissimus dei propheta In evangelium secundum Ioannem commentarius In evangelium secundum Matthaeum commentarius In sacrosanctum evangelium Domini nostri Iesu Christi secundum Marcum De scripturae negotio Perfectio christianorum Von der schweren Verfolgung der Christlichen Kirchen De Providentia et praedestinatione

72

Epitome Evangelical and Papal Teaching Firm Foundation Hebrews Introduction to Study Instruction for the sick Isaiah John Matthew Mark On Scripture Perfection Persecution Providence and Predestination Questions of Religion Reply to Burchard Reply to Faber Reply to Taheron Romans (1525) Romans Second Response to Cochleus Sermons on the Apocalypse Seven Canonical Epistles

430 239 425 38 712 73 558 153 144 170 HBTS 2 249 575 721

Bericht, wie die Verfolgen antworten sollen Antwort an Burchard Antwort auf Johan Fabers Trostbüchlein

386–393 HBTS 2 35

Vorlesung über den Römerbrief Commentarius in epistolam ad Romanos Brevis antibole sive responsio secunda ad Ioannem Cochleum In Apocalypsim conciones centum

HBTS 1 42 160

In epistolas apostolorum canonicas septem commentarii Dispositio et perioche historiae evangelicae

91

The Argument and the Summary The Authority of Scripture De scripturae sanctae authoritate deque Episcoporum institutione et functione The Bread of the Eucharist De pane eucharistiae declamationes The Catechism Catechesis pro adultioribus The Christian Religion Summa christenlicher Religion The Decades Sermonum Decades quinque de potissimus Christianae religionibus capitibus The Evangelical Churches Ecclesias evangelicas orthodoxas et catholicas esse Apodixis The Grace of God De gratia dei iustificante The Highest Good Das höchste Gut

327–356

271 HBTS 4 HBTS 2 377 283–314 179–227 258 276 768

13

Abbreviations

(Continued) English title

Original title

HBBibl no

The Institution of the Eucharist The Last Judgment The Old Faith The Origin of Error The Prophet The Reformation The Sacrifice of the Mass The Salvation of Believers The Testament

De insitutione eucharistiae

HBTS 2

Das Jüngste Gericht Der alte Glaube De origine erroris De prophetae officio Reformationsgeschichte De sacrificio missae Vom Heil der Gläubigen De testamento seu foedere Dei unico et eterno The Two Natures of Christ Utriusque in Christo naturae tam divinae quam humanae The Turk Die Türke The Zurich Agreement Consensus Tigurinus The Zurich Confession The Zurich Statement True Confession Two Sermons

BRK CO FT HBBibl HBBW HBD HBRG HBSR HBTS LW RB RC RRR WADB Z ZWA

Zürich Gutachten Wahrhaftes Bekenntnis der Diener der Kirchen zu Zürich Predigten über den 130. Und 133. Psalm

281 99–110 10–26 33 751 HBTS 2 279 54–61 62 557 HBBW 4:420–430 161–169 582

Bekenntnnissschriften der Reformierten Kirche Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia French translation Heinrich Bullinger Bibliography Heinrich Bullinger Briefwechsel Heinrich Bullinger Diarium Heinrich Bullingers Reformationsgeschichte Heinrich Bullinger Studiorum Ratio Heinrich Bullinger Theologische Schriften Luther’s Works Reformierte Bekenntnisssschriften Reformed Confessions of the 16th Century Reformation and Renaissance Review D. Martin Luthers Werke Kritische Gesamtausgabe Die Deutsche Bibel Huldreich Zwinglis Sämtliche Werke Zwingliana

Introduction

Many who write on the Swiss Reformation use the term “Zwinglianism” imprecisely. In most cases what they are referring to is the theology and practice of Zurich. Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575), Ulrich Zwingli’s (1484–1531) Nachfolger as Antistes or chief minister of the Grossmünster in Zurich, was instrumental in developing the theology and practice of the church in Zurich. This book by W. Peter Stephens is a welcome addition to the steadily growing number of works on Bullinger in English which began in earnest with Architect of Reformation: An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–1575, a volume of essays edited by Bruce Gordon and Emidio Campi. Emidio Campi, the immediate past professor of Church History at the University of Zurich considers Stephens to be one of the most distinguished scholars of the Swiss Reformation. He notes that, “with his death we lose yet another link that took us back to the now long departed scholarly world of men such as Gottfried W. Locher, Rudolf Pfister, Fritz Blanke, George Richard Potter, Jacques V. Pollet, and more recently Markus Jenny, Fritz Büsser, Alfred Schindler, Peter Blickle.”1 Stephens’ tome: The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli is the standard work in English concerning the theological contribution of Zwingli. It was meticulously researched as is evident by the detailed footnotes. These allow readers to read Zwingli themselves and, therefore, consider and evaluate Stephens’ conclusions. The great strength of this work on Zwingli is the detailed attention given chronologically to Zwingli’s works that express his thoughts on particular aspects of theology such as the doctrine of Scripture. In this present work Stephens has employed the same modus operandi. Wim Janse wisely noted that: “The existence of the theology of Calvin is just such a fiction. In spite of this, textbooks seem to manage two-line summaries of ‘Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.’ What is more, they base these on the summa theologiae that the ‘man of a single book’ published five years before the 1 In a Facebook post the day that Stephens’ death became public.

16

Introduction

end of his life, the 1559 Institutes, which they use as their one and only source or as a kind of guide for reading the opera omnia. Alternatively, they use as their basis the consensus that Calvinus oecumenicus, almost forty years old concluded with the Zurich preachers, as being arguably an adequate expression of his sacramentology: the Mutua Consensio or Consensus Tigurinus (1549)”.2 What is very helpful for the student of Bullinger is that, in this magnum opus of Stephens, he not only chronologically considers relevant works of Bullinger but he often refers to works of Bullinger that are hardly referred to in the literature as very few have been translated into English. A table is appended which lists the English titles used by Stephens of the works of Bullinger together with their original titles and reference number in Heinrich Bullinger Bibliographie, where applicable. The sheer number of works cited indicates the vast depth and breadth of this study into the thought of Bullinger. With the digital platform of erara.ch, the works of Bullinger are now more readily accessible. Stephens gives priority to the study and analysis of Bullinger’s original works in line with the principle ad fontes. Stephens’ intimate knowledge of the secondary literature is evident from the extensive footnotes. He kept abreast of the more recent secondary literature and had met some of the scholars at a conference in Zurich in February 2019. After completing the final draft of the text of the book, his plan was to revamp the footnotes to indicate his interaction with the recent literature on Bullinger. His untimely demise means that he did not update the footnotes to reflect his evaluation of recent literature. Since the work is more akin to a handbook, the editors decided to publish it with the footnotes numbered for each respective chapter as per the manuscripts of the original chapters. The chapters are listed in the order that was planned by Stephens. Because we do not have the draft of the chapter on the Lord’s Supper we have, in its place, inserted his “The Sacraments in the Confessions of 1536, 1549, and 1566 – Bullinger’s Understanding in the Light of Zwingli’s” (Zwingliana, vol. 33 (2006), 51– 76) for which we are grateful for the permission given by the editor of Zwingliana. Even without Stephens’ draft for the chapter on the Lord’s Supper, significant discussion of Bullinger and the Lord’s Supper may be found in Chapter 5 (The Holy Spirit – especially the section ‘The Holy Spirit and the Sacraments’) and in Chapter 13 (The Word and the Sacraments). Reference to Bullinger and the Lord’s Supper is also to be found in footnotes 97 and 98 of Chapter 4 (Christ); footnotes 113, 114 and 116 of Chapter 5 (The Holy Spirit) and footnote 21 of Chapter 7 (The Covenant). 2 Wim Janse, “Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology: Three Dogma-Historical Observations” in Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.), Calvinus sacrarum literarum interpres (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008) 37.

Introduction

17

Enter the two editors of the present work. Several years ago, while corresponding about various things Bullinger with Dr Joe Mock and Dr Jim West, Prof. Stephens asked the two of us to assist him with the preservation and preparation for publication of the present work, should illness or death prevent him from seeing to it himself. Sadly, Prof. Stephens died on the First of April, 2019, after having written the vast bulk of the book presently in your hands. Joe and Jim, along with the series editor in which this volume appears, Herman Selderhuis, agreed together that it would be both proper and appropriate to publish what Prof. Stephens himself had written rather than filling in the small gaps in but one chapter which he had left unwritten. Happily, Prof. Stephens had completed, for all intents and purposes, the entire manuscript (in first draft form) except the chapter on The Supper. We decided that readers would be better served to have what Prof. Stephens provided rather than supplementing it with our own work, which may lead readers to a certain uncertainty as to where Stephens’ work ended and ours commenced; what belonged to him and what belonged to us. As Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics was incomplete upon his death, William Peter Stephens’ wonderful book on Bullinger too is as complete as he left it, with but the Supper unfinished. This is, to us, strangely fitting, given the fact that the Supper itself points forward to the Heavenly Banquet where all God’s people are gathered together to finish the meal that Jesus commenced at the Last Supper. We dedicate this work to the memory of our friend, William Peter Stephens. May it serve to inform, educate, and enlighten all of its readers concerning the theology of one of the most important 16th century theologians, Heinrich Bullinger, and may it stand as a monument to the incredible learning and insight of a 20th and 21st century theologian whose life touched ours and many others in profound ways both academic and personal. Finally, Joe and Jim would like to acknowledge the wonderful guidance and assistance of the staff of Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht and especially the wonderfully talented Katrin Reineke who helped us achieve the very best volume this one could become. Peter Stephens, Penzance, England, April 1, 2019 Joe Mock, Sydney, Australia, August 15, 2019 Jim West, Petros TN, USA, August 15, 2019

Chapter 1: Bullinger’s Life and Ministry

Heinrich Bullinger was born on 18 July 1504 in Bremgarten, a place of some eight hundred inhabitants, about ten miles west of Zurich. His father, also Heinrich, was a priest in the town, and later dean. His mother Anna was the daughter of Heinrich Wiederkehr, a prosperous miller, who was a Bremgarten councilor. As Bullinger’s father was a priest, he was not and could not canonically be married to Anna, but as happened widely with priests at the time, he lived respectably with her and their children. The young Bullinger grew up in a household given to hospitality and one in which people of some importance, visiting or passing through, were frequent visitors. These experiences may well have influenced Bullinger’s later ministry, for he practised hospitality and was at ease in his relations with those in leadership in Zurich. When only three, Bullinger could recite perfectly in German both the Lord’s Prayer and the Apostles’ Creed, and – a sign of things to come – often did so in the pulpit. Even his relatively long life may have been foreshadowed by his being able to survive twice as a child when he was close to death, once from the plague and once from an accident. Before his fourth birthday Bullinger went to the Latin school in Emmerich.1 St Martin’s appears to have been strongly influenced by the movement known as Modern Devotion. This may have contributed to or influenced some of the emphases in Bullinger’s understanding of Christian faith and life, with its emphasis on the living of the Christian life and on the practical study of the bible. The strong emphasis in the school on religion, or what he would later regard as superstition, led Bullinger to think of joining the Carthusians. He recalled that the discipline was strict and that the studies included Christian antiquity (the letter of Jerome) and classical antiquity (Vergil and Horace, Pliny and Cicero, as well as some Greek and logic). Perhaps as important as these was his experience of 1 HBD 1.8–2.17. For details of Bullinger’s Diarium (abbreviated as HBD) see Heinrich Bullinger Werke I Biblographie edited by Joachim Staedtke (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972) Vol. 1 no. 764 (abbreviated HBBibl 1).

20

Chapter 1: Bullinger’s Life and Ministry

having to beg in order to eat. This happened not because his father could not afford to pay for his meals as well as for his education and accommodation, but so that he would know what it was like to have to beg and might therefore be more friendly to those whose lot it was to beg.2

University of Cologne 1519–1522 In the summer of 1519, Bullinger moved to the University of Cologne and to what was to prove the most formative period of his life. It was there that between 1520 and 1522 he came to a Reformation understanding of the Christian faith. In 1519 the Leipzig Disputation took place and in 1520 Luther was excommunicated, although there is no evidence that Bullinger knew of these at the time. Then in November 1520 there was a burning of heretical books in Cologne. In the account in his Diary, Bullinger records that it was in 1520 that he faced the question whether the teaching of Luther or the pope was right.3 A person familiar with papal teaching pointed him to Peter Lombard’s Sentences. He read this and Gratian’s Decretals, the canon law of the Roman Church, and found that they appealed to the fathers of the church. After that with the help of Georg Diener, a fellow countryman, he gained access to the library of the Dominican monastery. There he read the homilies of Chrysostom on Matthew and finding the fathers very different from Lombard and Gratian in dealing with scripture, he began to read Ambrose (Ambrosiaster), Origen, and Augustine. He also read some of Luther’s most formative works, mentioning specifically The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, The Freedom of the Christian, The Assertion of the Articles, and The Sermon on Good Works. These dealt with such fundamental matters as justification by faith, the good works which come from faith, the sacrifice of the mass, transubstantiation, and the practice of confession. Bullinger’s reading convinced him that Luther’s teaching was closer than that of the schoolmen to the theology of the fathers. Yet, as he read the fathers, he discovered that the fathers relied on the authority of scripture and this led him to buy a copy of the New Testament. He began by reading Matthew’s gospel, which he did with the help of Jerome, and then read the rest of the New Testament.4 Bullinger writes both of beginning at this time to turn away from papal teaching and of abandoning his intention of becoming a Carthusian. He came 2 HBD 2.18–3.15. 3 There is no complete account of this turning point in Bullinger’s life, although he refers to it on various occasions, in his Diary and Life and in some of his letters. There are a number of presentations of this; see Pestalozzi (Heinrich Bullinger 13–20), Blanke (Der junge Bullinger 45–53), and Büsser (Heinrich Bullinger Vol. 1 21–26). 4 HBD 5. 14–6.12.

University of Cologne 1519–1522

21

across Melanchthon’s Common Places (Loci communes) which he ‘wonderfully enjoyed’. He adds in his diary that finally he dedicated himself chiefly to ‘the reading of the holy scriptures’ and was ‘engaged day and night ‘ in this in 1521 and 1522. When he moved to his parents’ home in Bremgarten in 1522 he refers to reading the works both of the fathers (Athanasius, Cyprian, and Lactantius) and of Luther, revealing in that two fundamental influences on his theology.5 Elsewhere Bullinger states of this period that he learned from the fathers and his reading of scripture that ‘salvation comes from God through Christ’ and that papal teaching was superstitious and ungodly. In 1522 he abandoned mass and papal assemblies. He read books by Lactantius and Augustine, including On Christian Teaching, On the Spirit and the Letter, and Tractates on John. These confirmed him in ‘true religion’.6 In a letter on 12 March 1545, Bullinger refers to the reading of illuminating books by Augustine and Erasmus as leading him to the study of sound theology, and cites the reading of Augustine as having freed him from the mass.7 Fritz Büsser follows Pestalozzi in drawing attention to references in two letters of Bullinger. In writing to Rudolf Asper on 30 November 1523, Bullinger speaks of the fathers as pointing him to the gospel, because they appealed to scripture and were concerned with its meaning and proper exposition. He cites Augustine, Cyprian, Jerome, and Hilary as, besides others, the most important witnesses. By itself, scripture contains everything necessary for salvation. It is the criterion for the church’s teaching, and attempts to supplement it by oral tradition or by the teaching of the fathers or the schoolmen are to be rejected.8 A letter to Jud on 17 April 1525 is evidence of the crisis in Bullinger’s life at that time, when he states that he ‘often despaired of life’. God, however, quieted his conscience so that even the fiercest storms could not tear him from his anchor.9 Cologne was important for Bullinger’s theological development in other ways, although his evangelical conversion was the most fundamental. He received a sound Thomist education, for his teachers included Konrad Kollin, a distinguished Thomist. Bullinger records his scholastic reading, but also more importantly his humanist reading. His teachers included Johannes Matthias Frissemius and Arnoldus von Halderen. There were lectures on Erasmus’ On the 5 6 7 8

HBD 6.12–17, 7.14–18. HBD 126.1–4. HBBW 15. 160. 41–161.46. HBTS 2.21–31. See, for example, HBTS 2. 23.24–24.14, 25. 7–13, 31–26.1, 27. 13–16. Fritz Büsser Heinrich Bullinger I 24–25 Busser notes the absence of reference to Luther and his probable use of Luther in what Bullinger writes. 9 HBBW 1.73.12–74.1. These words seem in conflict with Busser’s judgment (Heinrich Bullinger I 26) that Bullinger was a humanist who became a reformer simply in a decisive turning to the sources of the Christian faith, that is the fathers and the bible. There is a personal struggle as well as an intellectual pilgrimage.

22

Chapter 1: Bullinger’s Life and Ministry

Arsenal of Words (De copia verborum) and Agricola’s De inventione dialectica and on Vergil, Cicero, Horace, and Aristotle, as well as Romans, and an introduction to Greek.10 Bullinger was permanently indebted to the impact of humanist studies in his development, but he was a humanist of whom it was more important to say that he was a reformer. His humanist studies did not turn him into a reformer, although they may have helped, but rather equipped him as a reformer. This is seen, for example, in the way the use of rhetoric equipped him as a commentator on the New Testament. As a commentator he was indebted to Erasmus, some of whose works he read in Cologne, but the influence of Erasmus on him is on him when he was already a reformer or incipient reformer. It was through the fathers and Luther that he came to the New Testament and to a Reformation faith. It is after this that he refers to Erasmus’s New Testament, his Paraphrases and Annotations, his editions of the fathers, and works such as Paraclesis and Ratio seu Methodus.11 When in Kappel his courses included these works of Erasmus and classical writers as well as the New Testament and the fathers.12

Kappel 1523–1528 Bullinger spent some months at home, after leaving Cologne, reading works of Athanasius, Cyprian, Lactantius, and Luther. Then, on 17 January 1523, not two weeks before Zwingli’s First Disputation, Wolfgang Joner, the abbot of the Cistercian monastery in Kappel, invited him to come there as a schoolmaster. Significantly Bullinger made his acceptance dependent on his freedom from all monastic duties, including participation in mass and the choir offices. His teaching demands were varied. Apart from Sunday, he taught for an hour in the morning and four in the afternoon. The morning hour on the bible was attended by the monks, but was open also to the general public. In it, in1523–1524 he expounded Erasmus’ Paraclesis and Ratio seu Methodus compendio perveniendi ad veram Theologiam and Melanchthon’s Common Places (Loci communes) and also Matthew and John, making use of Erasmus’ and Melanchthon’s commentaries and those of Augustine, Chrysostom, Cyril, and Jerome. In the afternoon the pupils had a liberal education, studying classical authors, such as Cato and Vergil, and grammar and dialectic using works of Donatus, Erasmus, and others. They were also taught how to write.13 Through his teaching Bullinger was learning 10 11 12 13

HBBW 15. 160. 34–41, HBD 4. 7–5.10. HBD 8. 13–15. HBD 10.8–19. HBD 7.11–8.19.

Kappel 1523–1528

23

and equipping himself as a theologian and reformer. In lecturing on the New Testament, he was studying the commentaries of the fathers, such as Origen, Ambrose, and Theophylact in expounding Romans in 1525 as well as those of Melanchthon and especially Erasmus.14 Although he read them to learn from them, he did not read them uncritically, but always exercised his own critical judgment. The six years in Kappel helped to equip him for the forty six years which followed in Bremgarten and Zurich. He learned to write by writing, not to teach others, but to teach himself. He developed a clear, simple, and easy style, for he was teaching ordinary people, as well as the monks and his pupils. His impact on the community led to the reformation of the monks and the monastery and to its being handed over to Zurich.15 Contact with Zurich in this period furthered Bullinger’s development as a theologian and reformer. It included a five month study visit, during which he listened to Zwingli lecture and preach and learnt Greek, and with Conrad Pellikan, Hebrew. He had met Zwingli and Jud as early as 1523 and benefitted from their writings as well as their conversations and correspondence, and in 1525 he met Oecolampadius. He was present at the Disputations with the Anabaptists in Zurich in 1525, and because of Zwingli he attended the Bern Disputation in 1528. There he met other reformers, such as Vadian, Martin Bucer, Wolfgang Capito, Berchtold Haller, and Ambrose Blarer. In 1528 he took the oath as a preacher in the first Reformed Zurich Synod, and on 21 June preached for the first time in Hausen am Albis.16 Bullinger had already embraced a Reformation understanding of Christian faith before he met Zwingli. Nevertheless his relationship with Zwingli was to be the most important influence on the rest of his ministry. It is not that he was dependent on Zwingli. Indeed, in the eucharist, the issue which divided Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin, Bullinger came to a similar, but not identical view, but did so independently of him. In this doctrine as in others, such as baptism, predestination, and salvation, there are significant differences between them. Moreover, even in the concept of the covenant, where he acknowledges his dependence on Zwingli, he develops the doctrine beyond Zwingli. Nevertheless, even where he differed from Zwingli, as in the salvation of the Gentiles and predestination, he did not draw attention to the differences, but affirmed or defended Zwingli. He consistently maintained the continuity and unity of the teaching of the Zurich church.

14 HBD 10. 8–15. 15 HBD 10.16–22, HBRG 1.93. 4–6. 16 HBD 11.8–13, 8. 23–26, 10.5–7, 9. 19–23, 12.1–4, 14–26.

24

Chapter 1: Bullinger’s Life and Ministry

Bullinger’s earliest works in 1523–1526 reflect his concern with the bible and the eucharist, issues which engaged him in Cologne in embracing the gospels.17 The challenge of the Anabaptists led to his first important exposition of the testament or covenant in 1525.18 Two other works, A Friendly Exhortation to Righteousness (1526) and An Accusation of Almighty God, the latter published in 1528 but probably written in 1525 or 1526, are a defence of the Reformation and show an attitude akin to Zwingli’s on the relation of the church and society.19 An engagement with the fathers and the use of history in support of the Reformation faith and practice is evident in Bullinger’s Comparison of Ancient and Contemporary Heresies (1526) and his works on the eucharist and images in 1528 and 1529.20 It is right to say that Bullinger was a humanist, indeed a Swiss humanist, but it is also insufficient and misleading. He was a reformer, who sought to be faithful to the scriptures in proclaiming the gospel of Christ. In his study of scripture and of the past and the present he used all the resources made available by humanist scholarship. Introduction to Study (Studiorum ratio) is the clearest testimony to this.21 The first part seeks to equip a person with all the resources needed for the study of scripture. It is a compendium of humane and good letters. It offers guidance on all the studies, such as languages, literature, philosophy, history, and the sciences. All these help in the formation of character, but – and this is fundamental – they are ‘highly necessary for the exposition of sacred scripture’.22 It is only with chapter 15 that Bullinger comes to the study of scripture, with such matters as the biblical languages, principles of interpretation, and the types of literature. In the midst of this there is, perhaps surprisingly a chapter on the testament. Moreover, at the end in a list of theological topics, round which a student could gather material, the first is the testament. Another sign of Bullinger’s humanist scholarship is a play about Lucretia, Tarquin, and Brutus.23 Its theme of liberation led, apparently to its performance in 1939 in relation to Nazi Germany and later in East Germany in relation to its communist regime.24 A concern for one’s native land and for liberty may be characteristic of Swiss humanists, but it is also in keeping with the concern in the Old Testament with Israel as God’s people. This concern is a mark of Bullinger’s 17 18 19 20 21

Six of the nine works in HBTS 2. HBTS 2.71–85. HBBibl 1 nos. 2–3. HBBibl 1 nos. 1,10, and 11. Heinrich Bullinger Werke Sonderband Studiorum ratio – Studienanleitung 2 vols. edited by Peter Stotz (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1987). 22 HBSR 1.58. 2–4. 23 HBBibl I nos. 39–41. 24 See Büsser, Heinrich Bullinger I 57–58.

Bremgarten 1529–1531

25

writing in every period as well as when he was in Kappel. The works were no doubt influenced by Zwingli’s writings with their attack on ceremonies and their concern for the whole life of the country and not just its religious life. Bullinger’s historical interest is exposed on various ways, but especially in a defence of the evangelical understanding of the Christian faith. In this he could cite the support of the fathers, for example, in their understanding of the bible and the eucharist in his earliest works, but he also shows in the later 1520s how the biblical and early understanding of images or the eucharist was gradually perverted. Two works in this period were considerably expanded in1539, one on the eucharist in 1528 and the other on images in 1529. Another action with life long consequences was his engagement in 1528.25

Bremgarten 1529–1531 It could be said that his ministry in Bremgarten completed the preparation of Bullinger to succeed Zwingli and lead the reformation in Switzerland. It seems that Zwingli had already seen Bullinger as his successor. In expounding 34:14 in his commentary on Jeremiah, Zwingli refers to Bullinger as ‘receiving the torch from our hands’ in his work against the Anabaptists.26 Moreover, when Zwingli parted from Bullinger for the last time, it was with tears and the plea that God would protect him and that he would be ‘faithful to Christ and his church’.27 It was in February 1529 that Bullinger’s father announced to the people his intention with the help of God to point people to ‘the true and right way to salvation… in and through Christ, our only saviour’ and to do so ‘with God’s word alone’ ‘out of holy scripture’. This led to a conflict between those seeking and those opposing reformation. By the end of April those seeking reformation in Bremgarten triumphed and on 16 May Bullinger himself preached. His success was instant. On the very next day altars and images were removed. Laws concerned with blasphemy and moral behaviour were passed and 18 May the council asked him to stay. Bullinger shared his ministry in Bremgarten, with Gervase Schuler, who had earlier been sent by Zwingli to replace Bullinger’s father. Foreshadowing in some ways his ministry in Zurich, he preached on Sunday afternoons and on Monday to Wednesday mornings, with bible study in the afternoons.28

25 26 27 28

HBD 11. 14–17. Z XIV 621. 19–23. HBRG 3. 49. 22–25. HBD 17.1–19, 11; HBRG 2.59–62.

26

Chapter 1: Bullinger’s Life and Ministry

The crisis came with the second Kappel war. The first one in 1529 led to the defeat of the inner cantons and the conditions for peace included the free preaching of the word in the Mandated Territories. The blockade, which followed despite Zwingli’s opposition, led to the second war and it led to Zurich’s defeat and the necessity for Bullinger and Schuler to leave the town. In the summer before, Bremgarten hosted many meetings seeking to prevent conflict with representatives from the confederation and foreign powers. Bullinger’s sermons, which it appears that those from the five cantons also attended, sought peace.29 His passionate commitment to peace and to the unity of all the Swiss cantons reflects his position throughout the rest of his life and was evidence in his favour when he was appointed later that year to follow Zwingli.

Zurich – The Early Years The Zurich to which Bullinger came in 1531 was a city of some six thousand inhabitants, of whom about nine hundred had the right to vote. (The population of the rest of the canton was some sixty thousand.) The city was governed by two councils. The Large Council, known as the Two Hundred, had two hundred and twelve members. They comprised the two mayors, the forty eight members of the Small Council, the hundred and forty four representatives of the twelve guilds, and eighteen constables or nobles. Day to day matters were dealt with by the Small Council, while major matters of war and peace, taxes and alliances were decided by the Large Council. The defeat at Kappel had a profound impact on Zurich. Among the several hundred killed were leading members of the council and the ministry, including Zwingli himself. Moreover, while the peace agreement prevented the further preaching of the gospel in the unreformed cantons the reaction of the Zurich countryside also restricted the way that the council had previously acted. Representatives from across the canton expressed their demands in seven articles which included the condition that only those ministers be appointed who love and seek peace, who do not interfere in worldly affairs, and who preach in a friendly way and from the bible.30 It was indeed the article that the mayor read to the city ministers including Bullinger on 9 December 1531. The choice of Bullinger, who had not ministered in Zurich, is not really surprising, given that in December he had received invitations to lead the churches in Bern and Basel and before that the church in Appenzell. Bullinger thanked the mayor, but with the

29 HBD 19.26–20.2; HBRG 3.9.29–33. 30 HBRG 3. 287. 11–39.

Zurich – The Early Years

27

others asked for time to consider the matter. This was granted; and they were asked to return four days later.31 In the intervening days Bullinger received two letters from Bern. There was a passionate plea from Haller following one he had sent five days earlier. In it Haller strongly criticized Zurich’s tyrannical approach and the council’s attempt to control the preachers and the preaching, assuring him of a very different welcome from the council in Bern. Bullinger also received an official invitation from the council which expressed surprise at the conditions imposed by the Zurich council on Bullinger and the other preachers of God’s word, which in their view was not acceptable with prophets. Recognizing Bullinger’s honourable life and Christian teaching, they desired that he would come to them.32 Perhaps troubled, but surely strengthened by these letters, Bullinger responded in the name of all preachers on 13 December. The reply no doubt surprised the council and led to a lengthy deliberation on its part. Although in his reply Bullinger indicated that the ministers would not engage in worldly affairs and would preach God’s word from the scriptures, he also explained what this meant – and it did not mean a quiet and peaceful life for those in authority. The word of God, he maintained, brings disturbance as well as comfort. Moreover, the prophet and apostles, when they had cause to rebuild or censure, did not do so in a gentle and friendly way, but used words such as thieves, murderers, children of the devil, and enemies of God. Bullinger made clear that they sought the peace and well-being of the community, but that there must be freedom to preach the word of God, which will not be bound. Bullinger appealed to scripture (’we must obey God rather than men’) but also to the oath required by Zurich’s Reformation mandate. The council accepted their demand to preach the word of God from scripture freely and unconditionally. The ministers responded with appreciation and expressed their commitment to seek peace and tranquility.33 Only weeks after this Bullinger spoke on the office of the prophet, showing that he understood the role not simply to belong to him and his leading colleagues, but to all ministers.34 There is the exposition of the word of God and the applying of it not only personally to the lives of their congregation but also socially and politically to the life of the people and the work of those in government. His address also brought out a feature both of Bullinger’s ministry and of his understanding of the ministry: the role of the pastor. The prophet’s task is to build up the church and that affects not only his preaching but also his pastoral care. He is not to be too severe. 31 32 33 34

HBRG 3.292. 34–293.17. HBBW 1 229–230, 234–239. HBRG 3. 293. 31–34, 294. 5–38, 295. 4–6, 295. 23–296. 21. Published as The Prophet, see HBBibl I no. 33.

28

Chapter 1: Bullinger’s Life and Ministry

Soon after this a disagreement broke out with Leo Jud, a colleague senior to him in age and in years in the ministry. It concerned discipline, but also more fundamentally their understanding of church and state. Jud saw church and state as ordinances of God, but quite separate, whereas Bullinger had an Old Testament and medieval vision of a Christian society. For Jud, discipline should be exercised by the church, as proposed by Oecolampadius, whereas Bullinger following Zwingli, saw it as belonging to representatives of the government and of the ministers. Jud’s critique, especially in a sermon of 24 July, was not just theological but also personal, with its sharp attack on the character of some of the Zurich council and their betrayal of the Reformation. This led to a meeting of the council, which considered also a complaint by the Forest Cantons of a sermon by Bullinger on the mass. Despite some strong opposition, the council adopted a moderate response, encouraging the preachers to raise matters with them first in private and only if they were not satisfied to raise the matters from the pulpit.35 The sharing in oversight of the church by the ministers and the council finds expression in the synod. Zwingli established it in 1528, but Bullinger’s constitution for it in 1532 gave it the form and character it had during his life and beyond.36 It both develops the medieval synods which were shaped by the reforming councils of Constance and Basel and which reflects Bullinger’s understanding of the church and the ministry and the role of government in relation to the church. There were two presidents, Bullinger and one of the mayors, and seven members of the councils together with all the ministers. It came into force by the authority of the councils, but in the name of Bullinger and Jud. When the council took a different view from the ministers, for example, on the punishment for breaches of discipline its view could prevail. The council could and did raise matters of concern with the ministers, but at the same time the ministers could and did challenge and criticize both the views and the actions of the council. Bullinger addresses to the Small Council were an extension of the synod. The double allegiance of the ministers is expressed in the oath which all ministers took in the synod. The oath began with a commitment to expound the word of God in a scriptural and Christian sense, without adding any new doctrine which had not been shown to be scriptural. It also included a commitment to obey the 35 See the letters HBBW 1. 205–214, 2. 57–64, 70–78, and HBRG 3. 322–329. 36 There are several valuable recent discussions of the synod, most notably those by Hans Ulrich Bächthold, Heinrich Bullinger vor dem Rat (Bern: P. Lang, 1982) and Bruce Gordon, Clerical Discipline and the Rural Reformation: The Synod in Zürich, 1532–1580 (Bern: P. Lang, 1992). For shorter presentations, see Fritz Büsser Heinrich Bullinger: Leben, Werk und Wirkung I (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2005) 127–142; Kurt Maeder, ‘Bullinger und die Synode’ in Ulrich Gäbler and Endre Zsindeley (eds.), Bullinger-Tagung 1975: Vorträge, gehalten aus Anlass von Heinrich Bullingers 400. Todestag (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1977) 69–76; Pamela Biel Doorkeepers at the House of Righteousness: Heinrich Bullinger and the Zurich Clergy 1535–1575 (Bern: P. Lang, 1991) 53–71.

Zurich – The Early Years

29

councils and their mandate, although with the qualifications ‘in all things pious and honest’.37 The business included the election, examination, appointment, and laying on of hands of those to be ordained, but more substantially the critical consideration (censura) of the faith and life of every minister, including Bullinger himself. This concern with doctrine and life is a consistent element in relation to ministers and the synods. Bullinger refers to a concern for them as underlying the calling of the synod in 1528.38 Bullinger’s continuity with Zwingli is expressed not only in his development of the synod and his understanding of the minister as a prophet but also in his lifelong defence of Zwingli and his teaching. In A Letter to Albrecht, Margrave of Brandenburg, Bullinger rejects Luther’s charge of novelty and heresy, citing Ratramnus in support of Zwingli’s understanding of the eucharist and the praise of the emperor for Zwingli’s confession. Zwingli’s death, moreover, was that of a martyr, bearing witness to the truth, who was slain for the sake of truth and righteousness.39 In his Reply to Faber he defended Zwingli and Oecolampadius against the accusation that their teaching was heretical and that defeat was a sign of God’s rejection. Bullinger defends their view of the eucharist both from scripture and the fathers in particular Tertullian, Ambrose, and Augustine. He attacks Faber’s opinion that victory means that a view is right. He argues from Israel’s experience of slavery in Egypt to the persecution of Christians by Muslims in his own day that victory or defeat does not make a view right or wrong. But he maintains that faith based on God’s word is true and that ‘he who suffers and dies for the truth conquers’.40 Bullinger stresses his continuity with Zwingli in a major work on the covenant in 1534. In it he ascribes to Zwingli the re-discovery of the covenant and with it God’s reformation of the church through him. Yet even so, their use of it is not identical. From the beginning the covenant is more fundamental in Bullinger’s understanding of the sacraments than in Zwingli’s. Moreover, even where Bullinger defends Zwingli and affirms continuity with him, his views are not identical with Zwingli’s. Thus, he defends Zwingli’s view of the eucharist, but it is the way Zwingli expresses his view in the last two years of his life. Bullinger does this in part in the publishing in 1536 of works from that period and in part by quoting from Zwingli’s writings from that period rather than from earlier periods. In 1536 Bullinger also published a work on Providence and Predestination which shows 37 38 39 40

For an English translation of the oath and part of the mandate, see Biel, Doorkeepers 207–215. HBRG II 3. 27–32. Letter to Albrecht A 3v 9–18, 28–4 r 6, 7 v 6–8 r 2. Reply to Faber A 4 r 2–24, B 6 v 25- C2 v 4.

30

Chapter 1: Bullinger’s Life and Ministry

differences from Zwingli. His discussion of providence is essentially biblical, whereas Zwingli’s is largely philosophical. Bullinger draws on New Testament texts in expounding election, Zwingli on Old Testament ones, with a strong christological focus. Bullinger’s work shows his consistent rejection of anything appearing to imply that God is the author of sin or evil, whereas Zwingli’s work so emphasizes the sovereignty of God that he seems to imply that God is their author.41

41 Bullinger’s exposition of the unity of the covenant is also a response to Schwenckfeld’s assertion of the difference of Old and New Testament.

Chapter 2: The Bible1

In his diary, Bullinger gives a brief, step by step account of how he moved to a reformation understanding of the Christian faith. This happened while he was studying at the University of Cologne. In 1520 there was debate in the university about Luther’s views and their coherence with the traditional teaching of the church. As Bullinger was ignorant of both papal and Lutheran teaching, he needed to study them. He consulted those expert in papal teaching and, following their advice, he studied Lombard and Gratian. They pointed him to the fathers, and this led him to read some of the fathers. He also read several works by Luther. As he did this, he found that Luther was closer than the schoolmen were to the 1 For discussions of Bullinger’s understanding of the bible, see G.W.Locher, ‘Praedicatio verbi dei est verbum dei. Ein Beitrag zur Geistesgeschichte der Zürcher Reformation’, Zwingliana 10 (1954) 47–57; Joachim Staedtke, Die Theologie des jungen Bullinger (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1962); E.A. Dowey, ‘Das Wort Gottes als Schrift und Predigt im zweiten Helvetischen Bekenntnis’, in Joachim Staedtke (ed.), Glauben und Bekennen (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1966) 235–50; Ernst Koch, Die Theologie der Confessio Helvetica Posterior (Neukirchen: Neukirchen Verlag, 1968); Susi Hausammann, Römerbriefauslegung zwischen Humanismus und Reformation: Eine Studie zu Heinrich Bullingers Römerbriefauslegung von 1525 (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1970), ‘Anfragen zum Schriftverständnis des jungen Bullinger im Zusammenhang einer Interpretation von De scripturae negotio’, in Gäbler Bullinger 29–48; Ulrich Gäbler, ‘Bullingers Vorlesung über das Johannesevangelium aus dem Jahre 1523’, in Gäbler, Bullinger 1 13–27; István Tökés, ‘Bullingers hermeneutische Lehre’, in Gäbler, Bullinger 1 161–89; R.C. Walton, ‘Heinrich Bullinger und die Autorität der Schrift’, in Martin Brecht (ed.), Text-Wort-Glaube (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1980), 274–97; Fritz Büsser, ‘Bullinger as Calvin’s Model in Biblical Exposition: An Examination of Calvin’s Preface to the Epistle to the Romans’, in E.J. Furcha (ed.), In Honor of John Calvin, 1509–1564 (McGill University: Montreal, 1987) 64–95; Joel E Kok, ‘Heinrich Bullinger’s Exegetical Method: The Model for Calvin?’, in Richard A. Muller and John L. Thompson (eds.), Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1996) 241–54; Peter Opitz, Heinrich Bullinger als Theologe: Eine Studie zu den Dekaden (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2004); Irena Backus, ‘Bullinger als Neutestamentler: Sein Kommentar zu den Paulusbriefen und den Evangelien’ Zwingliana 31 (2004) 105–31; ‘Bullinger and Humanism’, in Emidio Campi and Peter Opitz (eds.), Heinrich Bullinger: Life, Thought, Influence Vol. 2 (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2007) 637–59; Christine Christ-v. Wedel, ‘Zum Einfluss von Erasmus von Rotterdam auf Heinrich Bullinger’, in Campi and Opitz (eds.), Bullinger Vol. 1 407–24;

32

Chapter 2: The Bible

theology of the fathers. He observed, moreover, that, whereas the schoolmen relied on the opinions of the fathers, the fathers themselves relied on the authority of the bible. Their testimony to scripture caused Bullinger to procure a copy of the New Testament, and his subsequent reading of it led him to reject papal teaching. Following this, in 1521–1522, he dedicated himself to the study of scripture and to other reading, including Melanchthon’s Loci Communes.2 In January 1523, while still only 18, Bullinger moved as a schoolmaster to the Cistercian monastery in Kappel. (In keeping with his new understanding of the Christian faith, he was freed from such monastic obligations as participating in mass and the daily offices.) As the schoolmaster, he lectured on the bible for an hour every morning, except Sunday, while teaching grammar and dialectic in the afternoon for four hours. His lectures on the bible were open to all comers and that may help to account for the relative simplicity of his style and exposition in his later works. In his five years at Kappel, he lectured on almost all the books of the New Testament. Moreover, as he had not studied theology at the university, he was naturally dependent on the writings of others, both the fathers and contemporary theologians, in particular Luther, Melanchthon, and Erasmus.3The early influence of Luther and Melanchthon distinguishes Bullinger from Zwingli. This ministry of biblical teaching continued when Bullinger moved to Zurich in 1531 as Zwingli’s successor, but there it was complemented by his regular preaching from the bible. The fruit of this ministry is to be seen in his publications in which biblical commentaries and sermons are prominent. The centrality of the bible is evident also in his more theological works, such as The Second Helvetic Confession. It begins with a focus on the bible and generally begins the discussion of each subject with the bible. In what he says about the bible, Bullinger’s concern is first with its authority and then with its interpretation. It is striking that the substance of much of what he says later on the authority of the bible is already present in his early years.

2 See Emil Egli (ed.), Heinrich Bullingers Diarium (Basel: Basler Buch- und Antiquariatshandlung, 1904) 5.14–6.23. 3 Gäbler notes, however, how Bullinger differs from Erasmus on the four occasions when he refers to him in his lectures on John in 1523 and also the importance of Augustine for Bullinger; see ‘Bullinger Vorlesung über das Johannesevangelium aus dem Jahre 1523’ 22,27 in Ulrich Gäbler (ed.), Heinrich Bullinger1504–1575 1 Leben und Werk (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1975). Peter Opitz (49) notes the limited influence of Erasmus compared with Luther in On Scripture in Heinrich Bullinger als Theologe (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2004).

The Authority of the Bible in Bullinger’s Early Works

33

The Authority of the Bible in Bullinger’s Early Works Bullinger’s earliest works are on the bible and the eucharist. This reflects the two issues which were decisive in his Christian pilgrimage at university – his turning to scripture and his rejecting of the mass as unscriptural. His first work, On Scripture, in 1523 expresses a reformation understanding of the bible. It is largely dependent on Luther, and yet it shows from the beginning that Bullinger exercised an independent judgment, even where he was strongly influenced by others.4 The work is not a treatise but a letter, written for his abbot, Wolfgang Joner. It was intended to restore the friendship with Rudolf Asper which had suffered through Joner’s embracing a reformation faith. The case Bullinger makes expresses the way he himself came to such a faith, as it begins with the fathers and their appeal to scripture, rather than with scripture itself.5 First, he cites Cyprian who wished everything to be according to the scriptures. He asserts that Christ is to be heard, pointing to the Father’s testimony, ‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, listen to him’ (Mt. 17:5).6 There follow several quotations from Cyprian, replete with biblical references, in which he rejects the following of custom or tradition rather than the truth of God, or – as he also puts it – the truth of ‘the dominical tradition’.7 After that, Bullinger states that the scripture alone (and not, as in the earlier quotation, Christ alone) is to be heard.8 Bullinger draws on Augustine’s as well as Cyprian’s testimony to scripture. Augustine maintains that he is not to be believed nor are the fathers, however learned and holy, unless they adduce scripture. (They are fellow disciples with the 4 The text of On Scripture is in Joachim Staedtke et al (eds.), Heinrich Bullinger Werke Part III Theologische Werke Vols 1–2 (abbreviated HBTS) (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1983 and 1991) 2.21–31. For an examination of Bullinger’s use of Luther and his independence, see Hausammann, ‘Anfragen’ and the edition of Bernhard Schneiber (HBTS 2.19–31). Hausammann observes that Bullinger makes the same basic points as Luther about the fathers and their relation to scripture and uses several of the same biblical and patristic quotations, but that unlike Luther he uses Christ alone and scripture alone interchangeably. She maintains that Bullinger brings nothing new materially compared with Luther, except for asserting the sufficiency of the Old Testament. (‘Anfragen’ p30–37). Opitz recognizes the dependence on Luther, but also notes his independent use of Cyprian and Tertullian, a fruit of his study in Cologne, and his going beyond Luther in the Old Testament and Johannine passages which he quotes (Dekaden 49–52). 5 HBTS 2. 22.22–23. Although he argues first from the fathers and then from scripture, he later refers to his case as based on the testimony of scripture and the fathers (2.27.13–14). 6 Staedtke (Theologie 52) observes, ‘So steht am Anfang der Theologie Bullingers nicht ein formales Schriftprinzip, sondern ein Gehorsamsakt.’ He distinguishes this from an Erasmian listening to Christ’s teaching (57). 7 Bullinger quotes Matthew 15: 6 here, a passage to which he constantly refers in distinguishing apostolic traditions from other traditions. 8 HBTS 2. 22.24–23.23.

34

Chapter 2: The Bible

same teacher.)9 Bullinger cites both Greek and Latin fathers in support and then Bernard who exhorts us to drink from the sources not the rivulets.10 After examining the testimony of the fathers to scripture, Bullinger turns to the testimony of scripture itself. He notes, chiefly from the Old Testament, that scripture warns against false prophets, who do not adduce the word of God, and also against adding to God’s word. When Bullinger considers the New Testament, he observes that Christ proves everything with scripture and wishes to be known from it alone (Jn 5:39); moreover, the apostles confirm their teaching with scripture and order all things in accordance with it (Acts 15:14–21). Bullinger adds that if Christ does nothing without scripture who can doubt that we should order all things in accordance with it.11 Bullinger appeals to Paul in support. The apostle puts an end to disputes by wanting everything to be tested, retaining what is good (1 Thess 5:21). He forbids the acceptance of human teachings (1 Tim 6, Titus 1) and any adding to what he has preached (Gal 1:8). Moreover, he refers to the scriptures as inspired by God and as making wise for salvation (2 Tim 3: 14–17). Bullinger rejects the view that, as not everything is written, we need tradition alongside scripture. He does this by reference to Romans. In it ‘our salvation is completely expressed’. The epistle shows the sufficiency of the Old Testament, of which Christ is the end and interpreter. The New Testament is, he repeats, nothing other than the interpretation of the Old.12 The sufficiency of scripture means that there is no need for traditions which are not in scripture. Bullinger also rejects the papal view that subordinates scripture to the church. He argues that the canonical books were received by the church, not approved by it. In the establishing of the canon Bullinger affirms the role of the Spirit and the Old Testament. He quotes Tertullian, who referred to the apostles as authors but also as recipients of Christ’s teaching which was preached to the world. Tertullian rejected the idea that they did not know everything or else did not pass it on, and interpreted the text about the Spirit’s coming and leading them into all truth (Jn 16:12–13) as fulfilled at Pentecost.13 Some of what Bullinger says on the interpretation of scripture relates to its authority. His comments come in response to the view that not everything is written, in other words, is in scripture14 and that what is written is not always clear, so that its meaning needs to come from the fathers.15 Bullinger rejects the 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

HBTS 2.28. 28–29. HBTS 2. 23.24–24.16. HBTS 2. 24.17–25.13. HBTS 2. 25.24–26.5. HBTS 2. 26.6–27.10. HBTS 2. 25.31. HBTS 2. 27.19.

The Authority of the Bible in Bullinger’s Early Works

35

alleged need of the fathers on several grounds – some direct, some indirect. Thus, he notes that the early church did not have the fathers to help them any more than they had the schoolmen, such as Aquinas.16 He asks why, if we accept the fathers’ interpretations, we embrace Bernard, Aquinas, and Scotus, since on various occasions they rejected the sayings of the fathers.17 He points out that the fathers often erred,18 as is evident from their disagreements,19 and that, when they disagreed, they turned to the scriptures as to light. (The implication is that the scriptures are clearer than the fathers.)20 Bullinger draws especially on Augustine. Augustine confessed that he had erred and spoke of others as disciples with him in the same school, having the same teacher as he. Likewise, he insisted that his works should not be treated as canonical.21 Bullinger summarises his position in the words: ‘I do not put my trust in myself, nor in the fathers, as they did not wish people to believe in them besides the scriptures. Moreover, I do not add anything or subtract anything. I consider scripture alone, interpreting scripture with scripture. In view of this, do not be angry with me, but with Christ or Augustine.’22 The issues of scripture and the mass, which were so fundamental to Bullinger in his coming to a reformation faith, are combined in his Reply to Burchard in 1526.23 Burchard had written against Bullinger’s view of the mass in The Sacrifice of the Mass and Bullinger’s reply is primarily about scripture, because it was through his reading of scripture that Bullinger rejected the medieval view of the mass. After the long section on the bible, establishing what we are to believe about it, the short section on the mass begins with the bible. ‘What is not grounded in God’s word is false and worthless. Your masses are not grounded in God’s word and are, therefore, worthless before God.’ In the conclusion Bullinger states that Burchard or anyone wanting to answer him must do so with the bible.24 In On Scripture Matthew 17:5 is a text quoted from Cyprian; in Reply to Burchard it has become in effect Bullinger’s text, Cyprian not being mentioned. Moreover, the text is now in Bullinger’s translation, not the Vulgate’s, so that it 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

HBTS 2. 27.22–23. HBTS 2. 29.12–19. HBTS 2. 29.16. HBTS 2. 22.18–22, 30.12–13. HBTS 2. 27.25–30. HBTS 2. 29.11; 28.28–29; 29.15. HBTS 2. 29.1–4. We do not have Burchard’s work which was a critique of Bullinger’s The Sacrifice of the Mass. It was written for Burchard, but even more to influence the people of Zug. For the text and discussion, see HBTS 2.134–72 and HBBW 1.90–91. For Bullinger’s letters, see Fritz Büsser et al(ed.), Heinrich Bullinger Werke Part II Briefwechsel (abbreviated HBBW) (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972). 24 HBTS 2. 159.8–10, 172.15–16.

36

Chapter 2: The Bible

embraces an affirmation of Christ’s salvation as well as his person, as Son of God.25 Bullinger elaborates his interpretation to make it clear that listening to Christ is not different from listening to the Spirit, for the Spirit will teach all the truth and will take the things of Christ and proclaim them. It is also not different from listening to the apostles, for Christ says, ‘He who hears you hears me’. It is likewise not different from listening to the church, for Christ says that the church hears only the shepherd’s voice. (There is no conflict between what Christ says and what the New Testament says.) Furthermore, as the Spirit who would teach all the truth was given at Pentecost, we do not need any other teaching than what he taught the disciples, for the Spirit is consistent. He does not later command what he has forbidden through the apostles. In this Bullinger affirms that he has the support of the fathers as well as that of scripture.26 Bullinger grounds our listening to Christ first in his person as God and then in his work as Saviour. Christ is true God, one in being with the Father, and therefore the Old Testament command that we are to obey God alone applies to him. The appearance of Moses and Elijah with him in Matthew 17 shows that he does not act or teach other than is promised in the law and the prophets which are fulfilled in him. Moreover, as Christ reconciles us to God we are married to him as a bride to the bridegroom. That is part of the context for understanding the Father’s words, ‘Listen to him’. Bullinger cites Paul’s words in Galatians 1:8, Romans 1:2 and Acts 26:22–23, which make clear that Paul did not preach anything which we do not have in scripture.27 For this reason, nothing allegedly handed down orally is to be accepted, if it is in conflict with scripture. On this basis Bullinger asserts that everything necessary for salvation is in scripture and that we do not need councils. Indeed, he maintains that the content of the whole testament (or covenant), in which is our salvation, is contained in the Pentateuch, the books of Moses. The prophets, moreover, are not an addition to but rather an explanation of this testament.28 Bullinger is content that he has proved from scripture that it contains clearly and sufficiently what is necessary for salvation, so that there is no need for councils and commentaries. He appeals, however, to the fathers because they 25 HBTS 2. 143.25–27. 26 HBTS 2. 144.1–5,11–12,144.19–145.13. Bullinger uses the argument from the consistency of the Holy Spirit against papal opponents, but later he also uses it against Anabaptists. Anabaptists claim to have the Spirit and therefore not to need other teachers. Bullinger maintains that 1 John 2:27 refers to the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit cannot be separated from scripture, as the truth of God cannot be separated from God. ‘If your dogmas disagree with scripture, they are most false.’ (Seven Canonical Epistles 88.36–49) For Seven Canonical Epistles, see Fritz Büsser (ed.), Heinrich Bullingers Werke Part I Bibliographie Vol. 1 (abbreviated HBBibl) (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972) no 91. 27 HBTS 2.147.3–148.29. 28 HBTS 2. 148.30–149.24, 150.15–18.

The Authority of the Bible in Bullinger’s Early Works

37

were decisive for Burchard. In emphasising the authority of scripture, Bullinger insists that he does not despise the fathers. He refers to Tertullian, Augustine, Lactantius, Cyprian, Origen, Ambrose, and Athanasius as ‘godly fathers and servants of God’. As in On Scripture he quotes their pointing away from themselves to scripture. He also notes that in the councils which dealt with heresies, the fathers appeal to the scriptures.29 In discussing the bible in Instruction for Study30 Bullinger considers which books are part of the canon. At this stage Bullinger regards James as uncanonical, adducing Eusebius’ support from the early church.31 Yet shortly afterwards he lectured on James and in 1537 published a commentary on it. The canonical books were not chosen by the fathers. Rather they passed on to us what they had received from the first writers. Bullinger does not, however, regard the fathers as authorities, but rather as witnesses. On the basis of their witness, we know which books are true and which are false.32 Many of the fundamental elements in Bullinger’s view of the authority of scripture are present in his early writings, although he develops them over the years with additional points and additional arguments. From the beginning, listening to Christ is inseparable from listening to scripture. Scripture is sufficient by itself and does not need to be supplemented by tradition or the fathers or councils. Moreover, any oral tradition must be consistent with scripture, because the Holy Spirit, the author of scripture, does not contradict himself.33 (Some matters, such as the inspiration of scripture are assumed, but not discussed.) There is, for Bullinger, a unity of Old and New Testament, so that the New Testament is a commentary on the Old. Indeed, his understanding of the covenant means that he can speak in effect of the sufficiency of the Pentateuch, while distinguishing the New Testament from the Old as fulfilling or exhibiting what the other promised. Although the fathers have an essential role as witnesses to the authority of scripture, they do not have an independent authority. For Bullinger, 29 HBTS 2. 155.15–20,156.3–157.10. 30 For text and commentary, see Peter Stotz (ed.), Heinrich Bullinger Werke: Sonderband Studiorum ratio, Vols 1 and 2 (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1987) (abbreviated HBSR). 31 HBSR 1.17.6–7, 21–23. With James, he excludes 2 and 3 John and Jude, though Jude is not explicitly mentioned. He rejects, however, the doubts expressed about Hebrews, 2 Peter and Revelation. He affirms their apostolic authorship, noting the support for Revelation in the early church. (HBSR 1 17. 12–21) See also Peter Stephens ‘Bullinger’s Commentaries on Hebrews’, The Bible Translator 55 (2004) 402–404. 32 HBSR 1 17.35–45. 33 Although Bullinger does not discuss inspiration he contrasts the biblical books as inspired and therefore as coming from God with philosophical writings which are not inspired and therefore are human. Paul’s Epistles (1536) 197 v 2–13. For the text of Paul’s Epistles, see HBBibl 1 no. 81. In 1 Corinthians (1534) Bullinger recognizes discrepancy between Paul and Moses in the numbers who were killed. Such discrepancy does not mean that any author of scripture errs in substance (ulla in re) (347.12–17). For the text, see HBTS 6. 229–464.

38

Chapter 2: The Bible

the witness of Christ and the apostles to scripture is more important, but in arguing with his papal opponents the testimony of the fathers is in many ways more useful. The First Helvetic Confession in 1536 gives a very brief summary of Bullinger’s understanding of the bible, even though others were also involved in composing the confession. It is notable that the confession, unlike its predecessor, begins with the authority of the bible, but it is brief in what it says.34 The bible is the word of God; it is inspired by the Holy Spirit; and it is sufficient for the knowledge of God and true piety. There is no explicit reference to tradition. It is, however, implied in a statement about human doctrines (Matthew 15:9), which lead away from God, as vain. The fathers are given no independent authority but are recognized as those through whom God has spoken, when they expound scripture by the rule of faith and love.35

A Discussion of Authority in 1538 Bullinger’s two main discussions of the authority of scripture come in response to his conservative opponents. The Authority of Scripture in 153836 and A Discourse on Scripture in 1571 engage with papal views of the church and scripture. This means that Bullinger’s presentation is not systematic, as it reflects in part the emphases of his papal opponents. There is also, inevitably, an overlap between the chapters, as he moves from one issue to the next. The arguments in his opponents’ case relate to the church and tradition. This means that Bullinger gives particular consideration to these subjects, and that he argues as much from the fathers as from scripture. A more extensive use of the fathers in his later work complements and at points almost overshadows the argument from scripture. The fathers are used because of his opponents, but Bullinger’s use of them reflects a fundamental element in his theology: his conviction that his presentation of the Christian faith is based on scripture and that it is continuous with that of the early church.

34 For the contrast with Zwingli in the way Bullinger starts his exposition with the authority of scripture, see W. Peter Stephens ‘Confessing the Faith: The Starting Point for Zwingli and Bullinger’ RRR 8.1 (2006) 73–74. 35 RB 2/1 44.5–45.9, 57. 5–19; Cochrane 100–101.The text is in Andreas Mühling and Peter Opitz (Gen Eds), Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften 2/2 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2002-), abbreviated as RB. English translation in Cochrane 100–101; see A.C. Cochrane (ed.), Reformed Confessions of the 16th Century (London: SCM Press, 1966) abbreviated as Cochrane. 36 For the text, see HBTS 4.

A Discussion of Authority in 1538

39

The primary concern in Bullinger’s debate with papal opponents is the authority of scripture. This is evident in 1538 in his controversy with Cochlaeus.37 The Authority of Scripture consists of two volumes. The first expounds the authority of scripture, while the second considers the institution and function of bishops, who are ministers of the word of God. The title of the first volume speaks of the authority, certainty, firmness, and absolute perfection of scripture. The titles of all but two of the chapters (13 and 14) refer explicitly to scripture. The other main subjects are the church (1,5), councils (6,7), the fathers (3,5,7), and tradition (13–15). Whereas Bullinger appeals to the authority of scripture, his opponents appeal to the authority of the church. According to the title, both volumes are presented in opposition to Roman superstitions. In the preface Bullinger places his work in the context of the defence of the word of God. He lists defenders of the law of God in the past (Joseph, Joshua, Caleb, Elijah, and Mattathias) and then observes that in his time enemies of the word of God are arising daily.38 He refers especially to those who exalt the authority of the church and the fathers above that of God’s word. They deceive the simple with their references to the church, by which they mean the pope, the hierarchy, and the priesthood. Who, they ask, dares to contradict the church, which is the bride of Christ, the temple of God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth, and from which the Lord will not withdraw till the end of the age. By contrast with his opponents, Bullinger asserts that scripture, which is the word of God, is firm and certain. It does not need human confirmation or seek the approbation of the church. Bullinger will, he says, show that the power of the word is invincible whatever the opposition, that it is the most ancient and perfect philosophy, and that it contains all that belongs to piety.39 Bullinger refers to his opponents’ case in the course of the work, but he does not present it systematically. It has several elements. After the opening assertion that the church is prior and superior to scripture, there are references to the apostles as giving it authority, councils as authorising it, tradition as supplementing it, and the fathers as deciding its canonical status. The church’s superior authority is supported both by scripture and by Augustine’s famous saying that he would not have believed the gospel unless the authority of the church had 37 For a discussion of Bullinger’s controversy with Cochlaeus, see D.F. Wright, ‘Heinrich Bullinger and the Early Church Fathers’ in Campi and Opitz (eds.), Bullinger Vol.1 357–78. He quotes (363) Cochlaeus’s statement in his De canonicae scripturae… autoritate, ‘I would praise you above the rest of your many collaborators for your transparency in citing the Doctors, both in quoting them unabridged and in adducing some passages from them which others perversely pass over in silence – as though it were enough to mention the name of Augustine or Jerome.’ 38 Word and law are used interchangeably. 39 HBTS 4. 19. 5–21.9.

40

Chapter 2: The Bible

compelled him. The biblical support advanced by his opponents concerns the nature and the priority of the church. The nature of the church is expressed in the titles of the church, such as the bride of Christ, and in statements by Christ about his presence in the church and the gift of the Spirit to the church. The priority of the church is illustrated by the fact that the church already existed when the books of Moses were written. The fundamental concern of the book is expressed in the title of the first chapter: that scripture is the word of God and that it has authority of itself, needing no human confirmation.40 Bullinger rejects the view that the church was prior to and greater than scripture. His opponents held that the church existed for 2449 years before scripture began with Moses. For Bullinger, however, scripture existed before the church. He argues that what to us is scripture was for the ancients before Moses the living voice of God. (This is a development from the way in which in his earlier works Bullinger moves from listening to Christ to listening to scripture. He does not make the same distinction as Luther between the written word and the living preached word, although he makes certain distinctions.) The word of God is, therefore, much older and greater than the church, for the word of God is the same whether it is spoken or written. Turning to the New Testament, Bullinger points out that the gospel was preached by the apostles for many years before it was written. The gospel, however, which they wrote was not different, except in mode, from the one they preached.41 Bullinger then rejects his opponents’ claim that scripture and the gospel are nothing unless approved and received by the church. He immediately observes that it was Adam, who did not obey God’s word, who wished (like Bullinger’s opponents) to judge the word! By contrast the patriarchs received the word of God in faith and observed it. It was not approved or confirmed by them.42 Bullinger considers the authors of the bible, in particular Moses. He is not just a human author, he is one to whom God spoke and through whom God acted, so that his authority was from God, not man. (Indeed, the decalogue was actually written by the finger of God himself.)43 Bullinger quotes Deuteronomy 31, where Moses wrote the laws of God in a book which was placed in the ark of the

40 The first of Zwingli’s Sixty Seven Articles in 1523 is ‘All who say that the gospel is nothing without the confirmation (Bewȁrnus) of the church err and blaspheme God. (Z II 21.2–3). He then argues his case ‘on the firm foundation of scripture’ (22.8). 41 HBTS 4. 22.1–3, 5–12, 25–29; 23.4–5,8–15. 42 HBTS 4. 24.22–32, 35–25.1. 43 Bullinger recognizes the human authority of scripture but emphasizes divine authorship. In his exposition of Isaiah 34:16 in 1567, Bullinger states, ‘Although he says these things from his own mouth, they are to be referred to God as author’, but then adds that they are to be believed ‘even as the mouth of God speaking with us through them.’ (Isaiah 164 v 43–165r 4) For Isaiah, see HBBibl 1 no.558

A Discussion of Authority in 1538

41

covenant as a testimony against the people. Then he adds that the law of God is subject to no one’s judgement, but has authority of itself.44 After referring to all Moses’ writings as having authority, Bullinger treats their relation to the prophets. He repeats what he had said in Reply to Burchard, declaring that the prophets did not add to or subtract from the law, but explicated and illustrated it. He argues that the authority is divine, not human. The prophets were not called by human beings, nor were they approved by the synagogue. Jeremiah, indeed, opposed the synagogue and challenged the priests. There was, moreover, no synod in the Old Testament to approve and confirm God’s law and the words of the prophets. Bullinger adds that even if people do not believe God’s word and persecute it, it remains the case that God is true and his word is firm for ever.45 The formation of the canon is another argument used by his opponents to support the authority of the church in relation to scripture. They argued that the fathers chose the books which form the canon. For Bullinger, the fathers did not make their own judgement about the books, but they saw which books came nearest to the simplicity and purity of the law. They accepted the books which, they were persuaded, were inspired by the Holy Spirit and which contain fully what is necessary for true piety. In arguing for belief in the bible, Bullinger quotes Augustine’s Confessions at length, including the words that we are to be doers and not judges of the law (James 2).46 The crucial role of the fathers and the early church in Bullinger’s case is demonstrated by the opening words of chapter 4. For it is only, having first expounded what the fathers believe about the word of God and the authority of scripture, that he turns to the testimony of Christ and the apostles.47 He begins with the ultimate authority, that is, God’s testimony to Christ in Matthew 3:17 and 17:5 and John 5:31–37.Scripture, moreover, as the oracle of God has authority of itself and does not need the testimony of the church.48 Both Christ and the apostles appealed to scripture (Matthew 4:4,7,10; 12: 2–3,5; 15: 2–3; 19:3–5; 22:29; Luke 24: 26–27; John 5: 39,46; Luke 16: 27–31) and not to human judgement. (In fact the apostles were badly treated in synod, that is by human judgement.) After these references, Bullinger notes that all that Christ said and did was proved by scripture. This is shown by the references to fulfilling the words of the prophets. For Bullinger, all these arguments demonstrate the authority of scripture. It has

44 45 46 47

HBTS 26.18–27.3, 17–19. HBTS 4.27.23–24;28. 5–25. HBTS 4.28.29–29.8;30.4–6. The role of the fathers is evident in the fact that over half of the previous chapter consists of quotations from Augustine, alongside a long quotation from Eusebius. 48 HBTS 4.32.5–33.2.

42

Chapter 2: The Bible

authority of itself, being inspired by the Spirit and approved by the Son of God himself. As such it has no need of human confirmation.49 The disciples whom Christ commissioned to teach and preach were taught by the Holy Spirit and by scripture. Christ did not look for the assent or decrees of general councils. Bullinger supports his position by quoting from Acts and the epistles to show that in their preaching Peter and Paul appealed to the law and the prophets. Peter makes no reference to councils or human confirmation. Paul, moreover, in conferring with the apostles, met them as an equal. He did not go to learn what he should preach. (Ambrose is quoted in support.) Bullinger then concludes by asserting: ‘Consequently the preaching of the gospel and the apostolic preaching do not have their authority from man, but from God himself and from the prophetic scriptures. Since they are the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God it follows that the scripture of each testament has authority of itself, even if no human authority is ever added.’50 In this context, in which he has demonstrated that God’s word does not need human confirmation and in which he has contrasted God’s word with human authority, Bullinger considers Augustine’s famous statement that he would not have believed the gospel unless the authority of the catholic church had moved him. What Bullinger has established means that Augustine’s statement cannot be understood in the way his opponents understand it. Moreover, elsewhere Augustine speaks of the church as obeying the gospel and attributes to the church not judgment about the gospel but commendation of it. Bullinger draws on Gerson’s interpreting the church’s role in Augustine’s words in terms of the primitive church’s witness to Christ, as those who saw and heard him, and his inverting the saying into not believing the church unless the authority of scripture had impelled him. He also cites Marsilius of Padua’s referring to the church’s discerning between the voice of the good shepherd and that of the stranger, expressed in recognizing the canonical but not the apocryphal gospels. The church does not authenticate the word any more than the sheep authenticate the shepherd’s voice.51 Bullinger asks whether his opponents understand the church in Augustine as the company of the faithful. If so, Bullinger argues then the word must be prior to the church, as faith comes from hearing and hearing from the word of God.52 Against the view that the authority of scripture depends on general councils, Bullinger notes that the Council of Nicea did not discuss it. Moreover, Constantine wanted all matters at Nicea to be determined by scripture. This, however, 49 50 51 52

HBTS 4.33.2–34.13,21–22,28–29. HBTS 4. 33.2–36.29. HBTS 4. 37.1–20,39.1–7. HBTS 4. 39.8–40.3.

A Discussion of Authority in 1538

43

could not have happened, if scripture had not been established till then. In fact at Nicea and all genuine councils, the bible was the sole rule for decision and action.53 As his opponents esteem highly the views of the fathers, Bullinger devotes a whole chapter to extracts from Augustine in support of the authority of scripture.54 This leads Bullinger to argue for the firmness and invincible power of the word of God and of scripture, with the support of passages from Isaiah and the Psalms. Scripture does not need human confirmation nor can it be shaken by human power. Indeed, God permitted the persecution of the church, but he did not allow the truth of scripture to be shaken.55 In next to the longest chapter in the book,56 Bullinger maintains that the word of God or canonical scripture is more ancient than philosophy, and that the canonical writers long pre-date the classical authors. He argues this in the context not only of the re-discovery of and enthusiasm for classical antiquity, but also of the lack of interest in the study of the bible by many of the learned. He shows the superiority of scripture in the dependence of the classical authors on scripture, and maintains the superiority of the teaching and eloquence of such as Isaiah and Jeremiah to that of Cicero and Demosthenes. Characteristically he cites the fathers (Justin Martyr and Augustine) in support of the superiority of scripture in age, eloquence, and wisdom. A major emphasis in Bullinger is his insistence, following Augustine, on the sufficiency of scripture. His discussion of classical antiquity serves this purpose directly and indirectly – indirectly (in chapter 11) in showing its dependence on and inferiority to scripture and directly (in chapter 12) in maintaining that scripture hands down perfectly all that belongs to true godliness. Bullinger argues his case biblically and patristically. He does this, for example, in an exposition of the sacraments when he refers to Paul’s not wishing to hand on what he had not received from the Lord (1 Corinthians 11:23) and in statements of Augustine about the sacraments.57 He does it in the discussion of classical antiquity by examining the classical writers in the light of the bible and by drawing on the testimony of a range of the fathers and others, such as Justin Martyr, Cyprian, Origen, and Augustine.58 The last three chapters consider tradition or traditions. The fundamental concern is with the sufficiency of scripture and therefore its authority. Bullinger develops his argument in three stages. First, he distinguishes human from divine tradition. Then, after a discussion of political laws which must be in accordance 53 54 55 56 57 58

HBTS 4. 40.14–24, 41.17–22. HBTS 4. 41.23–30,43.18–20. HBTS 4. 44.11–14,46.13–15,47.25–30. HBTS 4. 53.9–67.22. HBTS 4. 71.5–13,37–72.1. See, for example, HBTS 4. 64.32–67.22.

44

Chapter 2: The Bible

with scripture, he considers ecclesiastical traditions. They are contrasted with human traditions, which are invented by human beings. Ecclesiastical traditions come through the Spirit from the scriptures and are received and observed in the church which hears only the voice of the shepherd. They are scriptural, for they are either expressed in scripture or deduced from it by a believing mind. In the light of 1 Corinthians 7:10, 12 and 40, Bullinger distinguishes two kinds of ecclesiastical tradition which go back to Christ: some written and handed down (such as Paul’s ‘not I, but the Lord’) and some deduced (such as infant baptism). These are deduced from the mind of God in accordance with the word of God.59 Bullinger insists that ‘ecclesiastical traditions which are not word for word in scripture are not to be despised, but rather are to be examined whether they are deduced from scripture or conflict or agree with certain formulas of our religion’.60 By contrast with such traditions, human traditions are ‘from human beings and against or without scripture’. Bullinger refers in particular to innumerable papal laws, such as those concerning purgatory, indulgences, images, the primacy of the pope, and monasticism. Such traditions contribute nothing to true piety. They concern external things and are opposed to scripture and contrary to piety. Christ’s words in Matthew 15 about transgressing the commandment of God because of their traditions apply now to Bullinger’s papal opponents as they did originally to the scribes and Pharisees.61 Second, Bullinger explains his opponents’ arguments for human traditions, for their being equal to divine traditions, and for all things not being handed down in scripture. His opponents support traditions outside scripture by an appeal to 1 Corinthians 11:34, 2 Thessalonians 2:1–2, and John 21:25. Bullinger agrees that not everything which Christ said and did is in scripture, but insists that everything necessary for salvation is in it. To the assertion that Christ, therefore, did and said things which were not necessary, Bullinger replies that Christ expounded the same matter in different ways and demonstrated his power by different signs. Statements such as John 20:31 show that everything needed for salvation is in scripture. Bullinger quotes Cyril, Chrysostom, and Tertullian as evidence that he was not the first to expound John in this way.62 Third, Bullinger considers his opponents’ claim that what was permitted to the apostles is permitted to them, as their successors. As the apostles were permitted to make laws (Acts 15: 28–29, 16:4), they can also make them. Bullinger rejects 59 Of some baptismal practices Bullinger can say: ‘Possumus enim illa omnia deductionibus planissimis et argumentis longe firmissimis e scriptura e praeceptis dei et exemplis apostolicis derivare et approbare…’ (HBTS 4. 75.14–16). 60 HBTS 4.73.12–76.20. 61 HBTS 4. 76.21–77.5. 62 HBTS 4. 79.23–83.12.

A Discussion of Authority in 1538

45

their claim to be successors of the apostles, as in their life and teaching they are diametrically opposed to the apostles. They are rather, as Ezekiel prophesied (22: 25–26), priests violating God’s law. Moreover, the apostles did not institute anything new in Acts 15, as God’s law already forbade what they forbade. Bullinger then takes his rebuttal further by maintaining that the apostles gave no one the right to institute laws, but rather they handed on what they had received. He quotes Matthew 28:20, Romans 1:1–2, and Acts 26:22 to show that Christ did not give the apostles power to make laws but rather commanded them to preach the gospel. The gospel, moreover, which he committed to them was first promised and written in the law and the prophets. Paul, therefore, stated that he did not preach other than what the law and the prophets had foretold. Bullinger then appeals to Tertullian, with his reference to Galatians 1:8, and Chrysostom’s sermon on Titus 1.63 After this initial exposition, Bullinger presents briefly ten arguments of his opponents, especially about the church, followed by a detailed reply to each of them.64 His opponents cite scripture, and at the heart of each reply Bullinger also appeals to scripture, even where in some cases the appeal is to Christ or the Spirit. First, in reply to the assertion that the church is the immaculate bride of Christ, Bullinger maintains that if it is the bride of Christ it should listen to him alone. Second, in response to the statement that the church cannot err Bullinger argues that the church does not err not because it is an assembly of human beings, but because it is an assembly governed by the rule of canonical scripture which is the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Third, his opponents state that the church is the kingdom of God in which the Lord rules by his Spirit. Bullinger holds that Christ rules in the church by the word and the Spirit of truth. The Spirit is constant and does not hand down contradictory things. He has testified that all that belongs to true piety is handed down in scripture and he cannot recant the truth. Fourth, according to his opponents, the church is the communion of saints, which hears only the shepherd’s voice and not the voice of a stranger. Bullinger maintains that they do not hear his voice, but put their traditions in place of God’s word. Fifth, his opponents maintain that their traditions are not promulgated in their own name but in that of the church. The traditions were confirmed by the fathers in councils, and Christ will definitely not be absent from an assembly of such holy and learned people, given his promise to be present where two or three are gathered in his name. Bullinger replies that those gathered ‘in his name’ ‘guard Christ’s word and seek Christ’s glory’. Referring to his opponents he says, ‘They gather in their own name who, neglecting the gospel of Christ, establish private laws and seek their own glory.’ Their councils, moreover, are not ruled by 63 HBTS 4. 84.10–87.5. 64 The presentation and reply do not exactly cohere with each other.

46

Chapter 2: The Bible

the Spirit, by scripture which is inspired by the Holy Spirit, but are ruled without scripture by the spirit of error!65 Sixth, his opponents cite Christ’s words in John 16: 12–13 that he has many things to tell them which they are not able to bear and his promise of the Spirit’s leading them into all truth. Bullinger begins by arguing that if the Spirit has come, as Luke testifies, he will not have given them power to make new laws, as John 14: 26 says that he will teach them all things and remind them of everything Christ said to them. Moreover, John 16:13 says that he will speak only what he hears and that he will tell them what is yet to come. Bullinger relates the teaching of his opponents not to John 16, but to 2 Peter 2–3, 1 Timothy 4: 1–3, and 2 Timothy 4: 1–4. The Spirit does not command them to make new laws. Bullinger then insists that he is not against councils, as long as they decree what is from scripture and are for the truth and peace of the churches against heretics.66 Seventh, Christ’s words ‘whoever does not listen to the church, let him be to you as a pagan or a tax collector’ (Matthew 18: 17) are used by Bullinger’ opponents to support the decision of councils and the fathers. Bullinger states that the passage was written about correcting evil doers and not about papal laws and that it presupposes the church as honouring Christ, indwelt by him, and revering his word.67 Eighth, there is the great power of custom and the traditions which have been observed in the church by long tradition. Bullinger recognizes their appeal to Augustine, but notes that Augustine also puts truth before custom. When the truth of scripture does not support custom it carries no weight, for Christ said ‘I am truth’, not ‘I am custom’. The traditions are, moreover, not ancient but recent and superstitious.68 Ninth, there is the question whether the church could have been in error for so many centuries. Bullinger cites the Old Testament. It shows God’s people as ‘having abandoned the light of God’s word’ despite its saying of God and his people, ‘I will dwell and walk among them and I will be their God and they shall be my people’. (Deuteronomy 26: 11–12) Yet, although people denied him, God can tell Elijah that he has seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal. Bullinger states that he will not judge his forefathers but, following scripture, will ‘leave them to the secret and just judgement of the merciful God’.69 Tenth, there is the view that so many holy and learned people could not have erred from catholic truth. Bullinger’s riposte is to declare that none is more holy and learned than the prophets and that we should be rooted in Christ in whom are hidden all the

65 66 67 68 69

HBTS 4.87.6–89.28. HBTS 4.87.19–21,89.29–91.4. HBTS 4.87.21–25,91.4–12. HBTS 4.87.25–28, 91.13–26. HBTS 4.87.28–30,91.27–93.4.

The Authority of the Bible in Bullinger’s Later Works

47

treasures of knowledge and wisdom. He concludes, ‘let us embrace the canonical scriptures, which alone suffice to form piety perfectly’.70 In the final chapter Bullinger relates the approach of his papal opponents to that of Saul. He expounds the story of Saul’s failure to obey God’s command, commenting that ‘God cares nothing for our intentions but wishes his laws and institutions to be strictly obeyed’. He compares his opponents with Saul. In their pride ‘they think the word of God to be imperfect without their wisdom’. Bullinger gives a series of examples. God forbids images, but they make them. God attributes forgiveness to his grace in Christ, but they attribute it to works and merits. God refers eternal life to faith in Christ, but they refer it to purgatory and indulgences. Therefore, however good their intentions, Bullinger joins Samuel in pointing to God’s word.71 Then, after citing 2 Timothy 3:15, which states that the scriptures can make us wise to salvation, he asks,’ What more can you want?’ He contrasts the canonical scripture with the scriptures of the philosophers and of the papal decrees. Unlike them it is inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is useful for a knowledge of the doctrines of the Christian faith, for combating error which others attribute to councils and the fathers, for correction, and for discipline.72

The Authority of the Bible in Bullinger’s Later Works The fundamental elements so far in Bullinger’s understanding of the authority of scripture are that scripture is the word of God, for there is no difference between God’s spoken word and his written word, and that as God’s word it does not need human confirmation. This assertion is supported by the testimony of the bible (of God himself, of Christ, the Son of God, and of the apostles) and the testimony of the fathers. The authority of the bible is related to its sufficiency. Both the bible itself and the fathers affirm that it has all that is necessary for salvation. It does not need to be supplemented by any non-biblical tradition nor indeed by classical philosophy which is in fact dependent on scripture. The inspiration of scripture by the Holy Spirit differentiates it from other writings, although inspiration is assumed or asserted rather than discussed. The canon of scripture is discussed not so much in its own right, as in opposition to the view that it was determined by the church. Bullinger interprets the formation of the canon of scripture biblically (those writings were accepted which were in keeping with the law) and theologically (they were recognized by the work of the Spirit). Tradition is expounded in part positively as equivalent to scripture (when it is derived from 70 HBTS 4. 87.28–30,93.5–94.24. 71 HBTS 4. 93. 25–99.24. 72 HBTS 4.99.39–102.15.

48

Chapter 2: The Bible

scripture or deduced from it) and in part negatively (when it is contrary to scripture). This presentation of the authority of scripture is set in the context of those who exalt the authority of the church. The arguments they adduce for the church’s authority are drawn from scripture and Bullinger’s response is also drawn from scripture, in a way that reflects his general exposition. On occasion he criticizes the particular interpretation of the biblical text, but more generally he refutes his opponents’ interpretation of their biblical testimonies by a wider appeal to scripture and by subordinating their claims for the church to the right understanding of the church’s relation to Christ and the Spirit. Their arguments from the fathers account in part for Bullinger’s discussion of the fathers, as with Augustine’s statement on the church and scripture. But equally important is his belief that there are those for whom the testimony of the fathers is decisive. This helps to account for his wide-ranging quotations from the fathers. Most of Bullinger’s expositions of the authority of scripture are a response to his opponents’ arguments and to an extent, therefore, reflect his opponents’ position and the arguments they use. They appeal to scripture and the fathers, and Bullinger does the same. It is clear in 1538 and in his later writings that the fundamental opposition between Bullinger and his opponents is that between the authority of scripture and the authority of the church. It is expressed in the question whether the church is prior to scripture, in effect giving it authority, or whether scripture is prior to the church, with the church dependent on scripture. From this, point Bullinger often begins with the argument from the Word of God. God’s word was spoken before it was written, but there is no difference between the written word and the spoken word. The authority of the written word comes from God who is its author and therefore it has authority of itself and does not need human confirmation. The role of the church is to receive scripture, not to approve it, to commend it, not to confirm it. Some arguments are developed, as, for example, those relating to councils and traditions. Now there are references to the negative role of synods or councils in the bible as well as statements that neither Christ nor the apostles looked to synods or councils for confirmation. With tradition, Bullinger goes beyond the familiar biblical references to tradition and distinguishes between ecclesiastical, that is to say biblical, traditions and human traditions. The statements of the Council of Trent on scripture and tradition in 1546 are part of the context for all that Bullinger writes after that date.

The Decades (1549)

49

The Decades (1549) The exposition of the word of God in The Decades differs in two ways from Bullinger’s major discussions of the bible: in not being in the form of a response to his opponents and in not quoting from the fathers. It begins with an exposition of Bullinger’s understanding of the word of God and only incidentally engages directly with his opponents. To an extent, therefore, it shows Bullinger’s natural emphases. The absence of references to the fathers could imply that they are incidental to Bullinger’s position and have a primarily polemical purpose, but his sense of continuity with the early church is evident in his prefacing The Decades with credal statements from the early church. Moreover, the fathers are quoted freely in other sermons in The Decades.73 The first sermon begins with a statement of the authority of scripture, for it maintains that everything we teach about the Christian faith and the Christian life is to be ‘drawn, taught… and soundly confirmed’ ‘from the word of God’ and from nowhere else.74 Bullinger gives various definitions of the word of God indicating that he will focus on its definition as ‘God’s speech and the revealing of his will’. It was first spoken by Christ, the prophets, and the apostles, and then set down in writings which are rightly called ‘holy and divine’.75 Before Moses wrote his books, the word of God was transmitted in a living tradition, although even in this period there were some writings, such as the Book of Enoch (Jude 14–15).76 The Law, the first five books of the bible, contains for Bullinger the whole biblical message – indeed the book of Genesis itself contains the message, which includes creation and redemption. From Genesis Bullinger outlines the substance of the message or tradition, which is in effect expressed in the creed.77 In his exposition, Bullinger does not discuss the doctrine of inspiration, although he refers to inspiration. He speaks of God’s giving Moses an example, for what he said on Mount Sinai ‘he at once wrote with his finger on two tablets of stone, the same that he had written with his finger from the beginning of the world in the hearts of the fathers’. He adds that God commanded Moses to write what he revealed to him. Moses obeyed and ‘the Holy Spirit who wholly filled the mind of

73 References to The Decades are to the critical edition edited by Peter Opitz (HBTS 3.1) with the equivalent page references to the Parker Society Edition (HBBibl 1 no. 223), abbreviated as Decades. 74 HBTS 3.29.5–9: Decades1.36. 75 HBTS 3. 29.33–31.1; Decades 1.37. 76 HBTS 3. 31.3–5,8–10, 22–23; Decades1.39–40. The overlapping of the patriarchs from Adam to Moses makes it clear that the message of salvation was passed from one generation to the next (31.23–32.29; Decades 1.40–42). 77 HBTS 3. 33.13–34.37; Decades 1.43–45.

50

Chapter 2: The Bible

Moses directed his hand as he wrote’.78 The books of Moses contain everything ‘which seems to pertain to true piety and how to live in a good and blessed way’. Bullinger maintains that the word of God does not cease to be God’s word because ‘it is revealed, spoken, and written by human beings’. Moreover, ‘there is no difference between the word of God delivered by the living voice and the word of God written by the pen of a human being’ except the difference between speaking and writing.79 The prophets are related to Moses both in applying ‘the doctrine of Moses’ to their situation and in being God’s instruments. The prophets were not ultimately the authors of their teaching. They were ‘divinely inspired out of heaven by the Holy Spirit of God’, ‘for by his Spirit dwelling in their minds God speaks to us by the mouths of the prophets’. He quotes 2 Peter 1:21 in support. The apostles also after a time wrote what they had preached, using the law and the prophets to confirm the truth.80 Bullinger does not discuss the canon, but he enumerates the books of the Old and New Testaments. They contain ‘the full doctrine of godliness’, ‘the very word of …God’. He does not discuss the formation of the canon, but he refers to the role of the church in keeping the scriptures ‘whole and uncorrupted’, and also to the reason for the writing of the New Testament. The apostles wrote so that Christ’s teaching should not be corrupted or forgotten. Immediately Bullinger stresses that these things did not begin with the authors, but with the Spirit of God, and the purpose was to teach us ‘how to live well and blessedly’.81 In the second sermon Bullinger argues for the sufficiency of scripture. Its title states that the word of God ‘teaches fully the whole doctrine of godliness’. As elsewhere, he emphasizes 2 Timothy 3: 16–17 which testifies to ‘the fulness of the word of God’. He expresses this in various ways. Thus, scripture instructs not to a few good works, but to every good work. It does not record everything Christ did; but faith through which eternal life is given is fully taught (John 20: 30–31). Bullinger answers the objection that the apostles did not teach or write everything relating to true godliness. He replies that the apostles would not have held back anything, citing in support John 20:31. Then, with a reference to Ephesians 3:3–4, he states that Paul would not have repeated ‘one and the same thing so often, if there had been other things necessary to be taught more fully for the obtaining of salvation’.82 After affirming the sufficiency of scripture, Bullinger discusses tradition. He maintains that the alleged apostolic traditions are apostolic only if they agree 78 Bullinger can on occasion refer to the Holy Spirit’s dictating (Epitome 77v47–78r1). For Epitome, see HBBibl 1 no. 430. 79 HBTS 3.35.14–19, 32–36, 36.16–18, 22–25; Decades1.46–48. 80 HBTS 3.37.12–21, 38. 9–13, 39. 11–16; Decades1.50–53. 81 HBTS 3. 39.34–40. 18, 22–25, 41. 3–8; Decades1.54–56. 82 HBTS 3. 41. 21–22, 44.1–2, 14–18, 20–21, 26–31, 45.9–20; Decades1. 57, 61–63.

Evangelical and Papal Teaching (1551)

51

with scripture, for the Spirit of truth did not teach differently in writing than in speech. Indeed, Bullinger can say that we have been given scripture so that we shall not be seduced by false traditions. Further criteria for judging whether traditions are apostolic are: the glory of God rather than of men and the safety of believers rather than the personal profit of priests.83

Evangelical and Papal Teaching (1551) Bullinger responded to the Council of Trent in Evangelical and Papal Teaching.84 In its five brief chapters he summarizes the differences between the two with a series of contrasting statements. The crucial role of scripture in the opposition between evangelical and papal teaching is evident in its being placed first. The opening chapter contrasts their teaching on the bible. It does this by expressing positively what evangelical teaching affirms and negatively the papal teaching which it rejects.85 Of the six statements, four or five focus on authority. The first states that the bible as the word of God has authority from itself and not from the church. It repudiates the view that the bible lacks such authority without the church’s authorizing it. The third holds that we accept the judgment of the fathers and the church when they agree with an interpretation of the bible expounded through and with itself and in accordance with faith and love. It rejects the view that we need the fathers and the church. The fourth statement affirms that the bible contains and teaches sufficiently what serves true godliness and does not need human traditions, which are oral not written. It denies that unwritten tradition is needed and that it counts as much as the written word of God. The fifth asserts that human ordinances which are not in scripture and which cannot be proved from it, whether or not supported by councils or the fathers, are not true or useful and are not binding on Christians. It rejects the view which regards them as true, necessary, and binding, on the basis that the fathers and councils are ruled by the Holy Spirit. The sixth maintains that all people whatever their rank or standing are under the judgment of God’s word, for it is not fitting for anyone to be a judge over God or his word. This is contrasted with the assertion that the pope judges everyone and is judged by no one, although, as Bullinger adds, he frequently leads people with him to destruction. This summary has two of Bullinger’s characteristic emphases. It affirms the authority of the bible over and against that of the church, the councils, and the 83 HBTS 3. 45.20–33, 48.24–35; Decades 1.64,69. 84 For Evangelical and Papal Teaching, see HBBibl 1 no. 231 85 Evangelical and Papal Teaching A i v–iiir.

52

Chapter 2: The Bible

fathers and its sufficiency over and against the need for unwritten tradition. It also makes explicit what is generally implicit that the pope, like everyone else, is subject to the word of God.

The Evangelical Churches (1552) It is interesting to note that when Bullinger begins with scripture, he does not always begin with the same point. In The Evangelical Churches,86 his defence of Reformed churches as orthodox and catholic, he begins with the canon of scripture.87 Indeed, in the summary at the end he refers to their accepting all the books of the bible, as sufficient of themselves, and as perfectly comprehending and teaching all the truth which is to be believed, all the mysteries of piety, and all that we must do or not do.88 Then, after considering the interpretation and faith of scripture, he comments briefly on the relation of scripture and tradition, saying that the evangelical churches accept apostolic traditions as long as they are not in conflict with scripture.89 The evangelical church, unlike the papal church, accepts all the biblical books, as from God’s mouth, for the sheep know the Lord’s voice. It rejects none of them.90 Acceptance does not depend on the authority of the church, as alleged by those who quote Augustine on not believing the gospel unless the authority of the church had moved them. Making use of Gerson, Bullinger interprets the church of the primitive church in which the apostles and disciples could distinguish true and false books. After referring to Irenaeus, he states that no council at the beginning separated true and false books and confirmed the true books. Moreover, as the teaching of the apostles and prophets is the foundation of the church, then the authority of scripture precedes that of the church, and not the reverse.91 The evangelical churches hold that the bible contains everything necessary for salvation, unlike heretical churches which do not believe this and which also accept some books and reject others. Bullinger affirms that scripture and its authors are inspired by the Holy Spirit and, in opposition to the heretics, that scripture is clear and understandable. The fathers are not to be despised, but Augustine maintains that, however Christian and famous they are, they are not to 86 References are given first to the Latin edition and then to the German edition of this work. For The Evangelical Churches, see HBBibl 1 nos. 258 and 259. 87 Evangelical Churches 12.3–11; 2v 12–20. 88 Evangelical Churches 85.13–23; 45 v 11–18. 89 Evangelical Churches 87.20–24; 47r 8–12. 90 Evangelical Churches 12.3–11; 2v12–20. 91 Evangelical Churches 12.11–14.21; 2v21–4r 21.

The Evangelical Churches (1552)

53

be treated as the bible.92 Equally he appealed from the Council of Nicea to the authority of scripture. Bullinger also cites Panormitanus (1386–1445), who held that one should trust a lay person with scriptural support rather than a general council, representing the universal church, without scriptural support.93 After considering the message and interpretation of the bible, Bullinger examines tradition and particularly the accusation of despising the traditions of the apostles. He considers the view that scripture, the written tradition of the apostles, is incomplete and that it must be completed by the unwritten tradition, to which his opponents give equal authority.94 He accepts the idea that tradition (with the equivalent verb) occurs in many places in the apostles’ writings. Before writing, the apostles declared orally the words and deeds of Christ, that is what they had heard and seen and also received from the mouth of Christ. But they did not do this apart from scripture, for what they learned and preached they confirmed from the law, the psalms, and the prophets. This living tradition they wrote down (or caused others to write down) under the direction of the Spirit, when it pleased God for it to happen. Bullinger adds that the evangelists were eyewitnesses or, as Luke says, drew on eyewitnesses. Moreover, they omitted nothing of the apostolic tradition and teaching which they thought necessary. Bullinger asserts that he is not the first or only person to say this for Irenaeus and Papias, whom he quotes, say the same. This conviction is confirmed by John 20: 30–31.95 There are important references to tradition in Paul. Bullinger notes that the eucharistic tradition referred to in I Corinthians 11 is confirmed in the gospels and that the reference in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 to their guarding the traditions which they received in word and letter covers Paul’s oral and written teaching. In Romans 1 and 15 it is clear that Paul in his epistle was giving them in briefer form what he had taught more extensively when present with them, together with his correction of the errors of false apostles. With the four gospels, Paul’s fourteen epistles, and the epistles of other apostles, he asks ‘who can doubt the apostolic tradition or teaching is completely given to us’ in scripture.96 There are traditions which Bullinger rejects – first, those which restrict Christian freedom and, second, those which conflict with scripture. Against the first, Bullinger adduces the apostolic decrees in Acts 15:19–20, which some call traditions. The apostles indicate that they will not lay any further burdens on the Gentiles. Bullinger applies this to those in his day who lay burdens on the faithful in doctrines and rites under the pretext of apostolic traditions, but to whom 92 93 94 95 96

Evangelical Churches 16.21–17.20,19.1–22; 5v9–6r15, 7r1-v2. Evangelical Churches 20.22–21.7; 8r 7–18. Evangelical Churches 39.9–19; 19r 4–18. Evangelical Churches 40.4–43. 4; 19v6–21r11. Evangelical Churches 43.4–45.15; 21r 18–22 v10.

54

Chapter 2: The Bible

Christ’s apostles say, ‘We did not send you’. After a characteristic reference to Galatians 1:6–8, he adds to his rejection of traditions laid on free Christian people all which do not agree with the written teaching of the apostles.97 The second biblical precedent concerns the traditions of the elders (Matthew 15:1–9, Galatians 1:14, and Isaiah 29:13), which Christ condemned because they conflict with scripture and God’s law. For Bullinger, this means that all teaching and practices which do not conform with scripture must be removed from worship.98 Then characteristically Bullinger turns to the fathers. He cites Irenaeus’ reference to heretics who when refuted by scripture challenge it and argue that the truth cannot be found from the scriptures by those ignorant of tradition. He sees a contemporary parallel in those who see ‘the source of all errors in accepting only what is handed down in scripture’.99 From the fathers he refers to traditions concerning Christ and the apostles and various Christian customs, customs which vary from place to place. Bullinger remarks that his papal opponents ‘twist’ Irenaeus’ urging of apostolic traditions ‘to support their invented traditions concerning the mass, images, monasticism, and other such matters’. He notes, however, Irenaeus’ use of apostolic traditions for the articles of the Christian faith, as in the Apostles Creed, a creed which for Bullinger is a summary of scripture. He adds, ‘I would not wish to be believed if Irenaeus did not say what I have said’. This confirms Bullinger’s view that to be apostolic a tradition must be scriptural.100

The Grace of God (1554) The brief discussion of scripture in The Grace of God101 begins with the fundamental contrast between the true and living word of God and human arguments. Faith needs to be based on what is certain, and therefore on God’s word which scripture describes as firm, sure, and permanent, whereas it describes human beings as liars.102 Bullinger quotes a range of biblical testimonies to the word of God, which move, for example, through references to the gospel or the message preached as the word of God (such as 1 Thessalonians 2:13 and 1 Peter 1:23–25) to the affirmation that ‘the canonical scripture of the prophets and apostles is the word of God on which true and Christian faith relies’.103 This leads to the further 97 98 99 100 101 102 103

Evangelical Churches 45.16–48.6; 22v11–24v5. Evangelical Churches 48.7–49.1; 24r6-v4. Evangelical Churches 49.2–24; 24v5–25r9. Evangelical Churches 49.2–54.10; 25r9–27v17. For The Grace of God, see HBBibl 1 no. 276. The Grace of God 29v 9–18. The Grace of God 31v 8–24.

The Christian Religion (1556)

55

statement that ‘the written word of God teaches us fully everything that is to believed for true salvation’. Bullinger charges those who reject this and who appeal to unwritten tradition as guilty of a ‘most grave error’, ‘the foundation of all error and perversion in the church’. He maintains that words such as trinity are ‘abundantly signified’ in scripture, even though not present literally. He contrasts that with terms such as transubstantiation, which are not found or signified in scripture, indeed which are contradicted by it.104 Christ foresaw that impostors would come, who would force their errors on the church of God under the pretext of the living traditions and not the written traditions of the apostles.105 Bullinger adduces the testimony of Jesus (John 5:39–40) and Paul (2 Timothy 3:14–17) to show that scripture fully contains and hands on what concerns salvation.106 In the opening chapter of The Grace of God, Bullinger expounds justification, drawing first on the testimonies of scripture and then on the fathers. After expounding scripture he is concerned to show that his exposition is not new, but can be found in the fathers. He insists that the scriptures are sufficient, even if not supported by the fathers, indeed even if opposed by them, adding that the fathers do not wish to be believed unless they are confirmed by scripture. He makes it clear that in it and in other books he has quoted the fathers for the sake of those who, unlike him, attribute more to the fathers than to scripture.107

The Christian Religion (1556) The major emphasis in the opening chapters of The Christian Religion108 is that the bible is the word of God and is therefore to be believed. Bullinger defends it as God’s word against those who see God as spirit and the bible as flesh. What was spoken is now written. Here Bullinger distinguishes human voices or the paper and ink and letters, which are fleshly and perishable, from the word of God, which is spoken through human voices. In origin it is not men speaking and writing, but God’s word, will, and meaning. Bullinger draws the familiar parallel with the king and the ambassador with the king’s speech or the chancellor with the king’s letter. 104 The Grace of God 31v 25–32r 17. 105 The Grace of God 32r 26–32. 106 The Grace of God 32 v 33–33 r 27. The word of God is scripture and the orthodox preaching from scripture (33v24–25). 107 The Grace of God 3r 35-v23. ‘Adduco tamen illas vel propter eos maxime qui fere plus tribuunt ipsis patribus quam canonicis scripturis, si forte hac ratione placari possint. Atque hoc consilio, hac lege volo intelligat me adduxisse patres quisquis in hoc libro vel in aliis libris meis videt frequentius patrum citatas expositiones.’ (3v9–14) 108 For The Christian Religion, see HBBibl 1 no. 283.

56

Chapter 2: The Bible

The biblical parallel is God’s putting his word into the mouth of Moses or the prophets, and Moses’ or the prophets’ saying, ‘Thus, says the Lord’, and Christ’s stating, ‘Whoever hears you, hears me’. That scripture is not from human beings is expressed in saying that it is inspired by God.109 The bible, as the word of God, is to be believed, because it is God’s word. If we needed human confirmation of it, we would be putting the creature above the creator.110

The Catechism (1559) The Catechism111 begins with the bible as the foundation of Christianity. Its opening question is: Has the Christian religion principles or a foundation on which it rests and from which it can be grasped and taught? The answer is: Yes, ‘holy scripture’ or ‘canonical scripture’. The next question and answer indicate that its books are inspired by the Holy Spirit, so that there is nothing false in them. It is called canonical because it is a canon or rule. In the early church it was the rule or judgment or witness of the Holy Spirit of the genuine books of scripture over and against the false. They have authority of themselves or rather from the Holy Spirit. The answer ends by stating that we do not ask why we must believe and do what scripture says; we know we must, because that is what is written.112 Further questions and answers concern the authorship, content, and sufficiency of scripture. It is allowed that its authors were human beings, but it is as chosen instruments of God that they delivered scripture to the world, as Peter testifies in 2 Peter 1:21. In the light of this, Mark 13:11, and Luke 10:16, Bullinger speaks of the scripture as the undoubted word of God. In content scripture embraces the Old Testament and the New Testament, the word testament or covenant expressing God’s good and holy will towards us. Other books, called the Apocrypha, are read in church, but they do not have authority to confirm faith.113 The sufficiency of the bible is argued positively and negatively in relation to tradition. In the light of 2 Timothy 3:14–17, Bullinger asserts that scripture gives us the fullest teaching about salvation, about what we are to believe, and do, and refrain from doing. The implication of this is that no other teaching is necessary. This rules out such a role for teaching given by Christ to the apostles, which is not recorded in scripture. John 20: 30–31 supports this. It allows that much that Christ did has not been recorded in the New Testament, but that it lacks nothing 109 110 111 112 113

The Christian Religion 5v26–7r30. The Christian Religion 7v 21–8r2. References are to the Latin and German editions, see HBBibl 1 nos. 380 and 386. The Catechism 1r–2r; Yyy iii v. The Catechism 2rv; Yyy iii v–iv r.

Firm Foundation (1563)

57

in relation to salvation The catechism then asserts that traditions are unnecessary and that unless they agree with scripture they are harmful.114

Firm Foundation (1563) In Firm Foundation115 the word foundation is applied to Christ and not, as in The Catechism, to scripture, with reference to a range of New Testament passages.116 But there is for Bullinger no opposition between Christ and scripture. So in chapter one, in a discussion of Matthew 24, which foretells the church’s present division, he says the remedy is ‘to persevere to the end in true faith in Christ and in the truth of his word’.117 This linking of Christ and his word is explicit in every chapter after Bullinger’s exposition of Christ as the foundation on which a Christian can build. In the title of the remaining chapters (8 to 13) of part one there is a reference to Christ and his teaching, for example, how controversies can be settled ‘in Christ and his teaching’. Indeed, at the end of part one, Bullinger says that he hopes that he has laid a firm foundation on which believers can build: the Lord Jesus Christ together with his true and saving doctrine.118 In his brief discussion of scripture, Bullinger focuses on two issues: whether it can and should be read by lay people and whether it contains and teaches all things which pertain to teaching the faith and which are necessary for salvation. Some, unlike Bullinger, say ‘no’, and hold that beside scripture we need the traditions and decrees of the church. In defence of his position, Bullinger refers to Christ’s exhortation to people to read scripture (John 5), to his saying that the rich man’s brothers have ‘Moses and the prophets’ (Luke 16), and to the Beroean Christians who examined the scriptures at home to see whether they contained what Paul taught openly. Bullinger also cites 2 Timothy 3:15,17 as showing that scripture can make us wise to salvation through faith in Christ, so that by implication we do not need tradition in addition to scripture. Tradition is dismissed by reference to Mark 7:6–7 and Matthew 15:14.119 In the second part of the book, 114 The Catechism 2v–4r; Yyy iiii r. 115 References are to the Latin and German editions, see HBBibl 1 nos. 425 and 426. 116 Firm Foundation 14r 23–21v21; 11r 12–17v25.The book is a response to Brenz and deals with the problems created by division in the church. In the preface Bullinger states that in the controversy his teaching and defence will be from God’s word and will not be something new (2r24-v4; Aiir24-v2). 117 Firm Foundation 6r 13–17; 2v15–20. The chapter ends with 2 Timothy 3:10–17, with its reference to scripture and faith in Christ (6v5–16; 3r7–18). 118 Firm Foundation 47v19–25; 42r11–21. 119 Firm Foundation 26r8–27r2; 21v29–22v17.

58

Chapter 2: The Bible

Bullinger’s characteristic emphasis on scripture and the fathers is evident in some chapters specifically dedicated to the witness of the fathers.120

A Further Discussion of the Authority of the Bible Bullinger’s second major publication on the authority of scripture, A Discourse on Scripture, was published in 1571.121 The prominent role given to the fathers is notable.122 Bullinger quotes them even more extensively than before and uses them to support almost all the points he makes. Moreover, one chapter (22), consists almost entirely of patristic quotations. As with The Authority of Scripture, Bullinger presents his view as a response to that of his papal opponents. He does not expound his position systematically, and, therefore, some of the emphases could as much reflect the endeavour to persuade his opponents as represent an emphasis in his theology. As in the earlier work, Bullinger states that his opponents’ view of the church is presented in exalted terms, as, for example, the description of it as the bride of Christ and a body with Christ as its head and the Holy Spirit as its governor. He begins with their case for the authority of the church, which they affirm to have power over the written word. This relates to the church’s being far more ancient than the scriptures. The church in the Old Testament existed for 2449 years before anything was written about religion and after Christ for many years the church was gathered by the living voice of the gospel before it had the writings of the apostles. For his opponents, the church’s authority is greater than that of the scripture which it received and approved. It gave authority to writings such as that by Mark, who did not see Christ, and not to that by Nicodemus, who did see and hear him, and to that by Luke, the disciple, and not to that by Bartholomew, the apostle. His opponents maintain that the authority of the books came not from the authors, but from the church. They argue that no scripture shows the rest of the scriptures to be canonical, but that it is the consent of the church which makes scripture canonical. They appeal to Augustine who said that he would not have believed the gospel, unless the authority of the catholic church had moved him.123 Bullinger’s papal opponents also claimed that the apostles preached much more than is present in their epistles, and that this has been preserved by the church. It 120 Firm Foundation 78r,96v,149v; 84r,103r,156v. 121 For A Discourse on Scripture, see HBBibl 1 no. 565. For its origins, see the Preface 2rv. If not by Bullinger, it closely reflects his views. Büsser attributes it to Bullinger (Heinrich Bullinger II 43). 122 In the preface he speaks of confirming what he writes ‘chiefly, as is right, through the sacred scriptures and then through suitable testimonies of the blessed, ancient fathers’ (2 v 16–18). 123 A Discourse on Scripture 3r9–4r29.

A Further Discussion of the Authority of the Bible

59

is used in matters of doubt and controversy, for it is plain and clear, while scripture is often obscure. ‘The canon or most exact rule of faith is not scripture but the judgment of the church, the voice of Christ.’ The church is described as ‘the pillar and foundation of the truth’, which cannot err, for Christ has promised the Holy Spirit who will lead the church into all truth.124 Bullinger’s opponents contrast the insufficiency, ambiguity, and obscurity of scripture with the perfection, certainty, and clarity of tradition. Therefore, ‘we seek for the rule of faith not in God’s word but in the church’s tradition’.125 In his response in chapter 2, Bullinger advances a series of arguments. For him, saying that scripture is obscure and a labyrinth is blasphemy against its author, the Holy Spirit. Bullinger identifies those who are selective in their approach to scripture with heretics, such as Marcion, who accepted some books and rejected others. To make the authority of scripture dependent on the church is a pernicious error, as it makes God’s eternal truth depend on human judgment, although – as Bullinger never tires of affirming – only God is true. The church, moreover, is not prior to the word, for, as Peter makes clear, it is born of the word. It relates to scripture as daughter to mother. Paul speaks of it as founded upon the teaching of the prophets and apostles, so that the authority of the teaching precedes the authority of the church. There is no inconsistency between the written and unwritten word. Bullinger allows that ‘there is a difference of time between them, but not one of efficacy or authority’.126 Chapter 3 begins by stating that ‘the authority of sacred scripture is very great, inasmuch as it contains the word of God and originates from the Holy Spirit’. Its teaching does not come from philosophers, but from God. Bullinger affirms that ‘the Holy Spirit inspired people in every age who delivered the word uncorrupted’ (2 Peter 1:20–21). He emphasizes that the New Testament originated with God. It was because of false apostles and traditions purporting to be apostolic, that ‘it seemed good to the Holy Spirit to have a summary of the apostolic preaching set forth in writing’, so that it could be transmitted intact to posterity.127 Bullinger uses the fathers also to show that the authority of the New Testament comes from God and from the testimony of the apostles, and not from the church. He quotes Irenaeus to demonstrate that there are four gospels, not 124 125 126 127

A Discourse on Scripture 4v12–5r 15. A Discourse on Scripture 5r29-v8. A Discourse on Scripture 5v9–7 v2. A Discourse on Scripture 8r 1-v24.In Epitome in 1565, Bullinger stresses that the New Testament originated in God and not in the church, or even in the apostles. He states, ‘it seemed good to the Holy Spirit to stir up some of the apostles and disciples of the apostles who set down the whole of Christian teaching faithfully and sincerely’. The Spirit did this when erroneous views arose and there was a danger that true preaching would be corrupted. (Epitome 111v50–112 r11) For Epitome, see HBBibl 1 no. 430.

60

Chapter 2: The Bible

because the church received only four, but because God appointed four. Then he quotes Jerome, Nicephorus, and Eusebius to show apostolic approval in relation to each of the gospels, pointing out that the fathers understood the words at the end of John 20 to apply to all four gospels. Moreover, those who heard and saw Christ and those who knew Christ’s apostles and disciples were still alive, and they acknowledged the truth of the gospel. Bullinger also points to the testimony of the New Testament writers, such as Paul (2 Thes 3:17), Peter (2 Peter 3: 15–16), and John (1 Jn 5:13, Rev 22: 18–19). Furthermore, according to Irenaeus what they wrote is the same as what they preached. Augustine taught in accordance with John that not all Christ’s deeds were written but those which would suffice for salvation. Cyril is also adduced to support the sufficiency of scripture.128 The issue of inspiration is considered indirectly, in response to the use by Bullinger’s opponents of texts, such as Jeremiah 31 and 2 Corinthians 3: 2–3, to argue that the gospels should not be written down. Bullinger maintains that the apostles did not understand Jeremiah nor did Paul understand 2 Corinthians 3 in this way, and he cites Augustine to show that his opponents lacked the support of the fathers.129 He challenges his opponents biblically by reference to several texts: the first New Testament writing (Acts 15:28), Paul’s statement that the scriptures are divinely inspired, God’s command to John in Revelation to write for the instruction of the church, and what Bullinger sees as the implications of the commission to teach in Matthew 28. He follows this biblical testimony with the testimony of the early church and the fathers. He refers to the unanimous view of the catholic church that ‘the books of the New Testament were written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit’. Characteristically he turns to Augustine, to his analogy of the head and the body – and Christ’s commanding to be written by the disciples, as if by him, what he wanted us to read, so that we would receive it as if we saw the hand of Christ writing it. After his quotations from Augustine and Irenaeus, Bullinger concludes that the catholic church affirms that ‘by the command and will of the Lord the apostles and evangelists embrace Christ’s teaching in writing’.130 The sufficiency of scripture for faith, piety, and salvation is similarly argued on the basis of scripture (Acts 20:27, Romans 15:4, 2 Timothy 3: 14–18) and the fathers (Athanasius, Augustine, Chrysostom, and others). (Its sufficiency is also related to the fact that it is given by God to correct behaviour, refute heresy, and be the criterion for judgment in controversy.) Bullinger gives testimonies from the fathers for the necessity to have the apostolic teaching in written form. Although he offers biblical arguments for the role of scripture and its sufficiency 128 A Discourse on Scripture 8r1–11r8. 129 A Discourse on Scripture 11r13–12v5. 130 A Discourse on Scripture 16r27–18v10.

A Further Discussion of the Authority of the Bible

61

(Acts 9:20–22, 17:11), the emphasis is more on the testimony of the fathers. They fled to the scriptures in controversy rather than to councils or human authority. Augustine is, of course, prominent among the fathers quoted, but Bullinger refers as well to Basil, Cyprian, Cyril, and Evagrius, and cites the way Constantine, sitting with the bishops at Nicea, appealed to the bible. Yet, while appealing to the fathers, Bullinger maintains their subordination to scripture. He notes Augustine’s insistence that Cyril’s letters are not canonical, but are to be examined to see what agrees with scripture. After his many patristic references, Bullinger writes that ‘by the consent of all the ancients the prophetic and apostolic writings are the norm’ in doctrinal matters.131 In this context, Bullinger dismisses the view that the bible is obscure. Again, he appeals to the testimony of scripture, both psalms, such as Psalm 119:105 (‘Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path’), and the epistles and gospels, but even more to the testimony of the fathers. They do not complain that scripture is uncertain, difficult, or ambiguous, but rather commend it for light, clarity, and certainty. He cites Augustine as usual, but also Ambrose, Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril, and Lactantius, while maintaining that he could give more testimonies. To say that the Holy Spirit handed on his teaching so that it needed to be explained by human wisdom is not just blasphemy, it is like saying that to assist the brightness of the sun one should light a torch.132 The role of scripture as a norm is expressed in the word canonical. Bullinger maintains that scripture is called canonical, because it is the canon, rule, and norm by which the fathers wished all doctrines to be proved and all questions of faith to be defined. Moreover, they did not judge that any of the decrees or writings of the councils or the greatest doctors were to be received on their own authority, but that everything was to be referred to scripture. In support, he quotes references to scripture by Augustine (‘the foundation of our faith’), Basil (‘the rule and standard’), and Irenaeus (‘the foundation and pillar of our faith’), as well as Cyprian and Theophylact. As he contrasts the authority of canonical scripture with that of councils and the fathers, he draws on Ambrose, Cyril, Epiphanius, and Jerome, as well as alluding to others. He still gives first place to Augustine. Augustine maintained that ‘it is wicked if councils determine anything against the teaching of the Holy Spirit recorded in the canonical scriptures’. He insisted, moreover, that he did not wish his writings to be corrected by other people’s opinions but by scripture or unshakeable reason. Bullinger puts the position in its ultimate form when he states that ‘the authority of the universal church cannot put faith in anything without the testimony of scripture – even if

131 A Discourse on Scripture 18v11–24v12. 132 A Discourse on Scripture 25v2–28r18.

62

Chapter 2: The Bible

there were gathered in one place all those who ever were, are, or in future shall be members’.133 In his discussion of the canon Bullinger maintains that scripture has authority from the Holy Spirit and not from the church. Indeed, he turns his opponents’ position on its head by asserting that the church has its authority from scripture, and not, as the papalists allege, the other way round. They argue that there is no scripture to say that writings other than the gospels are canonical. Bullinger holds that it is the Spirit who impelled those who spoke and wrote, and it is also the Spirit who gives us faith that those things were not invented by men. Bullinger, however, can also speak in a secondary way of the authority of scripture as coming from the authors. He does this to refute those who would ascribe its authority to its acceptance by the church. Apostolic authority was required for a New Testament writing to be canonical or inspired. This is supported by Tertullian’s assertion that a gospel must be by an apostle. Bullinger notes the apostles’ testimony to the writings of the New Testament. He observes again that the fathers understood John 20:30–31 as an affirmation not just of John but of all four gospels, and that they note the way Paul authenticates his letters (1 Corinthians 16:21–23, Galatians 6:18, 2 Thessalonians 3: 17–18, 2 Timothy 4:22),134indeed repeating this when he adds material (Romans 16:24). (Bullinger refers also to 2 Peter 3:15 and 1 John 5:13.) About Hebrews, for which he mentions several possible authors,135 Bullinger comments that it has the grace of apostolic theology, and about James that it is full of most healthy precepts whether it is by the apostle or the disciple James. In the light of his evidence, Bullinger challenges his opponents to show to which books the church gave authority. The church received the canon from the apostles. It did not give authority to the canon of scripture; nor did any synod confirm it. But the church delivered it as if from hand to hand to posterity. (For Bullinger, the councils, like some of the fathers, did not authorise, but listed the divine books.) We should heed John’s assertion that we know his testimony is true (Jn 21:24). The primitive church received the writings of the Old Testament as authentic and through them approved the dogmas of the Christian faith. Afterwards came the apostolic books. They were written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and were not confirmed by any human decree. Salvian stated that the sayings of men need proofs and witnesses, but the word of God is a witness to itself.136 For Bullinger, far from the church’s giving authority to the word, it receives authority from the word. He argues that if you ask those affirming the authority 133 134 135 136

A Discourse on Scripture 28r19–33v30. Bullinger adduces various fathers in support of these references. Elsewhere he refers to Paul as the author of Hebrews. A Discourse on Scripture 34r1–38v29.

A Further Discussion of the Authority of the Bible

63

of the church how they prove its authority and are certain that it does not err in interpreting scripture and in discerning its books from others, they appeal to scripture. They cite promises about the presence of Christ and the Spirit in the church (Mt 18:20, 28:20, and Jn 16:7,13). For Bullinger, this appeal to scripture demonstrates that the church has its authority from scripture.137 The prominent role of the fathers is evident in the way their testimony features in the title of some chapters (7,11,22). Thus, chapter 11 is simply the testimony of the fathers that it is evil and ungodly to preach something without the warrant of scripture. After quoting eight of them, he concludes eloquently, ‘If we believe Tertullian… If we exercise the faith of Ambrose and Augustine… If that of Gratian’s decree… If we give heed to Basil… If we listen to Chrysostom and Theophylact… If we agree with Origen and Jerome…’, then those preaching without scripture – among much else – are proud and profane, sacrilegious and accursed, heretics and false witnesses to God.138 For Bullinger, the church has four roles in relation to scripture: to preserve and witness, to publish, to discern true scripture from false, and to interpret. Once more the fathers provide the support for Bullinger’s case. The church preserves scripture for posterity so that it cannot change or pervert it. (Here he refers to Ambrose.) It publishes God’s word, as a crier does the edict of a prince. The church, therefore, is not above the word, any more than the crier is above the prince. Chrysostom and Tertullian are adduced to show that we must proclaim only what we have heard, adding nothing of our own judgment. The church discerns the sacred books from apocryphal writings. However, discerning is not to have greater authority than what is discerned, any more than the church is superior to Christ because it discerns him from the devil.139 In this context, Bullinger examines the saying of Augustine on believing the gospel moved by the authority of the church. Bullinger begins by saying that Augustine does not hold ‘that the authority of the church is greater than that of the word of God, nor does he allow that the church can decree something contrary to the word of God or establish new articles of faith, or abolish articles handed down in the word of God’. Rather ‘the church teaches us and testifies that this teaching was handed down by the apostles’. The church moves us to believe the gospel because the church keeps the bible faithfully, preaches it, and discerns between it and the apocryphal gospels.140 This is supported by the way Irenaeus and Tertullian sent heretics to the apostolic churches to receive the whole bible.141 137 138 139 140

A Discourse on Scripture 38v30–39r27. A Discourse on Scripture 32r2–18. A Discourse on Scripture 44v13–47v29. Once more Bullinger quotes Gerson’s arguments that the primitive church could discern the true from the false because there were those who had seen Christ and heard his apostles. 141 A Discourse on Scripture 48 r1 – v 28.

64

Chapter 2: The Bible

As Bullinger dedicates separate chapters to points made by his opponents, he frequently repeats arguments already used, sometimes in the same, sometimes in different contexts. Thus, in a discussion of Matthew 18:17, he uses the example of Constantine’s telling the council to decide by scripture, to state that no one resisted him and said that the church must decide on its own authority because scripture is subject to the church.142 Then, in an exposition of 1 Timothy 3: 15, he writes that the fathers, when in council, confirmed their decrees with the testimony of scripture. They did not appeal to councils but to the bible.143Against his opponents’ argument that the Holy Spirit has been promised to the church, Bullinger again appeals to the fathers (Augustine, Chrysostom, and Hilary), quoting Chrysostom’s not believing something is of the Holy Spirit beside the gospel.144 In the last six chapters Bullinger considers tradition, particularly oral tradition. He begins with his opponents’ use of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 to argue that not everything that Paul said is in his letters and that oral traditions from him are to be received with equal reverence as his writings. Bullinger’s counter-arguments are that his opponents cannot prove that their traditions are from Paul and that Paul’s words were written before the canon. He maintains that with the establishment of the canon by the Holy Spirit his opponents’ view makes human beings the authors of what is to be believed. This is a reproach to the Holy Spirit. Bullinger argues further that towards the end of his life Paul asserted the sufficiency of scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16–17, so that nothing else, such as an oral tradition, is necessary. What the apostles taught was not different from what they wrote. All traditions, therefore, are to be tested by scripture, and are to be kept only if they accord with Christ’s commands (Ps. 119:4).145 Bullinger notes that Paul does not simply propose traditions without any proof (1 Cor. 11:14; 2 Thes. 3). The traditions of the apostles are to agree with scripture, and be confirmed, for example, by reason, decency, order, and the capacity to edify. Bullinger states, ‘The consent of the whole apostolic church is that the apostles did not hand on other or different things from those contained in canonical scripture.’ He supports this with quotations from Augustine, Irenaeus, Jerome, and Tertullian. If the papalists want people, therefore, to regard something as apostolic they must show that it is agreeable with scripture.146 Bullinger devotes a whole chapter to the apostolic tradition in Irenaeus and Tertullian. He characterises Irenaeus’ opponents as he would his own papal opponents. They are not moved by the authority of scripture or the consent of the 142 143 144 145 146

A Discourse on Scripture 53v16–24. A Discourse on Scripture 54v16–21. A Discourse on Scripture 54v22–55v8. A Discourse on Scripture 55v9–56v12. A Discourse on Scripture 56v13–58v8.

A Further Discussion of the Authority of the Bible

65

universal church; when refuted by scripture they make light of its authority and charge it with being insufficient or its meaning uncertain or unclear; and they boast that they have from tradition a higher and more perfect wisdom than the apostles.147 Bullinger gives the answer of Irenaeus and Tertullian to the question: What is the apostolic tradition? It is that ‘that tradition alone is true which Christ received from God and delivered to the apostles, which in turn the apostles delivered to the churches, and which has been preserved in the churches through the succession of presbyters’. This tradition ‘does not contain any teaching different from what is present in canonical scripture’ and its elements are embraced in the Apostles Creed.148 He concludes that traditions which do not agree with and cannot be proved from scripture are not apostolic.149 Bullinger notes that the Common Places in Irenaeus are not those of his papal opponents, such as purgatory and images, but rather questions drawn from the bible, such as the incarnation and the call of the Gentiles.150 Bullinger recognizes that the word tradition is used in different ways. Whereas papalists say that many things necessary for faith and manners are to be received and believed because of tradition, although they cannot be proved from scripture, Bullinger affirms that the ancients do not accept any tradition beside or not in scripture. He gives three examples in which the fathers used the word. Tradition sometimes, as with Cyprian and Basil, refers to scripture, as when Basil speaks of baptism in the threefold name according to the tradition of the Lord. Sometimes, as with Irenaeus and Tertullian, it refers to the articles of faith, which are contained in the Apostles’ Creed. It also refers to something which is not explicit in scripture, but which can be deduced from it by a true interpretation of what the apostles preached, such as the doctrine of the trinity and infant baptism. Tradition is used as well for certain rites, which because of their antiquity are ascribed to the apostles.151 Bullinger dedicates a whole chapter to various traditions which are not affirmed in the bible and which cannot be shown to come from the apostles. Some of them conflict with others. He mentions some in Cyprian, Augustine, and Jerome, and in the time of Tertullian, which were referred to as traditions of the apostles, but which are no longer observed. He commends Cyprian’s wisdom in not allowing traditions not contained in the New Testament, although Bullinger allows those which can be inferred necessarily from scripture. For Bullinger, 147 148 149 150

A Discourse on Scripture 58v26–59r6. A Discourse on Scripture 59v15–60r2. A Discourse on Scripture 60r24–27. A Discourse on Scripture 61 v 13–63r2. Bullinger quotes Irenaeus as maintaining that if the apostles had not left us the bible we might follow the order of the tradition which they delivered to these churches (62 r 19–23). 151 A Discourse on Scripture 64v5–66r16.

66

Chapter 2: The Bible

traditions have led to superstition, error, and controversy.152 This leads to his final chapter, in which he contends that the church has been deceived from the time of the apostles under the pretence of tradition. Bullinger maintains that tradition has always been a poison in the church, even in the time of the apostles. Indeed it was the reason they put things in writing. In 2 Thessalonians 2:2, Paul warns people not to be misled by spirit, word, or letter as from him. According to Bullinger, spirit means revelation or prophecy, word means a reason or human conjecture, while letter means a forged writing or fictitious tradition. Bullinger names a host of those led astray by unscriptural traditions. A notable example is Clement. He was led astray and then corrupted Origen, who received from him strange doctrines under the title of apostolic traditions. He sought to transform the scriptures into allegories and led astray all the doctors of the church with allegories. It is because tradition leads people into error that Bullinger says that ‘all traditions are to be examined according to the rule of scripture’. In this he cites the support of Jerome and Chrysostom. Indeed, ‘At all times and in every doubtful matter we must flee to the scriptures’. They are ‘the chief judge in every theological controversy’. To their judgement ‘all traditions, all churches, all councils’ are subject. ‘He who hears scripture hears the Holy Spirit, the author of scripture.’153 Bullinger’s conclusion makes his main emphases clear. Scripture is the word of God and everything necessary for salvation is in it. It serves to confute heresy, to discern doctrine, to define the faith, and to make assertions. He affirms ‘the consent of the fathers and the whole church that canonical scripture is to be preferred before all churches, councils… traditions’. Moreover, the church is suspicious of ‘every revelation, prophecy, tradition, and standard of faith, not based in the law, the prophets, and the gospel’. Its authority does not depend on human testimony, including the church’s, but on the witness of the Spirit. The church, however, has an important role in relation to scripture. It is a witness to and restorer of the true meaning of scripture against heretical interpretations. It does not add new doctrines or new interpretations. The close association between Christ and scripture is evident in Bullinger’s variation on the saying, ‘where Christ is, there is the church.’ ‘Where scripture is heard, there is the church, there Christ’s sheep know the shepherd’s voice.’ The church, however, which does not err is the one which ‘does not follow its own judgement, but everywhere and in all things obeys God’s word in which there is no darkness and no error’. It does not err, therefore, if it follows the truth of God as its rule. If it departs from it, it ceases to be a bride and becomes an adulteress.’154 152 A Discourse on Scripture 66r17–67v26. 153 A Discourse on Scripture 67r27–72r18. 154 A Discourse on Scripture 72r19–74v9.

The Interpretation of the Bible

67

The Interpretation of the Bible On Scripture in 1523 deals largely with the authority of scripture, but there is also a brief discussion of the interpretation of scripture. It shows the influence of some of Luther’s works, but also the way in which Bullinger reflects on and adds to what he has read in Luther.155 He considers the relation of the Old Testament and the New Testament, the place of the fathers and of scripture in interpreting scripture, and the role of the Holy Spirit. In all these he is dependent on Luther, although he shows an independence in some of his references to the fathers and the bible and in his understanding both of the Old Testament and of the relation of Christ and scripture. In writing to Asper, who would stress the authority of the church and of the fathers, it is natural for Bullinger to emphasize the fathers. He begins with them and their appeal to scripture, before turning to Christ and the apostles and their appeal to scripture. Christ tests everything by scripture and wishes to be known from it alone (John 5: 39–40), and the apostles confirm what they say from scripture. In that context Bullinger affirms the fundamental unity of the Old and New Testament. He refers to the New Testament as an interpretation of the Old, except that the New exhibits what the Old promises and the New is more open and the Old more hidden.156 He cites Romans 1:1–2 and Luke 24: 27 in illustration.157 In what he writes, he goes beyond Luther in speaking of the sufficiency of the Old Testament, of which Christ is ‘the end and the interpreter’.158 After this, Bullinger considers the argument that scripture is veiled in mystery and that, therefore, we need to go to the fathers to learn the meaning of scripture. He rejects the case for the fathers in interpreting scripture on several grounds. The primitive church did not have the fathers, let alone the schoolmen, as interpreters. Augustine, moreover, held that his understanding was to be tested out of the scriptures, and he maintained that no place in scripture is so obscure that it is not explained in another place. Furthermore, the fathers turned to scripture for light when they faced difficulties in interpretation. Bullinger adds that even Augustine confessed that he had erred, while the schoolmen, to whom Bullinger’s opponents appeal, often rejected the interpretation of the fathers.159 155 Hausammann (‘Anfragen’ 29–48) shows how much of what Bullinger says in On Scripture can be paralleled in Luther. 156 For Staedtke (Staedtke Theologie 60) this principle differentiates Bullinger from Erasmus. 157 HBTS 2.25.7–20. Compare the later reference to Acts 26:22 (148.19–25). 158 HBTS 2. 26. 3–5. He speaks, of course, of the sufficiency of scripture and not only of the sufficiency of the Old Testament. 159 HBTS 2. 27. 19–30. Gäbler (Gäbler ‘Bullingers Vorlesung’20–21) notes that some, such as Hausammann, had excluded the influence of Augustine on the early Bullinger, and yet his John commentary shows a greater use of Augustine than of Jerome. The influence of Augustine’s Christian Doctrine is evident, if one considers some of his main principles of

68

Chapter 2: The Bible

Bullinger comments also on the role of the Spirit in interpretation. He states that the Holy Spirit does not limit understanding to the wise (Mt. 11:25), and he appeals in support of this to a range of texts such as Psalm 119:130, Jeremiah 31: 31–34, John 6:45, and 1 Corinthians 2:12–13. He argues further that ‘scripture is to be interpreted in its own sense, that is, in the sense in which it was written’.160 As the Spirit is given to believers, they are given the power to judge (1 Cor. 14:29). This is based on the premise that ‘no one interprets the scriptures more correctly than the Spirit himself who gave them’. (Bullinger asks, ‘Do you distrust God who promised the Spirit?’, adding later, ‘was not the Spirit promised to us’ as well as to the schoolmen?) This leads him to the assertion that he does not put his trust in himself or in the fathers, but that he looks ‘only to scripture and to scripture interpreting the scriptures’. The role of the Spirit is also expressed in a prayer for the Spirit.161 In a sense, all Bullinger’s arguments in his first work on scripture suppose the fundamental principle that scripture interprets scripture.162 This is true of his stating that the New Testament is a commentary on the Old Testament, that the fathers are not needed to interpret scripture (indeed they point from themselves to scripture), and that the Spirit who gave scripture is the best interpreter of scripture.

Interpretation in Other Early Works 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 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, interpretation, especially those in Book Three. These include the use of non-biblical learning, the need for languages, a knowledge of tropes, the ability to distinguish between the literal and the figurative, the rule of faith and love, and interpreting scripture by scripture. Augustine uses John 6:54 as an example of what must be taken figuratively, as it would otherwise be commending vice or crime. He also emphasizes the role of prayer, love, and a good life. 160 He has already referred, as Luther had done, to Hilary’s statement that the sense is to come from the scriptures, not be brought to them (HBTS 2. 24.5–6). 161 HBTS 2. 27.30–29.3, 29.11–21, 30. 12–15. 162 Interpreting scripture by scripture is present in the works of Augustine and Luther read by Bullinger. Staedtke (Theologie 36, 78) notes its use by Stapulensis and Erasmus.

Interpretation in Other Early Works

69

there is, naturally, consistency between one part of scripture and another, so that, for example, the evangelists agree with Paul on the eucharist.163 The consistency of scripture is both expressed and implied in his Reply to Burchard.164 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.165 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, therefore, speak of Paul as writing inexactly.166 For Bullinger, the inspiration of scripture also does not preclude differences in scripture. Thus, these are differences in words. These, however, are not necessarily a problem, as the sense is fundamental rather than the words.167 Likewise, the authorship of the Holy Spirit does not preclude other differences between the biblical books. In his second lecture on Romans at Kappel, Bullinger 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.168 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’169 Similarly in Hebrews he refers to Genesis as ‘the finest book’ in the bible.170 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.171 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 163 164 165 166 167 168 169

HBTS 2. 2.39.22–24. HBTS 2.134–172. HBTS 2. 144.1–145.13, cf 146.9–15. HBTS 1.55.20–22. For his lectures on Romans, see HBTS 1.19–132. HBTS 1. 88.4–7. HBTS 1.29.26–32.4. HBTS 1 33.5–12. The later emphasis on Paul and John is present here and elsewhere (56.15– 21) in Bullinger’s early works. 170 HBTS 1.249.6–7. For his commentary on Hebrews, see HBTS 1. 133–268. 171 In 1534 in commenting on 1 Corinthians 12:1–3, Bullinger notes that what Paul said with obscure words, John said with plain ones (HBTS 6. 389. 4–5). For 1 Corinthians, see HBTS 6.227–464.

70

Chapter 2: The Bible

the stories, speeches, and power of Jesus because he wrote last and much error had arisen’.172 Nevertheless some differences clearly derive from the person himself, as Bullinger accounts for 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.173 The role of the Holy Spirit as interpreter is related to his role as author. This double role means that we are not to use our own ideas to explicate scripture, but rather to draw on scripture itself, interpreting scripture with scripture. Scripture is the only commentary on scripture which the church needs. It does not need the fathers, although Bullinger affirms their role when they agree with scripture.174 Interpreting scripture with scripture does not mean, as with Arius, letting one or two passages determine the meaning of the rest of scripture.175 In the same year (1526) Bullinger quotes Tertullian in challenging the interpretation of scripture in the light of a few passages. Bullinger applies this to Luther’s interpreting the whole of scripture in the light of his understanding of the passage, ‘This is my body.’176 In an attack on Erasmus’ teaching on free will, Bullinger insists that interpretation entails the comparison of passages of scripture, rather than the comparison of passages from the fathers.177 This becomes a major principle of interpretation. The use of scripture in interpreting scripture is also expressed in the frequently repeated principle that the New Testament is a commentary on or explanation of the Old. This is evident in passages which speak of Christ’s fulfilling the Old Testament.178 Alongside this, Bullinger maintains that ‘the will of God is fully made known in written form in the books of Moses, so that no other teachings are necessary’ as Deuteronomy 31 makes clear. They are ‘the source from which the prophetic and apostolic stream flows’ and in them the whole

172 173 174 175

HBTS 2. 2.96.9–13,56.15–21. HBTS 1.140.5–15. HBTS 2.155.12–20. HBTS 2.113.13–23. This criterion is frequently used in Bullinger’s later works, not least in relation to Christ’s divinity. A few passages should be interpreted in the light of many, and not many in the light of the few (Acts 220v 20–25). For Acts, see HBBibl 1 no. 43. 176 Comparison a iv 15-b i 9. He also refers to Tertullian’s expounding scripture in terms of faith and love. For Comparison, see HBBibl 1 no.1. On occasion Zwingli gives a decisive role to one passage, John 6:63, although he also argues from a range of other passages. In a letter to Oecolampadius he dismisses any argument from the fact that Christ said only once, ‘The flesh is of no avail’. He observes not only that other things were said only once, but also that heaven and earth will pass away rather than any of God’s words. (Z VIII 408. 9–22) For Zwingli’s works, see Huldreich Zwinglis Sämtliche Werke (Berlin, Leipzig, Zurich, 1905-). 177 HBBW 1.86.25–87.14. Fritz Büsser (ed.), Heinrich Bullinger Werke Part II Briefwechsel (abbreviated HBBW) Vol. 1 (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1973). 178 HBTS 2.123.5–9.

Interpretation in Other Early Works

71

content of the covenant is contained.179 The importance of the concept of the covenant is evident in Reply to Burchard, where Bullinger refers to it as ‘the whole sum of the whole of scripture’.180 For Bullinger, the prophets are not an addition to but a clarification of the covenant. Similarly the books of the New Testament are ‘an explanation of (or commentary on) the law and the prophets’, ‘so that we use them instead of a commentary, from which we learn what is to be sought and understood in the law and the prophets’. This view is supported by texts such as ‘And all this happened that the scripture might be fulfilled which says…’ (John 19:36), ‘as it is written’ (Romans 1:17), and ‘as the prophet also says’ (Matthew 1:22). For Bullinger, this is ‘a commentary, explanation, and interpretation’, and Romans in particular is described as ‘a commentary on and explanation of all that one finds in the law and prophets about sin, piety, faith’ and so on. This is the context for Bullinger’s saying that they expound scripture, one place with another, not out of their own heads, scripture being the only commentary needed.181 The relationship between the Old Testament and the New is expressed in several contrasts, such as figure and reality, figure or shadow and light, letter and spirit, shadow and body, promise and fulfilment, as well as between the message that Christ would come and the message that he has come.182 They throw light on each other, so that Bullinger can say that we need the Old Testament to understand the New Testament, just as we need Homer in reading Eustathios.183 Bullinger does not discuss the various senses of scripture. He accepts the natural meaning of scripture, unless faith dictates otherwise. Like Zwingli, he applies this in defence of understanding ‘This is my body’ as ‘This signifies my body’. It is faith which compels this interpretation, against understanding the text as literally eating flesh. He argues this in the light of various texts which concern the flesh, such as 2 Corinthians 5:16 and John 3:6; 6:35,63;16:5–7), and which make the natural sense impossible. Similarly, with a reference to Hebrews 9:28 and 10:12– 14, he says, that ‘faith teaches me that he gave his body and shed his blood once for all’.184 In this context, faith appears to stand for scripture. This is supported by Bullinger’s arguing earlier that one needs a word of faith, if one is to believe that we have flesh and blood in the eucharist. He quotes Romans 10:17 that faith comes from hearing and hearing from the word of God and then asks for a word 179 HBTS 2.149.5–13. Bullinger’s work on baptism on 1525 is shaped by this understanding of the covenant. This becomes fundamental in his theology and in his interpretation of the bible. It corresponds in significance with Luther’s use of law and gospel in his interpretation of the bible. 180 HBTS 2. 149.22–24. 181 HBTS 2. 154. 20–155.15. An example of interpreting scripture by scripture is interpreting rock in Matthew 16:18 in the light of ‘the rock was Christ’ in 1 Corinthians 10:4. 182 HBTS 2. 250.10–11, 152.13–17, 153. 5–10,16–20. 183 HBTS 2.89.24–28. 184 HBTS 2. 57.24–58.20.

72

Chapter 2: The Bible

that commands him to believe that we have flesh and blood in the eucharist. He maintains that Christ did not say ‘believe that that is my body’, but he commanded us to eat bread and remember him.185 Later the term faith is used, as by Zwingli, for the creed, with its article about Christ’s sitting at the right hand of the Father.186 Bullinger makes use of various figures of speech, although without discussing their role in interpretation. As with Zwingli, the context for the use of figures, such as metonymy and catachresis, is often sacramental, although synecdoche is used in a christological context.187 Bullinger also refers to the question of allegory and the natural sense.188 He allows allegorical interpretation, although he is very critical of its misuse by Clement and Origen.189 In his interpretation, Bullinger is clearly dependent on the fathers and on Erasmus, Luther, Melanchthon, Oecolampadius, and Zwingli; yet from his earliest writings he can express his dissent from them and offer a different interpretation.190 His agreement with the fathers is for him much more important than his disagreement, as it supports the orthodoxy of his position. Thus, in rejecting bodily eating in the eucharist, he maintains that the best of the fathers are on his side.191 He acknowledges that he sometimes offers an interpretation which is different from that of the fathers,192 and that he also differs from the other reformers as well as Erasmus. He shows both hesitation and firmness in announcing where and how he differs from them, for example, in Romans.193 Hausammann discusses Bullinger’s use of the fathers in Romans (1525).194 She argues that some of his references to them come from others and that the fathers are generally not significant for his interpretation. This may reflect the fact that the rhetorical method is intended to make one independent of commentators. It 185 HBTS 2.51.18–52.5. 186 HBTS 2. 104. 25–105.1, 113.24–114.2. He has earlier referred to sitting at the right hand of the Father, though without mentioning the creed (54.18–19 and HBBW 1.106.23–28). See Staedtke (Theologie 246), for references to two unpublished works and the probable influence of Karlstadt and Zwingli on Bullinger. 187 HBTS 2. 96.18–20, 112.20, 124.28, 174.19–22. See also his letter in HBBW 1.108.1–3 188 HBTS 1.249.8–10. 189 HBTS 1.59.13–15. 190 Opitz (Dekaden 54, 120–25) notes that Bullinger shows independence in his use of Melanchthon’s Common Places. Whereas Melanchthon’s emphasis is on law, sin, and grace, Bullinger’ s range for Romans (HBTS 1. 25.31–26.3) is much larger, influenced in part by Augustine and Erasmus. 191 HBTS 1. 52.26–53.2,102.24–103.4. 192 HBTS 1. 59.7–10. 193 HBTS 1.23.32–24.12,48.29–31,73.17–20, and HBTS 2.99.1–3. 194 See Hausammann, Römerbriefauslegung, 59–60, 63–80, In his diary Bullinger refers to having read the commentaries of Origen, Ambrosiaster, and Theophylact. See Egli, Diarium, 10:8–11.

Interpretation in Other Early Works

73

is notable that where the references to Origen are theologically important he is critical of him. There is also one verse (Romans 1:17) where, although Bullinger thinks his own exposition is original, he may be unwittingly dependent on Ambrosiaster. Bullinger presupposes the necessity of languages in interpreting scripture. Indeed, he challenges his opponents’ lack of languages, which affects their understanding of scripture and the fathers.195 (Yet, alongside this, there is from the beginning a strong sense of the bible as being for ordinary people. In support of this he cites 1 Corinthians 14 with its reference to prophecy and to judgment belonging to the church.) Bullinger’s use of rhetoric in interpretation also implies education and knowledge of languages. It features prominently in his commentary on Romans.196 In her study, Susi Hausammann analyses Bullinger’s commentary in detail, showing his difference from humanist scholars, such as Erasmus,197 and his dependence on Luther and Melanchthon, and especially on Melanchthon in his use of rhetoric. Rhetoric is evident in his seeing the letter as a whole, expounding the parts in the light of the whole rather than following the humanist way of a verse by verse exegesis. On occasion he is even more thorough than Melanchthon in his use of rhetoric. Thus, he interpreted Romans 2:14 in the light of the scope (scopus) and saw that the cause of Paul’s writing the letter lay in the error of false prophets (Romans 16: 17–20).198 Hausammann shows the fundamental role of the scope in her summary of the way Bullinger structures Romans.199 Rhetoric for Bullinger is not a philosophy, but an instrument which enables people to interpret scripture by scripture, given a knowledge of languages and the use of principles of interpretation, such as comparing other passages of scripture and attending to the context and the historical situation The rhetorical method 195 HBTS 2.56. 7–14,157.11–17,166.7–9. 196 HBTS 1. 35.1–9. 197 She notes the elements common to Bullinger and humanist scholars, such as the rejection of the schoolmen in favour of the fathers, the use of grammar, dialectic, rhetoric, and pagan antiquity, the abandoning of the fourfold sense of Scripture, though with a regard for the mystical sense. However, she regards the differences as more important, such as Bullinger’s use of the rhetorical method not for its own sake, but to make the author’s thought clear, the emphasis on theological explanation rather than the linguistic and historical understanding of the text, a focus on the literal meaning, and the use in exposition of the context and the comparison of passages of scripture. Römerbriefauslegung, 53, 183–185. 198 See Hausammann, Römerbriefauslegung, 179, 212–215, 244, 267–268. She examines rhetoric in Bullinger’s Romans in Römerbriefauslegung (145–186) with particular reference to The Prophet. It is the instrument used by the prophet whose task is to teach, exhort, and console. See the discussion under Instruction for Study. 199 See Hausammann (Römerbriefauslegung 181–182): ‘Zuerst wird der scopus des Briefes, der status causae sive quaestio, das Thema, die erste propositio, festgestellt. Dann beginnt die eigentliche Auslegunng des Briefes…’.

74

Chapter 2: The Bible

frees the interpreter from needing the opinions of the fathers and the commentaries of scholars It enables him to discover what the apostle wants to say and what is important. Although these early works of Bullinger do not engage systematically with the interpretation of scripture, they show many of the elements which he will later develop. Fundamental is the interpretation of scripture by scripture. This is expressed in various ways – especially in the relation of the Old Testament and the New Testament and the role of the Spirit as author and interpreter. Bullinger regards the New Testament as a commentary on or interpretation of the Old Testament and the Old Testament as necessary to understand the New, with an emphasis on the role of the covenant, the comparison of passages of scripture and the interpretation of obscure passages by clear passages and of a few passages by many. (He can speak of the sufficiency of the Old Testament.) His focus on the role of the Holy Spirit as the author and interpreter of scripture leads to an emphasis on the consistency of scripture, prayer for the Holy Spirit, and – with the gift of the Spirit – the role of the church and of ordinary Christians. Bullinger stresses the natural meaning of scripture, unless faith requires a different understanding, a qualification which develops into the role of faith. He allows an allegorical interpretation of the bible, but subject to clear conditions. Bullinger’s humanist education is evident in the concern for the biblical languages, his use of figures of speech, and his use of rhetoric. The Spirit’s role as author is implicit in the biblical texts about inspiration. Inspiration which is not discussed or expounded does not override the human author nor preclude differences between authors and books of the bible and the different words used.

Instruction for Study Bullinger discusses the interpretation of the bible more comprehensively in Instructions for Study in 1527–1528.200 Stotz speaks of it as a work for educated Christians rather than ministers, although Werner Steiner, for whom it was written, was a minister. It draws on Bullinger’s earlier, but still unpublished, work The Prophet (1525), a work intended for ministers. Although Bullinger had had a traditional scholastic education at the University of Cologne, he had also had 200 The text and commentary are in Peter Stotz (ed.), Heinrich Bullinger: Studiorum ratio – Studienanleitung (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1987) 1. Text and Translation, 2. Commentary – abbreviated as HBSR. (The English title is abbreviated as Study) Stotz offers a detailed analysis of the text and of the sources used by Bullinger, as well as giving a comparison with his unpublished The Prophet (1525). In volume one, the reference is to the chapter and line, in volume two to the page.

Instruction for Study

75

humanist teachers, who attracted him to the classical authors. Steiner, by contrast, had studied at the University of Paris, which was hostile to humanism. This lack of a humanist education may account for the first fourteen chapters. With their focus on secular disciplines, they would help someone like Steiner, who had had only a scholastic education, to the right way of studying the bible.201 The first fourteen chapters cover the full range of secular disciplines, such as philosophy, poetry, history, medicine, and mathematics. In common with many humanists, Bullinger defends the use of pagan writings, when they teach what is honourable, by citing both the bible and the fathers.202 Thus, Moses listened to the advice of Jethro, a pagan, and Paul quoted philosophers and poets. The testimony of the bible leads Bullinger to ask, ‘Why is what is permitted to Christ, Moses, and Paul, not permitted to us?’ Bullinger also draws on a range of the fathers in support, especially Basil, Clement, and Origen.203 They used and indeed commended the study of philosophy and other disciplines. Bullinger insists that he does not regard the writings of pagans as holier than the sacred writings; they are, however, necessary for the proper study of the bible and theology, and therefore must precede them.204 The study of rhetoric is, moreover, particularly important for Bullinger in understanding scripture. Bullinger concludes the chapters on secular disciplines with a chapter on their contribution to the interpretation of scripture. It begins by stating that ‘these studies contribute greatly to interpreting scripture’. Bullinger points to the Roman senate and to men such as Cicero and Cato to demonstrate first that such studies make men wise. They also, moreover, shape people’s character, forming in them a love of good and a hatred of evil. This equips them with what is needed for teaching, warning, and exhorting. These disciplines are, according to Bullinger, rightly known as ‘human and good letters (humanae et bonae litterae)’ as ‘they make persons of us’ and persons of good character.205 Bullinger builds on this, as he turns to the interpretation of scripture. This task is not a matter simply for the mind, but more importantly a matter for the whole person. Bullinger expresses this by reference to prayer and to character. Like 201 HBSR 2.24–26. 202 In his commentary on Acts (1533), for example, there are frequent references to secular studies and to the fathers’ supporting the use of pagan writers (e. g. 81r 5–21). In expounding Acts 27, Bullinger refers to the necessity for a knowledge of the liberal arts, if one wishes to read the bible with judgment and benefit (313r 8–12). 203 HBSR 1. 4.7–10,21–78. 204 The whole of chapter 4 is relevant, but especially HBSR 1. 4.6–10, 21–23, 74–78. ‘Sunt ergo bonae litterae imprimis studendae et amplexandae ab eo, qui velit aliquid praestare in divinis et humanis…. Certe cum ego viderem sacra egre posse sine liberalibus scientiis exacte intellegi, prophana sacris hic praeposui….’ (4.74–77, see also 14.17–20) Compare ‘Conducunt autem haec studia plurimum ad sacras litteras interpretandas….’ (14.2). 205 HBSR 1. 14.1–20.

76

Chapter 2: The Bible

Erasmus, he notes that in the classical tradition an orator had to be a man of good character. How much more, he adds, is this required of someone engaged with the bible, which is inspired by the Holy Spirit and which expresses the will of God. For this reason we need to pray to God to increase our faith and disperse the darkness of error.206 As we read the bible, we should pray repeatedly ‘so that the reading of scripture is not so much reading as a pious prayer to God’. Bullinger has already stated in chapter one that when we rise, at 3 or 4 in the morning, we should pray before beginning our study. The prayer before study makes it clear that the study of the bible is not simply intellectual. It concerns the students’ minds, but also their lives. The prayer includes the request: ‘Give me wisdom, understanding, and memory, that I may understand your law, revere you alone, worship you truly, and obtain true knowledge, so that I may redound to your glory and be of service to the state.’207 The role of secular disciplines in the study of the bible is evident in the way Bullinger relates the bible to them. Thus, when considering the canon of scripture, he notes that in secular disciplines you have what is accepted and what is not, so in spiritual matters you have some books which do not have as much authority as the rest.208 In a series of chapters on the Old Testament, Bullinger draws comparisons between biblical books and their secular equivalents.209 Thus, he argues that the Mosaic law is to be read as one reads the moral teaching of pagan philosophy. Alongside this, he sees the historical books as history, the psalms as poems, Proverbs as wisdom literature, and Job as a philosophical disputation. This enables him to use with them methods of interpretation appropriate to their secular equivalent.210 The use of rhetorical methods of interpretation means that Bullinger can interpret scripture from scripture and therefore reject the need for the fathers or others in its interpretation. Bullinger is

206 In his commentaries Bullinger frequently notes that the problem is in us rather than in scripture. In the preface to Romans (1533) Bullinger states that what is obscure cannot come from God who is truth and light. All obscurity and difficulty in divine things comes from our indolence or stupidity, our neglect of idioms, figures, and languages, and our not observing the context. (Romans 2.13–25) For Romans, see HBBibl 1 no. 42, Compare Hebrews (1532) 55r21–22 (HBBibl 1 no. 38). 207 HBSR 1. 15.2–26, 1.19–20, 28–30. Stotz (HBSR 2. 155–57) notes similarities with Erasmus in the comparison with pagans and in relating prayer and study, as well as with Melanchthon in the need for conformity of teaching and life. 208 HBSR 1. 16.2–5. 209 For Stotz (HBSR 2.159–160, 246), this leads to a compromising of the distinctiveness of the bible, for example, in the understanding of the canon and of history. A comparison in form or method, however, does not necessarily compromise the distinctive substance of the bible. 210 HBSR 1.22.15–17, 24.1–6, 26.2–5,12–13, 21–23. Bullinger says of Paul’s epistles: ‘ut nisi oratoriam calleas, ipsius epistolas non sis recte intellecturus. Debent ergo apostolorum epistolae exigi ad artificium rhetoricum.’ (HBSR 1 28.7–8).

Instruction for Study

77

dependent on Melanchthon for his use of rhetoric and commends Melanchthon’s work on rhetoric.211 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.212 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.213 The second essential element concerns the scope (scopus) of scripture, to which all the books of the bible relate.214 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).215 It is significant that, in the list of theological terms which Bullinger gives at the end of the book, the covenant comes first, before either God or scripture.216 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. Then Bullinger adds significantly what 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 as well as to believers. The testament is the same in both Old and New Testament.217 211 212 213 214

HBSR 1. 21.114–116. HBSR 1. 19.2–14. HBSR 1. 19.2–81. The word is naturally used in various contexts in the commentaries, Thus in Acts Bullinger states that Jesus is the messiah and saviour is the scope of the apostolic preaching and epistles (231 v 6–9). In Mark love is said to be the scope of scripture and that if people’s understanding does not build up in love they have misunderstood it (32r 29–43). The scope, however, of a particular book may be different. Thus the scope of 1 Peter, for example, is patience (1 Peter 2. 19–21). For Mark (1545) and 1 Peter (1534), see HBBibl I nos. 170 and 52. Backus (‘Neutestamentler’, 121) notes that Bullinger was the first expositor to state publicly that he was not harmonising the gospels. This was not because Bullinger was against harmonies, but because he wanted to see Matthew as a whole and to relate the individual elements to the gospel’s scope. 215 Bullinger uses testamentum, pactum, and foedus in his initial statement and then uses the words indiscriminately, except when referring to the Old and New Testament (HBSR 1. 20.3– 46). Bullinger relates the prophets to the covenant (25. 9–12) 216 HBSR 1. 128. 217 20. 1–47. Stotz comments, ‘Diese negative Erganzung des Bundesgedankens schafft im Grunde erst die Voraussetzung für das, was jetzt, namlich dessen Einsetzung als oberstes

78

Chapter 2: The Bible

The third essential element is more detailed and concerns the context, the circumstances, and the comparison of passages of scripture. For Bullinger, as the scriptures have a common scope, so there are common methods for treating them. First, there is the context. This involves considering what precedes and what follows, but also the individual words themselves and, in particular, analogy, differing meanings and uses of a word, and trope.218 He presents two types of trope – with allegory as an example of one and metaphor, metonymy, and catachresis as examples of the other. Second, the circumstances. These concern people, such as their age, sex, and country, but also matters, such as the cause, place, occasion, time, and means. Here, as with trope, he refers the reader to Erasmus and Quintillian. Third, the comparison of passages of scripture, both those like and those unlike each other. Bullinger regards this as the most reliable and worthy method, but one needing great effort and practice.219 In later chapters Bullinger discusses allegory. In the context of interpreting the Old Testament, Bullinger dedicates a chapter to allegory.220 In it he expresses reserve about the use of allegory. This could be related to the fact that Steiner’s traditional theological study in Paris would have encouraged him in the allegorical interpretation of scripture,221 but there is nothing in the text to show that. Bullinger regards an allegorical interpretation as something only for those who are experienced in the things of God. Those who are beginners should keep to the simplest sense of scripture, until they are equipped through much practice, perfect faith, and acute judgment.222 Bullinger recognizes the use of allegory, which includes typology, in scripture. He rejects the possibility of allegory, in the sense of typology, in the New Testament narratives, however, for they were not written ‘to be types of future things’. ‘Christ is the light and the body itself, with whose coming the shadows

218 219 220

221 222

hermeneutisches Prinzip’ (HBSR 2.200). This understanding of the covenant is related to the punishment of transgressors in the historical books (HBSR 1. 24.4–10). ‘A genuine knowledge of tropes in the scriptures is more necessary than fire and water.…’ (HBSR 1. 21.54–55). Bullinger points Steiner to Erasmus and Quintillian for a study of tropes. He also mentions the need to understand Graecisms and Hebraisms. HBSR 1. 21.1–97. HBSR 1. 23.1–30. His use of allegory reflects Paul’s use of the word in reference to Hagar (Galatians 4:24) (HBSR 1. 23.11–12). Stotz (HBSR 2.230) observes that Bullinger uses the New Testament examples differently from Erasmus. Erasmus uses them as examples of interpretation from which one can learn how to engage in allegorical – typological exegesis. By contrast, Bullinger sees them more as exceptions and advises people to be content with the literal sense. Rummel (225–26) notes the importance of allegory for Erasmus, ‘The Textual and Hermeneutic Work of Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam’, 215–30 in Magne Saebø (ed.) in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. The History of Its Interpretation Vol II From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 2008). HBSR 2.227. HBSR 1.23.27–30.

Instruction for Study

79

disappeared.’ As he puts it earlier, ‘types cease with his coming’.223 For Bullinger, allegory applies only to places which are intended to be ‘shadows and types of other things’, such as Leviticus. He can say of the ceremonial law that ‘all these things are allegorical and, therefore, are to be interpreted allegorically’. Nevertheless, there is no sense, as in Augustine, that almost everything in the Old Testament has a figurative meaning. For Bullinger, the plain simple sense is fundamental. Therefore, even such a passage as 1 Cor.10: 9–11, which is applied to Christ in John 3:14, has a fundamental historical meaning. It teaches that unbelief, murmuring against God, and putting him to the test are evil (1 Cor.10:9– 11). Although Bullinger speaks of many psalms as allegorical,224 he insists that ‘they nevertheless have an historical sense’. He gives the example of Psalm 2, which is understood allegorically of Christ in Acts 4 and historically of David’s becoming king in 2 Samuel 5. He does, however, refer to the Song of Songs as simply allegorical.225 Gerald Hobbs refers to the Upper Rhine School, when pointing to the general coherence in the approach of the reformers of Basel, Strasbourg, and Zurich. Neither he in his discussion of Bucer and Melanchthon, nor Opitz in his examination of Oecolampadius, Zwingli, and Calvin considers Bullinger.226 Bullinger’s kinship with them is clear both in the use of humanist principles of interpretation and of those principles more characteristic of the reformers. Bullinger’s expositions of the Old Testament are all later works, but his earliest works show his concern with the historical sense in the psalms, the importance of the rhetorical method, the need for Hebrew as well as Greek for understanding scripture, and the role of 1 Corinthians 10: 6–11 and 14: 29–32.227 For Bullinger, there are certain conditions for using allegory. It must be in keeping with other places of scripture. It must accord with the faith and teach about God. It must show a coherence between the things and people compared.228 Typically, Bullinger argues from the bible and the fathers. He appeals to the practice of Jesus, Peter, and Paul, and also quotes Augustine’s statement that 223 HBSR 1. 27.73–76 and 21.10–12. 224 Stotz (HBSR 2.248) notes that Bullinger’s considering that only some of the psalms refer to Christ differentiates him from Lefèvre d’Etaples and the early Luther. 225 HBSR 1. 23.7–10, 22–26; 26.20–21, 26–29. 226 Note, however, Hobbs’ reference (484) to Bullinger’s Zurich Bible. See. R. Gerald Hobbs, ‘Pluriformity of Early Scriptural Interpretation’ (452–512) and Peter Opitz, ‘The Exegetical and Hermeneutical Work of John Oecolampadius, Huldrych Zwingli and John Calvin’, in Saebø, Hebrew Bible, 407–451. 227 Rummel (‘Erasmus,’ 221) notes Erasmus’s dismissal of the historical sense of the Psalms. In this he is unlike Bullinger. 228 Satisfying these conditions does not necessarily require an allegorical interpretation. Thus, seeing the Good Samaritan as a figure of Christ is not false, but improper. See Stotz, HBSR 2.256.

80

Chapter 2: The Bible

allegory cannot prove anything which the authority of the New Testament does not confirm. In his earlier discussion of secular disciplines Bullinger shows how important it is in every matter to find the status, in other words, the main point, the substance, the central issue. He now insists that this must not be neglected in the study of scripture. In the writings of the prophets and the epistles there is a central issue or indeed more than one. ‘In them, therefore, we must ask first of all what the author is striving for, what he is teaching, what he is approving, what he is refuting, what are his aim and purpose in writing, and what arguments he uses.’ It is also necessary to understand and make use of rhetoric.229 The word scopus (scope) can also be used as equivalent to status (the main point). In discussing the parables, Bullinger maintains that we must consider the scopus or occasio (cause or occasion) or status.230 We understand a parable by considering why it was told or what it leads to. In the Good Samaritan it is ‘who is my neighbour?’ and ‘which of the three proved neighbour?’ The clue to understanding may come at the end rather than the beginning, as with the parable of the two sons in Matthew 21:28– 32: ‘I tell you truly, the tax collectors and prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you.’231 The bible is studied with all the resources of scholarship, but its study is not at its heart simply a scholarly pursuit. Bullinger encourages the reader to follow his own practice. He should read and expound the bible, indeed write commentaries on and paraphrases of the biblical books – but not for publication. The reading and writing are not an academic exercise. They are done for practical and personal reasons, for the bible contains ‘the words of life’. These ‘pure, heavenly, divine words’ ‘move a Christian’s heart’ and ‘wonderfully change and transform it’.232 Bullinger has said earlier that such study must be accompanied by prayer for more faith, the seeking of God’s glory, and a love of godliness, for scripture is given ‘that we may be instructed for every good work’ (2 Timothy 3:17). If we read the bible in this way, we shall read it with great profit, but if we read it differently it will be for the worse.233

229 HBSR 1. 21.98–116. 230 ‘Quare, ubi occurrerit parabola, curato, ut scopum sive occasionem teneas, aut ut catastropham perquiras. Occasionem seu statum hoc voco, quod parabolae ansam dedit, catastrophen: finem, et cui innititur et quo se vertit parabola.’ (HBSR 1. 27.27–28) See Stotz (HBSR 2.253). In The Prophet, (1532) the testament or covenant is described both as the scope (scopus) and as the main point (status) of the bible (5 v 2–8, 8 v 1–5). By 1532 Bullinger regards law and gospel as less appropriate than testament, noting that testament is the title of scripture as well as the main point (4 1–5, 17–21). For The Prophet, see HBBibl 1 number 33. 231 HBSR 1. 27.26–42. 232 HBSR 1. 29.1–28. 233 HBSR 1. 15.13–26, 35–40.

Instruction for Study

81

For Bullinger, scripture is its own interpreter and we do not need human commentators, even the fathers. Bullinger did, however, make use of the fathers, and, of course, adduced them in support of his interpretation of scripture as well as of the authority of scripture.234 He uses them, however, with some reserve, for human beings unlike scripture can err. We should read the commentators ‘with judgment,’ looking ‘only for the best and most Christian’.235 Among them, we should choose those closest to the scriptures. Augustine and Ambrose (Ambrosiaster) come first among the Latin fathers. Bullinger is, however, critical of Jerome and of almost all the Greek fathers because of the influence on them of Origen. Tertullian and Lactantius are for him pre-eminent among those who did not write biblical commentaries.236 When Bullinger refers to contemporary commentators, he puts Zwingli first among Old Testament commentators. It is notable that he refers to what Zwingli illuminates both in the biblical languages and in the hidden mysteries of scripture. With the New Testament, he cites two works of Erasmus.237 He refers to the Paraphrases, which contains the views of earlier commentators as well as his own, and to the Adnotationes, mentioning the profit to be gained from it by those who can read Greek.238 Bullinger himself frequently draws on Erasmus in his own works, probably including his practice of paraphrasing. Nevertheless, his emphasis on the Old Testament and Hebrew differentiates him from Erasmus.239

234 Backus (‘Neutestamentler’120) remarks that unusually for his times Bullinger expressly mentions his sources. Büsser (‘Calvin’s Model’ 83) notes that Bullinger uses far more quotations than Calvin and that he quotes more extensively and carefully. This is true for direct quotations of biblical paraphrases as much as for quotations from the fathers and from contemporaries. There are also more quotations from classical antiquity and from humanists, such as Erasmus, Budé, and Valla. 235 Bullinger expresses this more positively in a letter to Haller on 1 April 1532 which is essentially a summary of this work: ‘nor do I despise the commentaries of the ancients or more recent commentators, but I use them with moderation and in a particular way’ (HBSR Appendix 1 29–30). In Romans (1533) he indicates his concern to state briefly what Paul means rather the views of others. (113 v 5–14) 236 30.2–17. 237 In discussing commentators, Bullinger states that however godly and erudite a person is, he can err and lead into error (HBSR 1.30.4–5). When quoting Erasmus in his commentaries, Bullinger frequently refers to him as ‘erudite’. 238 HBSR 1. 108.18–23. In the preface to Matthew (aaa 6 v 27–30) he gives priority to these words of Erasmus when mentioning interpreters who have helped. For Matthew, see HBBibl 1 no. 144. 239 Stotz discusses the relation of this work to works of Erasmus (HBSR 2.34). Interestingly, Bullinger commends Greek not for the study of Greek literature but for the study of the bible. Rummel (’Erasmus’ 220) notes relative unimportance of Hebrew and the Old Testament for Erasmus.

82

Chapter 2: The Bible

Bullinger’s Later Works As we move from the earlier years there is some development in Bullinger’s rules of interpretation, for example, in his use of the rule of love.240 This occurs in his commentaries in the 1530s and is present in First Helvetic Confession in 1536.241 Its second article on the interpretation of scripture is brief. It states quite simply that scripture ‘is to be interpreted in no other way than from itself and explained by the rule of faith and love’. In the early Bullinger there is no emphasis on the rule of love, and the rule of faith is not as fully developed as in his later writings. In the next article Bullinger accepts the interpretation of the fathers where they follow this rule. Interestingly in the fifth article on the scope of scripture the words scopus and status are used as equivalents. The scopus (scope) or status (main paint) is that ‘God wills good (or: is gracious towards and wills good) for the human race and has revealed this goodwill in Christ, his Son. It comes to us and is received by faith alone and is expressed by love to our neighbours.’242

The Decades Bullinger considers the interpretation of scripture in the third sermon of the Decades, ‘Concerning the Sense and Right Exposition of the Word of God’.243 In it he responds to both papal and Anabaptist challenges. The one maintained that scripture is obscure, so that it cannot be read with profit, and the other that it is so clear, that it does not need interpretation.244 Bullinger argues, on the one hand, that it is not obscure, and, on the other, that it needs interpretation. Although the 240 See note 22. 241 For the love of neighbour and the glory of God, see HBTS 6.357.22–29. For the rule of love, as well as the rule of faith, the use of similar and dissimilar passages, and circumstances, see Acts (1533) Preface 4 v 16–20. For the rule of love, see The Prophet (1532) 9 r 3–10 r 19. For the text of the Confession, see Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften 1/2 44–68 in Andreas Mühling and Peter Opitz (Gen. Eds.) (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2002- ) (abbreviated as RB). Writing on commentators on Romans, Calvin says of Bullinger that he ‘also received much praise, and that rightly, because he has combined simplicity with learning, and for this he has been highly approved’. See Joseph Haroutunian (ed.), Calvin: Commentaries (London: SCM Press, 1958) 74–75. 242 RB 1/2 44. 11–18, 45. 3–9, 57. 9–14, 58.1–5; Cochrane 101. 243 See Peter Opitz (ed.), Heinrich Bullinger Werke III Theologische Schriften vol. 3.1 (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2008) 41–49. For the text of The Decades, see HBTS vols. 3.1–2. For an English translation, see The Decades of Henry Bullinger vols. 1–4 translated by H.I. and edited by Thomas Harding (Cambridge, 1849–52) abbreviated as Decades. In the dedicatory letter to the fifth decade he notes Trent’s rejection of all expositions which do not agree with those of the church and which conflict with the view of the fathers (HBTS 3. 38.4–6; Decades 4.543). 244 HBTS 3. 49.12–15; Decades 1.70.

The Decades

83

two challenges are opposed, Bullinger meets both of them as he expounds his principles of interpretation. He begins with the principle that God wants his word to be understood by everyone, as can be seen by the simple language used by the prophets and the apostles, language which ordinary people could understand. Bullinger allows that there are some difficulties in scripture, but they can be overcome by ‘study, diligence, faith, and the skill of interpreters’. Following Peter (2 Peter 3:16) and Paul (2 Corinthians 4:3–4), he asserts that failure to understand is the responsibility of the ungodly not that of God’s word. God’s word, according to Psalm 119:105, is light not darkness. Bullinger supports this also by a pragmatic appeal to the fact that all people agree that controversies must be settled by scripture. Scripture must, therefore, be clear, as, when things are unclear and uncertain, we appeal to what is more clear and certain.245 The clarity of scripture does not mean that it does not need exposition. Bullinger offers a range of biblical examples to show Anabaptists that the prophets and apostles and indeed Christ himself expounded God’s word. Thus, Moses expounded the law, which he had given the people, as well as leaving Deuteronomy and other books as a commentary on it. Similarly, Nehemiah states that the Levites did not only read the law but also explained its meaning to the people (Nehemiah 8:2–8). Likewise, Christ expounded what he read in Nazareth and also expounded the scriptures on the Emmaus road (Luke 4: 16–21, Acts 8:30–38). The same is true of Peter and Philip (Acts 2: 25–31, 8:30–38) and Paul in his epistles.246 For Bullinger, those who oppose the exposition of scripture and its application to particular situations simply want to break God’s law without being punished.247 A good interpreter, as is clear in Instruction for Study, needs the biblical languages and the various disciplines embraced in humanist study.248 Some things in scripture do not need interpretation. Those which need interpretation must be interpreted in accordance with the mind and meaning of God who revealed the scriptures, and not in accordance with our own ideas (2 Peter 1:20– 21). This means that ‘the true sense of God’s word must be taken from the

245 246 247 248

HBTS 3. 49.25–50.23; Decades 1.71–72. HBTS 3. 50.23–51.19; Decades 1.72–74. HBTS 3. 51.19–31; Decades 1.74. He appeals to Hebrew and Greek texts against the Vulgate (HBTS 3. 737.7–12; Decades 4.541– 542). Bullinger’s critical use of languages is evident where he recognizes the difference between the Septuagint, which has Jacob in Isaiah 42:1, and the Hebrew text, which does not, and between versions of texts in the Old and New Testaments. See Isaiah 203 r 17–43 (HBBibl I no. 558).

84

Chapter 2: The Bible

scriptures themselves and not be forced on the scriptures from our own judgment’.249 Bullinger offers five rules for interpretation, expounding at length the rules of faith and love. He derives the rule of faith from Romans 12:6, supported by 2 Corinthians 4:13. Bullinger interprets the rule of faith in terms of ‘the received articles of the faith contained in the Apostles’ Creed and the other ancient creeds’. He gives four examples. As the creed allows no inequality between the Father and the Son, then Christ’s statement that ‘the Father is greater than I’ must mean something different from what it appears to mean. The same applies to three other statements: ‘It is impossible to restore again to repentance….’ (Hebrews 6:4–6), ‘This is my body’ (Matthew 26:26), ‘Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God’ (1 Corinthians 15:50). The rule of faith requires that they must mean something different from what they appear to mean.250 The second rule, that of love, is rooted in the love of God and love of one’s neighbour, understood as a summary of the law and the prophets (Matthew 22:37–40). Bullinger quotes Augustine’s saying that anyone interpreting scripture in a way which does not build up the love of God and neighbour does not as yet understand scripture. Bullinger is content with one example: Christ’s command, ‘Do not resist evil’. He argues that this could not apply to the magistrates, for love of our neighbours requires the defence of the widow, the fatherless, and the poor, otherwise evil would triumph.251 Bullinger’s third rule groups several elements such as the time, place, context, and the person involved. His fourth rule is the collation of passages which are like or unlike each other, with the exposition of obscure passages by clear ones and of a few passages by a greater number of passages. Bullinger supports this rule biblically and patristically. He quotes Peter’s references to a lamp shining in a dark place until the day dawns (2 Peter 1:19) and Tertullian’s writing against Praxeas about heretics who emphasize a few passages against the wider testimony of scripture.252 He maintains in a later sermon that it is not enough to boast of the word of God or scripture, unless at the same time we embrace, retain, and defend the true sense and what agrees with the articles of faith. He notes that the Arians did not reject the word of God, but defended their errors from scripture. They denied that Christ is one in being with the Father; yet the sense of scripture and the creed affirms this to be among the main points of the Christian faith.253 Bullinger’s fifth and ‘most efficacious rule for expounding the word of God’ is a heart, not given to pride or heresy, a heart which loves God and his glory and 249 250 251 252 253

HBTS 3. 52. 5–19; Decades 1.175. HBTS 3. 52.21–53.8; Decades 1.76. HBTS 3. 53.8–54.2; Decades 1.76–77. HBTS 3. 54.2–15; Decades 1.77–79. HBTS 3. 750. 17–29; Decades 4.21.

The Evangelical Churches

85

which prays continually to the Holy Spirit, through whom scripture was revealed and inspired. It is a prayer that the Spirit will enable us to expound scripture to the glory of God and to the safeguarding of the faithful, our aim being to plant virtue and uproot vice. Bullinger particularly warns against allowing human wisdom to contradict the Spirit. Nevertheless, he allows that some interpretations will not be perfect. More perfect interpretations are to be welcomed, but less perfect ones are not to be condemned. Thanks to these rules for interpretation, Bullinger holds that no one needs to despair of obtaining a true understanding of the scriptures because of a few difficulties.254

The Evangelical Churches In The Evangelical Churches (1552)255 Bullinger defends the orthodoxy of the churches which have been reformed. He does this, following the example of Paul, on the basis of scripture.256 This leads him characteristically to state first that the evangelical churches, unlike the papal church, receive the books of the Old and New Testament. These books have authority of themselves. They contain everything necessary for Christian faith and life and are authoritative for them. After this statement on the bible’s authority, Bullinger discusses its interpretation, with a particular emphasis on the rule of faith.257 He begins his exposition by quoting 2 Peter 1:20–21 to argue that as prophecy comes from the Spirit and not from us, its interpretation must come from the Spirit and not from us. This is supported by reference to Paul (Romans 12:3,6) and his insistence that we interpret scripture soberly within the boundaries of the faith, according to the measure of our faith. Bullinger repudiates the heretical view that scripture is not understandable and clear and holds that scripture is to be interpreted through the Spirit who gave it.258 Bullinger rejects the interpretations of the fathers, when they are in conflict with scripture and the rule of faith. He challenges the appeal to their learning, holiness, and antiquity by an appeal to the greater learning, holiness, and antiquity of the prophets and apostles.259 The fathers disagree in their interpretation, but they refer to the catholic sense of scripture, which is taken from the analogy of faith. Bullinger notes that the fathers used this catholic understanding 254 HBTS 3. 54. 15–29, 31–32, 55.2–12; Decades 1.79–80. 255 For the text, see HBBibl 1 nos 258 and 259. References are given to the Latin (258) and German (259) editions. 256 Evangelical Churches 9.20–12.2; 1 v2–2v11. 257 Evangelical Churches 12.3–17.14, 85.13–88.4; 2v12–6r 9,45 v11–47r 18. 258 Evangelica1 Churches 7.15–19.4; 6r 10–7r 6. 259 Evangelical Churches 21.7–15; 8r 18- v3.

86

Chapter 2: The Bible

against heretics. Thus, the catholic understanding of the faith interprets what scripture says about God’s creating heaven and earth and rewarding good and punishing evil, of the true God, and not as Marcion does of a cruel God who created evil. Likewise, when scripture describes God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the catholic understanding of the faith refers to God as one substance and three persons. Similarly, when scripture describes Christ as true God and true man, the catholic sense of the church understands Christ to be in two distinct (but not confused) natures in one undivided person. With this catholic understanding, the fathers rejected the errors of such as Sabellius, Arius, Nestorius, and Eutyches. The church of Christ ‘rejected all these and always maintained its own true understanding of scripture’, and ‘the holy fathers and teachers of the church proclaimed and confirmed this understanding with holy scripture’. Bullinger claims that the evangelical church has preserved the catholic understanding of the faith and that its ministers are bound with an oath ‘to follow the canon and rule of faith’ and to present ‘nothing alien to scripture and the true catholic understanding of the faith’.260 Bullinger then expounds the catholic understanding of the church, beginning with God’s promise in Genesis 3 and the covenant made with Adam, renewed with Noah and Abraham, and fulfilled in Christ.261 In the conclusion Bullinger affirms the Apostles’ Creed as embracing the whole mystery of the faith and the apostolic traditions, where they do not conflict with the gospels and the epistles. They are immediately presented as proclaiming the grace and mercy of God in Christ and the justification of believers through faith and not through works or merit.262

The Christian Religion In The Christian Religion (1556)263 Bullinger maintains that all people should read or hear the bible in order to learn about salvation. (Withholding the bible from them is worse than withholding bread.) This leads him to lay particular emphasis on the bible as understandable and capable of being read by ordinary people. Typically, Bullinger argues for this biblically and patristically. Thus, God spoke understandably at Sinai, and the prophets, Christ, and the apostles preached in the language of the people. (Indeed, the apostles in Acts could preach to all peoples in their own language.) Bullinger can even say that there is no book in the world which is simpler or more understandable than the 260 261 262 263

Evangelical Churches 22.7–25.6; 26.3–10; 8v 23–10 v7; 11r 7–16. Evangelical Churches 26.24–29.8; 11 v11–13 r4. Evangelical Churches 87.9–88.4; 46 v15–47 r18. For the text, see HBBibl 1 number 283.

The Christian Religion

87

bible. All this shows ‘that God wishes his book to be read, understood, and learned from’. To reinforce his case Bullinger goes to both the Old Testament and the New. From the Old Testament he notes that from the beginning God gave his law to the rulers as well as to the priests. The law was also read to the people who were to teach their children from it. From the New Testament Bullinger quotes two passages from Acts, as he has done in other works. They describe the Ethiopian eunuch reading from Isaiah and the people in Beroea becoming believers after they had read the bible and found that it affirmed what Paul had preached to them.264 From the fathers Bullinger cites Chrysostom, exhorting people both to listen to the preaching in church and to read the bible at home. Bullinger contrasts Chrysostom’s view, that what is lacking in people comes from not reading the bible, with the view of Roman bishops that all error that comes from reading it. Augustine is another father who exhorted his congregations to read the bible.265 To the challenge that there are many difficult and obscure passages, a view supported by Peter, Bullinger replies by citing the psalms (19:7–8 and 119:105) and Peter himself in 2 Peter 1:19. Bullinger interprets this verse as saying that the light of God’s word, the day of the gospel, and the morning star of the Spirit of Christ drive away ‘the darkness of the sins and errors in us, so that the scripture becomes clear and bright’. Bullinger allows that there are, as Peter says, difficult places in Paul and elsewhere. But there are throughout scripture far more clear passages, so that there is no lack even for simple people. Moreover, if there are passages which they cannot understand, that will not endanger their salvation. In a typically homely illustration Bullinger observes that the presence of some difficult words in a letter or book does not prevent our understanding the rest of it or the main point of it, if what comes before and after is clear. There are, moreover, ministers who can help people with difficulties.266 Bullinger distinguishes between the words and the meaning in discussing the many translations of the bible.267 The differences between languages, as between Hebrew and Greek, do not mean that a translation is a falsification of the bible. 264 265 266 267

The Christian Religion 14v18–15v17. The Christian Religion 15v18–16r19. The Christian Religion 16r20–17r13. Bullinger continues to distinguish between what is signified in scripture and what is explicit in it, in particular in response to the papal assertion that some things necessary to salvation are not in scripture, but are in the unwritten tradition. Thus, we use the words trinity and person which are not found literally and verbatim in scripture; yet what they signify is both abundantly and clearly handed down in scripture. This is not true for words such as the mass, purgatory, indulgence, and the primacy of the pope. They are not found verbatim in scripture, and, moreover, what they signify is not found in scripture, but rather the contrary of what they signify. See The Grace of God 31 v 27–32 r 17. For The Grace of God, see HBBibl 1 no. 276.

88

Chapter 2: The Bible

Bullinger cites in support the use Jerome makes of several translations and Augustine’s stating that they help to a better understanding of scripture.268

Sermons on the Apocalypse In Apocalypse (1557),269 Bullinger’s sermons on the Book of Revelation, there is a double reference to the book’s obscurity. First, there is the Roman insistence that, like the rest of scripture, it is obscure and needs the interpretation of the church. Second, there is the view that this book in particular is obscure. The first is presented in Bullinger’s sermon on Revelation 13:11, with its reference to the second beast and to the dragon. The second beast is the papacy and the dragon is the devil. Bullinger interprets the statement that the beast (the papacy) spoke like a dragon (the devil) in terms of Genesis 3: 4–5, where ‘he put in doubt the certainty and truth of the word of God’. ‘In the same way, anti-Christ in his papacy put the truth of scripture in doubt. By all means he defamed it as mutilated, obscure, and doubtful.’ Then he introduced traditions and decrees to make up for what scripture lacked, although they included things contrary to God’s word. (Bullinger gives examples of where the pope’s commands are in direct conflict with the ten commandments.) This leads Bullinger to say that ‘the chief principle and foundation of the papacy is that the scriptures are imperfect and obscure and therefore need traditions’.270 In the first sermon Bullinger considers the view that Revelation is obscure and therefore that it does not bear fruit when it is read in church. Bullinger regards the fact that the book is apostolic and that it was expounded by the fathers of the church as counter – arguments. In particular, however, he maintains that, although at first sight it is obscure, it is opened up to us by God as we pray.271 (Bullinger can say that it is simple and clear to the faithful who read it with attention and godliness.272) This reflects what Bullinger has said in the preface. There he acknowledges the help that he has received from other expositors, both ancient and modern, but insists that he has been most helped by God whose aid he had sought.273 Bullinger allows that there is difficulty in understanding parts of the bible, as with the Book of Daniel, until the events prophesied have taken place.

268 The Grace of God 11 r 30-v 30. 269 For the text, abbreviated as Apocalypse, see HBBibl I no. 327, and for an English translation. abbreviated as ET, see number 355. 270 Apocalypse 174.17–27; ET 390. 271 Apocalypse 4.37–51; ET 8–9. 272 Apocalypse Preface B 1.18–19; ET Preface B iii v. 273 Apocalypse Preface B 1 39–42; ET Preface B iii v.

The Second Helvetic Confession

89

Similarly, Isaiah seemed to have written a history when what was prophesied by him had taken place.274 In the same sermon Bullinger also confronts the criticism that Revelation is full of visions, types, and figures. He replies that on that basis much of Daniel would be rejected, but in fact Christ commends Daniel. Moreover, Christ himself did much of his teaching in parables, and ‘this type of speaking does not obscure matters, but illuminates them’. It appeals to the eye and not just the ear and reenforces things in the memory. In this context, Bullinger re-iterates his principles of interpretation: the comparison of passages of scripture , the rule of faith and love, the investigation of the circumstances, of what precedes and what follows, the citing of similar and dissimilar things, together with ‘the experience of things and the faith of histories’. Bullinger maintains that this is the method of all interpreters.275

The Second Helvetic Confession Bullinger presents The Second Helvetic Confession (1566)276 as rooted in scripture but also as expressing the faith of the ancient church. The confession is described as being in unity with the true and ancient church of Christ and, as a token of that, it is prefaced by the Creed of Damasus. Bullinger confirms this intention by the way he identifies his exposition of the faith with the creeds and fathers of the early church. This reflects Bullinger’s view that the creeds express the faith of the bible, so that he can speak of the Apostles Creed as ‘a compendium’ of scripture277 and say that what scripture states about the incarnation is ‘comprehended in the creeds and decrees of the first four most excellent synods…together with the creed of blessed Athanasius and all similar creeds’.278 The Second Helvetic Confession begins characteristically with the authority of scripture in article 1 and the interpretation of scripture in article 2. This reflects the structure of The First Helvetic Confession. It refers to the inspiration of scripture in article 1, to interpreting scripture out of itself and according to the rule of faith and love in article 2, to the interpretation of the fathers in article 3, and to human teaching in article 4.279 Bullinger begins by implication with the inspiration of scripture by reference to 2 Peter 1:20. The text states that prophecy did not come from the prophet’s own interpretation, but according to verse 21 274 275 276 277 278 279

Apocalypse Preface B 1.23–31; ET Preface B iii v. Apocalypse 1.38–41, 45–2.4, 2.10–13; ET 2–3. For the text, see RB 2/2 268–345 and Cochrane 224.301. RB 2/2 316.6–8; Cochrane 268. RB 2/2 297. 1–7; Cochrane 247. RB 1/2 44. 5–45.2, 57. 4–19; Cochrane 100–101.

90

Chapter 2: The Bible

prophets ‘moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God’. In the light of this, Bullinger asserts that scripture must be interpreted from scripture and rejects various human interpretations, including the interpretation of the Roman Church.280 His principles of interpretation are expressed succinctly in five lines. They concern the nature of the biblical languages, the historical context of the writing, the use of similar and dissimilar passages and of many and clearer passages, the rule of faith and love, the glory of God, the salvation of human beings.281 These are not expounded, although later there are examples of the rule of faith. In the following chapter as he concludes his discussion of the trinity, he states, ‘In short, we receive the Apostles Creed, because it delivers to us the true faith’282 He then condemns Jews and Muslims and the major trinitarian heretics and heresies of the early church. Later, when he compares James with Paul on faith he implicitly uses the principle of following many and clearer passages. After expounding several passages of Paul on justification by faith, Bullinger states that if James on faith and works contradicted Paul he would have to be rejected.283 In The Grace of God (1554) Bullinger combines this argument with the rule of faith. He argues against those who appeal to one place in James, ascribing justification to works, against ascribing it to faith. He cites Tertullian in support. Tertullian forbids setting one or two passages against many clear testimonies, maintaining that that is what heretics do, and forbids an interpretation which is contrary to the rule of faith. According to the rule of faith, believers are saved by the grace of God.284

Conclusion Bullinger’s fundamental conviction in interpreting scripture was that scripture interprets scripture. He argued this against those who appealed to the interpretation of the fathers or the church because of difficulty and obscurity in the bible. This principle of interpretation cohered with Augustine’s position in Christian Doctrine and was not used only in debate with papal opponents. The other principles or methods which Bullinger used were all, in effect, part of the interpretation of scripture by scripture. Thus, the study of languages is a presupposition for a true understanding of the bible. The use of rhetoric helps the interpreter to grasp the author’s point and meaning and so dispense with the 280 RB 2/2 275.11–17; Cochrane 226. 281 RB 2/2 275. 17–21; Cochrane 226.In the preface to The Grace of God Bullinger points to four criteria: faith, love, the context, and the collation of passages (Aa 2v 28–31). 282 RB 2/2 278.1–2; Cochrane 229. 283 RB 2/2 306.27–33; Cochrane 257. 284 Grace of God 67r 20–35.

Conclusion

91

necessity for commentators. At many points the covenant is seen as the key to the bible, both the main point and the scope. There is a unity in scripture, with the New Testament understood as a commentary on the Old. (He can speak of the sufficiency of the Old Testament, and the completeness of the Book of Genesis.) The understanding of figures of speech, the comparison of like and unlike passages, the study of context and circumstance, the interpreting of a few passages by many passages and of obscure passages by clear ones are all part of letting scripture interpret scripture. The rule of faith and the rule of love are seen (with Augustine and others) as derived directly from scripture itself, as is the principle that the Spirit who is the author of scripture is its best interpreter. The necessity for prayer to the Spirt before and during the reading of the bible is a recognition of the role of the Spirit as author and interpreter of scripture. The fathers played an important part in Bullinger’s interpretation of scripture. It began with their role in leading him, when at most seventeen, to the study of scripture. He studied the bible with their commentaries and they contributed to his understanding of it. He frequently quoted them in support of his interpretations, in part to show that what he said was not new but was affirmed in the early church, and in part to persuade those for whom the views of the fathers were decisive. At the same time he was insistent that they were not, as his opponents claimed, necessary for the interpretation of scripture. He quoted the fathers, especially Augustine, to show both their disagreement in their interpretation of scripture and their appeal to scripture in matters of dispute, an appeal which implied the clarity of scripture. This contradicted the view of his opponents who argued for the necessity of the fathers to interpret scripture, because of the obscurity of scripture. While citing the fathers in his support, Bullinger did on occasion disagree with them and always indicated that they were subject to scripture. Even at the beginning, when he drew on other writers for some of his quotations from the fathers, Bullinger was independent in his study and use of the fathers. Bullinger was, of course, influenced by others or at least drew on them, especially Augustine, Luther Melanchthon, and Erasmus, but he also shows independence of them. His debt to Luther is evident in his earliest works. But, whereas Luther stressed law and gospel in the interpretation of scripture, Bullinger stressed the covenant, and this was accompanied by a different sense of the Old Testament and a different attitude to such a book as the Letter of James. Bullinger was influenced by Melanchthon’s Common Places and his work on rhetoric, but unlike Melanchthon he did not limit his understanding of Romans to such matters as sin and grace. Bullinger drew heavily on Erasmus’ Paraphrases and Annotations, but he disagreed strongly with him on the freedom of the will and on occasion, moreover, he dissented explicitly in his interpretation of the bible from Luther, Melanchthon, Erasmus, and indeed Zwingli, as well as in his

92

Chapter 2: The Bible

evaluation of the Book of Revelation. Bullinger was profoundly influenced by Augustine’s Christian Doctrine, but did also disagree with his interpretations.

Chapter 3: God

There are different ways in which Bullinger’s theology can be presented. Dowey, for example, gives a detailed outline. In it he begins with three convictions which underlie Bullinger’s theology, and then, after a chapter on the Word of God, considers Christ and the gospel.1 This has a certain logic, but in most of his more comprehensive works, Bullinger moves from the subject of the word of God to the doctrine of God.2This order also reflects the way Bullinger expounds the Apostles’ Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, which he does in The Decades, The Christian Religion, and The Catechism.3

1 See Edward A.Dowey Jr., ‘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 (Grand Rapids, Mi: Baker Academic, 2004) 35–65. These convictions are the antiquity of the Christian faith, the one eternal covenant, and catholic orthodoxy. 2 In Bullinger a focus on the doctrine of God is not to be contrasted with a focus on Christ. For Bullinger, God is the triune God. Thus a reference to God and his will in The Decades is immediately explained in terms of his saving purpose for us in Jesus Christ (HBTS 3. 43.17–22; Decades 1.60.7–14). For The Decades, references are made to the critical edition by Peter Opitz, Heinrich Bullinger Werke, Part III, Theologische Schriften Vol. 3 Sermonum Decades quinque de potissimis Christianae religionis capitibus (1552) (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2008) and to the English translation published by the Parker Society: The Decades of Henry Bullinger, Vols. 1 to 4, edited by Thomas Harding (Cambridge: The University Press, 1851) (abbreviated as Decades 1 to 4). For details of Bullinger’s works, see Heinrich Bullinger Werke Part One Bibliographie edited by Joachim Staedtke, 3 vols (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972–2004) abbreviated as HBBibl. 3 In True Confession (1545) Bullinger begins with scripture, when expounding what they believe in Zurich, and then expounds the Apostles’ Creed, beginning with God as one and three. He follows the same pattern when rejecting heresy, beginning with heresies concerning the word of God, followed by those concerning God as one and three. (41v–45r,53r–54r) For True Confession, see HBBibl 1 no. 161. In Evangelical and Papal Teaching (1551) discussion of God and the worship of God follows the opening theses on the bible (a i v – a iv r). For Evangelical and Papal Teaching,see HBBibl 1 no.231. In Firm Foundation (1563) he begins his exposition with Christ as sufficient for salvation and moves from that to expound Christ’s teaching, beginning with what Christ says about God (9v–24v). This order is, however, related to the

94

Chapter 3: God

Bullinger does not always present the doctrine of God in the same way or develop what he says in the same order.4As early as 1527–28, in Instruction for Study, Bullinger gives a list of Common Places which he had put together three years before. Testament comes first, before scripture and tradition. Then, after God as the highest good and as creator, come God’s goodness and providence and his being one and three. The trinity is expounded in terms of the Father and his love for all, the person and work of Christ, and the Holy Spirit. After this comes the true worship of God.5 The brief statement in The First Helvetic Confession (1536) begins with God (described as ‘almighty’ in the Latin version and as ‘one, true, living, and almighty’ in the German version) as one and three. He has created all things through his Son and ‘rules, maintains, and preserves all things justly, truly, and wisely by his providence’.6After articles on man and original sin, it considers both free will and predestination. Perhaps significantly, before the article on God, there is a reference to God’s good will to us in Christ, an element that is central to Bullinger’s understanding of God. In The Decades (1549–1551), Bullinger’s most comprehensive presentation of the Christian faith, the main discussion of God does not come till sermons 33 to 35, although there is a brief discussion in the context of the Apostles’ Creed in sermon 7. In his main exposition Bullinger’s order is the knowledge of God, God as one and three, creation, providence, God’s goodwill, predestination, and the worship of God.7 In The Christian Religion (1556), a shorter presentation of the

4

5 6

7

challenge of disunity and the way Bullinger seeks to defend Reformed teaching. For Firm Foundation, see HBBibl 1 no. 425. Peter Walser, Die Prädestination bei Heinrich Bullinger im Zusammenhang mit seiner Gotteslehre (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1957); Joachim Staedtke, Die Theologie des jungen Bullinger (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1962);‘Die Gotteslehre der Confessio Helvetica Posterior’ in Glauben und Bekennen. Vierhundert Jahre Confessio Helvetica Posterior, Beiträge zu ihrer Geschichte und Theologie, edited by Joachim Staedtke (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1966) 251–257; Ernst Koch, Die Theologie der Confessio Helvetica Posterior (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968); Peter Opitz, Heinrich Bullinger als Theologe: Eine Studie zu den Dekaden (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2004), and Mark Taplin, ‘Bullinger on the Trinity: “Religionis Nostrae Caput et Fundamentum”’ in Architect of Reformation: An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger, 1504– 1575, edited by Bruce Gordon and Emidio Campi (Grand Rapids, Mi: Baker Academic, 2004) pp 67–99. HBSR 1. 128–131. Heinrich Bullinger: Studiorum Ratio – Studienanleitung, edited by Peter Stotz, 2 vols (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1987) abbreviated as HBSR. The critical edition by Ernst Saxer is in E. Busch et al (eds), Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften (Neukirchen – Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2002) Vol: 1.1 1523–1534 (abbreviated RB) 45.11– 14, 58. 7–10. For an English translation, see A.C. Cochrane, Reformed Confessions of the 16th Century (London: SCM Press, 1966) (abbreviated as RC). In Evangelical Churches (1552) there is the usual order of the word of God followed by God as one and three, but then there is a prominent place given to salvation and to God’s mercy and covenant with us, before Bullinger considers the true worship of God and the rejection of images (1r–16r). For Evangelical Churches, see HBBibl 1 no. 258.

Chapter 3: God

95

substance of The Decades, there are, however, differences.8 After the first article on scripture, the second article considers God and his works and the true worship of God. The main subjects are God as one and three, creation, providence, redemption, the covenant, and the worship of God. In The Catechism (1559), the chapter on God follows that on scripture and tradition. It presents at length the true, living, and eternal God as one and three, and then refers to him briefly as creator and sustainer. The following chapter is on God’s covenant, which comes from his grace and goodness, and the true worship of God. The Second Helvetic Confession (1562) broadly follows the pattern of the 1536 confession, although it places providence before creation. Bullinger begins with God as one and three, although, in a brief statement before expounding his being one and three, he refers to God as ‘the highest good’ and as ‘kind, merciful, and just’ (Exodus 34:6) The next two articles deal with idols and images of God, Christ, and the saints, and with adoring, worshipping, and invoking God through Christ as the only mediator.9 After that, Bullinger expounds the providence of God, and only then the creation of all things including man. This is followed by the fall and sin, free will, and God’s predestination and the election of the saints. There are interesting differences between The First Helvetic Confession, also known as The Second Basel Confession, in which Bullinger was the major influence, and The First Basel Confession (1534). The 1534 confession begins with the trinity rather than the unity of God.10 (For Bullinger, the emphasis lies on the unity of God, which he places first.) It relates creation to the Son and providence to the Spirit, whereas the 1536 confession, unlike the 1566 confession, does not relate providence to the Spirit. The earlier confession follows the statement on providence with one on election before the creation of the world, whereas the later one refers to it after the articles on man, sin, and free will, and before that on Christ. Despite the fact that there are differences in order (such as that of creation and providence) and in content (such as the presence or absence of covenant) in Bullinger’s various expositions, certain elements clearly emerge. After the Word of God or scripture, he generally begins with God as one and three, with unity coming first. He emphasizes the goodness of God. This underlies God’s work in 8 After expounding God as one and three, Bullinger comments briefly – among other things – on God as a spirit, almighty, and eternal, as well as gracious, merciful, and a source of all good (26 r 26–27 r 2). For The Christian Religion, see HBBBibl 1 no. 283. 9 In 1536 idols are considered only in passing in article 23 (24) of the 27 (28) articles. For the critical edition of The Second Helvetic Confession, see Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften Vol. 2:2 1562–1569 edited by Mihaly Bucsay, Emidio Campi et al (Neukirchen – Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2009) (abbreviated as RB) 268–345. 10 RB 1/1 577.22–24.

96

Chapter 3: God

creation and redemption. His goodness, like the rest that we know about God, is known through his revelation and through scripture. Bullinger’s exposition is not primarily intellectual but practical. He argues his case on the basis of scripture. He shows its coherence with the fathers and the creed, identifying his opponents’ case with heresies in the early church. His concern with and exposition of the orthodox faith is the basis for the true worship of God, and such worship is a vital element in what he says about God. The most natural order, therefore, in expounding Bullinger’s doctrine of God11 is the knowledge of God, which is implicit where it is not explicit, God as one and three, the goodness of God, creation, providence, predestination, and the true worship of God.

The Origin of Error in the Worship of Saints and Images The Origin of Error in the Worship of Saints and Images12 in 1529 is Bullinger’s earliest sustained consideration of God. It shows that a practical concern about true worship lies behind Bullinger’s discussion. He begins with the contrast between the adoration of the one God and the cult of the saints and of images. This work shows several of the emphases which characterize Bullinger’s doctrine of God, so that it can serve as an introduction to his later works.’ Bullinger begins with a quotation from Athanasius maintaining that we cannot comprehend God. We cannot conceive his power and majesty with our minds or describe them with our words. He supports this from Exodus 3:14, Romans 11:36, and Acts 17: 28. A reference to Josephus leads him to comment on the 11 The sense that God is to be worshipped rather that studied or expounded is expressed at the end of the sermon on the Holy Spirit. ‘Thus far, not without trembling, we have examined what we have learned from scripture about the sacred mystery of the adorable trinity…and here we will stay humbly adoring this unity in trinity and trinity in unity.’ (HBTS 3.677.33– 678.1; Decades 3. 325–326) 12 For the details of The Origin of Error, see HBBibl 1 no. 11. The sense that we are dependent on God and his word for the knowledge of God is present elsewhere in the early Bullinger. See Staedtke (Theologie 84), ‘Dise erckantnusz und glouben Gottes ist von ewigheit har verordnet, dz sy uns soelte eroffnet werden durch Christon und sin heiliges wort.’. In his exposition of Romans 1:21, Bullinger rejects Melanchthon’s view that ‘God is known through the law of nature. He is known through faith alone. Nature does not have faith.’ Bullinger follows the statement that the godless have a knowledge of God with the comment that Paul speaks ‘schlechtlich und hinlessig’. After citing Romans 1:21–22, he writes, ‘So dichtet imm nu der mensch uss siner vernufft ein bsonderen Gott…’ For Bullinger, there is strictly speaking no knowledge of God, no receiving of his revelation, without faith. Knowing that there is a God, but without the response of faith, means that they are without excuse (HBTS 1.54.21–55. 11, 18–56.1). ‘What is the preaching of the gospel other than that God, the only highest unmistakeable good, is in Christ Jesus our Lord?’ See Heinrich Bullinger Werke Part Three Theologische Schriften Vol. 1 edited by Joachim Staedtke et al (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1983) abbreviated as HBTS.

The Origin of Error in the Worship of Saints and Images

97

names of God, through which we can learn about God, in particular Jehovah (relating this to entelechy) and Shaddai (relating this to the Greek, Latin, and German words for God.)13 The 1539 edition develops considerably what Bullinger says about the names of God. The first three chapters emphasize that God is one:14 that there is only one God, that he alone is to be adored, invoked, and worshipped, and that the early church adhered to the one God, invoked and worshipped him alone, not giving regard to saints and images. The title of the book and of its five chapters shows that the emphasis on the one God and the unity of the godhead is as much practical as theological and historical, although the way that Bullinger argues his case is theological and historical. He cites both the Old and New Testaments and the philosophers (Plutarch, Cicero, Plato, and Aristotle)15 in support of his statement that there is one God, and then the fathers (Athanasius, Augustine, Gregory Nazianzus, and Tertullian) to show that belief in three persons in the godhead is consistent with belief in one God.16 There is some emphasis on two other significant elements in Bullinger’s doctrine of God: his goodness and his providence.17 In discussing the words for God, Bullinger notes that the German word for God comes from good.18 This is supported, at least indirectly, by Luke 18:19. Bullinger develops this in the second chapter. It shows ‘the goodness and mercy of God’, so that we may ‘believe in the one God who both can and wills to do good’ and that we may worship and adore him.19This goodness is expressed in particular in the covenant which he made with Abraham. In this we see God as all sufficient, ‘the highest good, the treasure of the world, the inexhaustible source of goodness’. Bullinger expresses amazement that the God who created the world and who lacks nothing nevertheless entered into a covenant with our miserable human

13 Origin of Errors A4 r 7 – A5 r 9. 14 Bullinger does not here elaborate his understanding of the trinity, as that is not the focus of his work. He passes over it in a few lines, regarding it as satisfactorily expounded by Athanasius, Augustine, Tertullian, and Gregory Nazianzus (Origin of Errors A6 v 1–19). When he does elaborate it, as in Hebrews (1532), he gives a large place to the fathers, especially Tertullian and his analogies (10v 3–11r1). For Hebrews, see HBBibl 1 no. 38. 15 Staedtke (Theologie 101 note 4) maintains that the philosophers are Hinweise rather than Beweise. 16 Origin of Errors A 5r–6v. 17 The use of scripture implies that what we know of God comes from his word, as the occasional reference implies (Origin of Errors A 4 r26-v2). 18 ‘bonum ipsum, adeoque bonum tale, quod in se contineat omnia bona’ and ‘fons bonorum inexhaustus et unicus’ (Origin of Errors A 5r4–9, 27). 19 Origin of Errors B 1 v8–10, 2 r4–8.

98

Chapter 3: God

race, because ‘he wills to be our God, wills to do us good, and wills to be the highest good and the (all) sufficient one’.20 There is also an emphasis on God’s providence and related terms, such as foreknowledge, predestination, pre-ordination, and purpose.21 Bullinger gives a range of examples from both Old and New Testament, but significantly begins with Romans 11: 33–36, which speaks of God’s judgments as unsearchable and his ways as inscrutable. As evidence that God created all things, still governs all things, and acts in all things, Bullinger cites Moses as a witness and Psalms 74:16– 17, 89:8,11, 104:27, Isaiah 40, and Job 38–39. He quotes Daniel 2: 20–23 and Leviticus 26 to show that God’s providence also covers the events of this world, such as wars, and plagues, and famine. Indeed, it covers the whole life of every being, for (as, for example, Psalm 139:1–5 shows) nothing in us is unknown to him and there is nothing that happens which he does not foreknow and determine (Psalm 139: 1–6).22 Bullinger quotes Proverbs 10 and 21 as evidence that God does all things through people as instruments.23Further examples from the Old Testament from the story of Balaam in Numbers 23 to the Lord as our shepherd in Psalm 23 and from Matthew 6 in the New Testament lead Bullinger to state that God acts in everything and can be spoken of as the author of good and evil, light and darkness. In support, he refers to a sparrow falling to the ground and the hairs of our head being numbered (Matthew 10: 29–31), ‘I am the Lord and there is no other, forming light and creating darkness, making peace and creating evil’ (Isaiah 45: 6–7), and ‘He gave them up to a base mind’ (Romans 1:28)24 After a reference to the disputation in Romans 9 and Xenophon, Bullinger concludes 20 In 1528 Bullinger dedicated a short work to God as the highest good (see HBBibl 1 no. 768). Staedtke (Theologie 109) points to Augustinian rather than Thomist influence, but notes especially the strongly christological and covenantal character of Bullinger’s use of the term, so that there is no experience of the summum bonum outside God’s revelation. (The philosophers of Greece and Rome searched in vain.) ‘What is the preaching of the gospel other than that God, the only highest unmistakable good, is in Christ Jesus, our Lord?’ (20.20–31, 21.6–9) For summum bonum and deus optimus maximus, see Staedtke (Theologie 108–111) and Walser (Prädestination 60–64), Origin of Errors B 2r9–13,3r15–18,22–24,3v18–4r4. 21 The terms cannot be separated, just as faith, hope, and love cannot be separated Origin of Errors A7 r 17- v 1. Providence is ‘ea vis in deo, qua praenovit omnia, et dum fiunt omnia, per ipsam sunt, fiunt, ac disponuntur, quamadmodum praescita sunt.’ ‘Extendit enim se in omnes creaturas, et in omnes omnium operationes rerum cum visibilium tum invisibilium, ut nihil maneat residui, quod deus non praesciverit et praedestinet, quemadmodum praescivit.’ (A 7 v 6–8, 13–17) 22 Origin of Errors A 6 v23–8v21. 23 The heart of the king is in the hand of God, as a stream of water which he directs where he wishes. Elsewhere, Bullinger rejects the word instrument, but here it is used in a context which makes it clear that God is the subject of the action. 24 Origin of Errors A 7v16–8 r 13. There are references also to Isaiah 6: 9–10, Proverbs 16: 4, and Job 12: 24–25.

The Origin of Error in the Worship of Saints and Images

99

that his biblical testimonies show how great our God is, how great is his power, strength, and majesty. He effects all things. He is the living God, who gives life to all things. He is the being of all things which subsist, ‘for from him, through him, and in him are all things’.25 There is a strong emphasis on the sovereignty of God in The Origin of Error, with an affirmation rather than – as later- an explanation of texts which seem in conflict with God’s goodness and justice. This is in keeping with early references to providence, which oppose it to free will. It may be significant that a work on Providence in late 1524 – before the controversy between Erasmus and Luther – was destroyed.26 It is reasonably assumed that this happened because Bullinger’s understanding of providence had developed or changed. The discussion of God in the first two chapters which are twenty two pages in length leads to his presentation of true and false worship in the last three chapters which are as many as eighty pages in length. Characteristically, Bullinger argues biblically and patristically. In fact, his initial argument is from the early church which adhered to the one God and worshipped God alone, giving no place to saints and images. He cites Ignatius, Polycarp, Augustine, and Lactantius, showing the teaching and practice of the early church, with biblical and theological support, such as Exodus 20: 3, Christ’s word in Matthew 4:10, and the response of Paul and Barnabas in Acts 14: 15. 1 Corinthians 1:13 is quoted to establish the fact that no human being, but only Christ died for the salvation of the world.27 Bullinger’s historical interest emerges in chapter four in his rapid survey of the way thinking and practice changed. He shows how devotion began to be offered to saints and martyrs, with churches dedicated to them, and how the use of images developed, contrary to the teaching of fathers, such as Athanasius, Augustine, and Lactantius.28 In the final chapter Bullinger argues that pagan worship of and superstitious teaching about idols are the same as those about saints among Christians.29 There are various challenges to this role for the saints. They come particularly from Bullinger’s doctrine of God and of God’s providing, and his doctrine of the person and work of Christ. There are testimonies such as ‘mine is the heaven, mine is the earth. Are not all things the work of my hands?’ (Isaiah 66: 1–2) and ‘My glory I will not give to another’ (Isaiah 42:8) and also statements such as that God willed his only begotten Son to be intercessor and mediator, because he is righteous and a priest, pure and separated from sinners (1 John 2:1–2, Hebrews 25 26 27 28 29

Origin of Errors A 8 r 13–27. See HBBW 1 53. Origin of Errors B 7r13-C 1r12, C 3r18–20, 3v1–4, v23. Origin of Errors C 5r1–4, D 2v2–3r1, D 5 r20-v6, D 8v17-E 1r8, E 3 v4–19. Origin of Errors F 2 v26–3r5, 7 v2–5, G 1 v10–2r5, 5v15–19.

100

Chapter 3: God

7:23–28). Unlike Christ, the saints are only human, and far from being saved by their merits they are saved by God’s grace.30In his argument from the providence of God, Bullinger maintains that God does all things, that he is the author of life and death, of wealth and poverty, of sickness and health, and that we owe our whole being to him. Why then, he asks, do we as creatures turn from the creator to creatures? ‘What…does God do, if the saints…do everything?’ ‘Where… is providence?’ Bullinger rejects the idea that God works through the saints as subsidiary instruments, asserting that God is omnipotent and indeed that pagans in their way recognize this.31 In the peroration, Bullinger appeals again to the bible and history. He recalls the kings and prophets in the Old Testament who destroyed statues, sanctuaries, and altars, so that the people might cleave to God alone. He argues that we are permitted to do what they did and should follow their example. On the other hand, there were those who did not obey God’s command, and he killed them and gave their kingdoms to others. If we desire a secure realm and safe homes, we should worship God alone.32

Providence, Predestination, Grace, and Freewill In the introduction to his work on Providence, Predestination, Grace, and Freewill in 1536, Bullinger recognizes the controversy surrounding the subjects he is considering. The reference is probably to the works of Melanchthon, the debate between Erasmus and Luther, the exposition by Zwingli in The Commentary and The Providence of God, and perhaps the views of his colleague Bibliander. His aim is to express the issues simply, moderately, and biblically for those who seek to know the truth and give glory to God, without contention or idle curiosity. At the beginning he focusses attention on causes: those who neglect causes and those who attribute everything to means and seem forgetful of God who acts through them. As elsewhere, he challenges the errors associated with Pelagians whose stress was on free will with the rejection of the grace of God and Manichaeans who made God the author of sin.33 Bullinger expounds providence, which he defines as ‘the general care and administration of all the things which God created by his power’. ‘He governs and maintains them by his power, goodness, and righteousness.’ Bullinger rejects the 30 31 32 33

Origin of Errors E 7 v8–8r9, F 2r24–26. Origin of Errors G 1 r4-v9. Origin of Errors G 6 v 9–7 v25. Historiae 763. 13–764. 12, 765. 6–766. 5. Surprisingly Walser considers this work only briefly and only after The Decades, effectively saying that it contains nothing not in his later works (Walser, Prädestination 161).

Providence, Predestination, Grace, and Freewill

101

contrary view of the Epicureans who deny that God is concerned with what is mortal. ‘God who is highest good, although he is bound by no law, does nothing which is opposed to the laws. However, we do not wish to measure God’s righteousness by our righteousness, because truth and righteousness are in God.’ The providence of God is fair, righteous, and good. ‘Nothing in the world is fashioned without this providence, whether good or evil, whether great or small,’ ‘God is wise, powerful, and righteous.’ Bullinger follows his usual custom of quoting in support a range of biblical testimonies (Psalms 145: 9, 13–16, 146: 5– 10, 147: 3–5, 8–9, 15–16, Isaiah 45: 5–7, and Matthew 10: 29–31, 1 Peter 5:7).34 What God does is related to what God is. For since God is wise, good, fair, and righteous, all his works are ordered in wisdom, goodness, and righteousness. (There is more emphasis than on God’s goodness in 1529, but Bullinger refers also to God’s wisdom and righteousness, and fairness.) Fundamental for Bullinger is that God uses intermediaries and requires our labour. The conviction leads Bullinger, for example, to reject the view that we cannot change things by our prayers or by repentance or disobedience. Typically, he cites a range of Old Testament testimonies, quoting Jeremiah 18: 7–10, and Deuteronomy 11: 13–16 and referring in general to Lot, Leviticus 26, and Deuteronomy 28.35 Bullinger continues with examples which he will use again in his later works. They show the providence of God, but also a providence in which God makes use of means. Whereas in Matthew 10: 17–20 and Luke 12: 11–12 the apostles are told not to be anxious about what they say, if they are taken to court, in 1 Timothy 4 Paul, filled with the Spirit, exhorts bishops to the study of the scriptures. Likewise, Paul is assured that he will testify in Rome, and yet he ‘wisely made use of Roman soldiers against the treacherous conspirators. Likewise, he says to the centurion and the soldiers when the sailors were considering flight,’ “Unless they remain in the boat, you cannot be saved” and yet a short time before the angel of God said, with great confidence. “Fear not, Paul, you must appear before Caesar. And God has given to you all who sail with you.” ‘36 God’s use of means is shown throughout the bible. Bullinger points to the story of Joseph. He told his brothers, ‘Do not be distressed…because it was to save lives that God sent me ahead of you.’ ‘You did not send me here, but God who made me a father to Pharaoh.’ (Genesis 45: 5,8) Bullinger notes the moderation of the saints in this, in attributing things wholly to God and not to themselves. You intended to do me no harm, but God intended it for good, in order that he might save many lives.’ (Genesis 50: 21). After that Bullinger cites at length Isaiah 10: 5– 34 Historiae 766. 9–769. 1. He refers also to Genesis 40 and Jeremiah 10. The reference to Psalms (145, 147) is to Psalms 145, 146, and 147, and that to Isaiah 15 is to Isaiah 45. 35 Historiae 769. 1–771.23. 36 Historiae 772. 28–773.27.

102

Chapter 3: God

7, 12–13, 15, concerning the king of Assyria. He was sent by God as the rod of his anger and his victory was God’s not his. In his arrogance he put his victory down to his strength and wisdom, but Isaiah gives as God’s judgment: Does a rod lift itself above the one who bears it or a staff raise itself up, as if it were not a piece of wood. He then concludes the discussion of providence by stating that ‘by his providence God cares in a prudent, just, and holy way with the things belonging to mortals’. Moreover, he uses the works and ministry of his creatures, and above all of people, as means and instruments.’ Where things are less well done, they are ruined by our idleness. Where ‘things are done in a fit and right way, it is by the grace, help, and power of God.’37 Bullinger’s work was published six years after Zwingli’s major work The Providence of God. Although, as elsewhere, Bullinger defends Zwingli, there are significant differences between them. They both begin with providence, and their understanding of it impinges on their understanding of predestination. However, while Zwingli dedicates a quarter of his book to predestination, Bullinger gives three times as much space to predestination as to providence. There is also a significant difference in approach. Whereas Zwingli’s approach is largely philosophical, Bullinger’s is biblical. Bullinger emphasizes that God uses the work and ministry of his creatures, especially people, as means and instruments. In his reference to means, Bullinger’s position is consciously a mediating one: critical both of those who recognize the primary cause, but who neglect secondary causes, and of those who attribute everything to the means through which God works, forgetful of the God who acts. Zwingli’s reference to secondary causes is negative, as he is concerned to affirm the sovereignty of God against those attributing things to the means and not to God. Zwingli appears to attribute evil as well as good to God, whereas for Bullinger the power by which we do good is ascribed to God, but evil to us. In a later controversy Bullinger defends Zwingli’s statements in The Providence of God by setting them in the context of his earlier works.

The Decades The most comprehensive mature presentation of Bullinger’s understanding of God is in The Decades. Bullinger dedicates three sermons to this presentation. 37 Historiae 773. 27–776.10. It is interesting that here Bullinger relates providence first to goodness and then to wisdom and righteousness, whereas earlier power, fairness, and righteousness were placed before it, (766. 12–14, 29–767.3) and God is described first as wise and righteous (767. 6–7, 769. 8–9, 770. 16–18). Bullinger gives another example from Daniel 9, with quotations from verses 4 to 7 and following.

The Decades

103

The Knowledge of God In The Decades, it is not until he reaches sermon 33 that Bullinger preaches on God, with the first sermon dedicated to the knowledge of God. Bullinger draws on philosophers in his discussion of God, but only after he has made his own view of them clear. He quotes Tertullian’s statement that ‘philosophers are the patriarchs of heretics’. He refers his readers to where they may learn about their opinions, but he dismisses these as coming from people’s presumption and ignorance in imposing their own ideas on God, ideas which are wholly alien to him.38 There are two reasons for people’s erroneous views of God. The first is that our human understanding cannot grasp the nature of the human soul, how much less the being of God.39The second is ‘that God can rightly be known only from the word of God and that he is to be believed and received as he reveals himself to us in his word’.40 Bullinger allows, however, that unless they are fools all people can know that there is a God, a view which he supports from scripture, as an implication of ‘The fool has said in his heart: There is no God’, and from Cicero, a pagan, that people are born with the awareness that there is a God. There is, however, a warning, about seeking to know too much. It is dangerous, indeed forbidden by God to want to search out and examine his eternal being, for ‘the searcher of [God’s] majesty will be overwhelmed by the glory’ (Proverbs 25:27). It is only from the word of God that we can know God. For this, scripture, which is the word of God, accommodates itself (attemperans se) to our weakness, so that we may have sufficient knowledge of God for our life here. We must, however, not presume ‘to

38 Already in his exposition of 1:19–22 in Romans (1526), Bullinger makes it clear that faith is necessary for the knowledge of God. The heathen did not receive God’s revelation. Indeed, without faith reason invents its own God to serve its own ends. (HBTS 1.54.21–29, 55.18–56.1) There are some apparently small but highly significant ways in which Bullinger differs from Zwingli. Thus Zwingli’s vision of heaven in Exposition of the Faith includes pagans as well as Christians. When Bullinger cites the vision of Socrates at the end of Matthew he speaks of him as good and as a prince of philosophers, but refers to the joys he imagines as vain. Moreover, in contrast with Zwingli, Bullinger mentions only figures from the Old and New Testaments (279 v 16–37, cf 166r 18–23). In the second sermon our learning about God in his word is immediately related to the true worship of God. (HBTS 3. 43.17–25, Decades 1.60.7–18). For Matthew, see HBBibl 1 no. 144. 39 In The Catechism (1559) the pupil, when asked for a definition of God, replies, ‘I cannot give a definition. As God… is greater than can be expressed or comprehended by man, so he cannot be described by man.’ (YYY iiii r) For The Catechism, see HBBibl 1 no. 380. 40 HBTS 3.562.20–563. 13; Decades 3. 124–25. Typically, Bullinger argues patristically as well as biblically, and here he quotes Tertullian’s On the Trinity at length in support, for ‘he is greater than the mind itself; nor can it be conceived how great he is’ (HBTS 3.564.6–565.13, especially 564.21–22; Decades 3. 126–128).

104

Chapter 3: God

see the face, that is the being of God’ in this life. That belongs to the life of the world to come (1 John 3:2).41 Bullinger outlines six ways of knowing God, the first coming from the names of God.42 In a later sermon, Bullinger says that names are attributed to God in scripture because of our weakness. This is so that ‘by some reason and comparison we may understand some things about one who is unfathomable and infinite’.43 He expounds the names of God, such as Jehovah, with reference to Exodus 3:13–14 (being of himself and giving being to others), El (God’s power, so that he can accomplish what he wills) and akin to it Elohim (which expresses the mystery of the trinity with a singular verb and the distinction of the persons with a plural verb), Shaddai (sufficient in himself and giving sufficiency to others),44 and the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob (the repetition of the word God, teaching the mystery of the trinity in the unity of the divine being, and that each of the persons is of the same divinity, glory, and majesty’).45 The second way in which God is seen and known is through visions, descriptions of persons, and images.46 People do not literally see God, nor does God literally have eyes, and hands, and feet. Bullinger expounds God’s eyes and hands and feet in words from Tertullian: ‘He is all eye, because he wholly sees… he is all hand, because he wholly works, he is all foot, because he is wholly everywhere’47 Bullinger argues, quoting Theodoret, that ‘the fathers did not see the divine nature or substance, which cannot be circumscribed, comprehended, or perceived by the mind, and which comprehends all things, but they saw a certain

41 HBTS 3. 563.13–565.35, especially 563.13–564.6,565.13–35; Decades 3. 125–30. 42 Bullinger gives only some of the names, and notes that some people count seventy two names (HBTS 3.565.36–38, 570 6–8, Decades 3. 130, 137). The initial discussion of the names in 1529 in the first chapter of The Origin of Error is considerably expanded in the first chapter of the 1539 edition of this work (HBBibl 1 No. 12), where Bullinger also refers to the seventy two names. Staedtke (Theologie 107) notes that Bullinger was in the patristic and scholastic tradition in determining the being of God from his names. There are parallels with Zwingli in what Bullinger says about God as Shaddai and the Greek, Latin, and German names for God (see Z 13.99.29–30, 100.19). 43 HBTS 3. 864.1–6; Decades 4.210. 44 The term Shaddai is set in particular in the context of the covenant with Abraham. In The Testament or Covenant there is an emphasis on the goodness of God, his goodness sometimes being coupled with his mercy (6 r9–7v17). As in The Origin of Error, God’s goodness is then related to his name of Shaddai, the one who is all sufficient, who can carry out his covenant and enable us to carry out our part (11 v 6–12 v12). For The Testament or Covenant, see HBBibl 1 no. 54. Walser (Prädestination 46) comments, ‘Dass Gott, aus seinem Fürsichsein in das Fürunssein tritt, bringen gerade die beiden Hauptnamen Jehova und Shaddai zum Ausdruck’. 45 HBTS 3. 565.35–570.8; Decades 3. 130–37. 46 HBTS 3. 570.8–575.15; Decades 3. 137–47. 47 HBTS 3. 572.3–5; Decades 3. 141.

The Decades

105

glory and certain visions, which corresponded with their capacity and which did not go beyond its measure’48. Bullinger also draws on Tertullian to relate the appearances in the Old Testament to Christ, for Tertullian states that to say that all power in heaven and earth was given to the Son implies power in all things and therefore it must apply to all time. ‘Consequently, it is the Son who always came down to speak with people from Adam to the patriarchs and prophets in vision, in dream, in mirror, and in oracle.’49 As for Moses’ seeing God’s back and not his face (Exodus 33: 23), Bullinger interprets the back as God’s words and deeds which he leaves behind that we may learn about him (eum aestimemus) from them.50 This is, then, developed in terms of Christ. We do not see the godhead in his humanity, ‘but from his words and deeds’ we ‘know who God is and so see the Father in the Son’. In this way, we learn ‘that God is the highest good and that the Son of God is God, co-equal and consubstantial with the Father’.51 For Bullinger, the supreme way of knowing God is in Christ. He refers to a range of testimonies in Paul and the gospels, such as 2 Corinthians 4:6, Matthew 11:27, John 1:18 and 14:6–9. He speaks of the incarnation, deeds, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, and the gift of the Spirit to the disciples and in the conversion of the world. In them we see ‘the power, long-suffering, majesty, and unspeakable beneficence’ of God. ‘Therefore, in the Son and by the Son, God has most manifestly made himself manifest to the world, so that whatever needs to be known of God or of his will… is wholly revealed and perceived in the Son.’ This leads him, on the basis of Christ’s words to Philip, ‘Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father’ (John 14: 9–10), to warn against seeking to know what and who God is other than in Christ. Those who seek ‘truly to see and know God, let them turn the eyes of their mind on Christ’ and learn from his words and deeds ‘what and who God is’. Those who neglect Christ and follow the subtleties of the human mind will perish in their thoughts.52 The fourth way to know God is closer to the matters usually discussed in relation to the knowledge of God, that is, the knowledge of God which comes ‘from the contemplation of his works’. Bullinger does not relate this knowledge, however, to pagans. It is rather a statement that the works of God which give us knowledge of God are of two kinds: those created for our good, in effect everything in heaven and earth, and those done to, in, or by people. From the first we learn, for example, that God is most wise, mighty, glorious, and gracious. From 48 HBTS 3. 572.11–15; Decades 3. 142. 49 HBTS 3. 572.23–30; Decades 3. 143. 50 By repeating the word posterior, he relates the back or hinder parts to the hinder or latter times, when God sent his Son (HBTS 3. 573.39–574.4; Decades 3. 145). 51 HBTS 3.573.33–574.8; Decades 3. 145. 52 HBTS 3.575.15–576.35; Decades 3. 147–50.

106

Chapter 3: God

the second, the way in which God punishes the evil and rewards the good, ‘we learn who and how great our God is, how wise, good, powerful, generous, just, and fair, and how we must believe in him and obey him’.53 The fifth way to the knowledge of God comes from comparisons made with God, in passages such as Isaiah 40: 12–23.54 Finally, God is known by the sayings of the apostles and prophets. After a brief example from Jeremiah 9:23–24, Bullinger presents the case that God is one and three.55 In effect, this presentation is virtually a sermon on the trinity, being two fifths the length of the rest of the sermon.

God – One and Three The fact that the trinity comes in the first of the three sermons on God is a sign of the priority which Bullinger gives to the trinity. It is, of course, fundamental in his understanding of God, but it has also been the subject of controversy with some of the radicals.56 In The Decades he states that the prophets and apostles teach that ‘the true knowledge of God is that which recognizes that he is one in being and three in persons’.57 Bullinger begins characteristically with God as one.58 He argues this initially from the Old Testament, although the first quotation appears in both testaments: ‘The Lord our God, the Lord is one’ (Deuteronomy 6: 4, Mark 12: 29–33). After he has quoted from Exodus 20: 2–3, Deuteronomy 32:39, Psalm 18: 30–31, and Isaiah 42:8, 44: 6–7, 24–26, 45:6–7, and then from Paul (1 Timothy 2:5, Ephesians 4: 5–6, and 1 Corinthians 8:4–6), Bullinger maintains that these 53 54 55 56

HBTS 3.576.36–578.22; Decades 3.150–52. In this context, Bullinger refers to God as summum bonum. HBTS 3. 578.22–590.8; Decades 3. 154–73. See, for example, the letter to Myconius on 23 July 1537, expressing his concern about the dispute on the trinity (HBBW 7.203–205). See Hans Ulrich Bächtold and Rainer Heinrich (eds), Heinrich Bullinger Briefwechsel (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1998) abbreviated HBBW. Mark Taplin discusses the trinitarian controversies in which Bullinger was engaged, especially in the 1550s and 1560s, in ‘Bullinger on the Trinity: “Religionis Nostrae Caput et Fundamentum” in Gordon and Campi Architect of Reformation, 67–99. 57 HBTS 3. 579.15–17; Decades 3. 154. For Bullinger, it is important to make clear that belief in the trinity derives from and is rooted in scripture, although it is also in the tradition of the church. In his exposition of 1 Corinthians 8: 5–6 in 1534, he maintains that this passage demonstrates clearly that the unity of God and the distinction of the persons are not a human invention, but the testimony of God himself. When he cites Tertullian, Athanasius, Hilary, and Augustine, Bullinger says that he is not relying on human but on divine authority, for they support everything with the testimony of scripture. (1 Corinthians 15 v 1–21) For 1 Corinthians, see HBBibl 1 no. 53. 58 In his brief exposition of the creed in sermon 7, he begins with the unity of God because that is where the creed begins. ‘First, we say in general, “I believe in God”. Then we descend in particular to the distinction of the persons, adding “Father Almighty”. (HBTS 3.80.9–11; Decades 1.124)

The Decades

107

passages ‘sufficiently prove that God is in substance one, and in being immense, eternal, spiritual’.59 It is important to him that the whole church has had this faith since the apostles, as the creeds and the writings of the fathers show. Bullinger, however, begins not with the fathers and the early church, but with the bible, for that is the starting point of his theology. But he begins with the bible and not with the fathers or the early church for a further reason. One of the arguments for tradition, used by ‘the defenders of the pope’, is that the doctrine of the trinity comes from the traditions of the church rather than from scripture.60 This causes Bullinger to discuss terms, such as trinity, person, and substance, which were used in the early church to present the doctrine of God. Bullinger recognizes that the terms are not biblical, but insists that what these words specify is clearly taught and contained in the bible.61 He argues for their use in the early church in maintaining the faith and tying down their ‘slippery’ opponents. He quotes Sozomen in support, and refers to the church’s wisdom in not using the terms ousia and hypostasis. They caused trouble in the church, creating contention and disputation. Nevertheless, they had to be used with Sabellius, who did not distinguish the persons.62 Already in the 1530s, in The Two Natures of Christ (1534) and The Authority of Scripture (1538), Bullinger has defended the use of non-biblical terms, such as substance or being, person, and consubstantial, in expressing the doctrine of the trinity, supporting his case from the fathers. In 1534 he agrees that homoousios is not in scripture, but argues that it expresses what is said in many passages of scripture, such as ‘I and the Father are one’. He argues that once it was enough to confess, ‘I believe in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit’, but disputes changed that.63 He adduces Ambrose’s citing against the Arians texts such as ‘I and the Father are one’ and ‘who being in the form of God did not count it robbery to be equal with God’ to support a unity of substance in the Father and the Son or to affirm that they are of one being.64 He quotes Augustine’s defence of the terms, as people ‘did not find a more apt way by which they might state in words what they understood without words’, for example, that the Father is not the Son, and his view that they said three persons not in order to say it, but in 59 60 61 62 63

HBTS 3. 579.15–580.24; Decades 3.154–56. HBTS 3. 582.27–583.7; Decades 3.160. HBTS 3. 582.27–35; Decades 3.160. HBTS 3. 581.36–37, 582.18–24; Decades 3. 158–59. ‘curiositas prophanorum quorundam hominum efficit, ut eandem rem nunc cogamur explicatioribus effari verbis’ (Two Natures 16r 10–13). For The Two Natures of Christ, see HBBibl 1 no.62. 64 He recognizes with the fathers that differences in language led to the different terms being used in Latin and Greek (17v 11–21).

108

Chapter 3: God

order not to be silent. There is the problem of finding equivalent terms in Greek and Latin. Again, following Tertullian and Augustine, he refers to various analogies for the trinity, although he recognizes that God is strictly speaking incomparable. This leads him to the biblical basis for the doctrine, in texts such as Matthew 28: 19, 3:16–17; Genesis 1:26, Psalm 33: 6, and John 15:26. He argues for the trinitarian understanding of God from the scriptural insistence that God is one (Deuteronomy 6:4) and that, as God is one, the three persons must be one God. He also maintains, with Augustine, that a God who can be comprehended is not God and that if we cannot apprehend angels or the human soul, which are created, how much less their creator.65 The focus of Bullinger’s attention is, however, on God as three persons, and his exposition of this is ten times as long as that on God as the one God. There is a brief reference to Noetus, Sabellius, and the patripassians, which sets the context for his assertion of a ‘distinction, but not a division or separation between the persons’ and the properties.66 The names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ‘show us what God is in his own nature’. By contrast, terms such as good, merciful, and just indicate not ‘what he is in himself ’ but signify ‘the kind of God he shows to us’. Unlike his exposition of God as one, where he begins with the Old Testament, Bullinger begins with the New Testament to show that God is three as well as one. (In keeping with The Old Faith, he uses the Old Testament later, essentially to show that faith in God as three is as old as Genesis.) He quotes a number of New Testament texts to show that the Father created all things through the Son, but the Father did not take our flesh or suffer for us. Moreover, the Son prays to the Father and in one case prays that the Father send another Comforter. But to make clear that God is one as well as three, Bullinger quotes Jesus’ words, ‘I and the Father are one’.67

65 Two Natures 14v5–21v4. 66 Staedtke (Theologie 117 note 3) argues that Bullinger’s overemphasis of Christ’s divinity means ‘dass die Appropriationen der drei Personen verwischt und ihre Eigenstandigkeiten nicht immer erkennbar werden’. 67 HBTS 3. 580.24–581.20; Decades 3. 156–57. Although Bullinger appears to emphasize the unity of the Godhead rather than the distinction of the persons, he always balances one with the other. This is perhaps most evident in the closing words of the sermon on the Holy Spirit, where he holds both together. ‘There is one fire, although three things are seen in it, light, brightness, and heat…And although one thing is attributed to the light, another to the brightness, and another to the heat, yet they work inseparably.’ He then adds that, when we say that God created the world, ‘we understand that the Father from whom are all things, through the Son through whom are all things, in the Holy Spirit in whom are all things, created the world’. (HBTS 3. 678.1–19, Decades 3. 326) The reference to the Son as creator (HBTS 1. 148. 1–2) to which Staedtke refers critically (Theologie 118) is to be understood in this context and also as an example of Bullinger’s taking seriously the scriptural references to Christ as Lord. Christ can be understood as creator because all things are created through him (He-

The Decades

109

Even the controversies about the trinity are set initially in the New Testament, rather than outside scripture, by reference to grievous wolves, who come in and do not spare the flock (Acts 20: 27). In driving such wolves from the flock, the bishops and pastors had to use words such as essence, substance, and person. These terms were necessary in the controversies in the early church, but they are not absolutely necessary and people may use other terms in their own language. ‘It is’, Bullinger says, ‘for the godly simply, and according to the scriptures and the Apostles’ Creed, to believe and confess that there is one divine nature or being, in which are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.’ What is important is to express clearly ‘the distinction [between substance and subsistence or person] and their properties’, confessing the unity in such a way as not ‘to confound the trinity or deprive the persons of their properties’.68 It is striking that Bullinger interprets his first biblical testimony (Matthew 28: 19–20) patristically, quoting Tertullian’s comment: ‘We are baptized not into one, nor once, but three times at every name, into each person.’ In the light of 1 Corinthians 1:13, Bullinger argues that one cannot be baptized into the name of a man and therefore that each of the persons is God. He uses different texts to make various points. Thus, John 14: 26 and 16: 13–15 express ‘the mutual and equal communion of the divinity and all good things between them’, John 3: 34–36 distinguishes the three persons by their properties, and Luke 1: 32 and 35 show ‘the persons distinguished, not divided, differing in their properties, not in the being of the deity or in nature’. Although he regards such examples as sufficient, he gives some from Peter and Paul, again drawing on patristic interpretation in Cyril’s comment that Paul teaches that ‘each person properly and distinctly subsists, and yet he openly preaches the immutable identity of the trinity’. Finally, Bullinger refers to John who ‘affirms more strongly and clearly the mystery of the trinity and the distinction of the persons. He quotes only 1 John 2: 22– 24,27, which he interprets as declaring that whoever denies the trinity is antiChrist.69 For Bullinger, the scriptural testimonies are sufficient for the godly, for they are content with what God in his goodness has made known to us. He recognizes, however, that some people are not content and want to show how the three persons are distinguished, while being one God. Bullinger maintains that nothing can be compared with God’s nature and that there are no likenesses.70 Nevertheless, he is willing to offer one, noting that scripture itself ‘condescends to our brews 1:2) and Psalm 102:25, which is quoted in Hebrew 1:10, is a psalm which refers to the Lord as divine. He follows this by referring to him as human. (HBTS 1. 147.24–148.8) 68 HBTS 3. 581.20–583.7; Decades 3.157–60. 69 HBTS 3.583.7–585.29; Decades 3.160–65. 70 Again, Bullinger supports his view from the fathers – on this occasion, Basil (HBTS 3.585.38– 586.2; Decades 3.165).

110

Chapter 3: God

weakness’. Yet, what he gives are Tertullian’s comparisons with the sun, a spring, and a root – comparisons which he refers to as ‘not long after the age of the apostles’. Nevertheless, Bullinger exhorts the reader to leave comparisons and likenesses on one side and ‘steadfastly to believe the clear word of God’. What human reason cannot comprehend, let us hold by faith. For what is conveyed by scripture, taught by Christ, confirmed by miracles, and taught by the Holy Spirit in the true church, is much more certain than what can be proved by a thousand demonstrations or perceived by our senses.71 The key role given to the fathers in Bullinger’s exposition of the trinity is evident in the conclusion to the sermon. Instead of summarising it in his own words, he does so at length ‘in the words of the blessed father, Cyril’. Then, to demonstrate that belief did not begin with the fathers or even with the apostles, Bullinger maintains that the elect have believed in this way from the beginning of the world. He argues that the first verse of the bible uses the singular for ‘God’ and the plural for ‘created’ ‘not in order to commit a solecism, but in order to denote the mystery of the trinity’. A similar point is made from the words. ‘Let us make in our image’, rather than ‘Let me make in my image’ (Genesis 1:26). This interpretation is supported by a complex exegesis of ‘Behold, this man has become as one of us, knowing good and evil’ (Genesis 3:22). Bullinger sees a further example in Genesis 18: 2–3, where ‘Abraham sees three, but speaks with three as with one, and adores one’. This is followed by a familiar reference to ‘By the word of the Lord the heavens are made and all their host by the breath (spirit) of his mouth’ (Psalm 33:6). This shows that there is one Lord, in whom is the ‘Word and the Spirit, both distinguished but not separated’. Outstanding among Isaiah’s many testimonies is Isaiah 42: 1, which is quoted by Matthew (12:18).72 The conclusion to the sermon shows two fundamental elements in his theology. First, the Christian faith in general and the doctrine of the trinity in particular are the true old faith of the church. It did not begin in the sixteenth century, nor even in the New Testament, but comes to us from the beginning of the world. An implication of this is that no one should doubt or engage in inquisitive speculation (curious questions) about the trinity.73 Second, Christian 71 HBTS 3. 585.30–586.37; Decades 3.165–67. Bullinger recalls that Pythagoreans were persuaded by being told that Pythagoras said it and challenges Christians who dare to ask questions when they are told, ‘God said it and taught you to believe it’ (HBTS 3. 586.37–587.9; Decades 3. 167–68). 72 HBTS 3. 587.9–589.15; Decades 3. 168–72. 73 The reference in this context to Exodus 19: 10–13, about the punishment with death for those who pass beyond the limits which God has set, points forward to Bullinger’s judgment about Servetus in 1553 (HBTS 3.589.33–36; Decades 3.173). In The Christian Religion (1556), after stating that the bible clearly teaches God as one and three, Bullinger warns against wanting to know more than God has revealed about this. He expresses approval of the imperial decision to punish with death those who depart from this or who teach blasphemously (26r 8–25).

The Decades

111

doctrine in general and that of the trinity in particular is practical and not academic. We need to have a true grasp of who God is, as only so can we worship him as we ought.74 At other points in The Decades, Bullinger shows the essentially trinitarian character of his theology. This is evident at the end of the sermon on the Holy Spirit, which concludes his treatment of the trinity. Thus, when he refers to creation which is the peculiarly the work of the Father, he expounds the role of the Son and the Holy Spirit. ‘Therefore, when we read that God created the world, we understand that the Father from whom are all things, by the Son by whom are all things, in the Holy Spirit in whom are all things, created the world.’75

God: Creator of All Things and Governor of All Things. After expounding God as One and Three, Bullinger discusses creation, providence, and predestination, almost invariably in that order. The mystery of the creation is so great he says – in a strikingly modern phrase – that there will always be people ‘investigating, and making known the secrets of creation and nature’. However, taught by the psalms and Paul, Bullinger maintains that we know that through the word of God the world was created by God out of nothing and that it continues by the power of the Spirit of God.76 Bullinger also maintains that the world was created for man.77 Despite the allusions to scripture, the sermon does not begin with an exposition of scripture, but with a quotation from Tertullian. Indeed, more than half the section on creation is dedicated to the quotation from Tertullian and most of the rest to three quotations from the psalms. Bullinger is content simply to add that God created all things for us and subjected them to us. The creation shows us both God’s greatness and power and his goodness towards us in his creating a world with such exquisite delights and in his doing so for our sake.78 In sermon 7, in his exposition of the creed, Bullinger relates creation to God as 74 HBTS 3. 589.30–38; Decades 3. 172–73. 75 HBTS 3. 677.33–678.19; Decades 3.325–326. 76 Bullinger uses Hebrews 11:3 in 1526–1527 to maintain that our knowledge of God as creator comes through faith. Those who are without faith dispute how things began (HBTS 1.223.22– 224.2). 77 HBTS 3. 590.12–16, 592. 16–20; Decades 3. 173, 178. Already in The Highest Good in 1528, Bullinger has made clear that God does not need creation. He created not for his sake, but for ours. ‘Er hat sie erst dann erschaffen, da er den Menschen machen wollte. So folgt, dass alle die Dinge allein dem Menschen zum Gute und seiner Erhaltung erschaffen sind.’ (12.26–29). He immediately considers God’s creation and his providence – all things being ordered as God has seen from eternity (12–13). 78 HBTS 3.590.32–591.20; Decades 3.176–78.

112

Chapter 3: God

‘Father Almighty’. As Father, he wills us well, and as Almighty he can effect what he wills.79

The Providence of God In sermon 7 of The Decades in the exposition of the creed, there is a brief reference to providence following Gods creation of the world by his Son, Bullinger speaks of God’s sustaining, nourishing, ruling, and preserving all things by his everlasting Spirit (Psalm 33:6). Without this, he maintains, things would cease to be. God’s government of the world is described as wise in keeping with what he has said in earlier works, whereas elsewhere in The Decades there is a new emphasis on God’s goodwill in relation to providence.80 In his sermon on Creation, Providence, and Predestination Bullinger roots his doctrine of providence not, as in his earlier presentations, in the Old Testament but in four brief New Testament texts. He begins with Christ’s words, ‘My Father works until now, and I work’ (John 5:17), followed by ‘God created the world through his Son and rules and upholds all things by his word of power’ (Hebrews 1:2–3), ‘By God we live and move and are’(Acts 17:28), and ‘God fills our hearts with food and gladness’ (Acts 14:17).81 This simple affirmation is followed by a defence of God’s providence and government against those, like the Epicureans, who ask whether it is likely that God in heaven should be interested in our smallest words and deeds. Rather, like later deists, they hold that having made us God leaves us to our own counsel to do as we like. Bullinger rejects this, arguing that in many passages the bible states explicitly that ‘by his providence he cares for the affairs of mortals and for all things created for the sake of man’. Bullinger quotes a range of testimonies from the Old Testament, especially the psalms, such as Psalms 104: 13–15, 27–29 and 146: 7–9, with just one testimony from the New (Matthew 10: 29–30). They stretch from the ruling of the waves and the covering of the sky with clouds to the setting up of kings and the defence of the widow and the fatherless.82 79 HBTS 3. 80.9–11; Decades 1.125–126. Compare HBTS 3. 862. 18–20; Decades 4. 207. 80 HBTS 3. 81. 36–82.11; Decades 1.126–127. Providence can be expounded without explicit reference to the Holy Spirit. 81 HBTS 3. 592. 20–30; Decades 3.178. There is a striking contrast between this discussion of God and that in Zwingli’s The Providence of God, his reconstruction of the sermon preached in Marburg. Bullinger’s discussion of God is essentially biblical and in this differs from Zwingli where particularly in The Providence of God, but also to some extent elsewhere, the discussion is more philosophical and the language more scholastic. See W.P. Stephens, The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986) 81–97. The Christian Religion has a variety of New Testament quotations before later citing some from the Old (27 v 29–28 v 17). 82 HBTS 3.592.30–594.14; Decades 3. 178–81.

The Decades

113

Bullinger rejects current beliefs in fate, fortune, and astrology. He also abhors philosophical disputations about providence, which are contrary to the writings of the prophets and apostles. He argues that we should be content with God’s word. It teaches that God governs all things by his providence, in accordance with his goodwill and by the means he has appointed. God’s use of means leads Bullinger to reject the view that we do not need to do anything, since all things are done by God’s providence. He also rejects the view that if God needs us to do something he will impel us to do it, whether we wish it or not. He cites the example of Lot’s having to flee to Zoar (Genesis 19:22), David’s accepting the help of his wife Michal (1 Samuel 19: 11–13), Paul’s seeking the help of the Roman army (Acts 23:17), and Paul’s later insistence that for the ship and those on board to be saved no one must leave the ship (27:31). These men believed in the providence of God. Thus, David said, ‘I have trusted in you, Lord; I have said, “You are my God; my times are in your hand”.’ (Psalm 31: 15–16) Yet at the same time he undertook action himself. In all these cases God’s providential purpose could not be accomplished without the people concerned playing their part, for in his providence God makes use of means.83 While insisting that God’s providential use of means must not be neglected, Bullinger maintains that they do not have any power in themselves. The air, for example, does not make the earth fruitful by some power of its own, but by the power of God. Christians recognize that such things do not happen because we deserve them, for scripture testifies that ‘the Father sends rain on the just and the unjust’. This is not in conflict with passages, such as Deuteronomy 28, which speak of God’s blessing those who obey him and cursing those who do not. Blessings and curses come from God’s providence, but at the same time they happen because of our sins. Underlying everything Bullinger says about providence is God’s goodness. ‘God is good and wishes us good rather than evil.’ ‘In his goodness he often turns our evil purposes to our good, as can be seen in the story of Joseph in Genesis.’84 The earlier presentations of providence have not stressed the role of God’s goodness as The Decades does. Bullinger concludes the sermon by speaking of ‘the most wise and excellent governing of all things by his divine providence which is always just and most righteous’ and of ‘God’s goodwill towards us’. After dozens of examples of providence Bullinger emphasizes that

83 HBTS 3.594.14–595.18; Decades 3. 181–83. 84 HBTS 3. 595.18–596.10; Decades 3.183–84. That God is not the author of evil is often discussed in the context of predestination, but it can also be mentioned in the context of providence. Thus, in expounding Matthew 26:20–25, Bullinger states that, even if nothing happens without God, it misrepresents the doctrine of providence to see God as the author of sin or evil (Matthew 232 r. 21–23).

114

Chapter 3: God

God’s providence extends to everything, however small, quoting Christ’s words about sparrows falling and our hairs being numbered.85

Worshipping God Alone Bullinger sees his third sermon on God as the personal application of the first two.86 They presented God (quis, qualis et quantus) and his goodwill to us in ordaining us to eternal salvation. In the third sermon on worshipping, invoking, and serving God, he is stating what we owe God who is a loving Father. This is related to the fact that we were ‘not created or born to contemplate the stars … but to be the image and temple of God, in whom God might dwell and reign’ and that we ‘should therefore acknowledge God, revere, adore, invoke, and worship him, and so be joined to God and live with him eternally’. Bullinger’s concern is that medieval worship and devotion were directed at least in part not to God, but to saints and images.87 The sermon is in three parts: adoring or worshipping God, invoking or calling upon God, and serving God. In each part of the sermon Bullinger argues that it is God, indeed God alone, who is to be adored, invoked, and served.88 He supports his case from scripture and the fathers,89 and even from the practice of pagan Romans.90 In each case the main emphasis is biblical and the biblical testimonies come before those from the fathers. 85 HBTS 3. 601. 10–13, 602. 1–4; Decades 3.192–194. The Christian Religion ends with the affirmation that the true knowledge of God’s providence and government of all things leads us to patience in suffering, modesty and fear in prosperity, prayer and praise in divine matters. In everything we are always to have God before our eyes. (28 v 28–29 r 5) 86 The intimate relation between teaching about God and the worship of God is expressed in the exposition of the first of the ten commandments, with its insistence that we are to serve God alone (HBTS 3.131.4–5, 12–15, 132.10–28; Decades 1. 214–215, 217–218). In the second sermon our learning about God in his word is immediately related to the true worship of God (HBTS 3. 43. 17–25; Decades 1.60) In Evangelical and Papal Teaching (1551) Bullinger shows the close link between God and worship as the second group of theses precisely concerns God and the worship of God (a ii–iiii). Similarly in The Catechism (YYYiv.r) in 1559, he refers to scripture’s teaching us the main thing: ‘Above all God and the true worship of God and the salvation of the human race.’ 87 HBTS 3. 602.12–21; Decades 3. 194–195. 88 HBTS 3. 606.2–5, 609.33–35, 621.25–26; Decades 3. 201, 206, 228. 89 The case is made primarily from scripture (HBTS 3. 602.26–603.38, 604.24–607.2, 607.24–36; Decades 3. 195–97, 198–202, 204; HBTS 3. 607.36–611.9, 611.11–616.36; Decades 3. 205–210, 210–20; HBTS 3. 618.16–28, 619.3–25, 621.2–622.4; Decades 3. 222–23, 224–25, 228–29). The patristic references are to Augustine and Lactantius (HBTS 3. 603.38–604.24, 607.2–24; Decades 3. 197–98, 202–204; HBTS 3. 611.9–11, 617.21–32; Decades 3. 210,221; HBTS 3. 619.26– 620.25, 622.4–20; Decades 3. 225–26, 229–30). 90 HBTS 3. 607.9–24; Decades 3. 203–204.

The Decades

115

In the first part, Bullinger distinguishes inward and outward worship, but in a biblical rather than a Greek way. The inward has to do with the mind and spirit and the outward with the body. They are not, however, opposed to each other, as true ‘outward worship immediately follows a mind rightly imbued with true faith and the holy fear of God’. But after saying this, Bullinger distinguishes two sorts of worship: the one of the mind and spirit, which is inward, sincere, and true, the other of the body, which is outward, insincere, and false, because the person is not imbued with any religion or faith. Biblical examples are given where faith leads to adoration or worship. They are contrasted with hypocrites who also worship in body, but who lack faith. Bullinger links hypocritical outward worship with Christ’s words about those who honour him with their lips, but not with their hearts. He relates the text’s reference to human teaching to the worship of creatures.91 In the second part, he describes true invocation as requiring ‘a faithful mind which acknowledges God to be the author and only giver of all good things, who wills to hear all who invoke him and who can grant all our requests and desires’.92 He argues with a host of biblical testimonies and a number of patristic ones against an intercessory role for the saints and in defence of Christ as our only mediator and advocate with God.93 In the third part of the sermon, Bullinger makes the distinction between true and false forms of service. The true is true religion; the false is superstition or idolatry. True religion ‘comes from the true fear of God; from a sincere faith, it submits itself to God alone, and applies itself in all things to the will of God’.94 False religion is the opposite of this. True service is inward and outward. The inward is known to God alone, and embraces, for example, the fear of God, obedience, and the fruit of the Spirit. It is inward, but expresses itself outwardly, as scripture shows, for example, in visiting the fatherless and widows (Deuteronomy 10: 12–13, Micah 6: 8, James 1:27). The outward springs from the inward. It is not known to God alone, but is open to human judgement. It involves observing those things instituted by Christ – to God’s glory and to our benefit. Christians, therefore, serve God, as with faith and obedience they meet for worship, listen to the word. receive the sacraments, and keep the discipline laid down in scripture.95 Bullinger concludes the sermon with the contrast between true and false religion. In this, he begins with derivations and definitions from pagan writers, which he rejects, following rather those of Lactantius, Jerome, and Augustine, 91 92 93 94 95

HBTS 3. 604.24–606.2; Decades 3. 198–201. HBTS 3. 608.29–31; Decades 3. 206. HBTS 3. 611.34–618.16; Decades 3. 211–222. HBTS 3. 618:30–32; Decades 3. 223. HBTS 3. 618.16–621.25; Decades 3. 222–228.

116

Chapter 3: God

understanding religion as a binding to or covenant with God or a being united with Christ in marriage. Religion is contrasted with superstition in words from Lactantius, ‘Religion is the worship of the true God; superstition of the false.’ Superstition takes these forms: ‘not worshipping God, but something other than God; not worshipping God alone; and not worshipping rightly and lawfully’. The first is evident not only in the heathen in the Old Testament, but also in the Jews when they turned to creatures. This is like those who turn to the saints, seeking from them what can be sought only from God.96 The second can in practice be close to the first in which people ‘communicate the incommunicable properties of God to creatures’, such as omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence. ‘The person, therefore, who attributes these properties to the heavenly saints and for that reason worships and invokes them, is superstitious.’ They ascribe to the saints actions which come from God alone.97 The third are those who worship God, but according to their own will and ideas, and not according to God’s will and word. ‘They worship me in vain, teaching human doctrines.’98 The sermon finishes with a prayer through Christ to God, who alone is to be worshipped, invoked, and served, that he will give to all true religion and free them from vain superstition.

The Second Helvetic Confession and Later Works Although The Second Helvetic Confession may be modelled on the First, its articles consider subjects not included as separate articles in the 1536 Confession, notably the worship of God, saints and images, providence, creation, and to an extent predestination. It differs most significantly from The Decades in making no reference to the knowledge of God, though by implication articles 1 and 2 on scripture and on the fathers, councils, and traditions, imply that only through the word can we have (or at least know that we have) true knowledge of God.

96 He gives examples from both Testaments, quoting at length Jeremiah 2: 4–13 (HBTS 3. 624.3– 625.5; Decades 3.233–35). He insists in his exposition of Acts 14: 16–17 in 1533 that all things, including what we eat and drink, come from God – and therefore not from the saints. His powerful sense that the role of the saints in medieval religion dishonours God is evident in his using German when he quotes people as saying, ‘we have this from God and from the dear saints’. (Acts 172 r 6–13) 97 He gives Old Testament examples, such as: 2 Kings 17:32–33, 41 and Hosea 2: 4–5, 8 (HBTS 3. 625.5–626.5; Decades 3. 235–37). 98 Again, he gives only Old Testament examples, such as Samuel’s ‘Does the Lord want burnt offerings and sacrifices, and not rather that one obeys the voice of the Lord?’ (1 Samuel 15: 22) (HBTS 3. 626.5–34; Decades 3. 237–38).

The Decades

117

Characteristically, Bullinger begins with God as one and three, in each case prefacing what he says with the words, ‘We believe and teach’.99 God is described as ‘one in essence or nature, subsisting in himself, all sufficient in himself ’ and then with several terms, some of which adumbrate what is said later, the others being at least implied: ‘invisible, incorporeal, immense, eternal, creator of all things both visible and invisible, living, quickening and preserving all things, omnipotent and supremely wise, kind and merciful, just and true’.100 Invisible, incorporeal, immense, eternal, and living relate to idols and images and the worship of God; eternal, quickening, preserving, and omnipotent to God as creator, eternal, omnipotent, and wise to the providence of God; and kind, merciful, just, and true to predestination. Bullinger supports his statement that God is one with four texts from the Old Testament101 (Deut. 6:4; Ex. 20: 2–3, Isa. 45: 5,21, Ex. 34:6) and that there are three persons in the godhead with six texts from the New Testament, concerning the birth and baptism of Christ and the gift of the Spirit. He identifies his biblical position with that of the early church by reference to the Apostles’ Creed as conveying to us the true faith and also to the one God’s being ‘in person distinguished as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’ (in the Chalcedonian words about the person of Christ) ‘inseparably and without confusion’.102 He condemns Jews and Muslims who deny the trinity and those who hold heretical views, such as those of Arius, Praxeas, Sabellius, and others.103 The trinitarian character of Bullinger’s theology is evident, for example, in his Sermons on the Apocalypse. The exposition has a strong christological emphasis, but the statements about Christ are often set in the context of the trinity. Thus, two sermons which are largely about Christ have a brief discussion of the trinity. Sermon 3 which is chiefly on the mysteries of Christ, interprets Rev. 1:4–5 in terms of the trinity. Sermon 27 on the Lamb in the midst of the throne (Rev. 5:5– 7) leads him to affirm the trinity against Arius, Muhammad, and Servetus.104 Sermon 24 relates Rev. 4: 5–8 to the procession of the Holy Spirit and leads into a discussion of the trinity: ‘We have in the beginning of the vision the whole 99 The quotation of the Edict of Theodosius at the beginning of the confession can be both an affirmation of the trinity and an appeal for imperial protection on the basis that those who confess faith in the trinity are orthodox according to imperial law (HBTS 3.28). 100 RB 2/2 277.3–7; RC 228. 101 Unlike The Decades, which has some from the New Testament. 102 What ultimately distinguishes the persons of the godhead is that one begets, one is begotten, and one proceeds. All that belongs to God may be ascribed to each. ‘Ex parte namque divinitatis, nihil ex iis quae digne de Deo dici vel cogitari possunt, tribus personis seiunctim assignatur, praeterquam productionis modus ingeniti et geniti ac procedentis, etc.’ (Apocalypse 74. 49–51) 103 RB 2/2 277.8–278.11; RC 228–229. 104 Apocalypse 73. 22–37.

118

Chapter 3: God

ministry of the blessed trinity, as much as is necessary for us to know, believe, and profess.’ The one seat shows us that there is one God, ‘as Moses (Deut. 6) all the prophets and apostles have everywhere taught’. However, ‘in this one and undivided substance is seen a most clear distinction of persons’. The mystery of the trinity is manifest in the birth and baptism of Jesus. This scriptural testimony is supported by Matthew 28. Moreover, what the apostles taught is affirmed by Tertullian writing against Praxeas. This characteristic citing from the past of scripture and the fathers leads typically to the present and a dismissive reference to the blasphemous history of Servetus. It is followed by Bullinger’s arguing scripturally from John 16:14–15 and Revelation 4:5 for the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son.105 For Bullinger, orthodoxy in faith is not to be divorced from orthodoxy in prayer and worship. It is because of who God is, that is, ‘spirit’ and ‘in essence invisible and immense’, that he cannot be expressed in any art or image. Bullinger maintains that images of Christ, which some defend because he was human as well as divine, are forbidden by Christ himself. He denied that he came to ‘abolish the law and the prophets’, and the law and the prophets forbid images (Deut. 4:15, Isa. 44:9). Images of the saints which are worshipped are also contrary to the teaching of the saints, as, when they lived in this world, they rejected all worship of themselves. (Acts 3. 12–13, 14.11–18, Rev. 14: 7; 22:9) Again, Bullinger draws support from the fathers: Lactantius (‘no religion exists where there is an image’), Epiphanius, Jerome, and Augustine (‘Let not the worship of the works of men be a religion for us’).106 The next chapter affirms that only God is to be adored, worshipped, and invoked, in accordance with the words, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve’, and that when we pray to God there is, according to the bible, only one mediator, that is Jesus Christ, not the saints. The fundamental argument is that the role his opponents give to the saints takes from God his glory and gives it to others, which is contrary to Isaiah 42:8. The saints are to be honoured but that is done, as Augustine maintains by honouring them. There is the same objection to swearing oaths by the saints: it ascribes too much to them.107 Bullinger’s underlying practical or pastoral concern throughout the confession is evident in what is said about the providence of God.108 (Unusually in 105 106 107 108

Apocalypse 65.17–66.9. RB 2/2 279.1–280.12; RC 229–230. RB 2/2 280,13–281. 38; RC 230–232. In Sermons on the Apocalypse in expounding 5: 1–4 Bullinger relates providence to Christ in a way that is not reflected, for example, in The Decades and The Second Helvetic Confession. At the beginning of sermon 26, he states that ‘all things which are done by God’s providence are administered most justly and most holily through Christ’. They are ‘ regulated [or dispensed] through Christ’ or ‘governed through Christ’. (Apocalypse 70. 13–14, 46, 71.36)

The Decades

119

The Second Helvetic Confession the chapter on Providence comes before that on Creation.) He begins by affirming that all things ‘in heaven and on earth, and in all creatures are preserved and governed by the providence of this wise, eternal, and omnipotent God’. He supports this from the Old and New Testaments, (Psalm 113:4–6, 139:3–4; Acts 17: 28, Romans 11:36) and Augustine. He then deals with difficulties. First, he condemns those, like the Epicureans, who deny that God is too busy to be concerned with our daily lives, insisting on God’s use of means. He maintains that God’s providence does not mean that nothing we do can make a difference. He uses the examples of Paul’s shipwreck (Acts 27) and James (James 4:13,15) to show that God ordained the beginning and means as well as the end and therefore that we have an indispensable part to play. Typically, he quotes Augustine, and his example from 1 Samuel 9: 16 to show that nothing happens by accident, but rather in accordance with God’s will.109 The God who creates is described as ‘good and almighty’ and it is characteristic of Bullinger to root the creation in the goodness of God, and also to show the role of the Son and the Spirit by quoting Psalm 33: 6 ‘By the word of God the heavens were made and all their host by the Spirit of his mouth’. What God made, as Genesis states, was good and he made it for the profit and use of human beings.110 In this chapter there are unusually no references to the fathers, but there is a condemnation of Manichaeans and Marcionites with their belief in a good and an evil god, the latter being responsible for creation.111 It is in the following chapter the fall of man, rather than in those on Providence and Predestination, that Bullinger rejects the view that God is the author of sin. Such a statement denies the nature of God (Ps. 5: 4–6. John 8: 44). Passages in scripture that speak of God’s hardening, blinding, and delivering up to a reprobate mind, are to be understood as God’s doing it by a just judgment, and those where he is said (or seems) to do something evil are to be understood as God’s permitting it according to ahis judgment or because he turns evil into good. This is supported by a quotation from Augustine. Questions, such as whether God willed Adam to fall or why he did not prevent the fall, are dismissed as curious. Evil is to be ascribed not to God, but to Satan and our will opposing the will of God.112 There are no significant changes in Bullinger’s doctrine of God, although he does not always present it in the same way. Thus, he uses only biblical testimonies and not patristic testimonies to the doctrine of the trinity in the con-

109 RB 2/2 282. 1–283.17; RC 232–234. 110 Elsewhere – in keeping with the creation as good – Bullinger’s affirms the arts and God’s command to cultivate our natural talents (RB 2/2 287. 37–39; RC 238). 111 RB 2/2 283. 18–28; RC 234. 112 RB 2/2 285. 27–286.24; RC 236–237. In the chapter on free will we are said not to be forced to do evil by God or the devil, but we do it by our own free will (RB 287. 15–17, RC 237).

120

Chapter 3: God

fession, yet elsewhere the emphasis can be largely patristic, as for example, in his exposition of John 1: 1–2.113

Reply to Traheron On 3 March 1553 Bullinger refers to a letter from Bartholomew Traheron on providence, predestination, free will, and whether God is the author of sin. (Although Traheron had studied in Zurich, he had come to a Calvinian view of providence and predestination.) Bullinger claims that he follows the view that has been maintained in the church, as holy and orthodox, from the time of the apostles. In this he identifies himself with Melanchthon’s earlier views on the freedom of the will, but dissociates himself from Melanchthon’s later retractions. He also distinguishes himself from Calvin. Bullinger claims that the subject needs an entire book, but he presents his case succinctly, although in some detail, in relatively few pages.114 Providence is defined as God’s ‘maintaining and governing by which he cares for all his creatures’, ‘maintaining things powerfully and governing them wisely and righteously’. Bullinger rejects the view of Epicureans and carnal human judgment as if things subsist of their own accord and are governed by fate and not maintained and ruled by God’s wise omnipotent, and righteous power. In support, he refers to Psalms 139, 104, 107, 147, Job 38–39, Matthew 6, and James 4, and then quotes Augustine. Bullinger maintains that there is consolation for us in this view of providence as it enables us to see that what we suffer comes from a most loving father, who wills good and not evil. As a result we do not attribute too much to means, nor do we pass over God as the first cause. Bullinger recognizes two objections. If God does everything, nothing is left for us to do and so all our striving and work is done away, and if God does everything in us then he also does our sins in thought, word, and deed, and is ‘the cause and author of evil’.115 To the first objection, Bullinger responds by saying that ‘God does everything through means, but that he is not bound by them. For God does what he wills without means, for God watched over Moses forty days without food and drink.’ But he also watched over Daniel in opposition to means, the lions and the fiery furnace. ‘However, it does not follow that means are useless or are to be despised by people.’ ‘God’s providence does not destroy the order of things’. Rather God acts through means in economic and political matters, and in the care of children 113 John 4r 27–41. 114 CO 14. 480. 17–481.6. Bullinger would be contrasting the views expressed in Melanchthon’s Common Places between the 1521 and 1535 editions. 115 CO 14. 481. 7–47.

The Decades

121

through their parents, vines, and fields. ‘God gave victory through David and the freedom of Israel through Moses.’ ‘For in considering divine providence the saints continually examine the word of God, what it commands and what it forbids.’ We should ‘not separate God’s words and precepts from divine providence’.116 Bullinger responds at greater length to the second objection, that if in his providence God effects everything, he is the cause and author of sins. He dismisses two approaches the one rejecting God’s providence and the other making God the author of sin. The one sees the absurdity of making God the author of evil and so rejects his providence, the other accepts the biblical testimonies to God’s doing all in all, and so makes God the author of sin. That says Bullinger is ‘a perverse doctrine’. ‘For God is the source of all good and does not do evil, nor does he appoint or impel to evil’ otherwise how could a just God judge the world. God works through us, as it were as secondary causes. We work with God and he supports this, God works ‘but in us, not outside or without us’. We work with God and God gives us the power both to will and to do according to his will. ‘We cannot do anything good without him, through whom all the good works of the saints are done.’ ‘Therefore, God works through us in the ministry, and we work through his grace.’117 Having rejected these two views, Bullinger adapts a mediating position which affirms God’s providence while denying that he is the author of sin. He argues that God can be said to do evil and sins in the sense that he permits them, that is to say he does it prevent what undoubtedly he could prevent if he wished. Bullinger rejects the objection that permitting is not doing. ‘If therefore God does not do but permits sin, then unquestionably God does not work all things.’ Bullinger’s riposte is to state that ‘God effects all those things which fit his nature. He does not will sins, nor does he impel to sins because they are contrary to his nature (Psalm 5, Job 34, Romans 3.) Therefore, he does work sins, but permits them to happen. That permission is in the divine providence and not separate from it.’ Bullinger maintains that ‘that permission is included in providence, so that the saints refer to God himself as author of those works which, God permitting, are done by the devil ad devilish people’. For Job said.’ The Lord gave, the Lord has taken away’; he did not say ‘The Lord gave, the devil, the Sabeans, savage solders, have taken away.’118 There is a further objection that God appears to have done as he did not prevent what he could have prevented. This view, described by Tertullian and Prudentius as heretical and sacrilegious, is rejected by Bullinger. God is righteous 116 CO 14. 481. 42–482.31. 117 CO 14. 482. 32–483.3. 118 CO 14. 483. 3–45.

122

Chapter 3: God

and can do nothing unrighteous. There are, as John of Damascus says, many causes of permission. Some regard the word as alien to scripture, but since the time of the apostles all the doctors of the church have made use of it. Bullinger supports this from Acts 14: 15, Ephesians 4: 17–18, and 2 Corinthians 4: 4. The word was also used by Irenaeus, Origen, Pamphylus, Augustine, and Jerome We ought not, therefore, Bullinger insists, to give such weight to our opinions.119 In the light of what he has said, Bullinger asserts that God is not the author of evil, which is ‘the sacred anchor in this disputation’. ‘He does not will evil, nor impel to sin or destine the people’s wills to sins, but the entire cause and origin of evil comes from the malice of the devil and people’s free will, as is testified by many testimonies of scripture.’ (Bullinger refers to eight chapters of the Old Testament, eleven from the New.) He argues – with various references – that ‘scripture does not contradict itself when elsewhere God is said to harden and blind’. He supports from Irenaeus, Tertullian, Jerome, and Augustine against Manichaeus, who held that ‘everything happens by necessity and that evil cannot be avoided. For God impels to sin and no one is able to resist him.’120 This leads Bullinger to expound free will: before the fall, after the fall in the unregenerate, and after the fall in the regenerate. Before the fall our parent was most perfect with a free will in everything (Genesis 1–2, Ecclesiasticus 15). ‘Unless we understand Adam to be created good and free, we shall go astray in the causes of good and evil and ascribe to God what is in conflict with his nature.’121 After the fall the effect on the understanding and will were not such as to change people into stones or wild animals. But the understanding is so obscured that of its own power it cannot any longer understand anything of God, as it should. Out of a free will, there is now an enslaved will, so that people are not only inclined to sin but addicted to and sold under sin. We are not compelled to sin but sin freely, by our nature. In those who are not regenerate, there is no free will to good. The Lord said, ‘Without me you can do nothing.’122 Those who are regenerate have free will ‘not by the power of nature, but by virtue of divine grace’. Those who are regenerate are able ‘through the Spirit of God to understand, choose and do the good’. Bullinger adds significantly that, ‘If we do not confess thins, we deny the freedom of the children of God and bring back even more legalistic servitude.’ After supportive New Testament quotations, Bullinger states that ‘the faithful work actively not passively’. He opposes to this the Manichaean view which deprives us of free will and turns us into a stone or piece of wood. 119 120 121 122

CO 14. 483. 46–484. 36. CO 14. 484. 37–485.11. CO 14. 485. 22–29, including a reference to Augustine. CO 14. 485. 28–486.5.

The Decades

123

Free will in believers is, however, weak. There is still sin in us which is in conflict with the Spirit, so that we do not always do what we intend. Nevertheless, the powers of the flesh are not so strong that they extinguish the Spirit. Nor are they compelled to do good, but they do good freely through the grace of the Spirit of God.’ Bullinger repeats his rejection of the Manichaeans and Pelagians, referring characteristically to Augustine’s works. He refers to Augustine’s concern that we do not so defend grace as to appear to remove free will, nor again so to affirm free will in ungodly pride that we are revealed as ungrateful for the grace of God. Bullinger concludes by maintaining again that this is how the church has taught from the beginning, noting a variety of works by Irenaeus, Jerome, and especially Augustine. He expresses the wish that people in his way would hold this orthodox expression of faith. If they did, there would be more peace and less wrangling, harm and needless disputing.123

123 CO 14. 486. 6–487. 17.

Chapter 4: Christ1

The centre of or key to people’s theology is often revealed in their starting point or in the order in which they expound their theology. The key role of christology in Bullinger is not evident, if one considers either the starting point or the order in which he expounds his theology. In most of his systematic works the starting point is scripture. He follows that with the doctrine of God, and only then turns to the doctrine of Christ. This order, however, probably reflects the order of the creeds, which speak first of God and then of Christ. The prime place given to scripture reflects both the way in which Bullinger came to a reformation faith and the context for which he was writing. The context is frequently controversy with both papal and radical opponents. In engaging with them Bullinger’s appeal was first and foremost to scripture, as that was the basis on which he would argue with them. In The Decades, his fifty doctrinal sermons, the doctrines of God and of Christ do not come till over halfway through, but the christological emphasis is evident in the fact that after the opening sermons on the word of God come three sermons on faith, including justification by faith. Similarly, although the opening articles of The First Helvetic Confession (1536) concern scripture, followed by the doctrine of God, they are 1 The main studies on the person and work of Christ are: Peter Walser, Die Prädestination bei Heinrich Bullinger (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1957); Joachim Staedtke, Die Theologie des jungen Bullinger (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1962); Paul Jacobs, ‘Die Lehre von der Erwählung mit der Providenzlehre und der Anthropologie im Zweiten Helvetischen Bekenntnis’ in Joachim Staedtke (ed.), Glauben und Bekennen. 400 Jahre Confession Helvetica Posterior (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1966) 258–277; Ernst Koch, ‘Die Heilslehre der Confessio Helvetica Posterior’, in Staedtke (ed.), Glauben und Bekennen, 278–299; Walter E. Meyer ‘Soteriologie, Eschatologie und Christologie in der Confessio Helvetica Posterior’ ZWA 12 (1966) 391–409; Ernst Koch, Die Theologie der Confessio Helvetica Posterior (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, 1968); W.P. Stephens, ‘Bullinger’s Sermons on the Apocalypse’ in Alfred Schindler and Hans Stickelberger (eds), Die Zürcher Reformation: Ausstrahlungen und Rückwirkungen (Bern: Peter Lang, 2001); Cornelis P. Venema, Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination: Author of ‘the Other Reformed Tradition’? (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2002); Peter Opitz, Heinrich Bullinger als Theologie. Eine Studie zu den ‘Dekaden’ (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2004).

126

Chapter 4: Christ

themselves prefaced by the statement that the confession has been drawn up by churches which have accepted the gospel of Christ and in the fifth and final article on scripture the focus of scripture is said to be the demonstration of God’s ‘kindness to the whole human race through Christ his Son’.2 There is a comparable article later in the confession, but placed after the article on Christ. It states, ‘in all evangelical teaching the most sublime and the principal article and the one that should be expressly set forth in every sermon and impressed upon people’s hearts should be that we are preserved and saved solely by the one mercy of God and by the merit of Christ’.3 In expounding John 5: 45–47, Bullinger also maintains that ‘Christ was the sole scope of Moses’ and shows how each book of the Pentateuch testifies to Christ’s work of salvation.4 It is not insignificant for Bullinger’s theology that in The Zurich Agreement, which is concerned with the sacraments, the starting point is Christ. The opening articles appear to come from Zurich. (There is no parallel in these opening articles to the twenty articles offered by Calvin to the Synod of Bern in March 1549.) The first article states that ‘the whole spiritual government of the church aims to bring us to Christ’, and the second that the starting point for speaking about the sacraments is Christ, for they are appendices to the gospel. The next two

2 RB1/1 45.4–7, 58.2–4; BRK 102. 3–6; RC 101. For the text of Confessio Helvetica Prior von 1536, hereafter: The First Helvetic Confession, edited by Ernst Saxer, see H. Faulenbach and E. Busch (eds), Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften Vol. 1/1, 1523–34 (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 2002) (abbreviated as RB) 33–68, E.F.K. Müller (ed.), Bekenntnisschriften der Reformierten Kirche (Leipzig: A. Deichert’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung Nachf., 1903) (abbreviated as BRK) 101–109, and A.C. Cochrane (ed.), Reformed Confessions of the 16th Century (London: SCM Press, 1966) (abbreviated as RC) 100–109. Opitz (Dekaden 185) affirms the central indeed dominant significance of christology in Bullinger’s mature theology, maintaining ‘Dass der Christologie in Bullingers reifer Theologie nicht nur eine zentrale, sondern eine alles dominierende Bedeutung zukommt….’ Walser (Prädestination 248) refers to moving from a particular emphasis on christology in Bullinger to seeing the covenant, christology, and teaching on the Holy Spirit as complementing each other in a trinitarian context. He states that ‘wir eine zeitlang geneigt waren, bei Bullinger eine besondere Betonung der Christologie herauszulesen’, but adds that ‘die Bundeslehre, die Christologie und die Lehre vom Heiligen Geist bei Bullinger trinitarisch verankert sind und sich gegenseitig ergänzen’. Bullinger’s theology is undoubtedly trinitarian, yet even with his trinitarian theology the main focus appears to be on the person and work of Christ, in part because of his emphasis on salvation and his affirmation that ‘The whole salvation of man and every part of salvation are comprehended in Christ…’ (HBTS 3. 98.38–99.1; Decades 1.156). For the text of Sermonum Decades quinque, hereafter: The Decades, see Peter Opitz (ed.), Heinrich Bullinger Werke Part Three Theologische Schriften Vol. 3 (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2008), and for an English translation, see Thomas Harding (ed.), The Decades 4 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1849–1852). 3 RB1/1 48. 4–7, 60. 23–24; BRK 104. 2–6; RC 104. 4 John 72 v 40–73 r 10. For In Divinvm…Euangelium secundum Ioannem, hereafter: John, see Joachim Staedtke (ed.), Heinrich Bullinger Werke Part One Bibliographie Vol. 1 (abbreviated HBBibl) (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972) no. 153.

Chapter 4: Christ

127

concern God’s Son becoming man that we may become sons of God by adoption, and our receiving from Christ by our being united with him in his body.5 The important role for christology is manifest also in the way Bullinger refers to epistles, such as Romans and Hebrews, and to Revelation.6 The sense that the Christian message is Christ is expressed almost incidentally in Romans (1525). There he states that Paul depicts vividly the power of Christ in all his epistles, but most richly in Romans which is the chief part of the New Testament and the kernel of the bible. He maintains that the chief point of our faith is to believe in God and to put all our trust in the one who sent his Son, that is, that we should believe that with his death Christ has paid for our sin and has made us live through the resurrection (Romans 1: 4; 10:9).7 The contrast between his view of Revelation and Luther’s shows the fundamental importance for him of christology. In 1522, Luther dismissed Revelation as unapostolic. He wrote, ‘Christ is neither taught nor known in it’, and that what an apostle is bound to do is ‘to teach Christ’.8 Bullinger, however, argued in his preface that Revelation is ‘most evangelical and apostolic’ (3,4) and, for example, in the sermon on 10: 1–4 stated that apart from Isaiah and the gospels, no book has more and finer descriptions of Christ and of salvation than Revelation, so that those who think that the gospel is rarely preached in it are utterly mistaken.9 In his writing on Islam the centrality of Christ is shown by his comments that Muhammad fulfilled Christ’s word, ‘I have come in my Father’s name and you did not receive me. When someone else

5 RB 1/2 482–483; BRK 159–160; Bunting 50–51. For the text of Consensus Tigurinus, 1549 hereafter: The Zurich Agreement, edited by Eberhard Busch, see Heiner Faulenbach, Eberhard Busch et al. (eds), Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften Vol. 1/2 1535–1549 (Neukirchen – Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2006) 467–490; BRK, 159–163; and I.D. Bunting Journal of Presbyterian History 44 (1966) 45–58 (hereafter: Bunting). 6 For the text of Vorlesung über den Römerbrief, hereafter: Romans and Vorlesung über den Hebraerbrief hereafter: Hebrews, see Zwingliverein in Zurich et al. Heinrich Bullinger Werke Part Three Theologische Schriften Vols. 1 – (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1983) (abbreviated as HBTS) Vol. 1, and for In Apocalypsim…Conciones hereafter: Sermons on the Apocalypse or Apocalypse, see HBBibl 1 no. 327. In the preface to Hebrews (1532), he writes in his final summary, ‘Christ is taught better and more surely than in any other epistle’ (5v 15–16). For In…Pavli ad Hebraeos Epistolam,..Commentarius, hereafter: Hebrews, see HBBibl 1 no. 38. 7 HBTS 1. 33. 6–12, 34. 32–35, 35.6–9, 114. 17–21. 8 WADB 7.404; LW 35. 398–399. For Luther’s works, see D. Martin Luthers Werke Kritische Gesamtausgabe 61 vols. (Weimar, 1883–1983) (abbreviated as WA), D. Martin Luthers Werke Kritische Gesamtausgabe Die deutsche Bibel 12 vols. (Weimar, 1906–1961) (abbreviated as WADB), and Luther’s Works 56 vols. Helmut T. Lehmann (gen.ed.) (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1955) (abbreviated as LW). In 1530 at the end of his preface, Luther makes a more positive comment, ‘that through and beyond all plagues, beasts, and evil angels Christ is nevertheless with his saints and wins the final victory.’ (WADB 7.420, 12–17; LW 35.411) 9 Apocalypse 126 35–44. The christological emphasis of Bullinger’s Sermons on the Apocalypse is not just part of his defence of Revelation against Luther’s view of it. It characterizes his understanding of its fundamental message for people in his own day (Preface a2. 28–31).

128

Chapter 4: Christ

comes in his own name, you receive him’. (John 5: 43)10 In The Turk, he notes that the Qur’an rejects both the person and work of Christ and he observes in the light of 1 John 2:23 that those who deny the Son do not have the Father.11 In rejecting the work of Christ they reject ‘the chief doctrine of the Christian faith’, justification through faith alone in Christ. He sees parallels between Muslims and papalists, for Muhammad invented ways for people to deserve and gain forgiveness of sins, such as fasting, alms, prayer, fighting nobly, dying in battle for the sake of Islam. Like papal indulgences, this seeking of salvation by works is Pelagian.12 The key role of christology for Bullinger is similarly evident in his first major work on Christ, The Two Natures of Christ in 1534.13 Together with his work on the covenant it is published as a preface to his commentary on the epistles. Its title describes it as an orthodox statement about the two natures directed at various heresies, and it is addressed to all the ministers of the word in the territory of Zurich who preach Christ. The proper concern is not with the things which are hidden, but with the mercy and good news of God, the mystery of Christ, the merit of his redemption, and the power of faith and zeal for love and innocence. It is Satan who leads people away from these things to fighting about words and the investigation of hidden things. The pivotal role of christology can be seen also in the way in which for him, by contrast with some, it is at the heart of the doctrine of election. From the beginning Bullinger relates election to Christ, especially because of his regular use of Ephesians 1, which speaks of election as in Christ. Election is in Christ before the foundation of the world, and Bullinger adds ‘for the sake of Christ’ (44r).14 In some of Bullinger’s earlier works, election is associated with providence and even in The Decades in 1550, predestination is the 10 The Reply 34 r-v. For Vff siben Klagartickel…verantwortung, hereafter: The Reply, see HBBibl 1 no. 584. He notes that the Qur’an denies both that Jesus is the Son of God, regarding him only as a messenger of God, and that he died for us (35r 9–17). 11 The Turk Aviii v 19–28. For Der Türgg, hereafter: The Turk, see HBBibl 1 no. 557. 12 The Turk A v v1-vi r 23. 13 For Utrivsque in Christo Natvrae…Assertio, hereafter: The Two Natures of Christ, see HBBibl 1 no. 62. 14 Ephesians (1526) 44 r 39–40. For Kurtze usslegung der epistel zuon Epheseren, hereafter: Ephesians (1526), see Staedtke (Theologie, 284 no. 59). In The Decades Bullinger states that God has decreed to save all who have communion with Christ and to destroy those who have no communion with Christ (HBTS 3. 597. 7–9; Decades 3. 186). However, in The Christian Religion, which is a briefer popular presentation of The Decades, there is only a brief reference to predestination. It quotes only Ephesians 1: 4–7, and in keeping with it there is no mention of condemnation or destruction (77 r 26-v 10). For Summa Christenlicher Religion, hereafter: The Christian Religion, see HBBibl 1 no. 283. In a sermon on Isaiah in 1567, Bullinger emphasizes the need to relate election and rejection to Christ and encourages us to hold before our eyes God’s words in Ephesians 1: 3–6 (Isaiah 250 v- 251r). For Isaias…expositus Homilijs, CXC, hereafter: Isaiah, see HBBibl 1 no. 558.

The Context for the Doctrine of Christ

129

second half of a sermon Providence and Predestination. But in The Second Helvetic Confession, they are not treated separately and the article on election immediately precedes the article on Christ which begins with the statement ‘that he was predestined or foreordained to be the Saviour of the world’.15 In response to the question whether we are elect, Bullinger points to Christ. He states ‘if you believe and are in Christ, you are elected’. Bullinger’s pastoral concern is shown in his maintaining that we should above all teach ‘what great love of the Father toward us is revealed to us in Christ’. Bullinger refers to Christ’s words, such as John 3: 16 and ‘It is not the will of my Father that one of these little ones should perish.’ (Mt. 18:14) He adds, ‘Let Christ, therefore be the looking glass, in whom we may contemplate our predestination.’ Interestingly, the reprobate are described simply as those who are outside Christ.16

The Context for the Doctrine of Christ Bullinger uses christological arguments in a range of contexts – papal, Lutheran, and Anabaptist.17 The papal appeal to works means that Christ died in vain and therefore it is a denial of the saving death of Christ; the Lutheran insistence on the bodily presence of Christ in the eucharist is a denial of the humanity of Christ; the Anabaptist rejection of infant baptism is a repudiation of Christ’s death for the sins of the whole world, children as well as adults, and the fact that he died not only for original sin but also for the sins committed after baptism. There is an example of this in Anabaptist Teaching, where just as he charges his papal opponents with implying that Christ died in vain, so he makes the same charge against the Anabaptists who do not recognize that Christ took away not only original sin but also ‘the sins of the whole world’.18 A similar argument is used in the course of his case for infant baptism, where he asks whether Christ died only

15 In The Christian Religion election is presented in the article on the Grace of God through Christ and Justification. 16 RB 2/2 289.18–21, 291, 17–19, 290.26–291.6, 289.28–31; BRK 181. 21–24, 182.46–183.1, 182.20– 34, 181. 32–35; RC 240, 242, 241–242,240. 17 In his Comparison of Ancient and Modern Heresies he compares the Roman Catholics with a range of heresies in the early church, such as, for example, those relating to Christ as one person with two natures (Bii v 13 – Cir 1). For Verglichung der vralten und vnser zyten kaetzeryen, hereafter: Comparison of Ancient and Modern Heresies, or Comparison see HBBBibl 1 no 1. 18 Anabaptist Teaching 26 r 5–19, 27r 14–22. For Von dem unverschampten fraefel der…Wiedertoeuffrn… hereafter: Anabaptist Teaching, see HBBiBl 1 no. 28.

130

Chapter 4: Christ

for adults and not also for children and if he died for the sins of the whole world did he not also die for the sins of children.19 Some of Bullinger’s expositions can seem almost academic presentations of the doctrine of Christ, with the marshalling of numerous biblical texts, supported by quotations from the councils and the Fathers. Yet Bullinger’s concern is far from academic. In keeping with Bullinger’s earlier writing, the substantial space given to the person of Christ is related not only to its importance as the basis of the work of Christ but also to his concern to affirm the orthodoxy of Zurich and the Swiss churches ( hence the appeal to the early church) as well as to combat the unorthodox views of some of the radicals.20 Thus, in presenting the argument in his commentary on 1 John in 1532, he states that the epistle is most suited to his own day, as there are those who cast doubt on Christ’s divinity and others who do not acknowledge his humanity. From 1 John they all learn that Christ is truly God and man and that he is the only and eternal salvation of the world.21 In expounding 2:22, he maintains that they deny Christ who deny his divinity or humanity, but equally they deny Christ who do not seek in Christ life and salvation.22 Bullinger was concerned with Muslim as well as Christian heresies. Indeed, Islam was seen more as a Christian heresy than as a different religion. In The Turk, in 1567, he refers to the Qur’an as put together with the help of an heretical monk and the advice of perverted Jews and false Christians, corrupted by heretics such as Arians, Macedonians, and Nestorians.23 His practical rather than academic concern is evident at the beginning of The Two Natures of Christ. It is addressed to the ministers of the word in the Zurich territory, who are preaching Christ. Moreover, in the epistle, he rejects seeking to know what is hidden and expresses his desire to create a zeal for love and innocence.24 He outlines heresies in the New Testament which deny the divinity or the humanity of Christ. From the bible he gives both testimonies and arguments. (He uses arguments such as relating references to the glory of Christ and the statement that God will not give his glory to another.)25 He continues by

19 Anabaptist Teaching 57r 21–27. Bullinger’s insistence on the universal reach of Christ’s death is evident in a short work, De articulo fidei ‘Descendit ad inferna’, hereafter: Descent into Hell, in 1526. He interprets 1 Peter 3–4 as meaning that the power of Christ’s death and the reward of his redemption are made known to those shut up in hell from the time of Adam to the coming of the Messiah (HBTS 2.174.17–23). 20 Meyer (‘Soteriologie’, 391–393, 408) emphasizes the first of these at the cost of the others. 21 1 John 2v 7–15. 22 1 John 22 v 21–24. 23 The Turk Aiv v 13–25. 24 Two Natures A2rv. 25 Two Natures 21v–50r.

The Context for the Doctrine of Christ

131

expounding the union of the natures from the bible and the fathers.26 Then he reviews the heresies historically, and presents the catholic and orthodox faith opposed to them, expounding the latter rather than refuting the former.27 Interestingly, a quotation from Gelasius leads to a digression on the eucharist, the context in which he most often argues from the two natures of Christ.28

Bullinger’s Early Works In his account of his Reformation breakthrough, Bullinger refers to the controversy in the University of Cologne in 1520 about Luther’s teaching. The controversy led him to examine both Luther’s teaching and papal teaching. To learn about papal teaching, he read Lombard and Gratian, who pointed him to the fathers. When, however, he read the fathers (Chrysostom, Ambrose, Origen, Augustine), he found two things: first, that Luther was closer to the fathers than papal teaching was, and second that, whereas the schoolmen had relied on the fathers, the fathers themselves relied on the authority of the bible. As a result, Bullinger purchased and read the New Testament. All this led him both to express his abhorrence of papal teaching and to decide not to become a Carthusian. He continued his study of the bible and the fathers, including Augustine and Lactantius, but also Melanchthon’s Common Places and Erasmus.29 In January 1523, when only 18, Bullinger went to Kappel, where he taught in the monastic school. In his classes he lectured on Erasmus and Melanchthon, the fathers, and the New Testament. From the beginning, however, he did not participate in the offices or the mass. His reading and his early development as a reformer offer some insight into Bullinger’s christology. His discussion of Christ is initially set in the context of controversy, the two main subjects of controversy in his early years being scripture and the mass.30 (His approach to both subjects shows the influence of 26 27 28 29 30

Two Natures 50 v – 64r. Two Natures 6v–7r. Two Natures 64r –67v. Diarium 5.14–6.17. For the details of Diarium, see HBBibl 1 no. 764. From the beginning, debate about the eucharist is frequently the context for Bullinger’s statements about Christ. Thus, for example, in De institutione eucharistiae, hereafter: The Institution of the Eucharist, in December 1525, he writes that Christ, as he is a man, cannot at the same time be in many places, for the creed states clearly that he sits at the right hand of God and that he will not come from there until he comes to judge the living and the dead (HBTS 2. 104.25–105.7). In affirming this, Bullinger distinguishes between what God can do and what he wills to do. The two natures are indeed united in the one person, but are not to be confused. Humanity is in one place, whereas the divinity is everywhere. We are to lift up our eyes not to the altar, but to heaven. Characteristically, Bullinger buttresses his position by

132

Chapter 4: Christ

the fathers and of Luther, Melanchthon, and Erasmus.) When he expounds his understanding of Christ, he argues his case both biblically and patristically, and he begins with the person of Christ which is the basis for what he says about the work of Christ. It is, however, on the work of Christ that the emphasis generally lies. These are consistent characteristics of his christology through the years. Bullinger’s work On Scripture was written in 1523. It is significant that in it he draws on Cyprian in his use of Matthew 17:5: ‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Listen to him.’31 Initially Bullinger’s use of the text emphasizes that Jesus is the Son of God and this is a basis for affirming the authority of scripture.32 Opitz notes that a year later on 17 November 1524, when Bullinger quotes this text in The Sacrifice of the Mass, it is no longer referred to Cyprian, and is given not in the Vulgate version (‘in quo bene sensi’), but in the form ‘in quo placata est anima mea’.33 This translation expresses God’s pleasure in Christ’s completed work of reconciliation, so that at this point the text embodies both the person and the work of Christ. It is in this form that it appears on the title page of almost all of Bullinger’s works. In his Reply to Burchard (1526) there is a sustained use of the words of Matthew 17:5, and characteristically Bullinger adds the word ‘alone’34 They are to listen to Christ alone. The reason is twofold, and relates to both the person of Christ and the work of Christ. First, he is the only teacher, as he is the Son of God and we are, according to Scripture, to listen only to God. The presence of Moses and Elijah in the account of the transfiguration, in which these words occur, shows that what Christ teaches does not differ from what was promised in the law and the prophets. Second, he is the true and only reconciler and the only bridegroom. We are to cling to him as our salvation. He has reconciled us to God

31 32 33 34

distinguishing it from the views of heretics – in this case Nestorius and Apollinarius. (HBTS 2. 113. 4–115.5) HBTS 2.23.2–4, De scripturae negotio, hereafter: On Scripture See Opitz, Dekaden 54. HBTS 2. 39. 3–4, De sacrifitio missae, hereafter: The Sacrifice of the Mass. Compare HBTS 2.23.4. Antwort an Burchard, hereafter: Reply to Burchard, has two sections. The first and longer one, which emphasizes Matthew 17:5, maintains the sole authority of scripture. That being established, Bullinger examines Burchard’s view of the mass. This may reflect his own development in which his rejection of the mass follows his discovery of the sole authority of scripture. Koch (Theologie 130–133) notes the emphasis on Christ alone in The Second Helvetic Confession. That emphasis can be found in Bullinger’s work throughout his ministry. Most, if not all, of the references are in opposition to papal teaching; many of the uses of alone (or its equivalent) would appear to concern directly or indirectly the person or work of Christ, most obviously in relation to issues such as faith and works and the intercession of the saints. There is a parallel in Luther’s use of ‘faith alone’, a usage which Bullinger defends in his commentary on John (114v31–5r46).

The Context for the Doctrine of Christ

133

and betrothed us to himself.35 For Bullinger, almost the whole of our salvation is contained in this saying. It presents Jesus as God’s Son and true messiah, promised in the law and the prophets, who has reconciled us to God, and betrothed us to himself, so that we should place our hope in him and listen to him alone.36 In Bullinger’s early works there is no sustained christological discussion, but there are important elements which are consistent with his later presentations. The strongly christological character of election in Bullinger is related in part to his use of Ephesians 1:4. Thus in Ephesians (1526) there is a stress on election, which is before the foundation of the world, as being in Christ and for the sake of Christ.37 In 1526 in expounding Hebrews 2: 10–13, he points to two reasons for Christ’s incarnation and suffering – first, that that is the only way we could be saved (from death and every form of bondage) as God’s righteousness needed to be satisfied, and, second, that Christ needed to be made like us, so that he could be a true high priest for us with God and pray for us.38 In The Highest Good, he relates the incarnation to Christ’s being the pledge of God’s grace and goodness to us (Romans 8: 31–32) and an example to follow (John 8:12). He became man to make known God’s will, and to be a sacrifice for sin and the destroyer of death (Hebrews 2:14–18), so that we might come more joyfully to God as the one who has bound himself to humanity in the incarnation of Christ and has taken up human nature to heaven.39 There is a similar emphasis on sacrifice in 1 John.40 In expounding 3:5, Bullinger writes that the chief cause of the incarnation is that the Son of God may take away our sins by the sacrifice of himself.41 The same link between incarnation and salvation is expressed in Bullinger’s later works. In The Decades he states that ‘the chief cause of his incarnation is to mediate between God and men and by mediating to join or unite those who were separated’.42 In The Second Helvetic Confession the second chapter begins ‘the Son of God…was predestined or foreordained from eternity…to be the saviour of the world’.43

35 This is related to Bullinger’s translation of the text, ‘in dem ich versöhnt bin’ (‘in whom I am reconciled’) (HBTS 2.143.25–27, compare 39.4). 36 HBTS 2. 147.4–148.5. 37 Ephesians (1526) 43.v.30–44.v.5. 38 HBTS 1. 152. 26–153. 22, 155. 2–156.9. 39 The Highest Good 16.23–19.13. For Das höchste Gut, hereafter The Highest Good, see HBBibl 1 no. 768. Cf HBTS 2.14.20–30. 40 Bullinger gives incidentally two reasons for the incarnation: first, as an example of how we are to live and, secondly, as a sacrifice for sin (17–18). For In Epistolam [primam] Ioannis… expositio, hereafter: 1 John, see HBBibl 1 no. 37. 41 1John 28r 7–13. 42 HBTS 3. 84. 22–23; Decades 1.130. 43 RR2/2 291. 17–19; BRK 182. 46–183.1; RC 242. For the text of Confessio Helvetica Posterior, 1566, hereafter: The Second Helvetic Confession, see Mihaly Bucsay, Emidio Campi et al. (eds),

134

Chapter 4: Christ

The necessity of the incarnation for our redemption is sometimes expressed explicitly in terms of the characteristics of the different natures. In discussing the body of Christ in the eucharist in 1526, Bullinger maintained that no human being could help fallen humanity, but only God who is perfect. At the same time, however, redemption, is not possible without the shedding of blood, which is possible only for human beings. Therefore, God, who is invisible and impassible, resolved that the Son should assume human nature, and so he was able to suffer and die for us.44

The Person and Work of Christ There are many consistent elements in Bullinger’s exposition of the doctrine of Christ. He begins with the person of Christ and then moves to the work of Christ. He does this, in part because that is the order in the creed which refers to him as Son of God before referring to his life, death, and resurrection,45 in part because his being God is the presupposition for his work of salvation, for only God can save.46 In his presentation of the person of Christ, Bullinger begins with Christ’s divinity. That reflects the order in the creed, but it also reflects the fact that the context of his works includes controversy about the role of the saints in medieval religion, a role that for him usurps that of Christ who, as God and man, is the only mediator. In The Decades, Bullinger expounds the second article of the creed in sermons 7 and 8 and then the person and work of Christ at greater length in sermons 36 Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften Vol. 2:2 1562–1569 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2009) 268–345, BRK, 170–221. For an English translation, see RC, 224–230. 44 HBTS 2.111.20–30 His role as intercessor, advocate, and mediator is related to his being Son of God, which distinguishes him from the saints, but also to his being man, for a mediator needs to be both God and man (Origin of Error E 7 v 23–8r3). For De Origine Erroris, in Divorum ac Simvlachrorvm Cvltv hereafter: Origin of Error, see HBBibl 1 no. 11. 45 In the creed there is reference to ‘Jesus’ (i. e. Saviour) before the reference to ‘his only Son’, but Bullinger refers the initial ‘I believe’ to Jesus as Son of God, as belief is in God (HBTS 3.82. 10– 29; Decades 1. 127). 46 HBTS 3. 83. 19–21; Decades 1.129. Bullinger accepts this patristic conviction, for example, in ‘If he is not God, he is not salvation. For I, says the truth, am God and beside me there is no God, no salvation.’ (Apocalypse 19. 17–19; ET 42) The different emphases of Bullinger and Luther can be seen in their exposition of Hebrews 1:2. Bullinger is concerned with the divinity of Christ rather than the humanity (because for him the divinity of Christ is essential for the forgiveness of our sins) and with the trinity. By contrast, Luther – in an observation typical of his theology – comments that the letter mentions the humanity of Christ so that we may come to the knowledge of God. See W.P. Stephens, ‘Bullinger’s Commentaries on Hebrews: In Comparison with the Commentaries of Luther and Calvin’ in The Bible Translator 55 (2004) 401–408, especially 404.

The Context for the Doctrine of Christ

135

and 37.47 The earlier exposition, like the creed, gives a much larger place to the work of Christ, but the later lengthier sermon on the person of Christ is more typical of his approach. In it Bullinger argues characteristically for the divinity of Christ, first from the bible and then at greater length from the fathers. He quotes Cyril, including his use of brightness from the sun and heat from the fire to show that the Father and the Son are co-eternal. But Bullinger is explicit in maintaining that this is to be believed ‘according to the scriptures’, and not by implication ‘according to the fathers’.48 With the statement that the Son is of one being or substance with the Father, Bullinger begins his explanation not with the Bible, but with the church historians, Eusebius of Caesarea and Socrates. He defends the use of the terms being or substance by the necessity to flush out heretics, such as Arius, who hid themselves behind ambiguity, but Bullinger argues biblically for the use of the terms, again first from the Old Testament (Zechariah 13:7) and then at length from the New Testament. The word itself, he admits, is not biblical, but what it signifies is biblical. Bullinger quotes Ambrose and Augustine, who also argue that the term is true to scripture.49 Bullinger then cites a range of New Testament testimonies, mostly but not only from John’s gospel. He follows biblical testimonies with biblical arguments, drawing initially on Tertullian’s arguing from biblical passages which imply Christ’s divinity. After that, Bullinger quotes texts from the Old Testament and the New which ascribe to Christ what is ascribed to God. Thus, in Ezekiel 34 we read first, ‘I will feed my flock myself alone’ and then, ‘my servant David (that is, Christ the Son of David) shall feed it’. And in the New Testament Mark 2 states that only God forgives sins and John 1 says of Jesus that, ‘He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.’50 After having given several pages of biblical testimonies, Bullinger states that he could bring innumerable examples, but he moves to the humanity of Christ. Again, he does not begin with the New Testament, but with the Old, with passages such as ‘The seed of the woman shall crush the serpent’s head’ (Genesis 3). Bullinger regards his case as having been sufficiently established from the bible, but nevertheless cites Cyril and Theodoret of Cyrus in support of it.51 This leads him to insist that references to the humanity or flesh of Christ do not mean, as with Arius, the flesh only without the soul or, with Apollinarius, a soul without a mind. According to the New Testament and Athanasius, Christ had a reasonable 47 48 49 50

HBTS 3. 79–98, 627–678; Decades 1.122–157, 3.238–297. HBTS 3. 627.6–628.31; Decades 3. 238–242. HBTS 3.628.31–631.13; Decades 3.242–246. HBTS 3. 631. 13–635.25; Decades 3.247–254. In his early commentary on Romans, expounding 1:4, he refers to the resurrection and the abundant gift of the Holy Spirit in fulfilment of the prophecies of Joel and Jeremiah as evidence for the divinity of Christ (HBTS 1. 40.29–41.5). 51 Bullinger names Valentinus, Marcion, Apelles, and Manichaeus as denying the true flesh of Christ (HBTS 3. 637.6–9; Decades 3.256–257).

136

Chapter 4: Christ

soul.52 Having demonstrated that Christ is both God and man, Bullinger expounds the union of the two in one person, in opposition to Eutyches, the Monothelites, and Nestorius. The two natures keep their distinctive properties. He quotes ‘ the prophets (Isaiah and Micah) and the apostles’, arguing that passages, such as ‘You will not always have me’ and ‘I am with you always’, cannot be true at the same time, unless Christ retains the properties of both natures. Testimony from the bible is followed by that of Augustine and Vigilius, and not surprisingly the quotations from them include reference to Christ’s being ‘everywhere in that he is God, but in heaven in that he is man’. The quotation from Vigilius ends, ‘This is the catholic faith and confession, which the apostles delivered, the martyrs confirmed, and the faithful observe to the present day.’53 Bullinger, like Zwingli, is sometimes described as Nestorian because of the sharp distinction between the two natures in Christ, but Bullinger himself is strongly critical of any division in the person of Christ, as though there were two Christs: ‘one subject to suffering and mortal, the other not subject to suffering and immortal’.54 Bullinger attacks Nestorius’ rejection of Mary as theotokos (Godbearer or Mother of God) on the basis of Luke. But then Bullinger invokes the Council of Toledo and Pope Damasus, as well as Theodoret, in support of the strong distinction between the two natures and the view that God does not suffer, but that Christ suffered as man not as God, although Theodoret sought to associate the Son of God in an appropriate way.55 He quotes Theodoret also in support of the unity of the person and the distinction of the two natures with the analogy of soul and body.56

52 HBTS 3. 635.25–639.14; Decades 3. 254–260. 53 HBTS 3.639.14–643.1; Decades 3. 260–267. For the important role of Vigilius of Thapsus as a witness to the clear distinction of Christ’s divine and human natures, see Alfred Schindler, ‘Bullinger und die lateinischen Kirchenvater’, ZWA 31 (2004) 161–177, in particular 176–177. See also Koch (Theologie 121–122). HBTS 3.639.14–643.1: Decades 3. 260–267. 54 Staedtke (Theologie 144) sees Bullinger as verging on Nestorianism in the way he expounded the Chalcedonian terms without confusion, without change, without division, without separation. He states, ‘Die chalcedonenischen Begriffe “ inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter” werden von ihm in der Weise ausgelegt, dass die Grenze einer nestorianischen Interpretation erreicht scheint.’ 55 ‘ita etiam ei coniuncta erat, dum crucifigeretur, et concessit, ut perageretur passio, ut passione mortem solveret, dolorem quidem ex passione non suspiciens, passionem, autem sibi adaptans et accommodans, utpote templi sui et carnis coniunctae…’ (3.644.10–13) ‘even so it (his divine nature) was joined unto him when he was crucified, and permitted that his passion should be thoroughly ended, and that by his passion he might suffer death, not feeling grief truly by his passion, but making his passion agreeable and convenient for himself as the passion of his temple…and of his flesh joined unto him….’ (Decades 3.269) On Bullinger’s use of Theodoret, see S-P. Bergjan, ‘Bullinger und die griechischen Kirchenväter in der konfessionellen Auseinandersetzung’ ZWA 31 (2004) 133–160. 56 HBTS 3. 643. 1–646.7; Decades 3. 267–272.

The Context for the Doctrine of Christ

137

This leads Bullinger to discuss alloiosis or antidosis, the communicating of properties, ‘when that property is given to one nature which is proper to another’. He gives examples such as ‘He is not here, he is risen’, although his divinity is in every place. Christ’s person is not divided when the human body of Christ is not made equal with his godhead. Bullinger uses the patristic analogy of human beings who consist of body and soul. They have different properties, so that, for example, the body sleeps but not the soul, and yet there are not two persons.57 In sermon 37 on the work of Christ, Bullinger lays the emphasis on Christ as king and priest. As king, ‘he is ruler and governor of all things in heaven or on earth, and especially of the church’ and ‘the deliverer or preserver, the revenger and defender, and the lawgiver of his elect’. As king, he delivers us from the devil, damnation, sin, and the curse. As priest, he is our chosen and appointed teacher and master, to govern and teach the universal church, to make intercession for us. He is our only mediator and advocate with God. By his sacrifice he has made satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. Typically, the reference to Christ as our high priest is used to show that he has no need for a vicar in his church. Towards the end of the sermon, he deals with belief in Christ before his incarnation. Following Eusebius, he refers to those who were Christians before Christ such as Adam, Noah, and Abraham.58 A final quotation from Augustine shows his influence on the substance of the sermon. It refers to the anointing of kings and priests and to Christ’s being anointed as king and priest. Being a king, he fought for us; being a priest, he offered himself for us.59 Bullinger insisted that salvation is through faith in Christ. Bullinger, however, is more careful than Zwingli in what he says about the salvation of the heathen. In his defence of Zwingli against Luther, Bullinger consciously or unconsciously qualifies what Zwingli says about them. In True Confession he argues more particularly from heathen in the Bible, with examples of those, such as Job, who

57 HBTS 3.644.15–646.13; Decades 3. 270–273.He quotes Theodoret at length on the distinction of soul and body and their unity as one person (HBTS 3. 645.29–646.6; Decades 3. 272). 58 Following the early church fathers, especially Augustine, Bullinger sees the fathers in the Old Testament as believing in Christ, in their case believing in the Christ who is to come rather than the Christ who has come. He discusses this in The Old Faith in the 1530s. For him, Adam and Eve recognized themselves as sinners and trusted that they would be saved through Christ alone. He argued that all that happened to Christ and all that was preached about him in the New Testament was believed by the faithful in the Old Testament, giving as examples Psalms 33 and 110 (A iiir- Gvr, especially Biv v 28-vii r 10, Ev v 16 – Fii v 3, Fv r 19-G iii v 29). For Der alt gloub, hereafter: The Old Faith, see HBBibl 1 no. 100. See also W.P. Stephens, ‘Bullinger’s Defence of the Old Faith’ in RRR 6 (2004) 36–55, especially 39–40. The unity of faith in Christ in the Old and New Testament is present in the early Bullinger in what he says about the covenant and elsewhere. See, for example, HBTS 2.153. 16–29. 59 HBTS 3.646.22–26; 648.26–27; 654.7–14; 655.9–10; 658.25–28; Decades 3.273, 276, 285, 286, 291, 296.

138

Chapter 4: Christ

did not have contact with Israel.60 The Book of Job is quoted as an example that such heathen did not simply have faith in Christ, but also had faith in his death and resurrection. One element of the work of Christ is developed and emphasized in Bullinger: uniting believers to God. Opitz notes that in the 1539 edition of The Origin of Error the title of the first chapter of volume two is: ‘On the Mystery of Redemption and the Union of the Faithful with God through Christ’ and refers to this, and not the covenant, as the scope of scripture.61 He relates this to his view that Bullinger ‘has raised the spiritual communion with Christ (die pneumatische Christusgemeinschaft)’, from which comes the central role of sanctification, ‘to the central and integrating motif of his theology’.62 The second volume concerns the eucharist, and it is significant that at the outset Bullinger places it in the context of the Christian’s being united to God through the sacrifice of Christ.63 He expounds this first in the light of images, such as being grafted into Christ, being married to him, and being indwelt by him. (He notes that the figure of marriage is found throughout the Bible, and that it involves the husband’s sharing all he has with his bride and receiving from her all her weakness and turpitude.) In the light of a range of passages, such as John 6: 15,17, Galatians 2: 20, and 2 Peter 1: 3–4, he speaks of the new life the Christian lives and begins to expound the eucharist.64 In other writings the work of Christ is differently presented. In The First Helevetic Confession, almost nine tenths of the article on Christ concern the work of Christ, the first tenth being a succint statement about two distinct natures in 60 True Confession 16r–25v. For details of Warhaffte Bekanntnuss der dieneren der kilchen zu˚o Zürych, hereafter: True Confession, see HBBibl 1 no. 161. See also the discussion in W.P. Stephens, ‘Bullinger and Zwingli on the Salvation of the Heathen’ in RRR 7 (2005) 283–300. Bullinger’s vision of heaven in Matthew (166 r 9–23), with its reference to seven central figures and the prophets and holy men of the Old Testament and Peter and Paul and all the other faithful servants of God in the New Testament, contrasts with Zwingli’s inclusion of some of the heathen in Exposition of the Faith. For In Sacrosanctvm…Euangelium secundum Matthaeum, hereafter: Matthew, see HBBBibl 1 no. 144. 61 Opitz, Dekaden 247–248. The 1539 edition is De Origine Erroris Libri Duo, hereafter: The Origin of Error. It develops the earlier works on images and the eucharist. The reference he gives is ‘Habes in his totum sacri Evangelii mysterium compendio perstrictum.’ (182 r; FT 494. 15–16) It speaks of the whole mystery of the holy gospel, but does not explicitly mention the scope of scripture. I do not have access to the 1539 edition (HBBibl 1 no. 12) and use the French translation (abbreviated as FT – see HBBibl 1 no. 15). 62 Opitz (Dekaden 233–244) notes the kinship of Bullinger with Oecolampadius in this and other points, but also recognizes that they might have drawn on a common source, and that this is an element, for example, in Luther and in fathers, such as Augustine. 63 Through his death Christ has united us with the Father: ‘efficitque suo spiritu et merito ut in terris viventes ambulemus in charitate, et post hanc vitam ad ipsum transferamur deum, ipsique aeternum coniungamur’ ‘and has effected by his Spirit and merit that we walk in love while we live on earth, and that after this life we are translated to God himself and united eternally with him’(182v; FT 496.1–8). 64 The Origin of Error FT 489–504.

The Context for the Doctrine of Christ

139

one undivided person.65 In The Second Helevetic Confession both the person and work of Christ receive a more equal treatment, and the link between them is stated in the opening words, ‘the Son of God… was predestinated… from eternity to be the Saviour of the world’. The same basic points are made about the person of Christ. Bullinger affirms first that Christ is true God, supported first from the Old Testament and the New, followed by an attack on ancient and contemporary heresy in Arius and Servetus. Then he affirms that Christ is a true man, having real flesh, not (as with Valentinus and Marcion) imaginary flesh, and having a rational soul, not (as with Apollinarius and Eunomius) without one. Christ’s two natures (divine and human) are united in one person, ‘one true God and man’. The confession condemns Nestorians who have two Christs not one, and Eutyches and others ‘who remove the property of the human nature’.66 This leads to a more controversial area: the assertion that the divine nature cannot suffer and that the human nature is not everywhere and the denial that the body of Christ ceased to be a true body after he was glorified. There follows a rejection of Schwenckfeld and others, which could include Luther and his understanding of the eucharist.67 Muslims who deny Christ’s suffering and death are also condemned. Bullinger appeals to scripture and antiquity in support of the use of the communication of properties to explain and reconcile apparently contradictory passages. In his earthly body he rose and ascended into heaven, which is a place, and from there he will return to judge the living and the dead. Believers will enter into blessedness with Christ for ever and unbelievers will descend into hell for ever. There is condemnation of those denying a resurrection of the flesh and of those who think everyone will be saved, as well as the Jewish dream of a golden age on earth before the judgement.68 In the closing sections Christ is presented as the one saviour of the world, salvation being received by all those who believe, both before and after the coming of Christ. Christ’s saving work is summarised as reconciling to the Father, expiating sins, overcoming damnation and hell, and restoring life and immortality. Christ himself is our righteousness, life, and resurrection, and also king and high priest. The chapter concludes by affirming the creeds and decrees of the first four councils as well as the Athanasian and similar statements. They sum up what scripture says about the incarnation. In doing this, Bullinger claims that they ‘retain whole and unimpaired the Christian, orthodox, and catholic faith’.69

65 66 67 68 69

RB1/1 46. 22–48.2; BRK 103. 15–47; RC 103–104. RB2/2 291.17–293.14; BRK 182. 46–183.50; RC 242–244. See W.E. Meyer ‘Soteriologie’, 406–407. RB2/2 292.14–296.8; BRK 183. 50–185. 17; RC 244–246. RB2/2 296. 9–297.10; BRK 185. 18–186.12; RC 246–247.

Chapter 5: The Holy Spirit

The doctrine of the Holy Spirit has a vital role in Bullinger’s theology in five areas of controversy: the trinity, scripture, salvation, word, and sacrament. It can be seen as central to Bullinger’s theology, though certainly not the centre of it. That it is not the centre of his theology is borne out in part by the fact that there is no chapter on the Spirit in Bullinger’s best known theological work, The Second Helvetic Confession.1 Moreover, in his most substantial theological work, The Decades, there is no special emphasis on the Holy Spirit.2 The Decades has a sermon on the Spirit, but it is only seventeen pages in length, whereas the average length of the other sermons in the fourth decade is over twenty three pages. Furthermore, in an exposition of the twelve articles of the Apostles’ Creed in the first decade, the exposition of the article on the Holy Spirit is less than a fiftieth of the length given to the other eleven.3

1 There is also no article or chapter on the Holy Spirit in The First Helvetic (Second Basel) Confession in 1536 or The First Basel Confession in 1534. The absence of an article in The First Helvetic Confession might account for the absence from the later confession, if it reflects the structure of the earlier confession.For The First Basel Confession, see E.F.K. Müller (ed.), Die Bekenntnisschriften der reformierten Kirche (Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1903) 95–100, abbreviated as BRK for The First Helvetic Confession, 101–109, and for The Second Helvetic Confession, 170– 221 and the modern critical edition in H. Faulenbach and E. Busch et al. (eds), Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften Vols.1/1 44–68 and 2/2 1562–1569 268–345, (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2002-), abbreviated as RB. For the translation of the latter, see A.C. Cochrane, Reformed Confessions of the 16th Century (London: SCM Press, 1966) 224–301, abbreviated as RC. 2 For Bullinger’s The Decades, see Heinrich Bullinger Werke III vols. 3.1 and 3.2, edited by Peter Opitz (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2008), abbreviated as HBTS 3. For the English translation, see The Decades, vols. 1–4 edited by Thomas Harding (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1849–1852), abbreviated as ET (English translation) with a reference to the volume and page. 3 Interestingly, as Bullinger cuts the sermon short, he states that he will discourse more largely and fully on the Spirit in the other sermons. This reflects the way the Spirit pervades his theology.

142

Chapter 5: The Holy Spirit

Despite the absence of a chapter on the Spirit in The Second Helvetic Confession, Koch maintains that the Holy Spirit is at the heart of the confession.4 He holds that pneumatology is at the heart of chapter 13 on The Gospel, a chapter which he regards as the centre of the confession. (The Spirit is related to the preaching of the gospel, but it is not obvious that that puts pneumatology at the heart of the chapter.) Locher accounts for the relatively few references to the Spirit in the confession, as Bullinger’s way of responding to Lutheran suspicion of and hostility to Zwinglian spiritualism.5

The Holy Spirit and the Doctrine of the Trinity There is a double context for understanding Bullinger’s presentation of the Spirit. There is, first, the questioning of Zurich’s orthodoxy by Luther and some of Bullinger’s Roman opponents. This leads him to preface The Decades with the creeds and other statements of faith as an affirmation of his being united with the faith of the early church. It also leads to a statement of the doctrine of the trinity in the traditional language of the church. There is, secondly, a questioning of the doctrine of the trinity by various radical reformers, such as Campanus, Hätzer, and Servetus.6 Their challenge makes it important to argue for the divinity of the Holy Spirit and the equality of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Bullinger argues first from the bible, which was the text used by the radicals in expounding their 4 He states that the pneumatological ‘Motiv’ is ‘der innerste Nerv des zentralen Kapitels XIII… und damit der innerste Nerv der ganzen Confessio. Theologie ist ihrem letzten Wesen nach Pneumatologie.’ See Ernst Koch, Die Theologie der Confessio Helvetica Posterior (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968) 427–28. Koch’s comment (Theologie 97) that the Holy Spirit has the last word in relation to predestination is puzzling, as it would appear to separate the work of one person of the trinity from another. Rather, Bullinger sees election and vocation as the work of the one God. ‘Zur ersten ist not, dz die erwoellung, gnad und berueffung da sye, sust mag niemands zum son kummen, der vatter zühen dann.’ See Joachim Staedtke, Die Theologie des jungen Bullinger (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1962, 215.) Moreover, The Second Helvetic Confession says election and faith through the Holy Spirit are the work of the one God (RB 2/2 307.10–13; BRK 193. 8–11; RC 257–258. 5 Gottfried W. Locher, ‘Die Lehre vom Heiligen Geist in der Confessio Helvetica Posterior’ (300– 336) in Joachim Staedtke (ed.), Glauben und Bekennen. Vierhundert Jahre Confessio Helvetica Posterior. Beiträge zu ihrer Geschichte und Theologie (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1966) 300–301. 6 Bucer refers to Campanus and Servetus in writing at length to Bullinger in 1532 (HBBW 2.128.896–899). For Bullinger’s correspondence, see Heinrich Bullinger Werke II Briefwechsel (abbreviated HBBW) edited by Fritz Büsser et al. (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1973-). In discussing the trinity in The Second Helvetic Confession, Bullinger mentions only ancient heretics, whereas in Sermons on the Apocalypse he refers explicitly to Servetus (65.41; ET 146). For Sermons on the Apocalypse (abbreviated as Apocalypse), see Heinrich Bullinger Bibliographie, vol. 1, nos. 327–356, edited by Joachim Staedtke (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972), abbreviated HBBibl 1. The text is no. 327 and the English translation is no. 355. The translation is abbreviated as ET.

The Holy Spirit and the Doctrine of the Trinity

143

views, but also defends the use in the creeds of terms not found in scripture as in keeping with scripture. In presenting the doctrine of the Spirit, Bullinger characteristically argues his case both from scripture and from the early church.7 In asserting both the godhead and the procession of the Spirit, Bullinger draws first on the testimony of scripture and then on that of the fathers, the creeds, and the councils. In The Decades, in the first sermon on God, he cites a range of texts beginning with Matthew 28:19–20, John 14:26, and 16:13–15, to show that the Holy Spirit is the third person in the trinity, the persons being distinguished, but not divided.8 In the course of quoting the biblical testimonies, Bullinger quotes supporting passages from the fathers, such as Athanasius, Augustine, Basil, Cyril, and Tertullian. Then to show that this faith did not begin with the apostles or the fathers, but was known to the patriarchs and prophets, he turns to the Old Testament, including Psalm 33:6 and Isaiah 42:1 and 61:1.9 In the sermon on the Holy Spirit, Bullinger presupposes this presentation. He responds to the view that the Spirit is not equal to the Father and the Son, as he is mentioned third. Bullinger quotes passages which show the equality of the persons in the trinity by the fact that in them each of the persons is mentioned first in one of the passages. He also maintains that the Holy Spirit is truly equal in honour, because he does what only God can do.10 Similarly, with the double procession of the Spirit, Bullinger argues first biblically by citing passages in John’s gospel and also Galatians 4:6 and Matthew 10:20 which speak in one case of the Spirit of the Son and in the other of the Spirit of the Father.11 In Sermons on the Apocalypse he uses Revelation 4:5 in support of the double procession, for the Spirit is said to proceed from the throne on which is not only ‘he that sits on the throne’ but also the Lamb.12 Then he quotes Cyril and Augustine in support of the double procession. He distinguishes, however, the eternal proceeding from the temporal proceeding or sending.13 The sending of the Spirit in the New Testament does not conflict with the fact that it is the same Spirit who spoke to the prophets before Christ as to the apostles after Christ 7 Bullinger argues that we can know of God only from the Spirit and, as the bible is inspired by the Spirit, Bullinger uses it to expound who the Spirit is and what he does (HBTS 3. 661.29–31, 663. 12–15; ET 3. 297,300). 8 Compare The Second Helvetic Confession (RB 2/2 277–278; BRK 173–174; RC 228–229). 9 HBTS 3. 583.7–589.15; ET 3.160–172. 10 HBTS 3. 663.22–665.27; ET 3.300–304. Bullinger uses this argument as early as 1525, see Staedtke (Theologie 203). 11 See Staedtke (Theologie 202) for discussion of the person and the double procession of the Spirit in 1525. Compare Apocalypse 9.33–45, 27.21–24; ET 20 and 60. 12 Apocalypse 65.42–66.4; ET 146. He also argues that as the Father and Son are one substance, the Holy Spirit must therefore proceed from both Father and Son (66.4–9; ET 146–47). 13 HBTS 3. 667.27–668.37; ET 3.307–310.

144

Chapter 5: The Holy Spirit

– and indeed to us today. This again is argued first from the bible and then from the fathers.14

The Holy Spirit and the Bible It is particularly in opposition to Roman Catholics and Anabaptists, that Bullinger expounds the relation of the Holy Spirit to the bible. From his earliest works Bullinger affirms the role of the Holy Spirit as the author and interpreter of scripture. The authority of the bible derives from its inspiration by the Holy Spirit, and the understanding and use of the bible depend on the Holy Spirit as its interpreter.15 Citing the testimony of scripture and the fathers, Bullinger maintains that scripture alone is sufficient and does not need to be supplemented by human teaching. In debate with Roman Catholics, with their appeal to tradition, including the fathers and the councils of the church, Bullinger appeals to the bible, supporting this by Christ’s example. He notes that their teaching is human, unlike that of the bible. He refers, among other texts, to scripture as inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16–17). He does not expound inspiration nor refer it specifically to the Holy Spirit in On Scripture in 1523.16 However, in the introduction to his lectures on Romans in 1525, inspiration is specifically related to the Spirit. There he refers to Paul’s words as not Paul’s, but the Holy Spirit’s, who speaks through him. In the first lecture he emphasizes that the scripture of the Old and New Testament is inspired by God, the Holy Spirit.17 Initially, the fact that scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit is used by Bullinger against his papal opponents. Its authority comes from the inspiration of its writers by the Holy Spirit. (The fathers, moreover, to whom his opponents appeal, point away from themselves and the councils to scripture.) In The Authority of Scripture (1538) he opposes the papal view that scripture has its authority from the church. He also contrasts canonical scripture, which is inspired by the Holy Spirit, with the fathers and the writings of philosophers.18 The writings of the fathers are the words of men rather than the words of God. This remains a 14 HBTS 3. 668.37–669.32; ET 310–311. Compare 1 Peter 12v 20–13r 9. For 1 Peter, see HBBibl 1 no. 52. 15 See, for example, W.P. Stephens, ‘The Authority of the Bible in Heinrich Bullinger’s Early Works’ RRR 10 (2008) 37–58 and ‘The Interpretation of the Bible in Bullinger’s Early Works’ RRR 11 (2009) 311–333. 16 HBTS 2.27.15–16; 25.27–28. 17 HBTS 1.23.17–18; 25.18–21. 18 HBTS 4.22.1–18; 101. 18–24. Compare Godly Discourse 34r. For Godly Discourse, see HBBibl 1 no. 565.

The Holy Spirit and the Bible

145

constant note in Bullinger’s writing, becoming perhaps more explicit in works written in the context of the Council of Trent. Thus in 1551, when contrasting Roman teaching with evangelical teaching in fifty articles, he describes his Roman opponents in the fifth article as holding that councils were governed by the Holy Spirit and are binding on believers, whereas for evangelicals they are not binding unless their statements can be proved from scripture.19 He refers to the teaching of Trent that written and unwritten traditions were received by the apostles either from Christ or at the dictation of the Holy Spirit.20 In the second chapter of The Second Helvetic Confession (1566) he refers to both the fathers and the decrees and canons of councils as not to be equated with scripture, but to be accepted only where they agree with it.21 Bullinger uses the Holy Spirit’s inspiration of scripture against the Anabaptists in a different way. He charges them in the 1530s with rejecting scripture and, like the papists, with preferring the spirit which comes from the devil, the father of lies, to the Spirit expressed in scripture, preferring their own understanding and spirit to the word of God.22 In expounding 1 John 2:26–27, Bullinger accuses Anabaptists of understanding the word Spirit as their spirit not the Holy Spirit and of ‘separating the Spirit from sacred scripture; as if the truth of God can be separated from God’.23 In The Decades Bullinger describes inspiration in more detail. He states that the teaching of the prophets did not come from them as authors, but is ‘divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit of God’. ‘For it is God, by his Spirit dwelling in the minds of the prophets, who speaks to us by their mouths.’ A little before this in the sermon, Bullinger states that ‘the Holy Spirit, who occupied the whole mind of Moses, directed his hand as he wrote’.24 Related to the inspiration of scripture is the argument from the consistency of the Spirit. It is used against his opponents when they appeal to something other than scripture which is in conflict with scripture. Against his Roman opponents it is, for example, their appeal to the unwritten tradition of the church. In The Decades he rejects the appeal to apostolic traditions which are not in scripture or compatible with scripture. ‘Wherever you see those traditions differ from written traditions [i. e. scripture] gather that it is human invention, not an apostolic tradition. For those who had one and the same Spirit of truth did not leave one thing in writing and hand down something else in what they said.’25 19 Evangelical and Papal Teaching a i v–iii r. For Evangelical and Papal Teaching, see HBBibl no. 231. 20 Council of Trent 402.1–13. For Council of Trent, see HBBibl 1 no. 230. 21 RB 2/2 275.22–276.4; BRK 172. 14–23; RC 226–227. 22 Anabaptist Teaching 6v14–18, 9r 18-v 16. For Anabaptist Teaching, see HBBibl 1 no. 28. 23 1 John 24 v 5–12. For 1 John, see HBBibl 1 no. 37. 24 HBTS 3.37.17–21, 35.18–19; ET 1.50,46. 25 HBTS 3. 45.25–28; ET 1.64.

146

Chapter 5: The Holy Spirit

The consistency of the Holy Spirit is also used against Roman Catholics and Anabaptists to affirm the consistency between different parts of the bible. It is used in 1524 to affirm that the evangelists agree with Paul on the sacrifice of the mass. In his Reply to Burchard two years later, 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 the apostles. He concludes: the Spirit is consistent and therefore he does not later command what he had forbidden through the apostles.26 In Anabaptist Teaching Bullinger uses this principle in debate with Anabaptists to argue that, for example, what James says about faith and works must be consistent with what Paul says about them. The same point is made in the 1550s in The Christian Religion.27 As the Holy Spirit is the author of scripture, he is also the interpreter of scripture. In his earliest work Bullinger states that ‘scripture is to be interpreted in its own sense, that is, in the sense in which it was written’. In keeping with this, is his statement that ‘no one interprets the scriptures more correctly than the Spirit himself who gave them’. As the Holy Spirit has been given to believers, judgment has been given to them and not simply to the few.28 This is a mark of Bullinger’s theology and practice from the beginning. It is present throughout his life, for example in his Instruction for Study29 and The Prophet.30 In the light of all this it is of fundamental importance to pray for the help of the Holy Spirit in interpreting scripture. From the beginning, Bullinger rejects the view of his Roman Catholic opponents that the bible is obscure and that we cannot understand it without, for example, the use of the fathers. Indeed, in his Sermons on the Apocalypse in 1557, he states that ‘the chief principle and foundation of the papacy is that the scriptures are imperfect and obscure and therefore need tradition’.31 Bullinger faces this challenge in his earliest work, in which he responds to the Roman view that the scriptures are veiled in mystery and therefore that we need the fathers to understand them.32 He replies directly and indirectly in terms of the Spirit. There is the principle of scripture, which is inspired by the Holy Spirit, interpreting scripture, an example being Augustine’s statement that no place in scripture is so 26 27 28 29

HBTS 2.39.22–24, 144.1–145.13. Anabaptist Teaching 36r 23–37r 17 and The Christian Religion 84. 4–10. HBTS 2.28.18–19,23–24;27.30–28.3,9–11;29.1–3. Instruction on Study 1.15.33–39. For Instruction for Study, see Peter Stotz (ed.), Heinrich Bullinger: Studiorum ratio – Studienanleitung (abbreviated as HSBR) (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1987) Vol.1. 30 The Prophet 4.3–13. For The Prophet, see HBBibl 1 no. 33. 31 Apocalypse 174. 17–27. In The Second Helvetic Confession the reference is to the view (sensum) of the Roman church (RB 2/2 275. 13–15; BRK 172.5–8; RC 226). 32 In The Decades he says that their view is that scripture is so obscure that it cannot be read with profit (HBTS 3. 49. 12–14; ET 1.70). Compare Godly Discourse 6r.

The Holy Spirit and the Word

147

obscure that it is not explained in another. There is also the implication of his opponents’ view, which he rejects, that the Holy Spirit did not wish to be understood and willed to be given only to those who are wise.33 The other principles which Bullinger presents are for him examples of scripture interpreting scripture and therefore in effect of the Holy Spirit’s interpreting it. These principles include the comparison of various passages, attending to the historical and biblical context, and using the rule of faith and the rule of love. In his exposition of 1 Peter 1:20–21, he links these principles closely to the role of the Holy Spirit as author and interpreter.34 In The Decades he maintains that the most efficacious rule for expounding the word of God is a heart not given to pride and heresy, a heart which loves God and his glory, and which ‘with constant prayer calls on the Holy Spirit, through whom scripture was made known and inspired, so that also by the same Spirit it may be expounded to the glory of God and the safety of the faithful’.35 Just as the Holy Spirit is needed to expound, so he is needed to receive the word which is preached. This is a constant element in Bullinger’s writing, whether in a commentary such as Hebrews in 1526–27, Mark in 1545,36 or The Decades in 1549. In his comment on Hebrews 9:2, he states, ‘Thus no one understands and receives the word of God, unless he is drawn and sanctified by the Spirit….’ In the second sermon of The Decades he writes, ‘For what will it profit to hear the word of God without faith and without the Holy Spirit of God working and moving inwardly in our spirits?’37

The Holy Spirit and the Word In his presentation of the word, Bullinger uses some of the same texts as Zwingli, such as ‘No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him’ (John 6:44), ‘It is written in the prophets, “And they shall all be taught by God”’(John 6:45), and ‘I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth’ (1 Cor. 3:6–7). He uses them as Zwingli to show that the power and initiative belong to God and not to us. But in general Bullinger puts more emphasis on the word than Zwingli does, not least in his use of ‘So faith comes from what is heard, and what

33 34 35 36 37

HBTS 2.27.18–28.3, 29.1–3. 1 Peter 95v18–96r 23. HBTS 3.54.15–20; ET 1. 78. Mark 45 v 44–47. For Mark, see HBBibl 1 no 170. HBTS 3. 47.5–6; ET 1. 66.

148

Chapter 5: The Holy Spirit

is heard comes from the preaching of Christ’ (Rom. 10:17).38 In his comment on Hebrews 4:11–13, Bullinger quotes 1 Cor 3:7 against ascribing too much to the outward word. On Hebrews 4, he maintains that Paul refers to the inward word, the power of God, which drives people through the hearing of the outward word. The emphasis lies on the power of God, but without a disparaging of the outward word.39 In the exposition of Romans 10 in 1533 there is a comparable balance. Bullinger argues on the basis of 10:14–15 that ‘The ministry of the word, the outward ministry, is necessary in the church of God.’ Then on 10:17 he states, ‘No one relying on the authority of this place judges that the outward preaching of the word of God can confer faith.’ ‘For most well-known is Christ’s statement, “No one comes to me, unless my Father draws him”, and Paul’s, “Thus neither the one who plants nor the one who waters, is anything, but God who gives the growth.”’40 In his commentary on Acts (1533) there is an emphasis on the need for the outward word in the story of Cornelius, although it is recognized that the Holy Spirit was given to Cornelius before his baptism and without circumcision. From the instruction of the angel to Cornelius to send for Peter we learn that we are not ‘to despise the outward administration of the word’. Although the Lord could have taught Cornelius without the administration of the outward ministry, nevertheless he sent him to Peter, as the most faithful preacher of the gospel. ‘Therefore, let none of us say, I have a revelation, I have no need of the ministry of the word.’41

38 Bullinger is able to use the order word and Spirit rather than Spirit and word as Zwingli. But it needs to be remembered that Zwingli can also put the word first, as he does in Account of the Faith. ‘For in speaking canonically or regularly, we see that among all nations the outward preaching of apostles and evangelists or bishops has preceded faith, which we nevertheless say is received by the Spirit alone.’ (Z VI ii 813. 8–11) Zwingli uses the text, ‘So faith comes from what is heard’ (Romans 10:17), but notably in The Providence of God he interprets it in the light of John 6: 44 and 1 Corinthians 3: 6–7, distinguishing the work of the preacher and the work of the Spirit: ‘For the apostle’s work is also from the hand of God, but indirectly (medium); the inward drawing is the work of the Spirit acting directly (immediate).’ (Z VI iii 186.12–187.18) 39 Hebrews 164.5–17;166.29–167.2. For Hebrews, see HBBibl 1 no.38. In his early commentary on Thessalonians he mentions first the necessity of God’s election as well as his calling, if one is to come to the Son, yet second that the teaching of the gospel is also necessary, though a preaching not just in words but with ‘the illumination of the Spirit of God’. See Staedtke (Theologie 215). There is a sense that a call is both divine and human in Romans 39. 11–17. For details of Romans, see HBBibl 1 no.42.Bullinger challenges in other contexts also those who ignore the means which God has appointed and look for miraculous action, for example, in John 54r 39–54v 4. It seems natural in Bullinger to speak of our learning ‘through the word and the Spirit’, even in contexts where there is no mention of the Spirit in the text (John 55v 19–21). For John, see HBBibl 1 no. 153. 40 Romans 133v 7–8, 134r 12–18. 41 Acts 130 v 11–12, 110 v 9–11, 121v 12–18. For Acts, see HBBibl 1 no. 43.

The Holy Spirit and the Word

149

In 1542, in expounding Matthew 13:57–58, there is a more developed presentation of God’s freedom. He interprets the words, ‘For God cannot do us good, unless we believe’, ‘Not that God cannot do all things, but he wills to do all things with the intervention of faith and a just order, and through means instituted by him.’42 Earlier in the commentary he uses the word instrument in referring to the apostles, a word which he is unwilling to use later, though he makes a clear distinction between the Holy Spirit as the author of apostolic doctrine and the apostles as instruments (102.11–14). There is caution in 1556 in The Christian Religion when he discusses word and sacrament in sanctification by the Holy Spirit. He rejects the spiritualism of the Anabaptists. They hold that the Holy Spirit sanctifies inwardly and despise and reject the word and sacrament which the Holy Spirit has commanded us to use. At the same time we must not ascribe more to the instruments than the Spirit and faith can suffer.43 For Bullinger, there is a contrast rather than an opposition between outward and inward. The inward refers to God’s working inwardly through the Spirit. Bullinger expresses this view in some detail in The Christian Religion in a chapter about God’s way of giving and increasing faith. He refers to the crazy views of spiritualists who say wonderful things about the Spirit and inward faith, but belittle preaching and destroy the ministry of the church. To the question could not God give faith inwardly and miraculously without means and without people’s needing preaching and prayer, the answer is brief: But does he? Not at all. He had already miraculously converted Paul, yet he sent Ananias to him. Similarly, he could have instructed Cornelius miraculously through the angel, but he pointed him to Peter who preached to him and baptised him. Believers should follow God’s ordering of things with the preaching of the gospel by which we learn about God’s promises and what we are to believe. He holds that they should use the means God has appointed (Mark 16:15–16 and Romans 10:14–15,17), without arguing about God’s omnipotence. Bullinger insists, however, that the outward word can do nothing of itself, unless the Spirit moves the heart inwardly and draws the person, quoting in support John 6: 44–45, Matthew 16:17, Acts 16: 14, and 2 Corinthians 3:5–7. He concludes the chapter by stating that believers must not take his honour from God and ascribe it to word and sacrament.44 The Second Helvetic Confession broadly summarises Bullinger’s view of Word and Spirit. In the phrase Word and Spirit, the Word refers to the outward word. Although Bullinger is resolute in asserting that the word depends on the illumination of the Holy Spirit and that God can act apart from the outward word,45 42 43 44 45

Matthew 140.16–18. For Matthew, see HBBibl 1 no. 144. The Christian Religion 97 r 19–28. The Christian Religion 104r 24–105v 25, 107r 29-v 7. RB 2/2 274. 4–6,11–13, 22–23; BRK 171.16–18, 24–25,34–36; RC 225.

150

Chapter 5: The Holy Spirit

there is an affirmation of the word and a statement that it will not be fruitless because of the need for inward illumination.46 The God who enlightens us inwardly is the God who commanded the outward preaching of the word and that it is his usual way of acting.47 Paul, moreover, came to the conclusion, ‘So faith comes from hearing, and hearing from the Word of God by the preaching of Christ.’48 In opposition to Anabaptists there is a positive emphasis on the outward as God’s way of acting and giving faith. In several chapters Bullinger carefully holds together God’s working by Word and Spirit.49

The Holy Spirit and the Sacraments From the beginning, Bullinger related the Holy Spirit to the sacraments. But his exchanges with Calvin in the 1540s led to a stronger and more positive or at least more explicit emphasis on the role of the Spirit, especially in relation to the eucharist. The fruit of this can be seen, for example, in The Zurich Agreement (Consensus Tigurinus) and The Second Helvetic Confession. References to the Spirit and the sacraments in Bullinger’s early writings are largely to spiritual eating or eating in the Spirit,50 as opposed to bodily or physical eating. There are references to passages such as John 3:6 (‘what is born of the flesh is flesh; what is born of the Spirit, that is spirit’), 6:63 ( ‘It is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh is of no avail’), and John 14 and 16 which speak of Christ’s leaving his disciples physically and sending them the Holy Spirit.51 Spiritual eating, following Augustine, is understood as eating in faith, because eating and believing in John 6 are seen as equivalent terms. Those who believe that Christ died for them eat his flesh.52 Bullinger’s discussion of spiritual eating mirrors Zwingli’s and is a constant element in his understanding of the sacraments. It is present in The Zurich Confession in 153453 and The Second Helvetic Confession in 1566.54 46 47 48 49

50 51 52 53 54

RB 2/2 274.4–6; BRK 171. 16–18; RC 225. RB 2/2 274.16–18, 23–25; BRK 171. 28–30, 36–38; RC 225. RB 2/2 274.18–22; BRK 171. 31–34; RC 225. RB 2/2 307.10–13, 310.16–18, 317 11–14; BRK 193.8–11, 195.33–36, 200. 31–34; RC 257,261, 269. Koch (Theologie 38) rightly questions Dowey’s description of ‘the outward and inward ways through which the Spirit works’ as ‘inseparably bound with each other’, but ignores Dowey’s further reference to the Spirit’s freedom ‘to enlighten whom and when he wills’. Bullinger distinguishes rather than separates outward and inward, regarding the outward as the way the Spirit generally works, and as a way that follows God’s command. HBBW 1.106.16–17; HBTS 2. 118.7–9, 125.27–28. HBTS 2. 57.24–58.21. HBTS 2.103.8–17. HBBW 4.428.201, 429.243–244. RB 2/2 330. 23–33; BRK 210.46–211.10; Cochrane 285.

The Holy Spirit and the Sacraments

151

There is a relatively positive presentation of the eucharist in The Zurich Confession55 and The First Helvetic Confession, although in the latter it is not explicitly related to the Holy Spirit. They both come from a period when, encouraged by Bucer, there were attempts to find agreement with Luther. In The Zurich Confession, in an exposition of eating the body, there is a reference to being persuaded by the Spirit and faith that Christ was crucified for us.56 (Generally, Bullinger refers to eating in faith without an explicit reference to the Holy Spirit, although faith is itself the work of the Spirit.) However, the confession refers later to our being fed inwardly through the Spirit and faith and making the reality of the sacrament spiritually present.57 Interestingly, the Spirit is said – according to his will – to draw sometimes with and sometimes without an instrument. This statement reflects what Zwingli had said before him, but conflicts somewhat with Bullinger’s later reluctance to use the word instrument. But he always makes clear, as the confession does here, that the power is not in the sacraments.58 In the correspondence between Bullinger and Calvin in the 1540s, one important element is Calvin’s reference to the role of the Holy Spirit.59 Calvin is critical of statements which call in question the effectiveness of the sacraments, both the sharp distinction between signs and what they signify and the insistence that they do not confer what they signify. For Calvin, Bullinger expounds remembrance in terms of absence rather than presence, whereas Calvin insists that Christ is present ‘through the power of his Spirit’ and that ‘distance does not hinder Christ from miraculously feeding his own’. For Calvin, ‘what the Lord represents in a sign he effects at the same time and fulfils in us by the power of his Spirit’. Calvin challenges, therefore, Bullinger’s and Zwingli’s use of the image on a coin: ‘For where is the Spirit in the image of Caesar? Who in any way vivifies it? How is it efficacious in our hearts?’60 For his part, Bullinger had objected to words such as ‘exhibit’ and ‘instrument’, as they imply for him that the sacraments contain what they signify and so attribute to the sacraments what belongs to God. For Calvin, however, God does not give us empty signs. They offer or give what

55 For example, it maintains that the true body is truly given, Christ is present not absent, and the sacraments were not instituted in vain (HBBW 4.422. 8–12, 30–423.35, 427.169–171). 56 HBBW 4.424.68–7. 57 HBBW 4.426.137–143. Compare HBBW 4.425.126–426.130. 58 HBBW 4.427.175–179. 59 See the detailed exposition in Paul Rorem, ‘Calvin and Bullinger on the Lord’s Supper’ in Lutheran Quarterly 2 (1988) 155–184, 357–389, and in Paul E. Rorem, Calvin and Bullinger on the Lord’s Supper (Bramcote, Nottingham: Grove Books, 1989). 60 CR 40. 481–482. See G. Baum, E. Cunitz and E. Reuss (eds), Corpus Reformatorum: Joannis Calvini Opera quae supersunt omnia (Brunswick and Berlin, 1863–1900), abbreviated as CR.

152

Chapter 5: The Holy Spirit

they signify, but he maintains, ‘It is God alone who effects by his Spirit what he figures by the symbol.’61 After reading unpublished sermons by Bullinger on the sacraments, Calvin made a variety of critical comments which Bullinger numbered and to which he replied. The fourth was that ‘God works through the sacraments, but we ascribe the whole efficacy to the Holy Spirit’, and the seventh expresses the same view in stating that ‘the sacraments are instruments of the divine grace’. For Bullinger, the use of ‘through’ ‘seems to ascribe to inanimate things, to signs: water, bread and wine, more than should be ascribed. The efficacy of everything good should rightly be ascribed to the Holy Spirit.’ Against this, Calvin maintains that what the Holy Spirit ‘effects in us through his own power, he effects through the sacraments as through instruments’. To this he adds, ‘The Holy Spirit is the author, the sacrament the instrument he uses’. At the same time, in response to Bullinger’s saying that we do not transfer the power or office of the Holy Spirit to the sacraments, he affirms that ‘it is the power and office of the Holy Spirit to unite us to Christ and make us share in Christ and all the heavenly gifts’.62 The Zurich Agreement63 reflects this focus on the Holy Spirit, though in statements which show a careful balance between what both Bullinger and Calvin seek to affirm. Thus article 8 states that since the sacraments, which are described as testimonies and seals, are true, then ‘without doubt God offers inwardly by his Spirit that which the sacraments figure to our eyes and other senses’. Article 16 introduces the term ‘elect’ which was used only with baptism in The First Helvetic Confession. The efficacy of the sacraments is related to faith, which is characteristic of Bullinger, and to election, which is characteristic of Calvin.64 ‘For as he enlightens by faith none other than those whom he has ordained to life, so he 61 CR 40. 485. 62 Campi and Reich 89. 9–14, 90.5–6, 102.4–11. See Emidio Campi and Ruedi Reich (eds), Consensus Tigurinus. Heinrich Bullinger und Johannes Calvin über das Abendmahl (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009) and CR 35. 693–694, 701–702. An important argument for Calvin’s maintaining that the faithful receive what God offers in the sacraments is that otherwise God’s promises would not be true. See 102.12–13. Sanders discusses the sermons and the important changes that Bullinger made, especially concerning the use of conferre and exhibere. He also notes that ‘1’introduction de l’oeuvre de l’Esprit insère un nouvel élément positif dans le débat’ (321). See Paul Sanders, ‘Heinrich Bullinger et le “zwinglianisme tardif” au lendemain du “Consensus Tigurinus”’, ZWA 19 (1992) 307–323. 63 The Agreement in August 1549 draws largely on Calvin’s Bern Articles of March 1549. Bizer notes that Bucer writes to Calvin of The Zurich Agreement that ‘alles hier Gesagte sei bereits in der Baseler Konfession von 1536 enthalten, die ja Luther eben nicht genügte, und nimmt damit das Urteil der Lutheraner vorweg’. See Ernst Bizer, Studien zur Geschichte des Abendmahles im 16. Jahrhundert (Gütersloh: Verlag C. Bertelsmann, 1940) 270. 64 Although election is not discussed in this context, Calvin restricts the effectiveness of the sacraments to the elect, as Bucer had done before him. See, for example, Campi and Reich 101. 13–15, 18–19.

The Holy Spirit and the Sacraments

153

brings it about by the power of his Spirit that the elect receive what the sacraments offer.’ Likewise, article 23 on eating the flesh of Christ, while it affirms the role of the Spirit, also qualifies it. It maintains that ‘Christ feeds our souls through faith by the power of his Spirit’ when we eat his flesh and drink his blood, but that there is nevertheless no intermingling or transfusion of substance.65 In The Decades, Bullinger draws on Augustine to support the distinction which he makes between the ministry of the minister in the sacraments and the ministry of the Holy Spirit. He frequently affirms the necessity of the work of the Spirit for the effectiveness of both word and sacrament. As Bullinger puts it in one sermon, the sacraments do not benefit us, any more than the beams of the sun benefit those who are blind, unless our eyes are opened by the illumination of the Spirit. Often Bullinger refers to the role of the Holy Spirit and of faith, although on occasion there may be a reference only to faith.66 In several places Bullinger maintains that the sacraments are not to be neglected or despised. He attacks the Messalanians, who held that the faithful, after receiving the Holy Spirit, have no need of the sacraments. He argues against this with the biblical examples of Abraham, Jesus, and (quoting Augustine) Cornelius.67 Like Zwingli, Bullinger makes use of the appeal of the sacraments to the senses, in expounding how the sacraments awaken and increase faith. They appeal to us through our seeing, hearing, touching, and tasting. They ‘visibly represent those things which the mind (animus) inwardly comprehends, considers, and meditates’. Characteristically, however, Bullinger maintains that the power is not in the sacraments themselves, but in faith and the Spirit. He quotes Zwingli’s Letter to the Princes of Germany, including the statement that ‘the visible things are nothing unless the Holy Spirit precedes’.68 In the article on Faith in The Christian Religion, there is a positive, though carefully qualified, reference to the sacraments, in which Bullinger uses the word instrument, a word he is reluctant to use in his discussions with Calvin. Bullinger is insistent that it is God in Christ through the power of the Spirit who converts and sanctifies, but that in doing this he uses the word, the preacher, and the sacraments. (He adds that the ancient teachers referred to this as happening in a ministerial or sacramental way.) Bullinger is insistent that we must not take his honour from God and ascribe it to outward things as instruments or implements,

65 Campi and Reich 129. 16–18, 133. 8–134. 2, 137. 10–14; RB 1/2 484. 1–4, 485. 22–26, 487. 15–19. See Heiner Faulenbach, Eberhard Busch et al.(eds), Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften Vol. 1/2 1535–1549 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2006). 66 HBTS 3. 906.1–9,940.25–941.8, 926.40–927.2; ET 3.273,326,365. 67 HBTS 3. 953.9–954. 2; 955. 19–24; ET 3.345–348. 68 HBTS 3. 944. 29–945.2; ET 3.332.

154

Chapter 5: The Holy Spirit

but also that we must not reject the instruments which God uses. They are, moreover, used to increase and strengthen faith.69 Bullinger observes that Christ’s words about his leaving the world and no longer being present in it physically and about the sending of the Holy Spirit are uttered in the Last Supper, during which the eucharist was instituted. This means that for him John 14–16 must be considered, as well as ‘This is my body’.70 In The Decades, in this context, Bullinger notes that the disciples said that Jesus spoke plainly when he spoke about his leaving the world. Consequently, those words cannot be interpreted figuratively, and therefore the words, ‘This is my body’, which are contrary to them, must be interpreted figuratively.71 In The Christian Religion, in expounding spiritual eating, Bullinger states that Christ cannot be eaten bodily, as his body is in heaven. The Lord, who has a true body and who has truly suffered, ‘now from heaven acts inwardly in the hearts of people through his Spirit’. He shares with them his life and all that he has gained for them with his holy flesh.72 Spiritual eating takes place at all times and in all places where people believe, and not only in the sacrament. Interestingly, in the following section which is on sacramental eating, there is no explicit reference to the Spirit, but rather to eating in faith.73 The Second Helvetic Confession presents Bullinger’s mature understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit in the sacraments, but in it he carefully balances different emphases. For example, a statement which implies that God uses the sacraments to offer us what they signify is qualified by the need for faith to be present in the communicants before they receive.74 In the opening section of article 19 on the sacraments, he affirms that God ‘outwardly represents and, as it were, offers to our sight for contemplation those things which inwardly he performs for us, and so strengthens and increases our faith through the Holy Spirit working in our hearts’75. Here it is implicit rather than explicit that the sacraments have no power in themselves, but that the power is that of God working through the Holy Spirit and working in us, that is in our hearts, rather than in or through the sacraments.76 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

The Christian Religion 107 r 17 – v 15. The Christian Religion 150 v 8–18. HBTS 3.1022. 16–29; ET 3.446. The Christian Religion 151 v 14–29. The Christian Religion 152r 25–153 r 12. RB 2/2 327. 4–12; BRK 208. 22–32; RC 281. Locher somewhat surprisingly ignores Zwingli’s reference to strengthening faith in Exposition of the Faith (Z VI v 158.12–160.27) when he writes, ‘ In der Folge der Definition ist, gegen Zwingli, von Luther übernommen, dass die Sakramente unseren Glauben starken von Calvin, dass dies nur durch den heiligen Geist geschieht, “spiritu Dei in cordibus nostris operanti”. See Gottfried W. Locher, ‘Die Lehre vom Heiligen Geist’ 328. 76 RB 2/2 323. 20–22; BRK 205. 35–38; RC 277.

The Holy Spirit and the Sacraments

155

After saying that ‘the completeness (integritatem) of the sacraments depends on the faithfulness, truthfulness, and sheer goodness of God’, and not ‘on the condition of those receiving them’, Bullinger makes one of his strongest statements about the sacraments. He refers first to the preaching of the word. ‘For just as the word of God remains the true word of God, in which, when it is preached, not only bare words are repeated, but at the same time (simul) the things signified or announced in words are offered, even if the ungodly or unbelievers hear and understand the words yet they do not enjoy the things signified, because they do not receive them by true faith; so the sacraments…remain true and complete; not only do they signify sacred things, but also God offers the things signified, even if unbelievers do not receive the things offered.’ It is because of their unbelief and fault that some do not receive, but ‘their unbelief does not nullify God’s faithfulness’ (Rom. 3:3). The reference to unbelief and fault is typical of Bullinger, whereas that to God’s faithfulness has Calvinian overtones.77 Bullinger uses simul (at the same time) in relation to the preaching of the word, but not to the sacrament. It is nevertheless implied as the sacraments are compared with the preaching of the word. (Calvin’s allowing elsewhere the meaning ‘likewise’ is not relevant here, for this time it is Bullinger who uses and chooses to use the word, not Calvin.78) It is a little surprising that Bullinger does not refer explicitly to the Holy Spirit in this passage. In the chapter on Baptism, there is a typical contrast between the outward and the inward dimensions of the sacrament. It is perhaps significant that the answer to the question, ‘What is baptism’, points not to the outward action, but to the inward. ‘We are inwardly regenerated, purified, and renewed by God through the Holy Spirit.’ ‘Outwardly we receive the sealing of the greatest gifts in water, by which also those very great benefits are represented….’ The two actions here are distinguished, but not separated.79 Inward and outward are again distinguished, but not separated, in the chapter on the eucharist. What is ‘visibly and outwardly represented by the sacrament… is inwardly in the soul invisibly offered by the Holy Spirit himself ’, with the minister saying the words, ‘This is my body’ and ‘This is my blood’. On this occasion, Bullinger then refers to faith in the recipient, when he says, ‘The faithful therefore receive what is given by the Lord’s ministers. At the same time (interim)

77 RB 2/2 327.1–12; BRK 208.19–32; RC 281. 78 Bullinger questioned the use of simul (at the same time) in Calvin’s comments on his sermons, and Calvin said that he used the terms as equivalent to similiter (similarly) (CR 35.704). 79 RB 2/2 328. 5–7; BRK 209. 14–17; RC 282.

156

Chapter 5: The Holy Spirit

by the work of Christ through the Holy Spirit they also receive inwardly the flesh and blood of the Lord and are nourished by these to eternal life.’80 This leads Bullinger to expound spiritual eating of the Lord spiritually, by reference to John 6:51 and 63. There is an analogy between the refreshing and strengthening of our bodies through bodily food and drink and the refreshing and strengthening of our souls through the flesh and blood of Christ, when the Spirit of God communicates them to us spiritually. They are received by us, not as with bodily food by the mouth, but by faith. In this way we receive Christ into ourselves, as we see in John 6:35 and 56–57. Such eating, as Augustine testifies, takes place also apart from the sacrament, where people believe. Sacramental eating includes both the outward receiving of the bread and wine and the inward and spiritual receiving of the body and blood of Christ. It might seem that we do not need sacramental eating, as spiritual eating is what is at the heart of sacramental eating. Bullinger offers three reasons for sacramental eating, though none is related explicitly to the Holy Spirit. He maintains that in sacramental eating people do not receive nothing, but their faith is kindled and increases. Moreover, they are acting in obedience to the Lord, and they not only enjoy the Lord, but also ‘testify before the church of which body they are members’.81 In a brief exposition of the presence of Christ in the eucharist, Bullinger refers to Christ’s being ‘present with us not bodily but spiritually’. Being present spiritually means being present through the Spirit, although he does not say so in so many words. It is implied by his saying that Christ explained at the Last Supper in John 14 to 16 how he would be present with us. He gives, as Zwingli and others before him, the analogy of the sun. ‘The sun is absent from us in heaven, nevertheless it is efficaciously present with us.’ He adds, ‘How much more is Christ who is bodily absent from us in heaven …present with us spiritually’.82 There is continuity, but also development in Bullinger’s understanding of the Spirit and the sacraments. This is evident in the bare reference to spiritual eating or eating in the Spirit in his early writings to a much fuller exposition of the Spirit’s role in his later works We see this in the increased and more comprehensive description of the Spirit’s role in the sacraments in general. This is expounded more fully in the eucharist than in baptism.

80 RB 2/2 330.3–13; BRK 210. 23–35; RC 284. Interim could mean ‘meanwhile’ rather than ‘at the same time’. Yet Bullinger could have expressed himself unambiguously, and presumably chose not to. 81 RB 2/2 330. 14–332. 11; BRK 210. 36–212.7; RC 284–286. 82 RB 2/2 332. 25–29; BRK 212. 23–28; RC 287.

The Holy Spirit and Salvation

157

The Holy Spirit and Salvation The exposition of the Holy Spirit in the first decade stresses the role of the Holy Spirit as sanctifier. That, as Bullinger maintains, is why ‘he is called Holy or the Sanctifier’.83 By contrast, in the sermon on the Holy Spirit in the fourth decade, Bullinger refers first to the Spirit’s role in creation, and then his role in regeneration. ‘For otherwise the Father by the Spirit works all things, and by him he creates, sustains, moves, gives life, strengthens, and preserves all things; by him he regenerates his faithful people, sanctifies, and gives various graces.’84 Despite his mentioning creation first, Bullinger’s overwhelming emphasis is on the Holy Spirit’s role in regeneration.85 In his writings, Bullinger relates the Holy Spirit to every aspect of salvation. He has no consistent way of expressing this, but expresses it differently in different works.86 He defines it in relation to the word Holy and therefore speaks of sanctification as peculiarly the work of the Holy Spirit.87 Sometimes he expresses the relationship in a threefold or fourfold way, as in The Decades. In his sermon on the Holy Spirit, after expounding the Holy Spirit as God and as proceeding from the Father and Son, he states that the Father by the Holy Spirit ‘regenerates his faithful people, sanctifies, and endues them with various graces’. He expands the Spirit’s principal powers in the next sentence adding ‘illuminating’ to ‘regenerating, sanctifying, and filling the faithful with all good things.’88 He does not 83 HBTS 3. 98.25–26; ET 1.155. 84 HBTS 3. 669.35–670.2; ET 3.311–12. 85 The role of the Holy Spirit in creation is present in Article 1 in The First Basel Confession in 1534. Interestingly, the Holy Spirit is not related to creation in The Second Basel (First Helvetic) Confession in 1536, but is related in The Second Helvetic Confession in chapter 7, with reference to Psalm 33:6. 86 He comments on John 3:5, ‘neminem salutem consequi, neminem iustificari, et in beatam vitam transponi posse, nisi prius sit illuminatus, et quasi renatus novisque instructurus dotibus per spiritum sanctum’ (John 34v 46–35r 1). In True Confession (1545), in a paragraph on the Holy Spirit, there is a statement that everything is from the Spirit, but there is also an emphasis on sanctification. ‘Aller trost/stercke/und heiligung in gloeubigen ist des geists Gottes. Ussert dem geist Gottes ist nüt heilig noch gantz. Den glouben hat niemant von jm selbs/sonder der und alle guoten gaaben sind des geists Gottes.’ (50 v 18–23) For True Confession, see HBBibl 1 no. 161. 87 Bullinger can also speak of Christ’s sanctifying us (HBTS 3. 650. 27–28; ET 3. 280). 88 HBTS 3.670.1–4; ET 3. 312. These four activities are stated earlier when he puts into one sentence who the Spirit is and what he does (HBTS 3. 663.15–17; ET 3. 300). Somewhat surprisingly The Christian Religion, which is a shorter, simpler version of The Decades, offers a different summary. We believe that God inwardly and truly ‘durch sinen geist heilige/alle gnaden Christi mitteile/glouben verlyhe/wider gebare/tröste/stercke und besigle’ (97r 12–14). In the brief exposition of the creed Bullinger gives in addition ‘purgari’ and ‘ablui’ (HBTS 3. 98. 30; ET 1. 156). Bullinger considers various names by which the Holy Spirit is known in the bible. But they have a different function from that which the names of God have. They come early in the sermon, and make known what might otherwise be unknown. The names for the

158

Chapter 5: The Holy Spirit

then expound each of these, but gives a host of biblical descriptions of the Spirit and his work. He begins with the word Holy, as through the Holy Spirit all those who are sanctified ‘are sanctified by him’, and by implication not from what is created.89 Bullinger does not seem to see the work of the Spirit as in successive stages.90 Thus in Hebrews (1532), in commenting on faith in Hebrews 11:1, he states: ‘Such faith is not from flesh and blood, but from God alone, who by his Holy Spirit and the word of divine scripture, transforms and illuminates our minds, so that wholly transformed by a wholly divine metamorphosis we may be wholly different people, altogether hang on this one God, seek all things from him alone, worship him alone, despise all things in comparison with him…’.91 In Matthew the Holy Spirit is said to stir up, stimulate, and increase faith, but the Holy Spirit is also said to be given through faith and given to those who already have faith.92The Spirit effects change in those who have faith. On Matthew 5:17, Bullinger comments that ‘the Spirit of Christ, who is conferred on believers through faith does not release a person from the law of God’; on the contrary, ‘a Christian fulfils the law… in the Spirit of Christ’.93 Moreover, righteousness is born through the Spirit of God, and Christ by the power of the Spirit consecrates forgiven sinners to ‘a zeal for innocence, love, and holiness’.94 Bullinger’s commentary on John begins with an extended discussion of both Justification and Good Works. He states that the orthodox and chief dogma of the

89

90

91 92 93 94

Spirit, such as comforter, the Spirit of truth and of promise, water, fire, wind, dove, are by contrast seen as exemplifying what Bullinger has already said about the fourfold activity of the Spirit (HBTS 3. 670. 4–7; ET 3. 312) Bucer also expounds the names of the Spirit in his commentary on Matthew. See W.P. Stephens, The Holy Spirit in the Theology of Martin Bucer (Cambridge: CUP, 1970) 75–76. HBTS 3.670.7–9; ET 3. 312. He then relates sanctification to the trinity, as in the first decade. Although sanctification is peculiarly the work of the Holy Spirit, it is also the work of the trinity. ‘The Father indeed sanctifies also, but through the blood of Christ, and pours the same sanctification into us through the Holy Spirit, so that it is, as it were, the property of the Holy Spirit. For that reason he is called Holy or the Sanctifier.’ (HBTS 3. 98. 23–26; ET 1.155) The way Bullinger relates the Holy Spirit to faith and to sanctification confirms the reference to ‘the Pauline unity of justification and sanctification’ (Staedtke, Theologie 210), but Burrows’ phrase (48) ‘the essential identity’ of sanctification with justification ‘as two aspects of Christ’s one saving act’ does not do justice to the distinction between them. See Mark S. Burrows, ‘“Christus intra nos Vivens”. The Peculiar Genius of Bullinger’s Doctrine of Sanctification’ ZKG 98 (1987) 48–69. There is a critique of Burrows in Christoph Strohm ‘Frontstellungen, Entwicklungen, Eigenart der Rechtfertigungslehre bei Bullinger’ in Emidio Campi and Peter Opitz (eds), Heinrich Bullinger. Life – Thought – Influence. Zurich, Aug. 25– 29, 2004, International Congress Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575) (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2007) 537–572. Hebrews 117 r 15–22. Matthew 81 v 40–41; 82r 39–40, 56v 11; 90v 6–8. Matthew 54v 43–46. Matthew 56r 1–2; 92r 25–27.

The Holy Spirit and Salvation

159

Christian religion is that we are justified by the grace of God for Christ’s sake through faith and not through works, but then he adds that we express such faith in good works. These good works come from the Holy Spirit who indwells those who have been born again or regenerated by the Holy Spirit.95 In Evangelical and Papal Teaching, he states that the only works which are good are ‘those commanded of God and which come from the Spirit of God and from pure faith and love’.96 An important element in Bullinger’s understanding of salvation is that the Spirit grafts us into and unites us with Christ so that we share in his good works. In his Second Response, written against Cochleus in 1544, he expounds the word, ‘I am the vine, you are the branches’, in terms of our being grafted into Christ by the Spirit through faith.97 There is a variation on this in True Faith (1552), a sermon on Matthew 15:21–28 concerning the Canaanite woman.98 In his conclusion, Bullinger speaks of faith’s uniting us with God not of the Spirit’s uniting us with Christ. Bullinger implies, however, that such faith is from the Holy Spirit in a prayer to the Father to give us true faith through the Holy Spirit.99 In True Confession in 1545 the same idea is expressed in an exposition of the article on the church with the image of the head and members and with reference to the Spirit and faith. ‘With the sole bond of the Spirit and faith together with love, they are united with Christ and with each other as members of one body, sharing in the graces and gifts of their head and Saviour Christ’.100 The Second Helvetic Confession has no chapter on the Holy Spirit; it is revealing therefore to see how Bullinger relates the Holy Spirit to salvation. There are references in the chapters on free will, repentance, faith and good works, and the church, but surprisingly no references relating the Spirit to salvation in the chapters on predestination, the law, the gospel, and justification.101 Indeed, in the chapter on predestination, being grafted into Christ is related, not to the Holy Spirit, but to faith, although faith is, of course, the work of the Spirit. Nevertheless, there are several direct references to the Spirit and salvation elsewhere in the 95 John bb 5v 24–25, bb 1v 20–23. 96 Evangelical and Papal Teaching a vii v 16–19. 97 Second Response 5v 12–14. For Second Response, see HBBibl 1 no. 160. In his comments on John 15:5–6, Bullinger refers to the Spirit in relation to Christ’s dwelling in us through the Spirit, but does not explicitly relate the Spirit to our being grafted into Christ (John 167r 35v12). But Bullinger also affirms that Christ unites us to himself (HBTS 3.99.20–22; ET 157). 98 For True Faith, see HBBibl 1 no. 264. 99 True Faith C viii r 3–12. 100 True Confession 50v 26–51r 4. 101 Staedtke (Theologie 211) notes that the Holy Spirit is related to election and the whole process of salvation in 1526 in his commentary on Thessalonians. ‘Der erwoellung volgt heiligung desz geists und glouben der warheit, namlich das Gott sinen geist sendet in der sinen hertzen, das er züge, reinge, heilige, bekere’.

160

Chapter 5: The Holy Spirit

confession. The first reference concerns free will. ‘In regeneration the understanding is illumined by the Holy Spirit so that it may understand both the mysteries and the will of God.’ As a result it is equipped by the Spirit ‘to will and to do good’. There is, however, still sin in the regenerate and so the flesh struggles against the Spirit till the end of our lives. Nevertheless, it cannot wholly extinguish the work of the Spirit, and to that extent believers can be described as free. Repentance is related to the Holy Spirit. It involves the restoration of the mind in sinful man, ‘awakened by the word of the gospel and the Holy Spirit’, and ‘amendment and a zeal for innocence’. On faith and good works, Bullinger maintains that faith is ‘a pure gift of God to his elect’ and he gives it ‘by the Holy Spirit by means of the preaching of the gospel and faithful prayer’.102 It is by the Holy Spirit that good works come from a living faith.103

102 Locher (‘Die Lehre vom Heiligen Geist’, 320) draws a parallel with the Augsburg Confession, but without quoting the important qualification ‘to the elect’ in Bullinger. 103 RB 2/2 288.2–29,301.5–15,307.10–13, 308.1–3, 309.12–14; BRK 180. 21–181.1, 188.43–189.8, 193.8–11, 35–37, 194.34–37; RC 238–239, 251, 257–258, 260.

Chapter 6: Predestination

Predestination is a consistent element in Bullinger’s understanding of God, although there are works in which it hardly features, such as The Old Faith in the 1530s and The Christian Religion in the 1550s. It is a doctrine which he expounds and uses differently from Zwingli, and yet it is one where he defends Zwingli’s understanding and exposition of it. As with the rest of Bullinger’s theology, there is a continuity, though with a possible development or change later in his ministry in an explicit doctrine of double predestination. The most substantial discussion of predestination is in 1536, although there are many references to it before that, partly in Bullinger’s commentaries on Paul’s letters.1 In the early 1550s, he is drawn into the controversy in Geneva between Calvin and Bolsec. In the correspondence with Calvin, he makes clear his strong dissent from Calvin’s understanding of double predestination. In the conflict, however, between Peter Martyr and Bibliander in Zurich and in that between Zanchius and Marbach in Strasbourg a decade later, the statements, to which Bullinger gives or appears to give assent, demonstrate for some interpreters that he agrees with Calvin.

Predestination in Bullinger before 1536 There are not many references to predestination in Bullinger’s early works and it is effectively absent even in important works, such as The Testament in 1534. Nevertheless many of the major elements in his later exposition of the doctrine are present in his early works. There is the emphasis on God’s grace and human responsibility, as well as on God’s goodness and in particular on Christ and his death, with particular reference to Ephesians 1. There is the pastoral concern which is particularly evident in the way Bullinger deals with the problems which 1 In a letter on 25 May 1532 Haller refers to a work by Bullinger on predestination which we do not have.

162

Chapter 6: Predestination

arise from the doctrine, including his insistence on the ultimate mystery of predestination. There is also the exposition of predestination in association with providence, the insistence on the role of outward means and on the danger of over-emphasizing predestination, and the relating of election to baptism. In Bullinger’s early letters there are references to free will and providence which relate directly or indirectly to his understanding of predestination. In October/November 1524 he wrote a treatise on providence of which there remains only the dedication and the title. All twelve folio pages of the treatise have been cut out. As the date is before the controversy between Erasmus and Luther, the natural assumption is that this treatise no longer reflected or only partly reflected what Bullinger later held. On 15 July 1525 in Against Idolatrous Bread Bullinger makes a passing reference to free will, when he states, ‘For if we have free will then God is not God.’ He adds further that free will obscures the suffering of Christ.2 In a letter to Christoph Stiltz on 21 January 1526 there is – given Bullinger’s high regard for Erasmus – a surprisingly strong attack on Erasmus’ work on free will and the rejection of his appeal to the fathers’ exegesis of Romans 9 rather than, as with the reformers, to the scriptures, for says Bullinger, ‘we are Christians, and we fight with the scriptures and not the opinions of the fathers’. ‘In a word: if providence, then not free will; for otherwise providence is not providence. If free will, however, then not providence, for otherwise free will will not be free will.’3 In Comparison Bullinger compares the advocates of free will with Pelagianism.4 In this same period, unlike the early Zwingli, Bullinger explicitly relates free will to election, notably in his Kappel exposition of Romans. His early Kappel commentaries express some key elements in his understanding of election. In his commentary on Ephesians, election comes from the grace and mercy of God; it is through and for the sake of Christ; it involves the rejection of any work, merit, or deserving on our part; and it leads to our adoption and a holy life. Bullinger states that from the beginning God has elected us and adopted us as children and has done this ‘through Christ’. That was God’s purpose. He has done this without our deserving, for what could we have deserved as our election was before the world was created. Moreover, if we are holy and innocent, this is ‘only from the one who is innocent: Christ’.5 In his exposition of 2 Thessalonians later in 1526, after stating that there is ‘no stronger argument for suppressing all deserving and free 2 HBTS 2. 50. 20–24. 3 HBBW 1. 86. 25–88.14. ‘Est enim nedum impius, verum, blasphemus etiam libellus, omnibus fere scriptis Erasmicis contrarius, ut nunc non referam quam ineptus, impotens, flaccidus, in quo praeter artifitium nemo pius nihil laudavit unquam.’ (87. 2–5) 4 Comparison Ci v 24-ii r1. 5 Ephesians (1526) 43v 30–33, 44 r 1–34. For details, see Staedtke (Theologie 284). For photocopies of this, 2 Thessalonians (1526), and Luke (1527), I am grateful to Herr Rainer Henrich.

Predestination in Bullinger before 1536

163

will than election from eternity [in Ephesians 1]’, Bullinger relates election to calling, with sanctification as a consequence not a cause. He writes that ‘sanctification of the Spirit and faith in the truth follow election’. That is ‘God sends his Spirit into the hearts of his own, that he may draw, purify, sanctify, convert (Romans 8, Galatians 4, Jeremiah 31)’. Sanctification involves the work of the Spirit in the heart and that of the word outwardly. Our calling, however, typically for Bullinger, is so that ‘we may be his temples’, in which he is glorified, that is, he alone, alone, alone is honoured’.6 Our election and our calling are not an end in themselves, they are to lead to a new life. In commenting on 1 Peter 1:1–2 in 1534, Bullinger relates election to Christ’s redemption, and emphasizes that it is not accidental by reference to God’s foreknowledge. On 1 Peter 1:20–21 he relates election to Christ’s being slain from the foundation of the world, demonstrating that salvation is not from merit.7 The exposition of Acts 13:48 in Acts strikes two characteristic notes: first that faith comes not from our merit but from God’s mercy and election, and second that the salvation of the godly comes from God’s election and grace. In support of the first of these, he quotes Matthew 16:17 and John 3:3 ad 6:44. He maintains, however, that ‘they do not impute to God the blame for the damnation of the ungodly, but rather prove that the election and grace of God are the cause of the salvation of the godly, lest anyone ascribe to our power what is of God alone’.8 The response to the gospel in 18:10 is seen as evidence of election or predestination.9 In expounding Ephesians 1:5 in 1525 Bullinger states that the ratio of predestination is the repudiation of merit.10 At the beginning of his discussion of Providence in The Origin of Errors, Bullinger speaks of providence as inseparably joined with foreknowledge and predestination. ‘There is nothing he does not foreknow or predestine.’ Bullinger gives a range of biblical examples which show that God is behind everything, even quoting examples, such as that God forms light and creates darkness or that he handed people over to a reprobate mind. He precedes these with the affirmation that the gospels ‘testify that he is author of good and evil’. What is notable is that at this stage Bullinger was not engaging with the problems raised by many of the biblical examples which he cites nor by the statement that God is ‘the author of 6 2 Thessalonians (1526) 149 r 38-v 15. The comments in Luke (1527) on 22: 21–22 are an early example of Bullinger’s engaging with the issue of responsibility When Judas does evil, there is a greater and different emphasis on God’s responsibility than later in Bullinger. For example, ‘Monet enim Judam quem tamen sciebat irae divinae esse instrumentum, nec posse illum non hoc agere ad quod destinatus erat.’ (90 v 17–20) 7 1 and 2 Peter 5 r 18–26, v 11–19, 90 v 20–23, and 30 r 9–25. 8 Acts 162 v 1–13. 9 Acts 225 v 26–226 r 9. 10 HBTS 7. 131.1–4.

164

Chapter 6: Predestination

evil’. Moreover, he relates providence and predestination to God’s ‘power, strength, and majesty’. Only in the following chapter does he move from the power and majesty of God to the goodness and mercy of God and state that ‘the one God is to be trusted who both is able and willing to do good’.11 The longest discussion of election at this stage is in Bullinger’s exposition in Romans of the call of the Gentiles and the rejection of the Jews in Romans 9 to 11, especially Romans 9:10–33. Underlying election is God’s wisdom, power, righteousness, and will. The emphasis is on salvation as depending on God’s grace and not our merit. People become part of God’s people not by ‘works or merits’ but God’s ‘grace, calling, and free will’. We see God’s power in his ‘making alive or killing, adopting or rejecting’. In expounding 9:14–15, he insists that God is just in election. Although this appears to conflict with God’s loving Jacob and not Esau before they were born and had done anything evil or good, Bullinger insists that God’s ways are not as our ways. However from Paul we learn that ‘salvation is from free election’. It is enough that we learn by faith that ‘God is just, fair, and good who does wrong to no one’.12 Early in his exposition (9:17–21), Bullinger makes it clear that God’s ways are beyond our understanding. He repudiates our questioning or challenging the way God acts as unworthy. (Bullinger does not at this stage offer an interpretation which neutralises the way certain biblical passages appear to be in conflict with his understanding of predestination.) He maintains that God’s counsels are inscrutable (11:33), an emphasis that is repeated in different ways, such as the assertion that it is not for us to engage in inquisitive investigation of what God determined before the creation of the world. He also dismisses our questioning as being like the pot challenging the potter in the words ‘who are you?’ (9:20)13 There is a stress on God’s power balanced by a reference to his justice and fairness – and on one occasion to his goodness on the basis that ‘God is at the same time good and just’.14 At the end of the chapter he repeats two constant element in his teaching. God’s universal grace and our personal responsibility. Christ calls everyone to himself and repels no one. He promises rest equally to everyone. Therefore, those who fall from this grace, fall by their own fault, as the Jews.’ Bullinger contrasts those who knowing their disease submit themselves to God and those who relying on their righteousness do not commit themselves to faith, righteousness, and ardent prayer. He observes ‘God’s election cannot be unjust or

11 Origin of Errors A 6 v 23–7 r 5, 19–21,v 13–17, B 1r 5–7, 12–13, A 7 v 22–24, B 1 r 22, v 6–10. For Origin of Errors, see HBBibl I no.11. 12 HBTS 6. 152. 13–15, 28–30, 153, 1–8, 20–23. 13 HBTS 6.154. 25–26, 157. 32–158. 16 14 HBTS 6. 154. 25–26, 157. 12–14, 24–25, 158. 5–6, 159. 4, 21–22, 159. 12–13.

Predestination in ‘Providence, Predestination, Grace, and Freewill’

165

accidental’, adding that those whom he foreknew God determined to be conformed to the image of his Son.15 Bullinger relates the means of grace to election, while insisting that there is nothing automatic in the means. In Acts he argues that baptism and water are not efficacious unless faith and the election of God co-operate, and that the baptism of the apostles does not expiate sin unless faith and election are present.16 The link is expressed negatively, but a positive link is implied if the person is believing and elect. This may also be the case in 2 Thessalonians, where following a reference to election, Bullinger speaks of our being called in the heart with the Spirit and outwardly with the word.17 The statement in The First Helvetic Confession that baptism is offered to the elect implies that it is effective for the elect. A reference, however, later in the article to the election of the children of Christian parents is characteristic of Zwingli rather than of Bullinger.18 His encounter with Anabaptists caused Bullinger, as Zwingli, to consider the argument from election as well as from faith. In response to their argument from election that one should wait for faith as evidence of children’s election, Bullinger insists that we cannot know whether someone is elect, as with Simon Magus when he was baptized. Unlike Zwingli, he does not argue from election but appeals to God’s promise, as in Genesis 17.19 He argues similarly in 1 Corinthians that baptism is based not on faith or election or confessing the faith but on the promise of God to Abraham and his posterity.20

Predestination in ‘Providence, Predestination, Grace, and Freewill’ In 1536 Bullinger published his one work wholly dedicated to issues related to predestination.21 He gives three times as much space to predestination as to providence. He recognizes that no question provokes more lively debate than this one and states that his aim is to express the issues simply, moderately, and biblically.22 Moreover, showing his pastoral concern, he indicates that he is writing for those who seek to know the truth and give glory to God without contention or idle curiosity. He mentions, for example, the conflict between 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

1 and 2 Peter 90 r 22 – v 23; 5 r 18-v 25. Acts 232 v 2–16. 2 Thessalonians 149 v 8–10. RB 1/2 52. 20–26; RC108 Anabaptist Teaching 55 v 29–57 r 11. HBTS 6. 311.19–22. For Providence, Predestination, Grace and Freewill, see HBBibl 1 no. 721. The title expresses the moderation of his presentation. 22 The reference is no doubt to the controversy between Erasmus and Luther, and perhaps to the works of Melanchthon, Zwingli, and Bibliander.

166

Chapter 6: Predestination

freedom and necessity in God’s foreknowledge and predestination and the neglect of means or the ascription of too much to them.23 In the exposition of providence Bullinger maintains both that nothing happens in the world without providence, for the wise, powerful, righteous God does everything, and that God uses people as his instruments. Moreover, the power by which we do good things is also ascribed to God, but that by which we do evil is ascribed to us.24 From providence Bullinger moves to predestination. He defines it in terms of the blessing of those who are drawn through Christ to life and the damning of those who, scorning Christ and truth, follow the darkness of the flesh. Bullinger’s fundamental concern is expressed in rejecting two views (Pelagianism and Manichaeism): one for ascribing too much to us and the other for ascribing too much to God. Thus, some attribute salvation to free will or merit rather than to God’s grace, while others, affirming absolute necessity, make God the author of all evil, as if we perish by God’s fault, not ours.25 Bullinger quotes Augustine on the predestination of the saints, with reference to Roman 9:10–12, Ephesians 1:3–6, 2:8–10, Philippians 2:13, John 6: 44–50 in support of his statement that salvation and election come from Christ or from God’s free mercy, not merit or works. Moreover, they also do not come because of our future works, but because of God’s mercy and grace through Christ.26 In this work Bullinger deals with objections, some of which he has alluded to in other works. One objection is that if salvation comes from God’s grace, then God is responsible for our damnation, for not giving us the faith we need to be righteous. Similarly God is seen as committing Cain’s fratricide and David’s adultery through Cain and David as his instruments. God cannot therefore punish evil and reward the good. Bullinger responds by arguing that in that case the laws in the Old Testament were given in vain, as were the warnings of the prophets and apostles. Furthermore, texts such as Isaiah 30:1 and John 8:44 ascribe responsibility not to God, but to us or to the devil. It is fundamental to Bullinger that God is not the author of sin. He cannot be, quite simply because sin is totally opposed to his nature, and a range of texts affirms that he is just and good. From them Bullinger concludes that although God does whatever he wills, he does not do evil, as he does not will evil.27 Bullinger acknowledges that there are texts which appear to deny what he maintains, such as ‘God tempted Abraham’ (Genesis 22:1), ‘God gave them over to a depraved mind’(Romans 1:28), and ‘He hardened Pharaoh’s heart’ (Exodus 9:12). They are, however, opposed to texts that support him, such as ‘God does not 23 24 25 26 27

Historiae 764. 6–16, 765.15–766.5. Historiae 767. 3–7, 776. 2–10, 18–20. Historiae 777. 5–20. Historiae 777. 20–782.10. Historiae 782.11–786. 13.

Predestination in ‘Providence, Predestination, Grace, and Freewill’

167

tempt anyone’ (James 1:13) and ‘I do not will the death of a sinner, but rather that he may be converted and live’ (Ezekiel 18:25). For Bullinger, there are certain fundamental principles for interpreting scripture, especially where there is a problem. The criteria he applies are love, faith, and the fear of God, which do not permit anything base or impure to be spoken about God. The biblical testimonies do not conflict with faith and the whole of scripture.28 After establishing that salvation comes from God and not us or our merits, Bullinger seeks to show that God is the sole author of good and not the author of sin and evil. From Romans 5:12–19, which contrasts Adam and Christ, he holds that grace and life come from Christ, and wrath, sin, and death from Adam. Romans 7:16–23 refers sin to us, not God. Evil comes from us, not God. Indeed those who impute their sin to God deny the whole of scripture. People perish through their fault, not God’s. James’ statement (1:13–15) about temptation supports this.29 The challenge is taken further by the argument that ‘if evil comes from human beings and human beings were created by God, then God is the author of evil’. Bullinger maintains that everything God made is good. There is no defect in him or in his image. He insists that Adam’s will ‘was free and constrained by no necessity, so that it could have inclined to better things. But tempted, not by God but by the serpent, it declined knowingly and willingly to worse things. ‘Bullinger then deals with the objection that as sin came from the human will and affection, which were created by God, then sin is from God. Bullinger insists with Augustine on the distinction between foreknowledge and predestination. Thus Judas ‘did not betray the Lord because it was written about him’, but it was written about him because God foresaw that the mind would be corrupted by avarice and despair.30 Bullinger has two typical responses to the objections which make God responsible for sins, for example, why God created human beings able to fall. One is a reference to Romans 9:20 which challenges people’s presumption in questioning God, who is just and wise, the other is to quote texts which imply or assert that the fault is ours not God’s. They are texts such as Matthew 23:37, John 3: 19, and 2 Corinthians 4: 3–4,6.31 Two texts (1 Timothy 2:4 and 4:10) give rise to the objection why God does not give faith to everyone if he wishes everyone to be saved. Bullinger responds by drawing on the example of a teacher and a pupil. If a pupil fails to learn the subject being taught the fault is the pupil’s not the teacher’s – and therefore ours 28 29 30 31

Historiae 786.11–787.27. Historiae 787. 27–790.4. Historiae 790. 5–21,793. 24–794. 7, 794. 25–795–2,16–29. Historiae 796 19–797.1, 14–26, 799.19–800.12.

168

Chapter 6: Predestination

and not God’s. Bullinger quotes John 6:45, with its reference to everyone coming to Christ, who listens to and learns from God. Bullinger cites Ambrose (Ambrosiaster) in support: that God wills all to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth, that salvation depends on grace, not merit, and that human understanding cannot grasp the depths of God’s judgments. We ought, therefore, not to enquire why God who wishes everyone to be saved, does not save everyone. There is no iniquity in God whose ways are mercy and truth.32 With the varied but related elements in the title of the work, Bullinger expounds the characteristic elements in relation to predestination: texts referring to all, the value of means, opposition to focusing on election alone, separated from God’s will and neglecting God’s order and means. (Among the concerns which Bullinger considers are the belief that prayer and preaching do not profit a person who does not have faith and therefore is not elect as well as the opposite belief that if one is elect there is no need to do anything. Bullinger insists on the use of the means given by God.33) Typically, Bullinger speaks of the elect in a positive and practical way, saying, ‘Those therefore who believe in Christ and are zealous for holiness… are ordained to eternal life.’34 He rejects speculation, insisting that God’s judgments are unsearchable, to be pondered rather than explained. To those who would impute iniquity to God, Bullinger’s constant response is to refer to Romans 9:20–21.35 For Bullinger, the scriptural approach is clear: to begin with the justice and mercy of God – with God who is ‘good and just’ and who ‘from his inherent fairness and mercy’ does not desire the death of a sinner, but rather that he may be converted and live. God did not wish Adam and his posterity, the whole human race, to perish. It pleased him, therefore, through Christ to reconcile all things to himself. This is the gospel proclaimed first to Adam and Eve and to all of us in Genesis 3:15.36 Bullinger acknowledges that some passages cause people to speak of God as the author of evil and so are – at least apparently – in conflict with his understanding of predestination. He responds with the support of the fathers as well as scripture. Thus God’s handing people over to a reprobate mind (Romans 1:28) refers to those who, though they had been sufficiently taught, did not wish to repent but preferred to continue with a reprobate mind.37 He notes that when 32 Historiae 800.12–803.4. 33 ‘Electio Dei a voluntate Dei separanda non est,neque sola, ordine et mediis neglectis, jactanda.’ (807. 12–14) 34 Historiae 804. 10–807. 25. He adduces 1 Peter 1: 1–2, and Romans 8: 29–30 in support. 35 Historiae 812. 19–813.18. 36 Historiae 813. 19–814.22. 37 Earlier he quotes Augustine on this passage: ‘Non ibi peccatum Dei est, sed judicium.’ (Historiae 796. 6)

A Comparison between Zwingli and Bullinger

169

Genesis 22:1 says that God tempted Abraham, the word tempt is used in the sense of test, and not as in James1:13. References to blinding and hardening are to be understood in terms of God’s permitting. In the passage, ‘There is no evil in the city which God does not do’, evil is – with Augustine – to be understood not as sin, but as punishment. Evil is what people suffer, as well as what they do. But to God it is not evil. Similarly, with Augustine, the statement, ‘All things are from him and through him and to him’, does not apply to sins which do not serve nature, but corrupt it. Sins come from the will of sinners. To the words that God has mercy on whom he wills, he adds, that God wills only what is just and fair. God is the author of good, not of evil. Sin and death come from our corrupt nature. The section on predestination ends with an appeal for a moderate view. That would attribute salvation to grace and promote zeal for piety by the most wholesome precepts and warnings of scripture.38 At the end of the section on free will, Bullinger maintains that the doctors of the church state that we do not act by fatal necessity. Again he cites Augustine. He asserts free will, but not at the cost of grace, on which we depend totally for salvation. Our will is free, but it is not always good. It is free from righteousness, when it serves sin, and then it is evil. It is free from sin, when it serves righteousness, and then it is good, and can fulfil God’s commands.39 The work concludes with a reminder that righteousness (or justice) is giving to everyone what is theirs. They are, therefore, to take care to attribute grace, forgiveness, and all good things to God, and wrath, sin, and everything corrupt to human beings.40

A Comparison between Zwingli and Bullinger A comparison between this work and Zwingli’s The Providence of God published six years earlier shows differences in approach, emphasis, and content between Bullinger and Zwingli.41 38 39 40 41

Historiae 820.25–823.28. Historiae 824. 5–21, 825. 17–25. Historiae 826. 22–827.4. For a more detailed account of providence and predestination, see Cornelis P. Venema Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination: Author of ‘the Other Reformation Tradition’ (Grand Rapids, Mi: Baker Academic, 2002) and W.P. Stephens ‘Election in Zwingli and Bullinger: A Comparison of Zwingli’s Sermonis de Providentia Dei Anamnema (1530) and Bullinger’s Oratio de Moderatione Servanda in Negotio Providentiae, Predestinationis, Gratiae et Liberi Arbitrii (1536)’ in RRR 7 (2005) 42–56 and ‘Predestination or Election in Zwingli and Bullinger’ in Emidio Campi and Peter Opitz (eds), Heinrich Bullinger. LifeThought-Influence Zurich, Aug. 25–29, 2004 International Congress Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575) (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2007) Vol. 1: 313–334. For The Providence of God, see Stephens ‘Election in Zwingli and Bullinger’ 42–48.

170

Chapter 6: Predestination

Zwingli’s exposition, especially of providence, is philosophical, whereas Bullinger’s is essentially biblical. Zwingli offers biblical references, but the biblical dimension is much less prominent and extensive than in Bullinger. Bullinger’s biblical references are, moreover, much more varied and wide-ranging than Zwingli’s. Bullinger also makes wider use than Zwingli of the fathers, especially Augustine and Ambrose. Zwingli by contrast makes more use of non-Christian writers and examples. In the discussion of faith in relation to election and damnation, Zwingli refers to the salvation of Gentiles or heathen, even mentioning Socrates and Seneca by name.42 There is no such discussion in Bullinger. It is significant that Bullinger responds to two errors, Pelagianism and Manichaeism, whereas Zwingli in effect engages with Pelagian views. Bullinger describes these views as ascribing too little or too much to God. It is not surprising, therefore, that his presentation is, in a measure, a mediating one. Although Zwingli also rejects Manichaeism, it does not shape his presentation of election here or elsewhere, if only because of the strong emphasis on the sovereignty of God in his theology. Bullinger’s mediating view leads to Schweizer’s understandable sense that Bullinger gives with one hand what he takes away with the other.43 But it also leads to a different attitude to secondary causes. Zwingli’s emphasis on God’s sovereignty in election finds expression in a negative approach, for example, to the sacraments, which are set in opposition to election. Bullinger’s insistence on the role of secondary causes against those ascribing too much to God leaves open a more positive attitude to them. Bullinger engages with two errors, but gives greater prominence to the second: ascribing too much to God. In particular he attacks anything which makes God the author of sin and evil. Zwingli examines this, relatively briefly, in defending God’s goodness against the charge that it is wrong to punish people for doing wrong, if everything they do is done by God.44 For Bullinger, the obverse side of his attack on anything which makes God the author of sin and evil is to insist on human responsibility. He therefore rejects statements such as ‘not even the work of sin is from anyone other than God’.45When Zwingli’s work was challenged because of statements such as this, Bullinger distinguished what Zwingli said in his work on providence from what he said in others. He argued that Bolsec misunderstood Zwingli if he thought that Zwingli taught that people sin by necessity, compelled by God. That might seem to be the case in this book, but in his others the fault for sin is not in God, but in human corruption.46 42 43 44 45 46

Z VI/III 180.22–183.13. Schweizer, Centraldogmen, 264–65. Z VI/III 152.13–155.21. Z VI/III 187.8–18. See Ioannis Calvini Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia (ed.), Wilhelm Baum. Eduard Cunitz and Eduard Reuss (Brunswick and Berlin, 1863–1900) 8.233. 19–30.

A Comparison between Zwingli and Bullinger

171

Both Zwingli and Bullinger speak of predestination as well as election, but Zwingli’s main and preferred term is election, whereas in this work Bullinger uses the term predestination. They both relate election or predestination to the goodness of God. With Zwingli that is primarily to affirm that salvation is entirely of God and not of us. In the end this is made more secure by relating it to God’s will rather than his goodness. For Bullinger, election is also related to God’s goodness as condemnation is to his righteousness, but God’s goodness is used as well to emphasize that God cannot be the author of sin and evil. Zwingli and Bullinger both refer to foreknowledge in the context of election. Zwingli insists that election does not depend on God’s foreknowledge of our good works, whereas with Bullinger foreknowledge features in a discussion of necessity in relation to the fall and human sin and leads Bullinger, with Augustine, to distinguish foreknowledge from predestination and to relate them to each other.47 What is notable is that whereas they both clearly relate election to God’s will, they do not relate condemnation to God’s will in the same way. (In this they differ from Calvin.) In Bullinger this is clearer, because here, as elsewhere in his writings, references to double predestination are qualified and he speaks rather of those who do not believe in Christ as being rejected or condemned.48 However the way, for example, Zwingli speaks of God’s rejection of Pharaoh is close to making condemnation parallel with election.49 Zwingli and Bullinger relate predestination to providence, but the relationship is stronger in Zwingli. This is apparent in these works but also in the statements Zwingli makes elsewhere, for example, that predestination is born of providence, indeed is providence.50 Both expound providence before predestination, but in Zwingli’s work predestination is set in the context of providence and its exposition is introduced by a summary of things he has written on providence. Moreover, at points the exposition is supported by the doctrine of providence. He argues, for example, that we can be sure of the election of the children of Christians dying in infancy, as providence has determined that they die as infants.51 The use and selection of biblical testimonies reveals the differences in Zwingli’s presentation and understanding of election. Zwingli’s biblical texts are used 47 Z VI/III 156.17–159.4;163. 4–13; Historiae 794–96. 48 Walser (Prädestination 135–36) notes the absence of the term reprobatio in Bullinger and the use of damnatio and condemnatio. 49 Z VI/III 161.7–162.10. Zwingli’s earlier statement that the divine will makes a disposition with regard to those who are to be damned (miseri), who are said not to be elected, is parallel to his definition of election as the ‘free disposition of the divine will in regard to those who are to be blessed’’ (Z VI/III 160. 13–19). 50 Z III 843. 15–17. 51 Z VI/III 187.19–188.15; 189. 8–16.

172

Chapter 6: Predestination

to support his definition of election as God’s free disposition of the divine will against arguments based on works or merit. This is the first of the two errors which Bullinger challenges. Interestingly, all of Bullinger’s texts are from the New Testament, whereas all but one of Zwingli’s are Old Testament texts or New Testament ones which refer to the Old Testament. Bullinger includes only one of these (Romans 9:10–12), but significantly the second text is Ephesians 1:3–6, with its important reference to election in Christ. This is a key text for Bullinger both before and after 1536 and gives his presentation a clear christological focus, often missing in Zwingli.52 Bullinger’s other texts are a response to the second error, in particular making God the author of sin and evil. This involves texts which speak of God’s willing the sinner’s repentance not his death and of God’s purpose of salvation for all, as well as texts which assert human responsibility for sin. Bullinger also examines texts which appear to conflict with his statement that God is not the author of sin and evil, in some cases a text used by Zwingli to affirm God’s sovereignty, such as the one about hardening Pharaoh’s heart. Moreover he challenges the statement that David’s adultery was committed by God through David as his instrument, so that God could not punish the evil or reward the good.53 By contrast Zwingli speaks of God’s committing such an action, though he does not regard that as exempting the sinner from punishment, as he, unlike God, is under the law.54 Bullinger also makes use of the concept of permission in dealing with problematic texts, but he does not develop it at this stage. Both Zwingli and Bullinger hold that there is no penetrating of God’s unsearchable counsels, though they develop this differently in some of their other writings. For Bullinger, the concept of the canon of scripture is one way in which he deals with texts which are in conflict with his position.55 There is nothing strictly comparable with this in Zwingli’s discussion of election, although he has ways of dealing with problematic texts, such as synecdoche.56 Unlike Zwingli, Bullinger passes over infants on the ground that there is no explicit biblical testimony about them,57 whereas Zwingli discusses them at some length.58 It is in

52 The christological dimension is stronger in Bullinger, for example, in the reference to Genesis 3:15 (Historiae 813–814), but there are some references in Zwingli (Z VI/III 179. 4–9, 191. 18– 23; 222. 5–6). 53 Historiae 782–83. 54 Z VI/III 153. 10–14. 55 Historiae 786–87. 56 Z VI/III 181.12–15. 57 Historiae 819–20. 58 Z VI/III 187. 19–192.5. In his other works Bullinger does not, as Zwingli, use election in the defence of infant baptism.

The Decades

173

this context that Zwingli talks of signs of election in both infants and adults and elsewhere of those with faith knowing that they are elect.59 There is a pastoral dimension in both works. In Zwingli, it is most obvious in the epilogue in relation to providence. In the chapter on election there is a more polemical note in the attack on Roman, Lutheran, and Anabaptist views of the sacraments. In Bullinger the moderate, mediating presentation is at least in part pastoral, as the beginning and end of his work imply.60

The Decades In The Decades Predestination is the third part of the Sermon on Creation, Providence, and Predestination. As he moves from providence to foreknowledge and predestination which are related to providence61, Bullinger observes that when the godly consider God’s providence they see that God wishes humankind well. This is the understanding of God which also underlies his doctrine of predestination. Bullinger appears to maintain double predestination in The Decades. Predestination is defined as ‘the eternal decree of God, by which he determined either to save or destroy people, a most certain end of life and death being appointed for them’.62 What is striking, however, is that Bullinger begins his exposition by expressing his concern about obscure disputes about the doctrine, because for simple people ‘the salvation of souls and the glory of God are endangered’ by them. (Fundamental for Bullinger in what we say about predestination is that it should come not from us but from scripture, and that it should manifest moderation in everything.) For Bullinger, such disputations go beyond the limits set by God. He prefaces his exposition of predestination with Paul’s words in Romans 11: ‘His judgments are beyond our understanding and his ways past finding out’. This view is supported by Ecclesiasticus 3:21–23, which rejects searching out things which are too high and wanting to see what is hidden. We should be content, Bullinger maintains, with what God has revealed through scripture.63 59 Z VI/III 184. 1–17; 190. 14–21; 191. 26–192.1. 60 Historiae 763–66, 826–27. The pastoral dimension is significant in some of Bullinger’s later wrtings. 61 ‘Non minus consolatur pios dei cultores doctrina de praescientia et praedestinatione dei, quae cum providentia cognationem quandam habent’ (HBTS 3. 596.18–20; Decades 3. 185). This reveals Bullinger’s pastoral concern to encourage and comfort. 62 HBTS 3. 596. 23–25; Decades 3. 185. It could be argued that what Bullinger means is that God will save those who have communion with Christ and destroy or abandon those who do not have communion with him (HBTS 3. 597. 7–9; Decades 3.186). 63 HBTS 3. 596.11–597.2; Decades 3.184–85.

174

Chapter 6: Predestination

The statement on predestination is in apparent conflict with the first sermon of this Decade on The Gospel of the Grace of God. It emphatically rejects the view that there are two books in heaven containing the names of those to be saved and those to be damned. Indeed Bullinger repudiates robustly the view that the first ‘would necessarily (necessitate quadam irrefragabili) be saved, however they resisted the word of Christ and whatever heinous crimes they committed’, and that the second ‘could not but be damned, however religiously they lived’. Bullinger sets against this his conviction that the grace of God is to be preached to the whole world. He supports this with over a dozen quotations, from ‘In thy seed all nations of the earth will be blessed’ (Genesis 22:18) to ‘God wills all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth’ (1 Timothy 2:4). Faced then with the problem why all are not saved, since God wills that all should be saved, Bullinger refers to Christ’s answer to the question in Matthew 22:14, ‘Many are called, but few are chosen.’ He illustrates this with Luke 14 and people’s preference for earthly to heavenly things. Characteristically, he refers to the text, ‘people loved darkness rather than light’ (John 3:19) and texts which show that to be saved we need to ‘acknowledge our sins and believe in Christ’.64 In the sermon on Creation, Providence, and Predestination, God’s eternal decree, whether to salvation or damnation, is related not to God’s sovereignty, but to God’s goodwill towards us and to Christ. He will save those who have communion with Christ and condemn those who do not have communion with him. (‘He has chosen us in Christ, through Christ, and for the sake of Christ.’) Bullinger supports the relation of communion with Christ to both salvation and condemnation by reference to Ephesians 1:4–5, 1 John 5:12, John 6:40, and 3:18–19. He always insists, however, that the responsibility for condemnation is not God’s, but ours: ‘And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and people have loved darkness rather than light’.65 In his discussions of election, Bullinger shows his underlying pastoral concern. It is simple Christians who are particularly troubled about their election. Bullinger’s response is that ‘if you have communion with Christ, you are predestined to life’, but ‘if you are a stranger to Christ’, however you might seem to be rich in virtues, you are predestined to death’. (After saying

64 HBTS 3. 509.19–512.6; Decades 3.32–36. 65 Bullinger never tires of indicating that ‘no one is excluded from the light and grace of God except the person who excludes himself by his unbelief ’ (John 7r 6–7 on John 1:9–10). On the other hand, when God draws people to himself, he does not pull them by the hair, but draws them gently, using, for example, the word and prayer (John 54r 41-v4 on John 4: 16–18). For John, see HBBibl 1 no. 153. In his comment on Acts 13: 48 in 1533, he maintains that the texts, such as John 6: 44, which speak of God’s drawing those who come to Christ, do not impute blame for the damnation of the ungodly to God, but rather demonstrate that the cause of the salvation of the godly is election and the mercy and grace of God, ‘lest anyone ascribe to our strength what is of God alone’ (Acts 162 r 20-v13).

The Decades

175

this he adds, ‘Higher and deeper I will not creep into the seat of the divine counsel.’) Faith is, therefore, ‘the most certain sign’ of election.66 People’s anxiety about election is the work of the devil who tries to overthrow our faith and implant in us a hatred of God, as if he begrudged us our salvation and ordained us to die. The weapon to be used against this is scripture. The first step is to realize that predestination does not depend on our work or merit, but ‘on God the Father’s sheer grace and mercy’ for Christ’s sake, and ‘because our salvation depends only on Christ, it is most certain’ (Ephesians 1:4–6, Romans 9:16, 2 Timothy 1:9–10).67 This leads Bullinger to affirm God’s goodness. He adduces a favourite description of God as ‘a lover of people’, which he supports from Psalm 103:8, 13–14 and Isaiah 49:1, as well as Romans 8:32. His conviction of ‘God’s goodwill towards us, who in Christ has chosen us to salvation’ is established by almost a dozen testimonies in which words such as ‘all’ or ‘whoever’ show the universality of God’s salvation – from ‘In your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed’ (Genesis 22:18) to ‘God our Saviour wills all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth’ (1 Timothy 2:3–4).68 A further cause of anxiety for many is that they do not feel that they are drawn by God in the way that John 6:44 requires. Bullinger’s response is to observe that there are different ways in which God draws people. Not all people are drawn ‘violently’ as Paul was, and in particular people are not drawn like a piece of wood. Bullinger is not content, however, with quoting the general statement in Romans 10:17 (‘Faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of God’), but gives particular examples. Addressing a troubled person, he says that ‘God therefore draws, when he preaches the gospel to you through his ministers, when he touches your heart, when he stirs you to prayers, in which you seek his grace and help, his illumination and drawing. When you sense these things in your mind, do not look for any other drawing, do not despise the grace offered, but use it in the present and pray for the increase of faith.’ Bullinger reminds them that those in the parable who used the few talents they were given received more, whereas the person who did not use his talent suffered condemnation and torment (Matthew 25:14–30). Like Timothy, we are to stir up the gift of God in us (2

66 HBTS 3. 597.5–598.1; Decades 3.186–87. ‘Finis praedestinationis vel praefȉnitionis Christus est dei patris filius.’ (597. 6–7) 67 Opitz notes the way Bullinger relates Ephesians 1: 4 and Matthew 17: 5. See Peter Opitz, Heinrich Bullinger als Theologe. Eine Studie zu den “Dekaden” (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2004) 183. It is revealing that in his outline of the books of the New Testament that Bullinger passes over Romans 9 and Ephesians 1 without a reference to predestination. For The Argument and Summary, see HBBibl 1 no. 271. 68 HBTS 3. 598.1–599.13; Decades 3. 187–89. Some of the quotations cited in the sermon on The Gospel of the Grace of God are also used here.

176

Chapter 6: Predestination

Timothy 1:6). He concludes with the assurance that ‘no one shall snatch them out of my hand’ (John 10:28).69 Bullinger offers encouragement, by using the example of the man who cried, ‘Help my unbelief ’, his faith being so weak, that it seemed like unbelief. Yet, thanks to this very little faith in a father who simply relied on God’s mercy, a child was healed. Therefore, however weak our faith is, we should throw ourselves on God’s mercy, and pray for an increase in our faith, remembering God’s promise to answer our prayers (Matthew 25:14–20). In all our doubts, Bullinger maintains that passages, like the ones he has quoted, should confirm God’s goodwill towards us. They counteract the attempts of the devil to overthrow our hope of salvation and make us suspect God, as though he hates his creature whom he would rather have destroyed than saved. ‘Let us keep it strongly printed in our breasts, that God has elected us in Christ, and for his sake has predestined us to life’.70 It is not difficult to find passages in Bullinger which used selectively or out of context seem to deny the sovereignty of God or our total dependence on God’s grace. It would not be possible to challenge all the statements made by those like Strehle who present Bullinger in this way. He writes of Bullinger as verging ‘ upon the synergism of humanistic teaching’, giving as an example that Bullinger ‘can speak of repentance as a “preparation” for faith and faith as a “requirement” for receiving grace’. He quotes passages from the sermons on The Gospel in support of this, but significantly he omits sentences which express a different view, quite apart from many clear contrary comments elsewhere in Bullinger. Thus he omits to say that in speaking of the need for repentance and faith Bullinger is quoting Mark 1:14–15, which states ‘repent and believe the gospel’ and that he later maintains that ‘sinners acknowledge nothing in themselves but sin and… therefore they fly to the mercy of God in whose promises they trust, hoping that they will freely receive the forgiveness of sins’ and that on account of Christ they are received into the number of the sons of God’. After this in referring to Christ’s preaching, he maintains that the recognition of ourselves as sinners is the work of the Holy Spirit, who teaches us ‘that we are saved by the merit of the Son of God’. Bullinger indicates that he would say more about faith, but instead he refers the readers to his sermon on faith. In it he states, ‘First of all, the cause and beginning of faith does not come from any man or any strength of man, but from God himself, who by the Holy Spirit pours faith into our hearts.’ Our complete de-

69 HBTS 3. 599.13–600.11; Decades 3. 189–91. 70 HBTS 3. 600.11–601.7; Decades 3.191–92.

The Decades

177

pendence on God in this is then emphasized by Bullinger’s quoting in support John 6:44, Matthew 16:13, 2 Corinthians 3:5, and Philippians 1:29.71 There are many points on which Strehle seems to misrepresent Bullinger’ theology. He contrasts Bullinger’s view of faith, as separating faith from assurance, with that of Zwingli, Calvin, and Bucer which ‘equates faith with assurance’, despite Bullinger’s definitions of faith as involving assurance.72 He regards the imitation of Christ in Bullinger as the foundation and inspiration of all else’. It is ‘such a dominant theme that in his hands Christ becomes more a lawgiver, teacher, and example than the redeemer of the Reformers’. In support, he offers a mistranslation of the quotation of Matthew 17:5, the sub-title in Bullinger’s works, which in fact affirms and emphasizes the person and work of Christ rather than Christ as lawgiver, teacher, and example.73 A third area is the doctrine of predestination. Strehle maintains that Bullinger rejects ‘like the humanists “extreme” solutions to the doctrine of predestination, preferring to affirm both grace and free will against Pelagian and Manichaean extremes’, ignoring or passing over many statements in which Bullinger denies free will in his later as in his earlier works.74 He then states that ‘Bullinger emphatically rejects Calvin’s contention that God predestined the Fall, hardens the reprobate, and has destined them unto eternal destruction apart from their deeds’. It is true that Bullinger denies that God is ‘the author of evil’. Bullinger does not deny, however, that God hardens hearts, but he interprets it in such a way as not to make God the author of evil and argues the case from the biblical context of Exodus.75 One may agree with Strehle that Bullinger’s statements on election are ‘mild and often 71 See Stephen Strehle, The Catholic Roots of the Protestant Gospel. Encounter between the Middle Ages and the Reformation (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995) 34–37, 50–58 and in particular p. 56 and note 152. References are to HBTS 3. 511. 5–9, 512. 3–6, 25–29, Decades 3. 35–37; HBTS 3.57. 2–12; Decades 1.84. Strehle makes the point 511. 5–9, 512. 3–6, 25–29; Decades 3. 35–37; 1.84. 3. 57.2–12; Strehle makes the same points in ‘Fides aut Foedus: Wittenberg and Zurich in conflict over the Gospel’ SCJ 33/1 (1992) 3–20. 72 Strehle, Catholic Roots 43 note 72. See HBTS 3.55. 28–29, 56. 4–5, 19–23 (quotations from Calvin) 58. 28–59.1, 60.8–13. 64.12–18; Decades 1.81–83, 87, 88, 90, 97. 73 Strehle, Catholic Roots 53. Bullinger’s version was: ‘This is my beloved Son in whom I am reconciled, listen to (obey) him’. His major work on Christ in 1534 concerns the person of Christ. It is the presupposition for the work of Christ. They are fundamental in what Bullinger writes about Christ, but they lead to our union with him and our living as he lived. 74 Strehle, Catholic Roots 53–54. He denies it not only in 1526 (HBBW 1.86. 25–87.19, 104 19, 105.23), but also in The Second Helvetic Confession in the 1560s (RB 2/2 287. 9–34; RC 237– 238). He is concerned to affirm with Augustine that people are not changed into stones or trees. He always denies free will before people come to faith in Christ, but then he allows a qualified freedom (RB2/2 288. 1–289.15; RC 238–240). 75 Strehle, Catholic Roots 54. Bullinger rejects an understanding of the Fall which would make God the author of evil and sin. He does not reject God’s hardening hearts, but says, for example, that it is by a just judgment ‘God hardens, blinds, and delivers up to a reprobate mind’. (RB 2/2 284. 25–29, 285. 23–287. 24; RC 235–237)

178

Chapter 6: Predestination

ambiguous’, but that is related both to the ambiguity of scripture and the pastoral concern that underlies all of Bullinger’s writings. Strehle criticizes the article on predestination in The Second Helvetic Confession, the most widely accepted Reformed confession, rather surprisingly on the ground that it prefers ‘to cite rather than explain Paul’s teaching and then chastens any conclusions not based upon the revelation of Christ’.76

Bullinger’s Later Works: True Faith In the 1550s and 1560s Bullinger was engaged in controversy which involved some of the differences between him and Calvin. They reveal ultimately a consistent position although in the controversy round Zanchius some scholars see Bullinger as accepting a Calvinian view of predestination. Bullinger’s pastoral concern is perhaps most obvious in a sermon preached in 1552 on the Canaanite woman (Matthew 15:21–28) on true and steadfast faith in all necessity and temptation. At the heart of the sermon, Bullinger considers how our faith is assaulted and tempted and how it may remain strong. The second temptation is to think that one is not one of God’s sheep. The devil tempts people to see God as hostile in order to tear them from God. This, Bullinger says, is the same as when someone reckons that ‘almighty God has ordained from eternity by his eternal providence who should be saved and who damned’. Moreover, this leads a person to think, I cannot know whether I am elect, but fear that I am not and will be lost whatever I do. This leads Bullinger to a consideration of election in the light of the Canaanite woman.77 Bullinger begins by observing that the very word of Christ could lead her to think that she was not elect, as she was not one of the sheep. What she does is not to doubt, but to hasten to Christ, fall at his feet, and cry, ‘Lord, help me.’ She does not confer much about God’s secret and eternal counsel, why Christ was sent to Israel and not to the Gentiles, or who is elect and who rejected. As Paul says, God’s counsel and eternal secrets are unfathomable. Then, most strikingly, Bullinger says, ‘although the Lord foresees his elect and the reprobate … yet he is a gracious, just, true, and good God, he is rich and wills good to all those who call on him’. Rather that get stuck in anxiety and doubt with subtle questions and trying to penetrate his mysteries we should, like the Canaanite, fall at his feet and call on him to help us.78

76 Strehle, Catholic Roots 54–55. 77 True Faith B v v 17–22, viii r 10–20, v 5–22. 78 True Faith c i r 1-v19.

Bullinger’s Later Works: True Faith

179

Characteristically Bullinger states that scripture teaches us not to search out high things, but to consider what God commands and upholds. God shows himself to be a gracious saviour of every time and place. His promises are not limited to a few, but to many. Bullinger cites examples, such as from Genesis 22:18, Isaiah 53:6, Romans 11:32, concluding with Matthew 11:28. Bullinger accepts that, although the promises are universal, not everyone will be saved, for other parts of scripture say that many people will be damned. Yet typically he quotes John 3:19, ‘This is the condemnation that light has come into the world and the world loves darkness more than the light.79 The exploration of predestination concludes with the Canaanite woman. Bullinger recognizes that the necessary response to God’s promises is faith and that faith is a gift of God, but then he emphasizes that Christ states that if we ask, we shall receive and that God will give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him. With the Canaanite woman, we are to pray to the Lord for true faith and that he will maintain us in his grace that as his sheep and those elect to eternity we may never be separated from him. This is the way to overcome this temptation.80 In The Grace of God Bullinger discusses election in the context of the grace and mercy of God which underlie election before the foundation of the world. Typically, Bullinger’s pastoral concern is uppermost and so he warns against seeking to probe God’s hidden counsels as leading people to doubt whether they are elect. Rather we should look directly at Christ and consider ourselves to be elect to life if we are in Christ and Christ is in us. However, when he speaks of those who believe in Christ as being in Christ, he does not mean that faith is as it were a merit or cause of salvation. It is a gift of God. We believe because we are elect. We are not elect because we believe.81 In 1551 Bullinger was drawn into Bolsec’s controversy with Calvin both by Calvin and by Bolsec’s attack on Zwingli and his identifying his own views with Bullinger’s.82 Bullinger’s reply to Calvin refers to his teaching in The Zurich Agreement and the The Decades, in particular that God loves people and wishes all to be saved and that justification is by grace alone through Christ. His will is to damn those who do not believe, but the fault is theirs for not believing in Christ 79 True Faith c i v 20-ii v 16. 80 True Faith c iii r 1-v7. 81 For The Grace of God 5 v 38–6 r 9 ‘…quo deus non alios quam credentes agnoscit pro filiis, eligens nos, non quia credituri eramus, aut quia credimus, sed ut credamus et salvi fiamus.’ (6r 7–9). For Calvin’s response to Bullinger’s views and those of Basel and Bern, see Wilhelm Heinrich Neuser, ‘Calvins Kritik an den Basler, Berner und Zürcher Predigern in der Schrift “De Praedestinatione” 1562’ in Heiko A. Oberman et al (eds.), Reformiertes Erbe Vol. 2 237– 243. 82 For the correspondence, see Ioannis Calvini Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia, ed. by Wilhelm Baum, Eduard Cunitz, and Eduard Reuss (Brunswick and Berlin, 1863–1900), abbreviated CO.

180

Chapter 6: Predestination

who was offered to them. They do not perish because they are compelled by a fatal necessity but because they willingly reject the grace of God. For Bullinger, if Bolsec attributed everything to grace and nothing to us, the Genevans should seek reconciliation for the sake of peace.83 In the Zurich ministers’ letter to the Genevan ministers the reprobate are those who do not believe God’s word, but who live impiously against God, and not to God, who judges justly. Indeed he is just in all his ways, and sin is not in him but in man.84 To the council they wrote, ‘Therefore, those who perish by their own fault’. Bolsec, moreover, misunderstands Zwingli if he thinks that he taught that people sin by necessity, compelled by God. That might seem to be the case in his book on Providence. But in his other books the fault for sin is not in God, but in human corruption and free will.85 In a further letter to Calvin, Bullinger states that Zwingli did not make God the author of evil or one who forces us to sin, but in books written before The Providence of God he attributes sin to our wills. Many are offended by Calvin’s statement in The Institutes, seeming to make God the author of sin. Bullinger reminds him of the restraint of the apostles when they had to speak of predestination. Everybody understood that God wishes all people well and offers salvation in Christ, which is received by faith, the gift of God. For the sake of Christ and his grace, and not in respect of themselves they are elect. The reprobate, however, perish because of their guilt and not because of God’s ill will. God is a lover of people and supplies to all the way of salvation. By their rebellion they do not enter it and perish.86 In another letter in 1552 Bullinger regretted that the concentration on predestination was giving more offence than edification. Calvin’s expressions give the impression that God is the author of sin by saying that God ‘not only foresaw but also predestined and arranged the fall of Adam’. For Bullinger, it is harsh to assert that ‘God deprives those he created for the destruction of death…of the faculty of hearing his word and indeed blinds them through preaching’ and also that the word ‘permission’ may not be used in interpreting certain passages of scripture. He reminds Calvin of the universal promises of God and the words of Christ in Matthew 11, John 3, 1 Timothy 2, and Acts 10.87 In a letter in 1555 Bullinger exhorts Calvin to be more circumspect, lest predestination cause a greater conflagration than the eucharist. He asks him to abstain from saying that ‘Adam was so created that he was not able not to sin’ and that ‘those who sin sin from God’s fixed purpose’. He appealed to the early church’s teaching that ‘God is not the author of sin or of evil, that sins arise from 83 84 85 86 87

CO 14. 207.26–208.35. CO 8.231. 22–29. CO 8. 233. 15–30. CO 214.30–215.31. CO14.289.30–290.4.

Reply to Traheron

181

man, not by necessity, but voluntarily, that the promises of salvation are universal and not restricted to a few, that believers are saved by the grace of God alone, and that by their own fault non-believers do not believe and are damned’.88

Reply to Traheron These issues were the subject of correspondence with Traheron. He was concerned about Bullinger’s use of permission, which seemed to remove God’s power of acting, and Bullinger’s criticism of Calvin’s statements on Adam. In his detailed reply on 3 March 1553 Bullinger expounds providence, predestination, free will, and God’s not being the author of sin. Bullinger dissociates himself from Melanchthon’s position, but at he same time distinguishes his position from Calvin’s.89 God does what is in keeping with his nature and not what is contrary to it. He does not will sin or make people sin. He does not commit sins but permits them. ‘That permission is in the divine providence not separated from it.’ He supports permission from the bible and the fathers. He argues likewise from the bible and the fathers that God is not the author of evil but evil comes from the malice of the devil and human free will.90 Discussing free will, Bullinger asserts that we are free and we are not compelled to sin, but sin freely and by our nature. However, unless we are regenerated by God, we are not free to do good.91 He quotes texts such as Philippians 2:12 to show that we are not compelled to do good, but do it freely through the grace of God’s Spirit. He appeals to what has been the teaching of the church from the beginning.92 Unusually, Bullinger speaks of double election from eternity – for some to life, for others to destruction. ‘The cause of election and predestination is no other than the good and just will of God, who saves the elect undeservedly and damns and rejects the reprobate deservedly.’ Bullinger supports this with references 1 Timothy 1:9 and Ephesians 1:4. They stress election by God from eternity and therefore by grace and not by works and also the role of Christ in this. Both passages speak of God’s decree and purpose in electing believers, but Bullinger insists that our faith or work is ‘not the cause of election or predestination’ ‘as if God elected us on account of the faith which he foresaw in us’. ‘But we attribute election and salvation to the grace of God.’ He maintains that faith in Christ is a gift of God’s grace. ‘For Paul did not say that God elected us because we were to 88 89 90 91 92

CO 15. 852. 33–54, 854.39–855.21. CO 14. 480.20–481.6, 489.49–490.37. CO14. 483.16–485.11. CO 14. 484. 40–42, 485. 6–9. CO14. 486.6–9, 14–21, 48–51, 487. 8–17.

182

Chapter 6: Predestination

believe, but so that we might believe.’ Characteristically Bullinger cites Augustine in support.93 Bullinger condemns the error of Vitalis that ‘everyone is able through free will to believe or not believe the gospel’. It is in conflict with texts such as ‘ no one comes to me unless my Father draws him’ and ‘by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God.’ Bullinger accepts the idea that saving faith is a gift of God to the elect. However, he rejects placing the blame for people’s not believing on God or on predestination and places it on people’s refusing the grace of God and not receiving the heavenly gifts or on their perverse will. Among various passages, he quotes, ‘This is the condemnation that light came into the world and the world loved darkness rather than light’ (John 3:19) and Paul’s statement that the god of this age blinded the minds of unbelievers (2 Corinthians 4:4). By contrast there were the words of Jesus, ‘O Jerusalem, Jerusalem… how often I longed to gather your children… but you were not willing.’ They show that the blame is not in God or his predestination driving people to faithlessness or keeping them in it. Rather it is ‘people’s inborn corruption which rejects the word of God’. If a person receives the word of God, it comes from the illumination of grace.94 It is characteristic of Bullinger to offer people hope and so to hold before them God’s universal promises and so to point away from God’s hidden purpose to his revelation through the prophets and above all through Christ and the apostles, as the one who loves people and wills all to be saved. For this reason the gospel is to be preached to everyone. Bullinger supports this with a dozen among an ‘infinite’ number of biblical testimonies to the universality of God’s saving purpose, such as ‘ God is patient with us and does not wish any to perish but all to take themselves to repentance.’ (2 Peter 3:9) He advises that these things are to be urged in the church, lest with scrupulous disputation about God’s secret judgments, predestination, and election we lead the simple to hatred of God, despair, and blasphemy, as if God wishes to give his gifts only to a few and to send others away empty. Bullinger himself teaches about predestination ‘in a moderate, religious, and orthodox way’. Bullinger affirms that Calvin, is adorned with great gifts, but he deplores some of the things he teaches, such as God’s not only foreseeing but also arranging the fall of Adam and the ruin of his descendants and his creating human beings for destruction.95

93 CO 14. 487.28–55. 94 CO 14. 488.11–55. Again Bullinger cites Augustine in support. 95 CO 14. 488.55–490.12. Once more Bullinger follows this with an appeal to Augustine

The Zurich Statement

183

The Zurich Statement In 1549 Martin Bucer was exiled from Strasbourg and was succeeded as professor by John Marbach. In 1553 Peter Martyr, who had been a professor in Strasbourg, was succeeded by Jerome Zanchius. Marbach, a robust Lutheran, hoped to make Strasbourg Lutheran and attacked Zanchius’ Reformed views on the eucharist and predestination. In response Zanchius prepared fourteen theses and sought the support of Zurich. Bullinger gave the task of replying on behalf of the Zurich ministers to Peter Martyr who knew both the situation in Strasbourg and the two adversaries. This reply in 1562 has led some, including more recently Joachim Staedtke, to see Bullinger as becoming Calvinian in his understanding of predestination in the 1560s.96 It s difficult to reconcile Zanchius’ theses and even The Zurich Statement with Bullinger’s understanding and presentations of predestination. There are, of course, factors that help to account for this. First, it was not written by him, but by Peter Martyr; and, second, it was conceived to support a colleague and a cause both of which were in danger. These could be a sufficient explanation, when one bears in mind Bullinger’s willingness to give support to Calvin on the issue of discipline in Geneva, despite holding a radically different view of discipline from him, and also his encouragement to the Zurich Council to do the same in writing to the Geneva Council. He did this as Calvin had said that the cause of the gospel was at stake. On this occasion also Bullinger saw the need to defend the church in Strasbourg as a Reformed church and therefore to defend Zanchius against the Lutheran assertions of Marbach on the eucharist and predestination. Related to the support of the Reformed church in Strasbourg also the need for unity among the Reformed at a time when only Roman Catholics and Lutherans were recognized across the empire.97 An examination of some of the comments on the theses reveals some of the differences between Bullinger and Zanchius and by implication of Bullinger from Calvin. Thus, Bullinger does not refer to God’s predestination of the reprobate, but only of the elect. Therefore, in the defence of Zanchius’s statement in thesis 4 about the elect and reprobate, which uses the word predestination of the reprobate, the word predestination is omitted.98 Again, there is a careful defence of 96 See Staedtke, ‘Prädestinationsstreit’ That the need to support Zanchius stretched Bullinger is evident in the letter written by Martyr to John Sturm on 21 July 1561, which refers to Bullinger’s maintaining that Zanchius’ theses need to be interpreted correctly and that some theses could have been more suitably expressed. But Bullinger also said that in supporting Zanchius they were properly obeying God’s command not to abandon someone who was in danger. See Walser (Prädestination 192). 97 Historiae 833. 15–28. Walser refers to it as ‘a political document’ (318). 98 Historiae 846. 10–17.o

184

Chapter 6: Predestination

the use of the word necessary in thesis 6 in relation to the salvation of the elect and the damnation of the reprobate, although in the way it is expressed it would be more likely to offend than edify. It is defended using the scholastic distinction between necessity as coercion and necessity as consequence.99 The explicit interpretation of ‘all’ as ‘all the elect’ is not typical of Bullinger, although it is compatible with what he says about predestination. As Bullinger holds that the elect are those who have fellowship with Christ and that the reprobate are those not in fellowship with Christ, God can hardly will those in fellowship with Christ to be damned and those not in fellowship to he saved. Nevertheless when Bullinger uses the word all he generally uses it pastorally to re-assure and encourage those unsure of their salvation.100 Bullinger supports Zanchius, but that does not mean total agreement with him. Some reservations are expressed in The Zurich Statement. There is, for example, the need for the right interpretation. There is a recognition of the fact that some things in the theses are more likely to offend than to edify and also of the need to understand things correctly and in accordance with other passages of scripture.101 At the same time, however, he notes that the teaching does not differ from Augustine, Luther, and Bucer, whom he refers to as the outstanding theologian of our age.102 Some relatively recent books which discuss The Zurich Statement argue on a variety of grounds against the view that this work, along with the dismissal of Bibliander, is evidence of Bullinger’s adapting or at least accepting a Calvinian position.103 The most persuasive argument in favour of their case is that Bullinger’s works after The Zurich Statement are consistent in their understanding of predestination with his works before The Zurich Statement. A counter-argument distinguishing a work primarily for theologians from other works is hardly consistent with the fact that there is no such difference in the way he deals with providence and predestination in his reply to Traheron from that in other works. Bullinger is capable of expressing agreement with someone by emphasizing what they have in common, by selecting some works and not others, and by passing over places when they manifestly differ. This can be seen in his differences with Zwingli in relation, for example, to the eucharist, predestination, providence, and the salvation of the heathen. On the eucharist, for example, he refers simply to Zwingli’s more positive later works (from 1530–1531) and ignores the earlier ones. On providence he interprets what is said in The Providence 99 100 101 102 103

Historiae 847. 15–20. Historiae 835. 3–8, 856. 17–857.11. Historiae 833. 28–835.8. Historiae 837. 23–838.23. Hollweg (Hausbuch 309–318), Walser (Prädestination 181–193), and Venema (Henrich Bullinger 79–87).

The Second Helvetic Confession

185

of God in the light of what Zwingli says in earlier works. On the salvation of heathen, he gives biblical examples of the Gentiles or heathen who were saved and passes over the fact that Zwingli used non-biblical examples. It is not out of character, therefore, for him to support Calvin’s practice of discipline for the sake of the gospel when he disagreed with it, nor to sign The Zurich Statement while not at ease with it, even disagreeing with it in part. In any case it is not a work that can be quoted confidently as representing what Bullinger thought. This is true, even if at the end he affirms that the theses ‘contain nothing in them either heretical or absurd’. What they maintain is affirmed by the fathers and reformers, Luther, Capito, Bucer, Brenz, and others – in other words Luther as well as Reformed theologians, including Luther with whom Marbach had lived.104

The Second Helvetic Confession It is interesting, perhaps significant, that the chapter on Predestination follows chapters on the Fall, Sin, and the Cause of Sin, and on Free Will and Human Power. They both consider issues frequently associated with predestination. The first of the two chapters relates the fall to the instigation of the serpent and to human fault. As a result people are unable of themselves to do or think good. Bullinger condemns Florinus and Blastus against whom Trenaeus wrote and all who make God the author of sin. Bullinger rejects the view that God is the author of sin with Psalm 5:5 (’You are not a God who wills evil’) and John 8:44. He gives his response to two kinds of problematic texts. God’s hardening, blinding, and giving up to a reprobate mind is to understood as God’s acting as a just judge and making a just judgment. Statements which say or imply God’s doing evil are to be understood as God’s permitting. God’s omnipotence is not called in question as he could prevent it, if he wished, and moreover he turns evil into good, as with Joseph. Characteristically Bullinger cites Augustine’s Enchiridion in support. ‘What happens contrary to his will occurs, in a wonderful and ineffable way, not apart from his will. For it would not happen if he did not allow it. And yet he does not allow it unwillingly, but willingly. For he who is good would not permit evil to be done, unless, being omnipotent, he could bring good out of evil.’ The chapter concludes by disregarding as ‘curious questions’ issues which he disputed with Calvin: whether God willed Adam to fall, or incited him to fall, and why he did not prevent the fall. Nevertheless Bullinger recognizes the need to deal with them in some circumstances, and even points out that God forbade the eating of the fruit

104 Historiae 857. 12–25.

186

Chapter 6: Predestination

and punished the transgression. Evil comes not from God, but from Satan and from our will’s opposing God’s will.105 In his exposition of Free Will and Human Power, Bullinger observes that after the fall the human will which had been free has become enslaved. As a result our will serves sin, and yet it does so not unwillingly, but willingly. Although the will is weak, people are not like stones or trees. Moreover, when Bullinger discusses the freedom of the regenerate, he uses a similar comparison in attacking the Manichaeans. He charges them with robbing people of all activity and making them like a stone or tree.106 It may be significant that the order of the chapters in the Confession separates predestination from providence and places it immediately before that on Christ. That on Christ begins by stating that Christ was predestined from eternity to be our Saviour, whereas the chapter on predestination begins by relating salvation to our predestination from eternity in Christ. Bullinger’s exposition of predestination, as his predestinations elsewhere, shows his awareness of the need to present the doctrine positively and pastorally, as well as biblically.107 The whole emphasis is on election in Christ. Election is in Christ and on account of Christ. It leads to our being grafted into Christ and our becoming holy and blameless. To be in Christ is to be elected and to be outside Christ is to be rejected. Election is from eternity and it comes not from our merit or what we do, but from God’s grace and Christ’s merit.108 In the Confession, unlike The Decades, the term pre destination is used as a synonym for election. It states that ‘we are elected or predestined in Christ’, whereas The Decades states that predestination is ‘the eternal decree of God by which he determined either to save or destroy people, a most certain end of life and death being appointed for them’. There is in the Confession a reference to God’s decree, which cannot be changed. It is used about a person’s being in the number of the reprobate and so unable to repent or believe. Bullinger replies that that is contradicted by Paul. He speaks about the Lord’s servant teaching those who are opposed so that if they are granted repentance by God they may be recovered from the snare of the devil (2 Timothy 2:24–26).109 Most of the chapter is dedicated to correcting misunderstanding of the doctrine and offering encouragement and exhortation. Thus, although there are references in the bible to few being elect, we have in Philippians 1:3–7 reason to hope well of all and not rashly to judge anyone to be a reprobate. Moreover, the response of Jesus to the question, ‘whether few will be saved was to strive to enter 105 RB 2/2 284. 25–28, 285. 1–2, 285 26–286. 24; RC 235–237. 106 RB 2/2 287. 10–15, 288. 19–21; RC 237, 239. 107 The main basis is in Ephesians 1:4–6 and 2 Timothy 1:9–10 (RB 2/2 289. 18–25, 289. 31–290.2; RC 237). 108 RB 2/2 289. 16–31; RC240. 109 RB 2/2 289.26 (RC 240); HBTS 3. 596. 23–25. (Decades 3.185); RB 2/2 290. 17–22 (RC 241).

The Second Helvetic Confession

187

by the narrow door’ (Luke 13:24). Bullinger challenges as impious various ways in which people speak, such as saying that if they are elected by God they will be saved whatever they do or, on the contrary, if they are among the reprobate nothing can help them whatever they do. Bullinger supports his challenge from Paul (2 Timothy 2:24–26) and Augustine that election and preaching are not in conflict, as ‘admonitions are not in vain because salvation proceeds from election’.110 Ultimately Bullinger refers those with questions to Christ and to what God determined before all eternity, that is that we should listen to and believe the preaching of the gospel and that we should not doubt that ‘if you believe and are in Christ you are elected’. This is for Bullinger evident in the coming and ministry of Christ, as we see in 2 Timothy 1:9–10 and John 3:16 and in Christ’s promise that he will give rest to all those who come to him and his assurance that God does not will that the little ones should perish (Matthew 11:28, 18:14). The focus on Christ is emphasized in referring to Christ as ‘the mirror’ in whom we contemplate our predestination. If we have communion with Christ, it is clear and firm that we are inscribed in the book of life.111 Bullinger’s pastoral concern continues to the end of the chapter. He speaks of God’s promises as applying to all the faithful. He does not intend by the word faithful to limit the promises, for he clearly regards all those in the church as the faithful, as in his earlier reference to Philippians 1. He describes them as those who pray, those who are baptized, and those who communicate, which in effect means everyone in Zurich. His final word is an encouragement to the readers to work out their salvation with fear and trembling. One cannot imagine Calvin ending a chapter on predestination in this way, especially as Bullinger omits from it the word emphasizing God’s role, ‘for it is God who works in you, both to will and to do, for his own chosen purpose’.112 What Bullinger says about election could be compatible with a form of double predestination, but for Bullinger the theologian as well as the pastor it is to a doctrine to be taught. It conflicts or appears to conflict with so many passages of scripture, it seems to make God the author of sin; and it leads people to doubt and despair. In Firm Foundations Bullinger’s reply to Brenz, defending Peter Martyr and himself in 1563, chapter ten concerns election, providence, sin, free will, and related subjects.113 He considers first whether a particular number of people is elected for life and eternal blessedness or whether everyone is elect. Bullinger says 110 111 112 113

RB 2/2 290. 2–25; RC 240–241. RB 2/2 290.26–291.8; RC 241–242. RB 2/2 291. 8–14, RC 242 Firm Foundation 28 r 21–31 r 27.

188

Chapter 6: Predestination

that not everyone is elect, but there is no reference to people who are rejected, let alone to people predestined for rejection. Rather he emphasizes that no one will snatch one of God’s elect from his hand. Bullinger’s immediate concern is for those simple people in doubt about their salvation, who wonder if they are among the elect or reprobate. His response is to remind them that when Christ was asked whether few would be saved, he did not say few or many, but ‘strive to get in by the narrow gate’. They were not to be anxious, but were to remember God’s grace. In the gospel he calls us to himself and to his grace and wishes to save us by his death. We should hear his word, pray, and trust him. We should use the means God has given us and not engage in further questioning and disputing which will lead to confusion.

Bullinger and Zwingli A brief review of Zwingli’s and Bullinger’s writings shows similarities and differences in their presentation of predestination and its role in their theology. There are clear similarities between them. They both stress the goodness of God. They affirm double predestination, even if Bullinger does so in a highly qualified way, but their emphasis is on election rather than reprobation. They relate predestination to providence and sometimes expound it in the context of providence. They both debate with Anabaptists and papalists, using predestination to affirm that salvation is of God and not of us, of grace and not of merit or works. They relate the salvation of the Gentiles to election. They stress that election is in Christ. They have a sense of the mystery of election. Bullinger does not mention any differences from Zwingli, but rather defends him in the Bolsec controversy. He argues that Bolsec misunderstood Zwingli, if he thought that Zwingli taught that people sinned by necessity, compelled by God. That might seem to be the case in his book on Providence, but in his other books the fault for sin was not in God, but in us. There are, however, significant differences between them. Some of these reflect the different character of their works. In 1530 Zwingli offers a philosophical and biblical exposition of providence, based on the sermon preached in Marburg. It includes a chapter on election and concludes with a personal and practical application on the doctrine of providence. Bullinger’s first work on providence and predestination is more directly a response to different views, as are his other works. He characteristically relates his exposition to the refuting of two errors: ascribing too much to us, affirming our merit, or too much to God, making him the author of sin and denying human responsibility. The emphasis is often on the second error. There is an apologetic or pastoral character in Bullinger’s treatment of the errors and misunderstandings which concern him. This emerges, for ex-

Bullinger and Zwingli

189

ample, in his fear that Calvin’s view will lead to a greater conflagration than the eucharist and that a statement of Zanchius will offend more than edify. Bullinger is concerned about views which will endanger people’s souls or undermine the means of grace which God has given. He encourages people to think that it is not just a few who will be saved, as with Calvin, and exhorts them to work out their salvation with fear and trembling. There is, moreover, a difference in their use of the bible. This is most evident in the treatment of providence. In Zwingli the biblical testimonies come only after a lengthy philosophical exposition. By contrast, Bullinger starts with biblical testimony. Zwingli’s approach with predestination is more biblical. Interestingly the references are as much if not more from the Old Testament as from the New. In Bullinger the biblical emphasis is much stronger than in Zwingli and the references much more from the New Testament, notably Ephesians 1. There is also a striking difference in the range of biblical testimonies they use. As Bullinger’s concern is more apologetic and pastoral, he constantly cites a range of biblical texts, not used by Zwingli, concerning especially God’s love and saving purpose for all and our responsibility not God’s for our sin. The texts function as a kind of biblical canon of interpretation, something already evident in 1536. There is a further distinctive element in Bullinger’s use of scripture, when he reminds Calvin of the restraint of the apostles in speaking of predestination. He makes a similar appeal to the moderation of the fathers. As one examines the common or similar elements in their view of predestination, one sees that even there, there is often a difference in their understanding or emphasis. Both stress the goodness of God, but for Zwingli it is God’s goodness as distinct from his righteousness. Zwingli stresses his goodness to make it clear that election is not based on our works. Later, to make this clearer, he stresses God’s will as the source of election. Bullinger, by contrast, asserts God’s goodness to encourage people in doubt or to deny that God is the author of sin and evil, as he cannot do what conflicts with his nature. When he invokes God’s love and goodness, it is less to express God’s sovereignty in election than his will that all should be saved. Both Zwingli and Bullinger recognize double predestination, though they stress election. Bullinger, however, does not make them truly parallel, though he relates them both to Christ. He characteristically associates God’s will with election in Christ to life, not with reprobation to death.114 Far from affirming that God has ordained us to death, he speaks of the devil’s trying to make us believe that God has ordained us to death. Rather he speaks of God’s condemning those who reject Christ or who are outside Christ. 114 Walser (135–6) notes the absence of the term reprobatio in Bullinger and the use of damnatio and condemnation.

190

Chapter 6: Predestination

Zwingli and Bullinger present predestination in connection with providence, although in The Second Helvetic Confession Bullinger treats them separately. Their relationship, however, is more intimate in Zwingli who says that predestination is born of providence, indeed is providence, whereas Bullinger says that it has a certain likeness to providence. In Zwingli’s early writings providence has a similar role in relation to merit, works, and free will, to that which predestination has later. In Bullinger, however, predestination has that role from the beginning. Zwingli uses providence to strengthen his case for the election of infants, as providence determines whether they die as infants, manifesting that they are elect, or live to be adults, when election or reprobation will become apparent. Their view of providence leads to a conviction of God’s sovereignty in everything which happens, but they express this differently. Zwingli can speak of God as the author of all deeds, including murder, though for God it is ‘an act not a crime’. For us, however, it is a crime, as unlike God we are under the law. In this way Zwingli can continue to affirm that all that God does is good. (On occasion Zwingli states explicitly that God is not the author of evil.) Bullinger, by contrast, uses the concept of permission, so that God permits rather than commits such acts. He could not say, as Zwingli of Esau, that he was created by divine providence ‘that he might live, and live impiously’. He constantly asserts that God is not the author of sin or evil; evil comes not from God’s will but from ours and Satan. In accounting for Adam’s sin he points to the serpent not to God, just as for our sin he points to Adam and our corrupt nature. Bullinger insists on our free will, in the sense that we are not compelled by a fatal necessity, but that we willingly reject the grace of God. We are not a stone or tree. Both Zwingli and Bullinger use election in debate with Anabaptists and papalists to affirm that salvation is of God and not of us. But Zwingli and Bullinger relate election to baptism differently. Zwingli dissociates them, stressing that salvation comes from election, not from baptism. Bullinger, however, relates them positively, so that baptism is effective for the elect – implicitly in 1533, and then in article 21 (22) of The First Helvetic Confession, article 16 of The Zurich Agreement, and chapter 20 of The Second Helvetic Confession.115 This coheres with the stronger emphasis on means that permeates Bullinger’s presentation of both providence and predestination. Both Zwingli and Bullinger reject the Anabaptist insistence on faith as a necessary condition for baptism and salvation, pointing out that faith may be apparent and not real and that faith follows election and is dependent on it. Zwingli supports his case for infant baptism with the doctrine of election, al115 For article 16, see RB 1/2 52. 20–26, RC 108. For a discussion of Zwingli and Bullinger on baptism, see W.P. Stephens, ‘Bullinger’s Defence of Infant Baptism in Debate with the Anabaptists’, Reformation and Renaissance Review, 4 (2002) 168–89.

Bullinger and Zwingli

191

though it is not the basis for it. He bases his case for the baptism of children of Christian parents on God’s covenant, and affirms their election on the basis of the covenant until God shows otherwise. But he also argues for their election, perhaps in part because the Anabaptists argued for baptizing only when faith shows someone is elect, and in part because he argues against the Anabaptist insistence on faith by asserting that election is prior to faith and that there are those who do not have faith who are nevertheless elect, for example, children. Bullinger’s case for the baptism of infants is based on God’s promise, but he argues also that children were counted among the believers in scripture and that God is the God of children as well as adults. He does not argue for their baptism on the grounds of election or for the election of those who die as children. Zwingli’s defining the church in terms of the elect116may be related to his counting children among the elect, whereas Bullinger, who counts children among believers, defines the church in terms of believers. Unlike Zwingli, Bullinger does not give a key role to election in relation to baptism. In Anabaptist Teaching (1531) it occupies only thirty lines and then as a response to the Anabaptist Simon. Moreover, none of the twenty articles Bullinger advances against Anabaptist errors concerns election, unlike Zwingli’s twenty articles against Schwenckfeld. In Aganist Anabaptists (1560) he regards the Anabaptist insistence on faith as evidence of election as establishing baptism in our merits. He asserts that we are not to search out the mystery of election, but should be content with God’s word which counts children in God’s people.117 Zwingli insists that the elect come to God through Christ alone, for example, in 1525 after referring to Seneca.118 It is, however, his references to the election and salvation of those who have not heard the gospel of Christ or received the sacraments and the occasions when he speaks of election without relating it to Christ, which have raised questions about the role of Christ in election. Bullinger, however, relates election to Gentiles in the bible and his constant use of Ephesians 1 means that the relation of election to Christ is never in doubt. Although this text is sometimes used by Zwingli, as in Account of the Faith, it does not dominate his exposition.119 Bullinger, however, in a sermon on Isaiah (1567), emphasizes the need to relate election and rejection to Christ and encourages us to hold before our eyes God’s words in Ephesians 1:3–6.120 The mystery of election, sometimes, with reference to Jeremiah 23:18 and Romans 11:33–4, is affirmed by Zwingli and Bullinger. What is additionally 116 Z VI/II 800. 16–701.8. 117 Against Anabaptists 209 v – 210r. See HBBibl 1 No. 394. I have had access only to the Latin translation Adversus (No. 396), to which the page references are given. 118 Z V 580. 15–18. 119 Z VI/II 796.23–5, cf VI/I 181.19–22. 120 Isaiah 250v34–251 r 23, in particular 251 r 12–23. See HBBibl 1 No. 558.

192

Chapter 6: Predestination

characteristic of Bullinger is that he points away from what we do not know to what we do know from scripture. Thus, for example, God’s eternal counsel is secret, but from his word we know that God loves people and wills them good.121 Even in points of detail a different approach is sometimes evident. Thus, Zwingli interprets elect in 1 Peter 1:1 as meaning everyone in the church and not just the elect, whereas Bullinger regards Philippians 1:3–6, which strictly implies only the elect, as encouraging us to hope well for all people.122 Evident as the similarities are between Zwingli and Bullinger, the differences in approach, emphasis, and substance make clear both Bullinger’s independence and distinctiveness in the doctrine of election.

121 CO 14.488–89 and Adversus 210 r 14 – v 22. 122 For Zwingli, see Z. VI/II 801.26–30. For Bullinger, see also Anabaptists 210v 22–211 r 10.

Chapter 7: The Covenant1

The covenant is central in Bullinger’s theology, although it is not, as some argue, the centre of it. In some of his works it appears to have a dominant role, as for example in The Testament and in its use as an introduction to the various editions of his commentaries on the epistles.2 In others, such as The Second Helvetic Confession, it appears to have a peripheral role.3 1 The most important recent studies relating to the covenant are: Joachim Staedtke, Die Theologie des jungen Bullinger (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1962) especially pages 227–254; ‘Bullingers Theologie – eine Fortsetzung der Zwinglischen?’ in Ulrich Gäbler and Endre Zsindely Bullinger Tagung 1975 (Zurich, 1977) pp 87–98; Karl Koch, Die Theologie der Confessio Helvetica Posterior (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, 1968) 388–430; J.W. Cottrell, ‘Covenant and Baptism in the Theology of Huldrych Zwingli’ (Diss. Princeton, 1971), pages 336–348 and ‘Is Bullinger the source for Zwingli’s doctrine of the covenant?’ in Ulrich Gäbler and Erland Herkenrath Heinrich Bullinger 1504–1575 Gesammelte Aufsätze zum 400. Todestag I Leben und Werk (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1975) 75–83; J. Wayne Baker, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition (Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1980); (with Charles S. McCoy) Fountainhead of Federation. Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenantal Tradition (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991); ‘Heinrich Bullinger, the Covenant, and the Reformed Tradition in Retrospect’ SCJ 29.2 (1998) 359–376; ‘Covenant and Community in the Thought of Heinrich Bullinger’ in Daniel J. Elazar and John Kincaid (eds), From Federal Theology to Modern Federalism (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2000); Aurelio A. Garcia Archilla, ‘Truth in History: The Theology of History and Apologetic Historiography in Heinrich Bullinger’ (Diss. Princeton, 1989) and ‘Bullinger’s De Testamento. The Amply Biblical Basis of Reformed Origins’ in Emidio Campi and Peter Opitz (eds), Heinrich Bullinger. Life – Thought – Influence. Zurich, Aug. 25–29, 2004 International Congress Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575) (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2007) 671–692; Cornelis P. Venema, Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination. Author of ‘the Other Reformed Traditions?’ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002) especially 17–33, 107–120; Fritz Büsser, Heinrich Bullinger. Leben, Werk und Wirkung (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2004) I 226–237; Peter Opitz, Heinrich Bullinger als Theologe. Eine Studie zu den Dekaden (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2004) 126–131, 317–343; Willem van’t Spijker, ‘Bullinger als Bundestheologe’ in Emidio Campi and Peter Opitz Heinrich Bullinger II 573–592; Joe Mock, ‘Biblical and Theological Themes in Heinrich Bullinger’s “De Testamento” (1534)’ ZWA 40 (2013) 1–35. 2 See HBBibl 1 nos 84–98. 3 Some, for example, Karl Koch and Gottfried Locher see its role as central, although there is no chapter on the covenant and there are few explicit references to it. See Koch, Theologie 415–417

194

Chapter 7: The Covenant

Influences on Bullinger Bullinger was, of course, not the first to give a prominent place to the covenant. It was used in the early church and the middle ages, but also by his contemporaries, notably Luther, Zwingli, Oecolampadius, and Bucer. The two most likely contemporary influences were Luther and Zwingli.4 Garcia regards Bullinger, like Calvin, as being in many ways more a disciple of Luther than of any other teacher. He sees this in ‘the soteriological unity of the testaments…a central element in the theology of the early Luther’. He notes that Bullinger read Luther’s Babylonian Captivity in 1522, before he met Zwingli. In it Luther expounds the mass in terms of the testament. A testament is the promise of someone who is about to die, and therefore the mass is a promise of the forgiveness of sins. The promise or testament is prefigured in all of God’s promises from the beginning of the world. The word of God which voices his promise leads to the response of faith and love. Luther stresses the first expression of the gospel in Genesis 3:15, and does so more than Bullinger.5 Opitz questions the influence of Luther on Bullinger, given the differences between them in Luther’s view of the Old Testament as a covenant of works and the covenant in terms of promise; but this is not the case in The Babylonian Captivity.6 In any case, it is possible, but it seems unlikely, that Bullinger would not be influenced by what is said about the covenant because of a different understanding of an element in it. He could, for example, agree with Luther and Melanchthon on fundamental elements in the law and yet disagree in parts, such as the law of nature. Bullinger was clearly influenced by Zwingli. He acknowledges his debt to him and this is also evident in his use of Zwingli’s works against Anabaptists.7 Opitz, as Locher, points to Zwingli’s exposition of the articles in 1523, which Bullinger

4 5 6 7

and Locher, ‘Die Lehre’ 335–336.Simon van der Linde regards it as having ‘eine nur bescheidene Rolle’ in the confession and as ‘keineswegs die Achse der ganzen Theologie Bullingers’ (’Die Lehre von der Kirche’ 348). The question of whether the covenant is central to Bullinger’s theology is considered in the final section of the chapter, together with the question of whether or not it is unilateral or bilateral/conditional. There is, however, some reference to both issues in the examination of various individual works. Baker discusses possible patristic, medieval, and contemporary influences in The Covenant (1– 25). Garcia, ‘Bullinger’s De Testamento’,689 note 51. Opitz, Dekaden, 318 note 5. See also Joe Mock, ‘Themes in “De Testamento” 31. He also challenges a link with Bonaventura. The Prophet 33r 20–22. On 14 March 1527, Bullinger wrote that it was through Zwingli ‘der pundt, den wir mitt Gott habend, widerumb herfür bracht ist’ cited by Staedtke (Theologie 50) from Von warer und falscher leer). See, for example, J.W. Cottrell, ‘Covenant and Baptism’ 336– 348 and ‘Is Bullinger the Source’ 75–83.

Influences on Bullinger

195

read in 1523, the year in which he met Zwingli.8 On the eighteenth article Zwingli writes: ‘Testamentum, pactum, and foedus are often used interchangeably in scripture. But testamentum is used most often…. It means “legacy”, but it is also used to mean “agreement” or “covenant”, the latter of which one usually makes between two people for the sake of peace. In this sense one speaks of the Old or the New Testament, i. e. the covenant, agreement and commitment which God has entered in with the patriarchs and which in Christ he entered in with the whole world…. Now then, where there is a testament it can be executed only after the death of him who has made it, Hebrews 9:15–17.’ There are, however, some differences of substance or explicit emphasis in the whole passage. The covenant and legacy is said in the one case to be ‘with the people of Israel and their descendants’ and in the other to be ‘with humankind (den Menschen) and also to last to all eternity. This is related to the facts that God is eternal and that the blood was that of Christ and that ‘we were not to paint the door post with it nor sprinkle our skin’ but ‘our inner soul’ was to be cleansed by it. Moreover, while the inheritance was strengthened by Christ’s death it is ‘when we die’ that we are said to ‘receive the inheritance’.9 The fathers were for Bullinger seen essentially as support for the role of the covenant rather than as its origin. The letter of Jud to him on 1 December 1525 shows him offering Zwingli references in Tertullian and Lactantius.10 In Baptism in 1525 he refers to Tertullian, Lactantius , and Augustine in support of the covenant.11 In Reply to Burchard in 1526 he refers Burchard first to Acts 15 and to Paul (1 Corinthians 10 and Galatians 2), and then to Tertullian, Lactantius, Eusebius, and to various passages in Augustine. They come after the scriptural references and Bullinger emphasizes their role as a supportive one as long as they are consistent with scripture.12

8 See also ‘Huldrych Zwingli’s Concept of History’ (114 note 96 in Locher, Zwingli’s Thought (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1981) 85–120 and HBD 8. 23–26, 126. 16–18. 9 Z II 131. 5–132.11; ET 106–107. The English translation is in Huldrych Zwingli Writings Vol. 1 translated by E.J. Furcha (Allison Park, Pa: Pickwick Publication, 1984). See Büsser, Heinrich Bullinger I 231 and Baker, Covenant 23–24. 10 HBBW 1. 81. 11–24. 11 HBTS 2. 76. 19–24. 12 HBTS 2. 152. 5–12, 155. 12–20. The obvious medieval precedent is Gabriel Biel, but Bullinger persistently rejects the semi-Pelagian views which Biel and others had.

196

Chapter 7: The Covenant

The Covenant in Bullinger’s Earlier Works The year 1525 was notable for three disputations with the Anabaptists in Zurich and the publication of two major works by Zwingli on baptism. Bullinger was certainly present at the first of these disputations and perhaps at the other two. He became familiar with Zwingli’s views on baptism both through Zwingli’s works and correspondence with him and through the disputations.13 In his first work on baptism in late 1525 Bullinger makes use of the concept of the testament or covenant rather differently from Zwingli. Bullinger moves from the covenant to baptism, whereas Zwingli moves from baptism to circumcision. For Zwingli, baptism in Colossians 2 is the Christian circumcision. For Bullinger, as circumcision in Genesis 17 is a pledge, a covenant sign, or an initiatory sign, so also baptism is a pledge, a covenant sign, or an initiatory sign. Bullinger begins by saying that disagreements, as the disagreement over baptism, must be resolved through scripture as happened with Paul in Acts (17:2, 24:14, 26:22, 28:23). (In keeping with the statements of Jesus and Peter that ‘the prophets wrote for our sake’, Bullinger indicates that he will begin his discussion of baptism with the prophets and then move to the New Testament.) This leads him to expound not baptism but the covenant, and to begin with God’s creation of the world and of people. Despite God’s love, people departed from God. In his mercy, however, God ‘made a covenant, testament or agreement’ with Adam, Enoch, and Noah, and – especially clearly – with Abraham and his seed forever. The covenant is that God will be the God of Abraham. In him Abraham will find everything, such as all good and salvation, and God will give him the promised land and through his seed all people will be blessed. For his part Abraham is to have him as God and walk before him in holiness, godliness, and innocence. The covenant was also made with Abraham’s children for ever.14 A sign or pledge (Pflichtzeichen) is added to the testament. It commits or pledges to the testament or agreement. Circumcision, which is such a sign or pledge, belongs to those who affirm the testament, and it belongs to those who were born to them. ‘They are in the covenant’ and have Abraham’s God for their God. The children were not first taught nor did they have to live irreproachably before God, for they were first circumcised and then taught. Thus, ‘Isaac was circumcised and was in the testament from his mother’s womb because Abraham was in the testament.’ ‘The testament can be understood only when a child reaches the age of reason, but in their youth by grace children are no less God’s.’ This can be compared with the way in which children are not disinherited when they are young, but only when they have grown up and act against the wishes 13 See the letter from Jud on behalf of Zwingli on 1 December 1525 (HBBW 1.81–82). 14 HBTS 2. 72.3–22.

The Covenant in Bullinger’s Earlier Works

197

expressed in the testamentary letter (gmächtbrieff). Bullinger observes that a testament is effective only with the death of the testator. Circumcision involving blood was given as a sign that with his blood the Son of God would establish the testament. Circumcision is a sign of the people of God, just as the white cross is of a Swiss confederate.15 Bullinger describes the continuation of the covenant made with Abraham up to the coming of John the Baptist. With him the law and the prophets ceased, but not the testament made with Abraham. In John’s time, the Messiah, foretold by the prophets, was born and the testament fulfilled. Although there is only one covenant, John replaced circumcision with baptism, as circumcision was a figure of Christ’s blood. With the shedding of Christ’s blood, the figure has been replaced with the reality, the thing itself. The blood of circumcision is no longer needed, as all are circumcised in Christ. To be circumcised indicates that someone is waiting for Christ. It means that Christ has not yet been born and redeemed us from the law. Therefore, circumcision has been replaced by baptism. In support of this Bullinger cites Lactantius, Origen, Augustine, Gregory, and Tertullian. With the coming of John the Baptist the testament was beginning to be fulfilled. He preached Christ and replaced circumcision with baptism. Bullinger concludes that baptism is an initiatory sign of the people of God which commits us to Christ and an irreproachable life and its power is to hold us to Christ and to a godly life.16 Bullinger argues that Christ and the apostles did not have a different testament, or teaching, or baptism. He does this by comparing their teaching and baptism by pointing to the eucharist as a memorial of Christ’s suffering which was promised to Abraham in the testament. He cites Acts 3:24–25 to show the continuity between the prophets’ preaching and testament and their own, and Acts 15: 13–18 to show that Jews and Gentiles are in one testament. Bullinger then reconciles with this the references to the old and new testament. The time before Christ is called the old testament, as they had fleshly ceremonies and had only the promise of Christ. The new testament refers to the time in which fleshly ceremonies have been abolished and the covenant is made with a new people, the Gentiles.17 Children before Christ were in the testament and received the sign which it pledges. As there is only one testament for us and those of old, why exclude from the covenant and the covenant sign at this time of grace. Bullinger continues to argue in terms of the testament, when he states that ‘they are God’s and in the testament’ on the basis of Christ’s word about the children and the kingdom of 15 HBTS 2.72.23–73.16. 16 HBTS 2.73.31–74.5, 75.17–76.6, 76.19–24, 77.1–8. 17 HBTS 77.5–25, 78. 7–11, 78. 27–79.7.

198

Chapter 7: The Covenant

God (Mark 10:14). Similarly he argues from the testament that the apostles must have baptized infants. The apostles were ‘nothing but proclaimers of the testament’ and they would not have disinherited children whom the true testator did not disinherit. All scriptures and deeds must be formed in accordance with the testament.18 In his conclusion Bullinger maintains that he has established the case for baptism from both testaments in terms of the covenant. He describes this as one in which the high God has pledged himself to us as our highest good, our fullness and sufficiency. God gave his Son who with his blood sealed the testament or covenant for young and old. There is no difference in the testament, for the Christ, promised to them, accomplished this for us. Further this covenant has been made with a new people. With the shedding of blood, circumcision was changed into baptism, but it did not effect more than circumcision. As the children of Christians are in the covenant no less than those before Christ, why would one wish not to give them the sign of the covenant and the people of God. Why should those under grace be less acceptable than those under the law.19 Only in a few minor points is the detailed case for baptizing the children of Christians not related to the testament or covenant. In The Institution of the Eucharist, written shortly after On Baptism, Bullinger presents the eucharist also in terms of the covenant.20 (Inevitably he repeats elements in his earlier exposition.) Significantly, as elsewhere, he begins his account of the institution of the eucharist with Luke 22:15–16, which relates it to the passover. As Bullinger holds that the Pentatench is scripture, of which the prophets are interpreters and of which Christ is ‘the fulfilment, light, and end’, and as there is profit in reading the New Testament with the Old Testament, he sets the passover in the context of the covenant made with Abraham in the Pentatench.21 The covenant with Abraham is described as one in which God promises that he will be our God, salvation, and strength. There is no reference to any requirement from Abraham. God will, however, give him a seed, through whom not just Abraham but all nations will be blessed. To him God adds circumcision as a sacrament or pledge of the testament. A testament does not take effect until the

18 HBTS 2. 79.13–80.5. 19 HBTS 2. 84. 6–21. 20 See HBTS 2. 88–107, where it is dated 10 December 1525, with On Baptism between 5 November and 10 December. Although the work is not directed against Anabaptists, Bullinger refers to them as being ignorant of the testament (104.2–4). 21 HBTS 2.89.6–9, 19–21, 26–27. Bullinger has already argued that ‘is’ means ‘signifies’ in HBTS 2.58. 33–59.9 in Against Idolatrous Bread (15 July 1525). He also notes the reference in both the giving of the passover and the giving of the eucharist the following night.

The Covenant in Bullinger’s Earlier Works

199

death of the testator takes place. Circumcision which involves blood is a testimony that the covenant would be sealed by the blood of the blessed seed.22 Bullinger then relates the passover to the covenant. He notes that God is merciful and faithful and so he renewed the covenant with his people in Egypt. He led them from captivity, and as a memorial of this he instituted the passover, with the slaying of the passover lamb and the smearing of the door posts with its blood. They were to commemorate in future generations, giving thanks to God and looking for him who would liberate the people by his blood. This is a type of Christ. Thus, Paul maintains that Christ is our passover. Moreover, John records that, in keeping with the account of the passover lamb, not a bone of Christ’s was broken. Christ was the lamb without blemish, through whose shed blood God passed over the church, forgiving their sins. In the light of the passover Bullinger returns to the New Testament accounts, noting that John refers to Christ as the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.23 With the coming of Christ, the law is fulfilled and the Old Testament types of Christ are abolished. The signs of the covenant are replaced, with the eucharist taking the place of the passover. The change occurs with the coming of Christ who is ‘the true lamb, the sole mediator of the testament’. By the shedding of his blood he ends the shedding of all blood; he commands types to cease and fulfils all things.24 This change takes place with the ministry of John the Baptist. Circumcision and the passover lamb, with the shedding of blood, are replaced by baptism in water and by bread and wine. Following Augustine, Bullinger insists that the change is not a change in substance, as if the former were inferior to the latter.25 Bullinger continues to maintain that there is only one covenant. When Jesus refers to the cup as a new testament, it does not mean entering into a new covenant with the human race, but a confirming of the earlier covenant through the death of Christ. It was new in that the sacrifices of the people of old had been abolished. The bread, a memorial of his body, showed that the shadows have passed away and the body itself had been given for the human race. The cup signifies his blood. It was promised to the people of old, and is offered to confirm and seal the testament. Neither the cup nor the death of Christ is the testament, as the testament is the forgiveness of sins. They are the perfection or seal of the testament.26 In editing Bullinger’s first work on the eucharist, The Sacrifice of the Mass (16 November 1524), Hans-Georg vom Berg maintains that Bullinger argues against 22 23 24 25 26

HBTS 2.90.1–11. HBTS 2.90. 19–91.9, 15–18, 23–30. HBTS 2.91.25–30, 92. 13–15, 28–34. HBTS 2. 93.1–8, 25–28. HBTS 2.97.9–29. Later he refers to the Anabaptists’ ignorance of the testament (104.2–4).

200

Chapter 7: The Covenant

the repetition of the sacrifice not only from the once for all character of Christ’s sacrifice but also from the covenant consummated in Christ’s sacrificial death.27 ‘If the death of Christ once offered is enough to remove all the sins of all people, and if the blood of Christ is the blood of the new testament, blood which lasts eternally, what need is there for Christ to be offered in our masses? For if the mass is a sacrifice, the sacrifice of Christ was incomplete, but if the sacrifice Christ was perfect, then the mass is not a sacrifice.’28 At the end of 1526 in his Reply to Burchard, Bullinger refers at length to the covenant – on this occasion in the context of papal rather than Anabaptist teaching. After stating that the Pentateuch is the source from which the writings of the prophets and apostles flow, he writes that ‘it contains clearly, briefly, and richly the content of the whole testament’. He calls the testament a covenant, peace, agreement, revelation. Its context is God’s pledging himself to people.29 In expounding this , he holds that God will be the God, that is ‘the consolation, salvation, and highest good of all believers, whether Jews or Gentiles’ and ‘will give them a seed in whom all people will be blessed’. He adds, however, that ‘people are to confess this one God alone as their God’, not choose any other consolation or help, not obey anyone else, and ‘walk before him in uprightness and innocence’. Bullinger sees this covenant with its two sides as the sum of the whole of scripture. He refers to God’s faithfulness and the way he redeemed his people and raised them above all peoples, that they might have him as their God. God is described as Lord of the covenant and then as a mother carrying her child in her bosom, in giving ceremonies, as Tertullian has said, to keep them from being led from God through the idolatrous worship of the heathen .These priestly and sacrificial ceremonies are given as figures of the promised seed.30 Later Bullinger states that the testament is one and eternal and that ‘we and those of old before the birth of Christ are one people, one church, under one God, testament, and faith’. After a range of supporting testimonies, both biblical and patristic, he adds that ‘as the testament is one and eternal, it must follow that God has made no new covenant, no new testament with us’. Since with the coming of Christ the figures signifying Christ have faded and the testament has been perfected, scripture calls the one testament new – and also a new people, the Gentiles, has been admitted to this testament. This is related as elsewhere to the death

27 HBTS 2.36–37. 28 HBTS 2. 40.14–24, 41.4–6. 29 HBTS 2.149.9–16. ‘…pundt, fryden, vereinigung, enteckung’ (149.13–14). Before expounding the covenant Bullinger asserts that everything necessary for salvation is in scripture (HBTS 2.148. 30–149.4). 30 HBTS 2. 149.17–150.14. He concludes by saying that all he has said about the testament is in the Pentateuch, which is called the Law.

The Covenant in Bullinger’s Earlier Works

201

of the testator, by which we through faith in him have eternal life, the blessing promised in Abraham’s seed.31 Bullinger refers to the preaching of the new testament as a living, unwritten preaching of Christ’s being sent by the God of the patriarchs and of his obtaining eternal blessedness for us through his death and the seal of the testament and the resurrection from the dead as scripture foretold. They preached from what they had seen and heard, proving it from the law and the prophets. He notes that Tertullian stated that the apostles had no other office than to expound the Old Testament and with it to confirm the New. Bullinger relates both of them to the testament. They are not the testament. The one is a message that Christ will come and the other that he has come. They are descriptions of it and have the name testament by metonymy. New Testament teaches ‘how the one eternal covenant was renewed, perfected, confirmed, and sealed through our Lord Jesus Christ, in which he shed his blood on his cross, suffered death, rose again on the third day for the forgiveness of sins’.32 The twentieth chapter of Introduction to Study in 1528 concerns the sole scope of scripture to which all the books of the bible refer.33The chapter begins with a reference to those who see the scope as law and gospel, which Bullinger says he will neither condemn nor praise. He maintains, however, that all the books of the bible have a common scope, quoting the words about the testament God made with Abraham in Genesis 17 and 22 (17:1, 7, 8, 10, 22:18). This covenant has two elements: first that God binds himself to us and second what God demands of us. To help the people believe, God made a double promise, a spiritual and a physical promise: the promise of Christ and the promise of the land of Canaan. Although they are not the testament, the biblical books are called Old and New Testament, because they present the contents of the testament. At the end of Introduction to Study, testamentum (testament) appears as the first in a long list of loci (Common Places or themes), with the sub-divisions: one and eternal, old and new. Then the testament comes later in the list alongside scripture and before the latter’s three sub-divisions.34

31 HBTS 2.151.31–152.30. 32 HBTS 2.152.30–153.29. Bullinger is in part defending himself against the view that he is rejecting the New Testament by what he says about the Old. 33 Baker recognizes, for example, that in the letter on 27 February 1526 to Christoph Stiltz ‘Bullinger spoke more in terms of testament than of covenant, not once referring explicitly to the covenant conditions’. HBBW 1.100–112. See J. Wayne Baker, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant 11. In his letter to Anna Adlischwyler on 24 February 1528 Bullinger refers to the old testament as beginning with the covenant made by God with Abraham and to the prophets and histories as aiming at this (HBBW 1.153. 6–11). 34 HBSR 1.74.10–24, 76. 24–27, 128. 14–17, 28–32. As elsewhere, Bullinger uses testamentum, pactum, and foedus almost indiscriminately.

202

Chapter 7: The Covenant

In the early 1530s, before he expounds the covenant at length in The Testament, Bullinger discusses the covenant in a variety of works. They show the different contexts in which he used the covenant and its different uses. Thus, in Anabaptist Teaching he argued from the covenant in support of infant baptism. In a dialogue with Joiada, representing Bullinger, Simon, an Anabaptist, maintains that baptism is a sign of believers. Joiada replies that God counts children among believers. He is challenged to prove this, as Simon claims that he has proved the opposite. He responds by stating that children were included in the eternal covenant which God established with Abraham. They were reckoned among believers because of God’s grace and his promise. He rejects Simon’s statement that the Jewish covenant had been abolished by the gospel. He maintains that ceremonies were abolished as the figures had been fulfilled, but the covenant had not been. If it had been abolished, then God would no longer be our God and the God of our children and he would be less gracious through Christ than he was before. Moreover, believers were called children of Abraham, and Jesus, calling children, said that the kingdom of heaven belonged to them.35 Later in the exposition Bullinger states that circumcision is replaced by baptism, and that infant baptism is of God. Anabaptist opposition to this is ‘against the holy gospel, the choice and ordinance of God, and the one eternal covenant’. Here he notes that covenant is one as well as eternal.36 In The Prophet, Bullinger discusses the office of the prophet, beginning with the exposition of scripture. In considering the essential point of scripture for a prophet, when expounding scripture, Bullinger rejects the Lutheran principle of law and gospel in favour of the testament. It is ‘the title of the whole of scripture and is likewise the essential point of scripture’, ‘the chief point to which all things refer and on which they all rely’. By testament he understands the pact, covenant, and agreement, by which God agrees to be our God and all-sufficient. We are to have a zeal for integrity, so that we walk in his ways and commit ourselves wholly to him. These, he says, are the main points of the covenant, which can be said to prescribe faith and innocence. From faith is born the knowledge of God and of his power, justice, and mercy, while innocence brings truth, constancy, purity, and love. Bullinger adds that all the books of the bible refer to faith and innocence of life as the most certain scope, illustrating this in the different parts of the bible.37 Significantly, the word conditio (condition or main point) is not used in The Prophet. Moreover, faith and love are in no way conditions for entering the 35 Anabaptist Teaching 55 r 13-v 22. He also alludes to 1 Corinthians 7:14 in stating that the children of Christian parents are pure. 36 Anabaptist Teaching 61v–62 r13. 37 The Prophet 3 r 3–7r 11, especially 4 v 1–5, 13–5v 8, 7r 6–11.

The Covenant in Bullinger’s Earlier Works

203

covenant, they are rather commended to us. The prophets, moreover, are said to depict the goodness, righteousness, and majesty of God and with great ardour to exhort to faith and innocence of life. The New Testament sees Christ as the pioneer and living example of faith in God and innocence of life, and the testament in which faith and innocence are commended to us as the chief point of scripture.38 In the epilogue to The Prophet Bullinger refers to Zwingli as restoring the main points of the testament and eternal covenant.39 He does this in the context of a defence of Zwingli, a true prophet, and Oecolampadius. He begins with Zwingli’s restoration of the covenant, but after that outlines many other areas in which God restored glory to his church through Zwingli. They include the omnipotence and goodness and unity of God, obscured by the invocation and worship of the saints, with Oecolampadius the purging and restoration of the sacraments, the remission of sins and the keys, the vanquishing of the reign of the Roman pontiff, and the overcoming of the Anabaptists. Although Bullinger could have related all these theological matters to the covenant, he does not. He would appear to see them as distinct theological issues.40 At the beginning of Hebrews (1532) the old and new covenant or testament is the first of the themes or Common Places (loci) mentioned, but it is only one out of twenty four. He treats it at length in expounding Hebrews 8:8–13.41 The word testament has various meanings in scripture: will, promise, and remission of sins. Bullinger treats the testament as the covenant and pact by which God testified his will to us and agreed certain conditions with us, quoting mostly from Genesis 17: 1–8. The testament is described as ‘unchangeable, one, and eternal’. There is one church of the saints of old and of us, one God and only one true religion through all generations. The descriptions of the testament as old and new and yet one are to be understood as one in substance and two in the way they are delivered. They are the same, as God is one, to be worshipped alone, and to be worshipped in the Spirit, in innocence and truth. Likewise there is one righteousness and redemption of the world, one priest and true sacrifice, Jesus Christ Son of God and man. There is the hope of the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the body. This religion and faith were clear to Adam and Noah, to Peter and Paul, and to Athanasius and Augustine, and will be the faith of all the elect of God to the end. The same substance of the faith and testament was given before and after Christ, and so there is only one testament.42 38 39 40 41 42

The Prophet 6 r 18-v7, 22–7r 11. The Prophet 33 r 20–22. The Prophet 32 r 1–34 v 6. Hebrews A 7v 15, 82 r – 85 r. Hebrews 82 r 8–83 r 7. The word conditio is used three times at the beginning (82 r 19, 20, 28) with no alternative, but not after that.

204

Chapter 7: The Covenant

The terms old and new distinguish, for example, the way everything happened to those before Christ in figures and was veiled in types, whereas God has given us Christ, who is the perfection of the law, the thing itself. They rejoiced in the external, we in the spiritual. Nevertheless, the testament is not new, as if they did not have Christ, grace, and the forgiveness of sins. In the light of this, Bullinger explains the use of testament to describe the books of the bible. They are not the testament but are so called because they describe the covenant. The New Testament describes everything fulfilled and renewed in Christ and likewise a new people gathered from Jews and Gentiles.43 It is perhaps surprising that there are few explicit references to the covenant in Romans (1533). Covenant occurs in relation to circumcision in 2:25, although it does not do so in the lectures on Romans in 1525. Circumcision is a sign of the covenant, but it cannot profit people who do not keep ‘its laws, that is, its conditions and its main points’. For the law of the covenant he refers to Genesis 17, in particular, ‘You shall walk before me and be blameless’. The failure of the Jews to do this is interpreted as ‘not loving God with all their heart nor walking [in a way] to please God’.44 This interpretation seems to imply that ‘the conditions’ were not a condition for entering the covenant, but what it was intended should flow from the covenant. In expounding Acts 3:25 in 1533, Bullinger could state, ‘This is the sum of the testament: In your seed, that is Christ… all nations (Gentes) will be saved. Therefore, if you believe in Christ, you will be sons and heirs of the testament and of heavenly good.’ This is a statement Bullinger would be unlikely to make if a life of love were a condition of the covenant. There is no reference to conditions in his exposition of the following verse that we are to believe and turn from our sins and serve God in fear and righteousness. The exposition of 7:8 quotes Genesis 17:1, with its reference to walking before God, and states that there is no mention of temple or ceremonies, but of faith and innocence, but again without speaking of conditions for the covenant.45 In 1 Peter in 1534 there is an extended reference to the testament in Bullinger’s comment on the Spirit of Christ (1:11).46 He recalls the controversy with Marcion, with its opposition between the Old and New Testaments. He accepts the idea that there is mention of diverse Spirits, testaments, and peoples, but not in the Marconite way. He rejects the view that the old church and testament were carnal and the new spiritual, or that the Spirit given to Christians was new. He notes that there were no ceremonies at the beginning, but that the people relied on the promise: The seed of the woman will tread on the serpent’s head. The words 43 Hebrews 83 r 8- v 26. 44 Romans (1533) 44 r 18-v 11. The reference to testaments in 9:4 educes a comment of only two lines. 45 Acts 46 r 2–24, 78 r 24-v 4. 46 1 Peter 12 r 15–25 v 5.

The Covenant in Bullinger’s Earlier Works

205

spoken to Abraham in Genesis 17:1, with a reference to the seed in Genesis 3:15, through whom all nations will be saved, are described as the entire sum of religion. They are, Bullinger adds, like the sum of the Christian faith, that ‘God in his mercy towards us has given his Son to die for us, so that being saved and taught by his death we may live afterwards in newness of life’. There is, therefore, one Spirit and one testament of both peoples. (This New Testament parallel implies that our part is not a condition for being in the covenant, but is rather a response to it.) Similarly after considering the laws written by God on the tables of stone, and the loving of God and one’s neighbour, taught by Christ and the apostles in preaching and writing, he affirms that the Spirit is one and the testament is also the same in both peoples.47 Bullinger considers the meaning of the new in terms like a new Spirit, a new heart, a new law, and a new testament. He maintains that the people have the same Spirit, the same sum of religion, and the same substance of the testament and law. In support, he notes that Christ and the apostles cited the examples of Abraham and the ancients and proposed the imitation of their faith, that Peter called the Spirit speaking in the prophet, the Spirit of Christ, and that John the Baptist was imbued by the Spirit of Elijah. (What is new is that with the ascension the Spirit is given more fully and given to many and not just to a few.) In support, he quotes Augustine’s stating that it is the same Spirit but that the mode of giving is different. reference to Eusebius and Lactantius is followed by the creed’s statement: I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, who spoke through the prophets, in one catholic and apostolic church.48 In 1534 Bullinger published his one work wholly dedicated to the testament or covenant, God’s One, Eternal Testament or Covenant.49 He discusses the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin words: berith, diatheke, testamentum, and foedus. Among the various ways in which the word testamentum is used in scripture, Bullinger puts the focus on three: will, promise or pact or agreement, and covenant, before indicating that he will use it in the third sense.50 Bullinger describes human covenants and testaments. A covenant is made between enemies in ending a war. It has ‘certain ceremonies, conditions, restrictions or main points’. A written record is made, so that the description can be transmitted to posterity. Similarly with a will there is a record of the heirs, the inheritance, and any who are to be excluded. The record is signed and sealed. The will, however, does not take effect until the testator dies. Because of the weakness of our nature God has deigned to 47 1 Peter 12v 19–13 v 24. 48 1 Peter 14 v 10–15 v 13. 49 Part of the context for Bullinger’s work on The Testament is the need to respond to Caspar Schwenckfeld’s Difference of the Old and New Testament. 50 The Testament 2 r 21–3v 21; ET 101–103. Mock discusses Bullinger’s use of the terms testamentum, foedus, and pactum in ‘Themes in “De Testamento”’ 28–31.

206

Chapter 7: The Covenant

call the mystery of unity and fellowship with the divine by a human name in making a covenant or instituting a will.51 In expounding the covenant Bullinger begins with Abraham. He quotes Genesis 17:1–14, observing that all the elements of a covenant are present. First, its participants are God and Abraham’s descendants. Second, its conditions are that God wills to be their God, and that they are to walk before him uprightly. Third, it is made for all time, and finally it is confirmed by a ceremony involving blood. Underlying the covenant is ‘the ineffable mercy and divine grace’ of God. ‘It is driven not by people’s merit, but impelled by God’s sheer, natural goodness.’ Indeed being saved by the sheer goodness and mercy of God is the source and main point of our religion. God’s mercy is evident with faithless Adam, Noah, and Abraham and his descendants.52 Bullinger’s concern with Anabaptists, though not only them, is evident early in The Testament. Against Anabaptists, he argues that they consider only the conditions of the covenant and ‘disregard the grace and promise of God’ when they exclude children. He allows, however, that children are excluded if, when they have the use of reason, they then neglect the conditions.53 He challenges those who maintain that a child born from an unfaithful parent is excluded from the covenant. He holds that the parent is inscribed once for all among the people of God and that the guilt of the parent does not pass to the children, supporting this from Ezekiel 18:14–20, Deuteronomy 1:39, and 1 Corinthians 7:14. Bullinger adds that it is not probable that God would be less gracious to our children after sending Christ than he was to children before that.54 Bullinger holds that the whole of piety is contained in the main points of the covenant in Genesis 17. In expounding this, Bullinger begins by emphasizing the description of God as Shaddai, ‘I am the fully all-sufficient God, the horn of plenty’. This means that ‘he alone is that power and that good which suffices for people and which, lacking nothing, provides everything for everyone. Eternally of himself he lives, moves, and acts.’ The promises made to Abraham are both spiritual and fleshly, the most important being the promise of Christ, ‘in whom is all fullness, righteousness, sanctification, life, redemption, and salvation’. Bullinger then states what God in turn requires and expects from us.55 God says, ‘ You will keep my covenant, you and your descendants in their generations. Walk before me and be upright.’ This means you will trust me alone as all sufficient for you in every situation and cleave to me with all your heart. ‘Walk before me’ means ‘live according to my will and pleasure’. Bullinger applies keeping the 51 52 53 54 55

The Testament 4 r 4 – v 21; ET 103. The Testament 5 v 10–6r 15, 6v 7–10, 7r 17-v 8; ET 104–105. The Testament 7 v 18–8 r 2, 19–20; ET 106. The Testament 10 v 3–11 r 15; ET 108. The Testament 16 r 14–16, 11v 20–12 r 6, 13 v 10–14 r 1, 14 v 14–15; ET 112, 109–110.

The Covenant in Bullinger’s Earlier Works

207

covenant to his day, as implying not seeking false gods, living shamefully, and worshipping more with ceremonies or external things than with a holy life.56 Bullinger describes the covenant as the scope of scripture, holding that the whole sum of piety consists in the very brief points expressed in Genesis 17. He allows, however, that over time they were expressed at greater length and more clearly. He expounds this in reference to the different parts of scripture: the law, the prophets, the gospels (Christ), and the epistles (the apostles). Thus, the law teaches partly the love of God and partly the love of neighbour, which are taught in the main points of the covenant.57 Bullinger considers civil or judicial laws which concern maintaining peace, defending liberty, punishing the guilty, and making laws for justice and equity. As we are still in the flesh, we need magistrates. Thus, with a variation on the parable of the tares, he maintains that there are times when tares need to be cut off with the scythe of justice, when by their strength or number they might subvert the church. For this reason, we need magistrates and civil laws. He dismisses those who would exclude magistrates from the church, as though there were no need of what they do and that it is of such a kind that they cannot or ought not to be counted among the holy and spiritual works of the people of God. On the contrary, ‘the truly judicial things which Abraham did are praised by the Holy Spirit of God among the foremost and most excellent deeds’.58 Three brief passages show the covenant in the prophets, Christ, and the apostles. The prophets wrote both history and discourses. Their histories are ‘like living paradigms of this covenant’. Their discourse treats nothing but those same main points of the covenant, teaching that God is good, righteous, powerful, true, and merciful, and that he is to be served in truth, faith, righteousness, and love.59 Christ himself is ‘the seal and living confirmation of the covenant’. Not only in all his teaching but also in his wonderful incarnation, he explained and confirmed in a marvelous and living way the eternal covenant of God made with the human race.’ By what he did he showed God to be beneficent and the Father and Shaddai of the human race. The covenant also shows what God demands of us and Christ does this in leaving us an example to follow. Christ taught partly faith in God and partly love of neighbour which is the source of innocence and integrity. Faith and love are the sum of the covenant.60 More briefly Bullinger maintains that the apostles agreed on the covenant. Thus, they taught who the heirs were of the

56 57 58 59 60

The Testament 14 v 16–15 r 4, 12–20, 16 r 6–13; ET 111. The Testament 17 v 1–10; ET 112–113. The Testament 18 r 13-v 6, 19 r 18–20 r 5; ET 113–114. The Testament 20 v 15–21 r 3; ET 114–115. The Testament 21 v 1–7, 22 r 3–6, 23 r 3–15, 24 v 15–25 r 2; ET 115–117.

208

Chapter 7: The Covenant

covenant made with Abraham. They preached indeed what God had promised through the prophets.61 Bullinger argues that the covenant is one and everlasting on the basis of the words spoken to Abraham. This is fundamental to what Bullinger seeks to argue against Anabaptists, for example, in relating the Old Testament to the New and the New to the Old. He enumerates a range of biblical testimonies in support of the covenant as one and everlasting. On the one hand he observes that Abraham was justified by faith without ceremonies, before circumcision and the law. He saw the day of the Lord Jesus and rejoiced, and he also hoped for an eternal fatherland. On the other hand the apostles of Christ and Christ himself set Abraham forth as the one ‘to be imitated everywhere in faith and innocence’. If, however, Abraham’s faith and innocence had not been true faith and piety, Christ would not have done this.62There is, therefore, Bullinger says, ‘one testament and one church of all the saints before and after Christ, one way to heaven, and likewise one unchanging religion of all the saints’. Bullinger supports this assertion with statements of Jesus, Paul, and Augustine. Christ refers to sitting with Abraham (Matthew 8:11–12) and to ‘one flock’ (John 10:16), and tells parables in which the guests and labourers change, but the wedding feast and the vineyard remain the same (Matthew 20: 10–16, 21: 33–41, 22:1–14). Like them is Paul’s parable of the olive tree (Romans 11: 17–24) and his reference to the same spiritual food and drink and the spiritual rock (1 Corinthians 10:1–4).63 To show that his interpretation is not new, Bullinger quotes Augustine’s interpretation. Augustine stated that the righteous before the incarnation believed in the one which was to come, whereas we believe in the one who has come. ‘The times are different, not the faith.’ ‘The church that gave birth to Abel… gave birth to our apostles… and all good Christians.’ There is only ‘one church and one covenant of the people of old and of us.’64 After demonstrating that there is one eternal covenant, Bullinger considers references to a new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31–34), a new heart and a new spirit (Ezekiel 36:26,28) and two covenants (Galatians 4:24). There are, he says, additions to the covenant, which are not necessary for salvation. They arose in accordance with the time, the persons, and the circumstances. In this context, he discusses ceremonies, the Aaronic priesthood, the law, and the ways in which the new covenant differs from the old. The patriarchs did not have these additions, ‘but the patriarchs pleased God – at great cost – through faith, and they obtained salvation without them’. Moreover, the law came four hundred and thirty years 61 The Testament 24 r 3–5, 11-v 3: ET 117. 62 The Testament 24 v 17–25 r 5, 10-v7; ET 117–118. Bullinger refers to Romans 4: 1–13, John 8: 56, Hebrews 11: 8–10, Luke 19:9, Isaiah 51: 1–2, John 8: 39–40. 63 The Testament 25 v 7–26 v10; ET 118. 64 The Testament 26 v 10–27r 2, 27 v 12–19, 28 r 6–8; ET 119–120.

The Covenant in Bullinger’s Earlier Works

209

later and ‘does not make void the covenant established earlier by God in Christ, so that it would abrogate the promise’.65 Bullinger considers God’s purpose in establishing the law which he relates to the way the Jews were corrupted by their time in Egypt, by Egyptian worship and idolatry. First, the law was given. In it God re-established the main points of the covenant, expounding it more fully and writing it with his own finger on stone tablets. When the people continued to be unfaithful, he added ceremonies which the patriarchs did not have. The ceremonies were to keep the people from worshipping strange gods and served as types pointing to Christ.66 Bullinger maintains that there is no difference in the covenant when one considers the decalogue and the civil laws, but people began to speak of the covenant as old or new, carnal or spiritual. It is new in that it comes after the old and also in that the ceremonies were fulfilled by Christ. It is also new in that it includes the Gentiles. The word’ carnal’ was used for those who depended more on carnal things than on the spiritual points of the covenant or the promise of God. From Galatians 4:21–26. Bullinger states, ‘we conclude that a carnal people is one which wishes to be under the law’.67 He then cites Jeremiah (Jeremiah 7), Stephen (Acts 7), and Paul (Hebrews 11) in support. Bullinger describes three ways in which the Christian church surpasses the ancients, before examining a series of objection to his assertion that there is one eternal covenant.68 We have been freed from the ceremonies so that we come near to the religion of the patriarchs, which rested on faith and innocence without any ceremonies. We rejoice that the brightness of the gospel has dispersed the shadows and that the figures have been fulfilled. Our church has been made superior, because Christ has come to us, the Spirit has been given more abundantly, his glory has been spread throughout the world, and all things have been perfectly completed, whereas the ancients believed that Christ would come and they waited for him with the greatest desire.69 Bullinger considers the sacraments in relation to the covenant. In human covenants an animal is cut in two parts and the person passes between the parts, testifying that if he did not stand by it God might destroy them. Alluding to this when he consecrates the covenant with blood, God states that the soul of an 65 The Testament 28 r 9–29 v 6; ET 120–121. 66 The Testament 29 v 7–30r 18; ET 121. He quotes Tertullian to show that this is not a new view (30 r 18–31 r 5; ET 122). The reference to Christ underlines the unity of the covenant. 67 The Testament 31 r 5–32 v 18. ET 122–123. 68 The Testament 35 v 10–41v 17; ET 125–130. Bullinger examines objections relating to Matthew 5, 2 Corinthians 3, Deuteronomy 5, an Ebionite mixing of law and gospel, and the alleged contrast between wars and glory in the Old Testament and suffering and persecution in the New. 69 The Testament 34 v 18–35 v 9; ET 125. Bullinger sees this as confirmed by the words of Simeon (Luke 2: 29–32).

210

Chapter 7: The Covenant

uncircumcised male shall be blotted out from his people because he has made the covenant void and broken it (Genesis 17:14). Bullinger holds that this does not apply to infants, who are born of faithful parents, but who die before birth or before receiving the covenant sign of God’s people. It applies to those who, despising the covenant, disregard the sacrament as useless or who, having received it, betray it by faithlessness and impurity. He maintains that infants will be saved by the mercy and grace of God. The blood in the sacrament points to the need of the testator, God, to die to ratify the testament (Hebrews 9:17). As God is immutable, he assumed the seed of Abraham and in the flesh, which he had assumed, he suffered and shed his blood, so ratifying the covenant. In order to hand down this mystery to the fathers, God willed that the seed of Abraham be circumcised, signifying that Christ, the true seed of Abraham, would confirm the covenant by his death and blood.70 With the death of Christ everything was fulfilled and the covenant was confirmed. Therefore, the signs which prefigured his death had to be replaced by signs signifying the most perfect justification. Baptism and the eucharist, instituted by God, became ‘for the people of the new covenant symbols of the covenant and of divine grace, confirmed already through Christ’. They contain the whole of the renewed covenant, as the earlier sacraments had contained the whole of the covenant.71 Bullinger notes finally that with testaments and covenants there is a record (in this case the Old and New Testaments) which transmits to posterity what has been transacted. We refer to them as the testament or covenant, whereas they only expound and witness to the deeds and the conditions. When there is a dispute the heirs consult them, so that they act in accordance with them. We must do that when there is a dispute about the true and false worship of God and consult the records of the covenant, the books of the two testaments.72 The epilogue shows the controversial context of the book. It challenges papal as well as Anabaptist views. Bullinger refers to ‘the clarity, simplicity, and antiquity of the scriptures and our religion which is ill spoken of as heretical’. Identifying the Jewish religion with circumcision and laws which began with Abraham and Moses, he maintains that the Christian faith is far older than the Jewish religion, for Abraham was justified before he was circumcised, and those before him going back to Adam pleased God through faith without circumcision. As for the allegedly ancient religion of Islam and the papal religion he claims that they go back only to the seventh century. Finally, Bullinger quotes Eusebius as agreeing with him, citing his statement that from Adam onward there were those 70 The Testament 41 v 18–43 r 18; ET 130–131. 71 The Testament 43 v 5–19, 44 r 12–17; ET 131–132. 72 The Testament 44 v 16–45 r 8, 46 v 3–9; ET 132–134.

The Covenant in Bullinger’s Later Works

211

who were truly Christian in deeds and religion, if not in name. He adds that it received its shape and form from Christ as God, instructor, and teacher.73

The Covenant in Bullinger’s Later Works74 There is an extended treatment of the covenant in Bullinger’s second major work against Anabaptists. In chapter 5 of Book Four of Anabaptists in 1560, Bullinger maintains that the fathers of the old testament are one people and church with Christians, having with us the same doctrine, Spirit, and faith. They are in the same covenant and testament. After simply maintaining that there is one church with all the saints from the beginning, Bullinger argues at greater length that there is the same doctrine. For example, the gospel was promised in scripture by the prophets, and the evangelists quoted them as confirmation of their teaching. Jesus affirmed the law as the perfect, unchangeable will of God. He opposed his teaching to that of the Pharisees, not to that of the prophets and patriarchs. If the teaching is one, so must the faith be, for faith comes from hearing. The trinitarian faith expressed in the creed was believed by the saints from Adam to Christ, although the teaching in the New Testament is clearer and plainer. Their faith and ours is the same. He notes that Peter and Paul as well as Jesus affirm that ‘the saints of old and we believe in Christ as the one, eternal Saviour and that they and we are saved through faith in him, by the grace of God, not by the law or by merits’. In the rest of the chapter Bullinger supports this with reference to John 7, Matthew 8:11, Luke 16:22, Acts 18:11, Romans 4:11, 1 Corinthians 10:2–4, and Hebrews 11, and then with Eusebius and Augustine. Bullinger maintains that as they and we have the same faith, we must both have the same Spirit, as indeed Peter implies (1 Peter 1:10–13).75 Chapter 6 states that the Old Testament fathers have the same inheritance and hope, the same sacraments and prayers as Christians, and also that Christ and the apostles confirmed what they said and did by the example and teaching of the Old Testament fathers. God’s promises were not just physical but also spiritual; the salvation of their souls and eternal life. Bullinger notes references to examples 73 The Testament 47 r 5–10, 47 v 14–48 r 7, 50 r 6–10, 14–19, 51 v 3–8; ET 134–138. 74 The covenant features in Bullinger’s later works, but there is dispute about whether in those works it is central and whether it is bilateral. This will be considered in relation to some works in the next section This section will focus on one work, Bullinger’s second major work against Anabaptists. 75 The Anabaptists 130 v 12–14, 30–32, 131 r 19–21, v 1–3, 6–8, 19–22, 26–30, 132 r 13–27, 134 r 1– 6, 27-v 11. Bullinger rejects the Anabaptist misinterpretation of John 7:39 in the light of examples such as Zechariah, Simeon, Anna, and Elizabeth, and the giving of the gifts of the Spirit at Pentecost.

212

Chapter 7: The Covenant

such as Abraham (John 8:56), David (Psalm 28:13), Enoch (Hebrews 11:5), and Elijah (2 Kings 2:11, Matthew 17:3). He insists that they are saved by Christ and that no one is saved except by Christ. In the Old Testament only those prayers were accepted by God which were offered through Christ. The sacraments of the ancients are also similar to those of Christians. They are testimonies of divine grace. They are adumbrations of the future liberation through Christ, a public confession of true faith, and a commitment to an innocent life and love. Bullinger rejects the view that they were without the Spirit, for Moses and Jeremiah demanded a spiritual circumcision of the heart. He notes that Paul ascribed the sacraments of the ancients to us (Colossians 2:11 and 1 Corinthians 5:7–8) and our sacraments to them (1 Corinthians 10:2–4).76 Bullinger summarizes what he has shown by saying that those before Christ had ‘ the same doctrine, faith, Spirit, hope, inheritance, and salvation, prayers, and sacraments as us’. Therefore, they are ‘the same people of God with us, in the same communion and church, in the same covenant or testament, sharers in the same blessedness’. As these things cannot be contradicted, the foundation on which the Anabaptists build their opposition to the use of the Old Testament in confirming the New Testament collapses.77 Against the Anabaptists Bullinger gives examples of the way Christ and the apostles draw on examples from the Old Testament to support or prove what they said and did. From Matthew, Bullinger cites Christ’s reference to David on the sabbath (12:3–4), Isaiah against the Pharisees’ use of tradition (15:8–9), Genesis about marriage and divorce (19:3–6), Isaiah and Jeremiah against the money changers (21:13), God’s words to Moses ‘I am the God of Abraham’ (Exodus 3:6) in support of the resurrection (22:31–32), and Psalm 110:1 in support of the divinity of Christ (22: 42–45). ‘Paul proves the summary and chief doctrine of the New Testament, that people are justified by faith in Christ, not by works, with the scriptures of the Old Testament, with the example of Abraham’s and David’s faith (Romans 4)’ and, among many possible examples, Hebrews 11. ‘All the apostles prove the substance (res) of the New Testament by testimonies from the Old Testament and the examples of the holy fathers.’ For Anabaptists, confirming the substance of the New Testament from the Old Testament is an abominable mixing of Moses and Christ and of law and gospel, and an adulterating of the gospel. In the light of what Bullinger has shown of Christ and the apostles, then according to them Christ and the apostles were adulterators of the truth of the gospel. Bullinger proves that God will give them understanding to acknowledge their grave error.78 76 The Anabaptists 134 v 12–135 v11, 136 r 32 – v 6, 137 r 3–5, 20–31, v 9–13. 77 The Anabaptists 137 v 16–29. 78 The Anabaptists 138 r 4-v 21, 31–32.

The Covenant in Bullinger’s Later Works

213

In chapter 7 Bullinger uses the familiar arguments to show ‘the true difference between the people of the Old and New Testament and the fullest glory and freedom of the gospel’. First, everything is clearer and more open in the New Testament. The Old has figures and obscure views. The New Testament contains interpretation of the figures, and it sets Christ and salvation clearly before us, as if we see directly the face of God. We could be said to have the bright midday light. They, by contrast, had the sufficient light of early morning, while looking forward to the greater light which was to come in Christ.79 Second, they had the promises of future good things. We have those things which the prophets saw at a distance and some saw it as it were through a cloud, such as the coming of Christ and the calling of the Gentiles. We do not look for another Messiah, for all things were fulfilled in him. Unlike the ancients we have been freed from the burden and yoke of figures, types, and ceremonies, and the things commanded by the law concerning the temple, sacrifice, and foods. The replacing of circumcision and the passover by baptism and the eucharist reflects the fact that Christ has come.80 Third, in the Old Testament the church was limited to Israel, now its bounds are the ends of the earth. Likewise in the New Testament grace and the Spirit of God are bestowed more abundantly through the whole world. Bullinger allows, however, that many, such as Moses, David, and Isaiah, were liberally endowed by God with his Spirit and knowledge. The differences, however, do not conflict with there being one church and one body under Christ the head.81 In chapter two of Book Six, Bullinger responds to the main arguments of the Anabaptists against infant baptism, of which the fourth relates to God’s free election. For them God’s election does not appear in infants, but in adults, for it is the elect who believe. Baptism should not be given to those who are not God’s, but to those who profess faith, otherwise baptism is profaned. Bullinger replies, ‘The baptism of Philip was true, although the faith of Simon was false.’ (Acts 8:4–24) He acknowledges that ‘salvation depends on the free election and eternal predestination of God’, but also that God’s eternal counsel is secret and it is not for us to penetrate the mysteries of God. ‘We must be content with what is expressly handed down in the word.’ Among his arguments Bullinger notes God’s love for infants and his incorporating them into the covenant. We cannot know whether they are elect. We ought to judge from God’s word and his universal promise, ‘I will be your God and the God of your children.’ This is supported by Christ’s saying, ‘Let the children come to me, for theirs is the kingdom of God.’ He observes that Esau was baptized, although scripture states, ‘Jacob I loved, and

79 The Anabaptists 139 r 26–32, v 7–10. 80 The Anabaptists 139 v 29–140 r 2, 8–10, 22–25, 29–32, 140 v 14–16. 81 The Anabaptists 140 v 27–30, 142 r 19–26, v 1–6.

214

Chapter 7: The Covenant

Esau I hated.’ ‘We also, therefore, are able to baptize…infants, who are brought to us by the faithful for baptism.’82 In chapter 3 where Bullinger considers the remaining objections of Anabaptists to infant baptism, Bullinger again appeals to the covenant. He asks why children are to be kept from baptism, when children of the faithful are in the new covenant and when Christ commands the covenant to be spread by word and by baptism. To a further objection he responds by saying that the new covenant is a covenant of grace and that as children as well as adults share in God’s grace, they are likewise to be baptized with the sign of grace. Those who reject infant baptism are the ones who destroy the covenant, for they judge that Christ’s new covenant is not as efficacious and glorious as the covenant, in which the children of the faithful were included by the promise and the sacrament.83 Bullinger presents his case for the baptism of the children of Christians in chapter 4. He maintains that baptism is sign of the children of God and of the new covenant and supports this on the basis of Matthew 28 and Mark 16. There Jesus joins the new testament and the teaching of the gospel, as one with the ancient covenant, which has now been renewed, circumcision was added by God. Bullinger continues to make the case he has already made in various contexts. In considering who constitute the people of God and are in the covenant of God, he refers to the confession of faith and the divine promise. There are those who confess the faith outwardly (only God knows what they believe inwardly) and those – as the children of faithful parents – who are included in the divine promise. God is not less gracious in the new covenant than the old, which he would be if children were excluded. Bullinger regards Jeremiah’s reference to the new covenant quoted in Hebrews 8 and Jesus’ reference to the kingdom of God as belonging to children as supporting this. The covenant is called new because it is renewed and, as Paul makes clear in Romans 15:8–12, because Christ has fulfilled the promises made to the patriarchs, and the Gentiles have been included, an inclusion expressed in Romans 11: 16–24 in the grafting of the Gentiles into a tree representing the people of God. Finally, he responds to the biblical references quoted by Anabaptists to argue that the seed of Abraham is not those born according to the flesh but those who walk in his footsteps. Bullinger maintains that his case does not rest on physical birth but on the grace and promise of God, who said that he would be the God of Abraham and his seed. He argues that the passages refer to adults and do not conflict with the salvation and free adoption of children in the covenant.84 82 The Anabaptists 209 v 12–20, 24–25, 210 r 14–18, 211 r 3–10, 16–23. 83 The Anabaptists 211 v 17–24, 213 v 32–214 r 9. 84 The Anabaptists 215 r 15–17, 22–218 r 3. The word caput is often used as an alternative to conditio. Interestingly Bullinger uses the word in reference to being the God of Abraham and his children as the ‘praecipium caput’ of the covenant (216 v 9–13).

The Character of the Covenant

215

Bullinger’s arguments against the Anabaptists relate explicitly and implicitly to the covenant – explicitly when the term covenant is used and implicitly when, as an implication of the unity of the covenant, those before Christ and those after Christ are regarded as having the same faith.

The Character of the Covenant There are two areas of substantial disagreement in the interpretation of Bullinger’s use of the covenant: whether or not Bullinger’s theology is a covenant theology and whether his understanding of the covenant is bilateral or unilateral. J. Wayne Baker has been the strongest, most recent advocate of the view that it is a covenant theology and a bilateral covenant.

The Centrality of the Covenant Staedtke in 1962 in his study of the early Bullinger comments on a reference to the covenant in Reply to Burchard. ‘In this statement lies the heart of the theology of the young and of the older Bullinger: The sum of scripture is the testimony of the one covenant, which God made with humanity.’85 Over a decade later, he comments, ‘The re-discovery of the biblical idea of the covenant belongs to Zwingli. The first developed covenant theology in the thematic sense was the work of Bullinger.’86 Ernst Koch argues in 1968 for the centrality of the covenant in The Second Helvetic Confession and in general in Bullinger’s theology. For him, ‘Bullinger’s theology is Federal Theology’.87 He also refers somewhat surprisingly to the centrality of the covenant in The Second Helvetic Confession. He recognizes that there is no chapter on the covenant in it and also that it has few explicit references to the covenant. Despite this he argues both for its decisive significance 85 Staedtke (Theologie 62) referring to HBTS 2.149. 22–24. ‘Und disz ist die gantz summ aller geschrifft, daruff alle gschrifft für und für reicht, anzoeugende, wie nun diser pundt zuo beiden siten stat gethon sye.’ 86 Joachim Staedtke ‘Bullingers Theologie – eine Fortsetzung der zwinglischen?’ in Gäbler and Zsindely (eds.), Bullinger – Tagung 1975 92. Büsser appears to give more emphasis to this position in an article on Bullinger in his article in Theologische Realenzyklopädie vol. 7 (Berlin, 1980) 375–387 but not in his later biography. In 1980 he wrote, ‘Was die Bedeutung des Bundesgedankens als “Zentrum” oder “Basis” der gesamten Theologie Bullingers betrifft, ist diese These zwar nicht unwidersprochen geblieben, wird heute aber mehrheitlich anerkannt.’ (384). 87 In 1960 he wrote, ‘Der Bundesgedanke in der ganzen Fülle seiner Ausdrucksmöglichkeiten und Verzweigungen ist vielmehr das Symbol für theologische Gesamtkonzeption Bullingers.’ Koch, Die Theologie 416.

216

Chapter 7: The Covenant

and its unifying role in the confession.88 There is a certain parallel in the comment on the absence of a chapter on the Holy Spirit in a confession which reflects in part the structure of the creed, ‘that it is the thread running through the whole teaching of Christian faith’.89 His view is supported by Locher’s comment in a chapter on the Holy Spirit in the confession. Fritz Büsser refers approvingly, though carefully, to these judgments in a general article on Bullinger’s theology.90 A decade later in his brief summary of Bullinger’s theology, Locher writes that Bullinger ‘raised the concept of God’s covenant which he took over from Zwingli to the centre, more exactly as a central theme (Leitmotiv) determining all loci’.91 In 1980 in Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant and in 1991 in ‘Fountainhead of Federalism’, with Charles S. McCoy, Baker argues at length for the centrality of the covenant. He maintains, ‘After publishing The Covenant, he made the covenant the central motif of his theology… Further the covenant was the major organizing principle in many of the works that Bullinger published between 1534 and 1575. The covenant was, in short, at the center of his thought.’92 He defends this view in some detail in ‘Heinrich Bullinger, the Covenant, and the Reformed Tradition in Retrospect’ in 1998. He discusses this in reference to the varied range of Bullinger’s works, more convincingly in some than in others. His case for the role of the covenant in The Decades, citing references to over half the sermons, receives indirect support from Opitz.93 He agrees that it does not have ‘the prominent place which one might have expected on the basis of The Testament’. He recognizes that there are few explicit references to the covenant. The term covenant is expounded in sermon 26 in the context of the ceremonial laws and it is used in relation to the sacraments, particularly baptism, while testament is used in relation to the eucharist. Despite the few explicit references, Opitz affirms 88 See Koch, Die Theologie 415, 427. He writes: ‘Der Zentralgedanke des Zentralproblems Gesetz und Evangelium ist der eine Bund. Dieser Begriff ist geeignet, die Theologie der Confessio nach ihren durchlaufenden und zusammenfassenden Aspekten und Grundmotiven in sich zu vereinigen und als Entfaltung dieses Begriffs verständlich zu machen.’ (415) ‘Der Bundesbegriff hat also für die Confessio zentrierende und umgreifende Bedeutung.’ (417) 89 ‘Sie ist der rote Faden, der die gesamte christliche Glaubenslehre durchzieht’. Koch, Die Theologie 429–430. 90 See Büsser (’Bullinger’ 384). ‘Zum gleichen Resultat im Grundsätzlichen kommt Locher (Lehre), wenn er feststellt, dass föderaltheologische und pneumatologische Aussagen in zwei parallelen Reihen die Confessio durchzögen, so “dass wir eine gewisse Identität beider erkennen müssen… Der Geist lebt im Bund, der Bund lebt im Geist.” Damit ist wohl bestätigt, dass der Bundesgedanke für Bullinger von ausschlaggebender Bedeutung ist…’ The reference to Locher is to his article, ‘Die Lehre vom heiligen Geist’ (335–336). 91 See G.W. Locher Die Zwinglische Reformation im Rahmen der europäischen Kirchengeschichte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1979) 599, where the word covenant is in italics. 92 Baker, ‘Fountainhead of Federalism’ 19–20. 93 Opitz, Dekaden 336–341.

The Character of the Covenant

217

that the elements that make up the covenant or testament are present where the terms are not present.94 This includes the characteristics Bullinger ascribes to the covenant with Abraham (Genesis 17) and Adam (Genesis 3), such as the mutual relationship between God and man and the relationship of the Old Testament and New Testament. Interestingly, in a sermon on the ministry in The Decades, Bullinger gives the covenant a prominent place in catechising. ‘Catechesis comprehends the first principle of faith and Christian doctrine; namely the chief points of the covenant, the decalogue, the Apostles’ Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and a brief explanation of the sacraments.’ The covenant is in the prime place, but it appears to be an essential part of or a Common Place (locus) rather than a term covering the whole Christian faith, as a few lines later he refers to those badly catechised not knowing what is spoken of when they hear the words ‘the covenant, the commandment, the law, grace, faith, prayer, and the sacraments’95 The evidence that Baker offers for affirming the centrality of the covenant is sometimes surprisingly slight. His statement, ‘The covenant also plays a significant role in his discussion of grace in De gratia Dei’, is astonishing, given that it is supported only by a simple reference to two pages of a work of over a hundred pages. Moreover, in the hundreds of subjects included in the index, which was published with the work there is not even an entry for foedus or testamentum.96 Likewise Baker’s description of the covenant as ‘prominently displayed’ in and ‘a major focus’ of The Christian Religion (1556) is puzzling.97 The covenant is considered in the first article on the bible only in order to explain the terms the Old Testament and the New Testament. Moreover, the exposition of the covenant is only a part of the second article on God The Christian Religion.98 In The Catechism in 1559, Bullinger gives a prominent position to the covenant, but it is an exaggeration to say that it ‘forms the structure for Bullinger’s catechism of 1559’.99 It follows the initial chapters on ‘The Foundation of the Christian Religion: Holy Scripture’ and ‘The True, Living, and Eternal God’. It

94 Yet this hardly justifies Baker’s claim that the covenant is ‘the thread that ties the Decades together’, adding that ‘it should be clear that the covenant is the sub-structure or substratum of the entire fifty sermons’ (‘Retrospect’ 364–366). 95 HBTS 3. 830.11–14,18–21; Decades 4.154. 96 Baker, ‘Retrospect’ 363 note 5. 97 Baker, ‘Retrospect’ 363–364. He supports this by arguing that all five of the major points of The Testament are present in it. 98 The Christian Religion 23 v 26–24 r 8, 26 v 26–27 r 2, 30 r 15 – v12, 30 v 22–31 v 15. 99 Baker, ‘Retrospect’ 367. Bullinger supports this statement by naming sections which constitute less than half of the catechism. Moreover, a large part of that concerns the Law and the Decalogue, which are undoubtedly related to the covenant, but they, like the Apostles’ Creed, are not necessarily included because of their relationship with the covenant, but, like the creed, as part of traditional catechetical instruction. Compare HBTS 3.830. 11–14; Decades 4.154.

218

Chapter 7: The Covenant

does not say anything new or fundamentally different from what is said elsewhere. Among scholars who have rejected the centrality of the covenant are Peter Walser, Richard Muller, Edward Dowey, and Fritz Büsser. Walser does not make it the central doctrine, but emphasizes its key role. He states that it is ‘a concept among and alongside others, but not a main concept (in the sense of a central doctrine [Centraldogmas])’ but ‘it is a collective concept, in which the most important evangelical doctrines can be represented one after the other’.100 Dowey offers a critique of Koch, Locher, Baker, and Neuser and their presentations of the centrality of the covenant, especially in The Second Helvetic Confession.101 He maintains the thesis that ‘Bullinger’s thought does not lend itself to a single “systematic” method or structure’. He presents an outline of the way he would expound Bullinger’s theology based largely on The Decades. In it he includes the covenant with the antiquity of the Christian faith and ‘Catholic Orthodoxy’ as ‘pervasive convictions’.102 He appears to use the criterion of the very few examples of the words testament and covenant to judge the significance of the covenant in discussing The Second Helvetic Confession and The Decades. He does not do this in discussing The Christian Religion and The Catechism. As a result he sees the latter as the publications ‘in which Bullinger most nearly approximated making his covenant teaching the dominant key and organising principle’. He states that they give ‘a very prominent place to the doctrine of the covenant’.103 Muller makes a very different judgment. In examining The Christian Religion and The Second Helvetic Confession, with some reference to The Decades, Muller maintains that ‘ the covenant is not the sole ground or central structure of Bullinger’s theology. It points to and is fulfilled in the work of Christ.’104 In his biography of Bullinger, Fritz Büsser rejects the centrality of covenant, above all because of ‘the very astonishing fact’ that it has no role in Bullinger’s two most important dogmatic works, The Decades and The Second Helvetic Confession, with ‘the most remarkable exception’ that it features in one sermon ‘in connection with the Old Testament sacraments, that is with the ceremonial law’. It is also neither a collective nor a main concept, as held by Walser, but it is ‘the

100 Walser, Die Prädestination 247–248). 101 Dowey, ‘Heinrich Bullinger as Theologian’ 37–43. He concludes by citing Büsser’s support for them, while adding that Büsser ‘then notes that objections have been offered “on good grounds” (Dowey)’ to this way of understanding’ (43). 102 Dowey, ‘Heinrich Bullinger’ 47, 63. 103 Dowey, ‘Heinrich Bullinger’ 37–43, 49–59. 104 Christ and the Decree 44.

The Character of the Covenant

219

core of the other Reformed tradition’. He regards this core as one to which many theological concepts point (hinweisen), but they do not come from it.105 One problem that arises is that almost everything can be related to the covenant (such as the doctrines of the Bible, God, Christ, Salvation, the Church, the Ministry, Word, Sacraments, and Government) but it is not clear whether Bullinger held something because it was a part of the covenant or whether he held it or would have held it regardless of his understanding of the covenant. His reformed understanding of the Christian faith, formed in part by his reading of the fathers, Luther, and Melanchthon, before he expounds the covenant in 1523, would have given him, for example, a sense of the role of faith and love in scripture and the Christian life, and of the unity of Old and New Testament. Nevertheless, to give one example, Baker regards references to faith, love, and innocence as references to the covenant. Yet in 1 John they are linked to the law and the prophets in Bullinger’s comment on 1 John 2:7 and to evangelical doctrine in his comment on 2:15.106 The overall impression of the covenant in Bullinger’s works is closer to what Baker calls in 1998 ‘ a leading pervasive conviction’, the term ‘a pervasive conviction’ is one Baker borrows from Edward Dowey107, or, one might say, an underlying conviction. One could say that the covenant is a framework within which one could expound Bullinger’s theology. This does not mean that it is the centre of it or that there are not other terms or doctrines which could provide a framework for expounding his theology. Without a comprehensive work wholly dedicated to the covenant, it will not be possible to evaluate more satisfactorily the role of the covenant in Bullinger’s many works. The work will need to determine what is involved in the covenant and what elements of that Bullinger affirms independently of the covenant. It may be asked, for example, how far when he speaks of the role of government or the relationship of the Old and New Testaments, he is speaking of the covenant when he makes no mention of the covenant. Similar views to his can be held by those who are not covenant theologians. The covenant is a constant element in his works. Elements in it, such as a life of faith and love and the unity of the Old Testament and the New Testament underlie and permeate his writings.

105 Büsser, Heinrich Bullinger II 236–237. It is ‘the core’ ‘von dem viele theologische Begriffe nicht ausgehen, auf den sie jedoch hinweisen’. He relates this to ‘Von dem alleinigen Ziel der Schrift, auf das hin alle biblischen Bücher ausgerichtet sind’ in Instruction to Study (HBSR 1.75. 14–15). 106 1 John 15 r 21–25, 18 v 19–22. 107 Baker, ‘Retrospect’ 376.

220

Chapter 7: The Covenant

A Unilateral or Bilateral Covenant Baker argues not only that the covenant is central in Bullinger’s theology but also that his understanding of the covenant in contrast to that of Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin is bilateral.108 Some Calvin scholars have criticized the sharp contrast he makes with Calvin, holding that the response to the covenant in Calvin is not totally unlike that in Bullinger.109 More fundamental for Bullinger, however, is whether Baker has misinterpreted him by speaking of the covenant as conditional and, in effect, dependent on the human response. The Christian Religion presents the covenant in terms of God’s commitment to us and his expectation of us in Genesis 17. The presentation does not support understanding the conditions of the covenant as conditions for entering a covenant. They are about how a person is to please and serve God. The description, moreover, of God in his grace going in search of man after the fall is also not a natural part of a covenant which is conditional.110 Later, as in other works, Bullinger indicates that God rewards our good works. It is reward rather than desert. Indeed, our good works are always imperfect, but God does not count our imperfection, and believers accept the reward with thanks and as a free gift. It is God who works in us to will and to do. Moreover, when we have done all that we are commanded, we are unworthy servants and have only done our duty. In Augustine’s words, ‘God crowns his gifts, not your merits.’ The emphasis on God’s grace without our desiring or deserving are hardly a compatible context for a socalled bilateral covenant.111 It is perhaps notable that The Catechism uses the words covenant and pact rather than testament, except in the quotation from Genesis 17. This is perhaps natural in a work intended primarily to instruct the young and therefore to guide them in their Christian life. There is, however, no reference to conditions in relation to the covenant112 Its emphasis is on God. It begins with God’s revealing his goodwill by his promise which is not incited by any merit of ours, but moved by his sheer, natural goodness and grace. Our response has a similar emphasis as it is expressed in terms of ‘gratefully acknowledging [what God gives us], receiving moreover with true faith, cleaving to him our covenant God with a sincere 108 Baker, ‘Fountainhead’ (24) maintains that Bullinger ‘s entire theological system was organized around the idea of a bilateral or conditional covenant….’ 109 See, for example, Muller, Calvin 124–127 and Lillback, The Binding of God 162–175. Muller argues for the essential similarity of Bullinger’s and Calvin’s views. ‘Whereas Bullinger, more than Calvin, seems to stress the mutual character of covenant and the necessity for obedience in covenant, this stress is not an indication of widely divergent patterns in Reformed theology.’ (Christ and the Decree 41). 110 The Christian Religion 23 v 26–24 r 8, 26v 26–27 r 2, 30 r 15- v 12, 30 v 22–31 v 15. 111 The Christian Religion 160 v 22–161 v 21 (especially 160 v 15–17, 161 r 6–28, v 7–13). 112 Catechism 6 r 15–18, v 11; GT 2 r a 22–24, 42.

The Character of the Covenant

221

and upright heart’. ‘It is our duty to depend on him alone, hasten to him in every need, trust him, honour and love him as our father, lord, and only saviour’ – ‘or … more briefly… worship this God with right worship and him alone, rejecting all other gods, since he alone is sufficient for all in any and every need’. It is only after this, with our offering of right worship, that Bullinger touches on the life we live.113 A wider reflection on Bullinger’s theology calls in question Baker’s interpretation. This is clear in what Bullinger says about election, grace, faith, and works. Thus, Baker seems to make election dependent on our fulfilling the covenant conditions. He writes, ‘These were the human conditions of the covenant, and if the individual met them he was one of the elect.’ ‘God’s election only became binding in history as individuals kept the conditions of the covenant.’114 In such statements Baker appears to make God’s election dependent on us, whereas for Bullinger it is totally dependent on God and totally independent of what we can do. This is most evident in relation to passages in Ephesians (1:4–6) and 2 Timothy (1:9–10). As he expresses it in The Second Helvetic Confession: ‘From eternity God has freely and of his sheer grace, with no respect to persons, predestined or elected the saints whom he wills to save in Christ according to the saying of the apostle, ‘God elected us in him before the foundation of the world.’ These statements follow a chapter in which he states that of themselves people are not able to do good.115 Later Baker states that Bullinger ‘dealt with election’ within the context of the covenant ‘that God made with the entire human race’. Election and the covenant are rather distinct ways in which Bullinger speaks of God’s purpose in saving the human race. (Covenant expresses this historically beginning with Adam. Election expresses this theologically in that salvation is God’s act not ours, which is also true of the covenant.) It would also appear to conflict with his stating in the same paragraph, ‘Bullinger does not so much as mention predestination in The Covenant.’116 Baker maintains that Bullinger’s bilateral approach was ‘within the confines of sola fide and sola gratia’.117 Yet repeatedly in his writings Bullinger speaks of the good we do as dependent on faith, and faith itself as a gift of God or as the work of 113 Catechism 6 r 19- v 3, 7 v 3–8 r 13; GT 2 r a 25–32, 2 rb 44- va34. 114 Baker, Covenant 52, 53. In ‘Fountainhead of Federalism’ he writes of those who in baptism accept the obligation to live in faith and love: ‘If they met the conditions, they belonged to the elect’ (25). In Christ and the Decree Muller comments, ‘Duopleuric language describes not man’s entrance into covenant but his life under the covenant, as implied in the usus legis normativus.’ (41) 115 RB 2/2 289. 18–21, 287.22; Cochrane 240, 238. 116 ‘Fountainhead of Federalism’ 25. 117 Baker, Covenant 181.

222

Chapter 7: The Covenant

the Holy Spirit. As faith and works, therefore, come from the sheer grace of God, the so-called conditions of the covenant cannot be conditions for entering the covenant. In the chapter on Faith and Works, Bullinger writes, ‘Christian faith is a sheer gift of God which God alone of his grace gives to his elect according to measure, when, to whom, and to the degree he wills. And he does this by the Holy Spirit….’ ‘For we teach that truly good works grow out of a living faith by the Holy Spirit and are done by the faithful according to the will or rule of God’s word.’ Far from being conditions to enter the covenant or to ‘earn eternal life’, good works ‘show gratitude to God’. They are not the beginning of a life in the covenant, but the goal God has for us in the covenant, as indeed in our creation. ‘We know that man was not created or regenerated through faith in order to be idle, but rather that without ceasing he should do those things which are good and useful.’ In the chapter on Election, Bullinger says, ‘the saints are elected in Christ by God for a definite purpose…’ ‘He elected us in him, that we might be holy and blameless before him in love.’118 Two other problems with Baker’s bilateral covenant lie in the words testament and covenant and the word conditions. In general, Bullinger uses the words testamentum and foedus interchangeably. Opitz notes that Baker appears to express inconsistent views of Bullinger’s use of testament and covenant. In the prologue to Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant, after stating that for Bullinger ‘testamentum was the broader term of the two: it included both the idea of promise and the meaning of foedus, mutual agreement or pact’, Baker writes, ‘Bullinger, then, used the terms interchangeably, but not necessarily indiscriminately’. Baker adds, however, that in contrast to Calvin, Bullinger ‘posited a conditional covenant, which included the idea of testament’. Nevertheless, in the first chapter Baker asserts, ‘…in 1534, in his definitive work on the covenant, De Testamento, he clearly differentiated between foedus and testamentum and heavily emphasized the conditional nature of the covenant’.119 Interestingly in The Second Helvetic Confession Bullinger uses the term covenant. There is an element of irony in this, as Baker argues that the reason why the covenant ‘is not a significant feature of the Confession’ is that Bullinger’s view of the covenant as bilateral was ‘still unusual’ and was not suitable ‘in a confession that he hoped would unify the Reformed churches’. Significantly Baker does not quote more than the first lines of the passage ‘where he refers unequivocally to the covenant’. This occurs in the chapter on baptism and is evidence that his view of the covenant is not bilateral. The second part of the statement, which Baker does not quote, stresses God’s initiative and his enabling us rather than our qualifying. Bullinger states: ‘to be baptized in the name of 118 RB 2/2 307. 11–13, 308. 1–3, 13–14, 17, 28–30, 289. 32–34; Cochrane 257, 258, 259,240. 119 See Opitz, Dekaden 348 and Baker, Heinrich Bullinger xxii, 16.

The Character of the Covenant

223

Christ is to be enrolled, entered, and received into the covenant and family, and so into the inheritance of the sons of God and to be endued with the manifold grace of God, in order to live a new and innocent life…. But God who is rich in mercy…by a holy covenant joins us to himself, and enriches us with various gifts, so that we may be able to live a new life…. For inwardly we are regenerated, purified, and renewed by God through the Holy Spirit.’120 The word conditio (condition) which Bullinger frequently uses in relation to our part in the covenant, a condition, that is, of faith and love, correspond with the words used to Abraham in Genesis 17:1.121 As several critics have observed, Baker understands them as in effect entrance qualifications, whereas they reflect God’s purpose in the covenant, the response which he will enable us to make.122 Baker, moreover, fails to take into account that Bullinger frequently uses the words caput or capita as synonyms for conditio or conditiones – indeed uses them sometimes where they can hardly mean ‘condition(s)’. In a discussion of the word covenant he writes, ‘For in the covenants of the ancients there were certain ceremonies, conditions, or precepts, or, if you prefer, main points. ‘Besides being an alternative, the word caput is used where it cannot naturally mean a condition on God’s side. ‘This is indisputably the origin of our religion and its primary point (caput): that we are saved solely by the goodness and mercy of God.’ A few pages after this Bullinger moves naturally from using the one word in one sentence to the other in the following sentence. ‘For the law… teaches… partly the love of God and partly the love of neighbour. This itself indeed is taught in the main points (capitibus) of the covenant. Indeed, the decalogue itself seems to be as it were a certain paraphrase of the conditions of the covenant.’123 This use of caput also helps to undermine Baker’s view of the conditional character of the covenant.124 In his consideration of the covenant as unilateral or bilateral, Venema outlines the contrasts made by Leonard Trinterud between Calvin and the Zurich reformers in their understanding of the covenant. With the former, the covenant was unilateral, with the latter bilateral; with the former there was an unconditional covenant promise, with the latter a conditional covenant promise; with the former, fulfilment was God’s work, with the latter, it was human responsibility; and with the former, fulfilment of the covenant was in the person and work of Christ, with the latter it was in the faithful obedience of those in the covenant. 120 Baker, ‘Retrospect’ 368 and RB 2/2 327. 31–34, 328. 1–5; Cochrane 282. 121 Baker, ‘Fountainhead’ (20) writes, ‘The conditions for humans were to “walk before God and be upright” (Gen 17:1), that is, to have faith in God and love for the neighbor.’ 122 For example, Muller, Christ and the Decree 41. 123 The Testament 4 r 10–13, 6 v 7–10, 17v 1–12, ET 103, 105, 113. 124 Opitz, Dekaden (349 note 202) comments on the meaning implied by the term conditio from its etymology.

224

Chapter 7: The Covenant

Venema then offers a two fold critique of the way Baker expounded ‘two covenant traditions’.125 First, Calvin was in a measure bilateral as Bullinger was, and second that Bullinger was unilateral as Calvin was.126 Venema notes with Muller that Baker neglects Calvin’s commentaries which present the bilateral element in Calvin’s exposition of the covenant. Muller refers to the sermons on Deuteronomy and the commentaries on Genesis and the Psalms ‘in which Calvin notes how from one perspective the covenant is unconditional and from another, conditional’.127 Venema quotes Calvin’s statement that God ‘ rightly demands mutual fidelity from his own children’, but that the faith and obedience God requires are ‘the fruit of the gracious working of the Holy Spirit’. Furthermore, Calvin uses the word condition to describe the main points of the covenant, and moreover challenges the way the word is misunderstood, ‘as soon as the ignorant sort hears of the word ‘condition’, it appears to them that God makes some payment and that when he shows us any favor, he does it in recompense for our merits.’128

125 Baker described his view in 1998 as: (1) the covenant was the leading pervasive conviction in Bullinger’s theology,(2) it was a bilateral, conditional covenant, (3) he taught a moderate, single predestination in contrast to Calvin’s double predestination and (4) Bullinger’s (Zurich) theology was the basis for the original Reformed tradition to which Calvin and the Calvinists presented a later alternative in the matter of the covenant and predestination. (’Retrospect’ 359). 126 Venema, Heinrich Bullinger 28–29. 127 Richard A. Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin. Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition (Oxford: OUP, 2000) 155. 128 Venema, Heinrich Bullinger 110. He quotes Calvin’s comment in his commentary on Deuteronomy 17:1–2 and his sermon on Deuteronomy 7: 11–15.

Chapter 8: Sin and the Fall

Some of the main elements in Bullinger’s understanding of sin, such as original sin as guilt, sin as unbelief, the role of the law, sin against the Holy Spirit, are present in his early works, although not in a systematic form. Some are mentioned in passing, as is the sin against the Holy Spirit in a letter to Mathias Schmid on 8 February 1526.1 Others occur in expounding scripture as in Bullinger’s lectures on Hebrews with Christ’s dying for the sin of the whole world and not only for Adam or for original sin.2 The only substantial early discussion of sin is in his lectures on Romans. The extent of and the emphases in Bullinger’s discussion of sin are largely dependent on the text which he is expounding. In the third lecture, before beginning the exposition, he outlines the epistle, stating that its main point is salvation through faith alone in Christ. Sin is seen in that context. Chapters 2 and 3 show that all, both Jews and Gentiles, are sinners, from which it follows that people cannot save themselves by what they do. Paul removes from the Jews the possibility of using the law to save themselves, showing that it was given only to reveal sin. He is able then to present our receiving salvation from God alone through faith in Christ, by grace without any merit on our part. After that Paul presents life in Christ, contrasting death which comes from the first Adam with life which comes from the second Adam.3 This outline is expanded in the exegesis of Romans 1 to 5. In his comments on 5:12, he states that sin comes from Adam’s ‘believing the devil more than God’. ‘Adam’s sin was nothing other than unbelief ’, and so ‘unbelief is sin’. As children of Adam we are ‘children of unbelief ’. ‘This unbelief produces in us love of ourselves, so that we trust in ourselves alone…. So sin is nothing other than a

1 HBBW 1.94.16–95.3. 2 HBTS 1.201.24–26, 207.6–7. 3 HBTS 1. 35. 7–28. Hausammann summarizes her exposition of Bullinger’s teaching in Romans in Rȍmerbriefvorlesung 307.

226

Chapter 8: Sin and the Fall

godless, carnal mind which builds on itself, loves itself, and seeks its own.’4 Like Zwingli, he maintains that as flesh can give birth only to flesh, so a sinful person cannot give birth to a person who is not sinful. (Like Adam, therefore, we are under sin and death – not that his guilt is ours or born in us.) We therefore need another birth (John 3:3). This is confirmed in Psalm 51:7, which must speak of original sin, as marriage itself is not sinful (Hebrews 13:4). ‘We are by nature sinful (presthafft).’ Sin affects the whole person. ‘Sin (prest) is that we do not have the Spirit… and are selfish sinners, as long as we are not born again of God.’ In our own strength we are ‘mere sin’. On 5:13 Bullinger maintains that ‘we do not inherit his guilt, but we inherit the flesh which is godless and unbelieving’. Paul’s view is not that ‘we have inherited Adam’s sin, but we have inherited the flesh from him’.5 Bullinger’s relation to Luther and Melanchthon at this stage is evident also in his understanding that believers are at one and the same time sinners and justified and that their sin is not reckoned to them. The latter is, of course, directly expressed in the verses (4:7–8) on which he is commenting, but the former is at most implied. Yet Bullinger writes, ‘Since sin always remains, we are always impure. Therefore, our works also are impure.’ We depend therefore not on what we do, but on God’s mercy. Through faith Christ’s righteousness becomes our righteousness.6 Again related to Luther and Melanchthon is Bullinger’s understanding of the law. ‘What is “the work of the law?” To make sinners.’ This is expressed positively: ‘that we may seek consolation not in ourselves, but only in Christ’. This is also described as ‘the truly apostolic office’. Indeed, Bullinger can say that ‘the law was given to us only that through it we might recognize sin’ or, later in his exposition, that it ‘might increase sin’. In this context, the positive side is ‘to seek life not in ourselves, but in God’s mercy’ or ‘to flee to him who was foreshadowed in Adam’.7

4 In his comment on prast, Staedtke (Theologie 161) refers to Bullinger’s commentary on Ephesians, ‘Praesten lutet graece paraptoma. Wann amartia ist die sünd und der frevel, der wider das gsatzt frevenlich begangen wirt. So ist nun der praest nütz anders, dann die verwildet natur, die Gott schücht, sich liebet, iren alein wol wil und wollust nach hengt. Und disen praesten vermeint Paulus Roma 7.’ 5 HBTS 1.123.29–124.10, 125.20–126.5, 19–20; compare 68. 31–35. Note 63 quotes a parallel in Luther’s Septembertestament. 6 HBTS 1.97.20–21, 105.28–106.10, 129. 38–130.8. 7 HBTS 1.72.21–22, 78. 33–34, 93.1–2, 130. 23–26, 131.3–4, 15–16.

Sin in ‘Anabaptist Teaching’ and ‘The Providence of God’

227

Sin in ‘Anabaptist Teaching’ and ‘The Providence of God’ Two works in the 1530s show Bullinger’s response to particular situations. In Anabaptist Teaching in 1531 his concern is with the Anabaptist view of sin; in 1536 in The Providence of God he considers sin in relation to predestination. With Anabaptists Bullinger challenges what he sees as their false perfectionism in holding that believers do not sin, and, related to it, the effective limiting of the death of Christ to some sins. In the fourth article of Anabaptist Teaching he charges Anabaptists with being false prophets and enemies of the cross of Christ in stating that Christ died to take away original sin only, that no one can come again to grace who falls anew having once been pardoned, and that salvation comes from our works. Bullinger maintains that if Christ suffered only for original sin and for people in the Old Testament, he is not our savior. In that case, is he Christ? If our works can save us, then Christ died in vain.8 Bullinger expounds his response in three chapters, two of which concern sin: Christ did not suffer only for the ancients or for original sin, and sinners come to grace as often as they come, and no one is without sin. In the dialogue, Simon, the Anabaptist, affirms the reference to original sin and the ancients, adding that we must deal with other sins with our works. After pointing out that Abelard had to repudiate this view as heretical, Bullinger in the guise of Jehoiada appeals to John 1:29, which states that Christ takes away the sin of the world, the whole world and not just the sin of a part of the world. The present tense means that the action was not limited to one time and the word sin means everything which can be or can be called sin. This text is then supported by Romans 5, Colossians 2:9, Hebrews 10:12–13, and 1 John 1:7, 2:1–2, noting John’s reference to all sin, and the sins of the whole world.9 The second chapter affirms that no one is without sin and that as often as sinners come they come to grace. To underline that Anabaptists are ignorant, Bullinger begins by identifying them and their views on sin with heretics, such as Novatus and the Cathars, of whom Simon confesses he knows nothing. He is not concerned with them, but appeals to scripture (Hebrews 6:4–6 and 2 Peter 2:21– 22). Bullinger maintains that their ignorance means that they misunderstood scripture, for their passages refer to the sin against the Holy Spirit.10 The sin against the Holy Spirit means falling from faith in Christ in whom alone is salvation. He argues from Hebrews 7 and 8 that daily forgiveness is not done away with. Moreover, the epistle states that we have a priest who can 8 Anabaptist Teaching 25r 24-v12. 9 Anabaptist Teaching 25 v19–26 r 30. 10 Anabaptist Teaching 27v1–28v7.

228

Chapter 8: Sin and the Fall

sympathize with us and who always prays for us. We should go to him freely, as we have access to him. In further support, Simon appeals to the statement that Esau was not able even with tears to repent (Hebrews 12:17). Bullinger rejects this use of the verse, which the Cathars also appealed to, as it is not about repentance, but about election. He regards their other passage, 2 Peter 2.21–22, as clearly about unbelief.11 Bullinger explains that the flesh is with us till the grave and, as Paul makes clear in Romans, that the flesh contends with the Spirit and the Spirit with the flesh. Unlike Paul, however, Anabaptists claim not to be in the flesh. Simon’s assertion that people can be without sin is met with Bullinger’s robust reply: ‘as a dog without fleas in August’. He describes Simon’s view as a new Pelagianism, a heresy that annihilated God’s grace and magnified human ability. Simon appeals to John’s ‘Anyone born of God does not sin’ (1 John 5:18). Bullinger interprets this as a sin which is mortal (5:16–17), mortal sin being understood in the light of John 8:24 as not believing in him. Paul maintains that sin is not accounted to those who believe in Christ. That believers in the bible sin is supported by a variety of texts, including John’s stating that if we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves (1 John 1:8–10). Ironically Bullinger remarks that, unlike those godly believers who need daily cleansing, Anabaptists with their total immersion become so pure that the water took away what the blood of Christ could not.12 The final stage in Bullinger’s case comes in response to the demand for a clear text that someone who has been pardoned and falls again can be forgiven daily for his sins. He cites a variety of testimonies, such as Ezekiel 13:18, Proverbs 24:16, Matthew 18: 21–22, and Luke 17: 3–4, and finally the prayer, ‘Forgive us our sins’. Unless Christians lie in praying this, then believers sin. Finally, Simon is convinced as Bullinger cites Luke 22:31–32 in which Christ prays that Peter’s faith may not fail, showing that Peter, therefore, was an example of a believer sinning. This leads to Bullinger’s attacking the Anabaptists for speaking against the gospel and for offering doubt not consolation. They are the prophets, of whom God complains in Ezekiel 34, and who do not feed the sheep or heal the wounded. They divide the church and scatter the poor sheep, accusing them of being shameful sinners.13 The emphasis is different in The Providence of God. In the context of predestination Bullinger rejects the view, which was to prove controversial in his correspondence with Calvin, that God is the author of sin and evil. On the contrary God is the author of all good. Evil comes from man, not God (Romans

11 Anabaptist Teaching 28 v 21–29 v11. 12 Anabaptist Teaching 29v 12–24, 30r 8–24, 30 r 29–31v 3, 18–28. 13 Anabaptist Teaching 31v 28–34 r 2, 34 r 17-v10.

Sin in ‘Anabaptist Teaching’ and ‘The Providence of God’

229

5:12–15, 16–19, 7:16–23).14 In support of evil’s coming from man and not God, Bullinger quotes James 1:13–15, which affirms that God cannot be tempted and does not tempt anyone. Temptation comes from our concupiscence, and therefore evil comes from man, and man perishes through his own fault, not God’s.15 Bullinger repudiates the argument that as evil comes from man and man comes from God, then God is also the author of evil, by stating that God created the first man in his image and likeness and therefore holy and good. As there is nothing of evil in God, then there is nothing of evil in his image.16 The command of God to Adam was not given so that he would transgress, but so that he would exercise faith and gratitude. Adam’s ‘will was free, constrained by no necessity, so that it could have inclined to the better’. ‘It was not tempted by God, but by the serpent, and declined knowingly and willingly to the worse.’ The blame belongs not to God, but to the will. Moreover, the fact that Adam’s will and affection were given by God does not make God responsible. They were not given to corrupt man. We must distinguish between using something not evil in itself and abusing it.17 Bullinger deals also with the argument that God’s foreknowledge causes sin. He insists that God’s foreknowledge does not cause us to do ungodly things, citing the case of Judas in support. In this he draws on quotations from Augustine and Ambrose.18 Bullinger then responds to a further question: Why did God who is ‘omnipotent, wise, righteous, and merciful, choose to create man able to fall (labile), that is who could also willingly incline to what is worse? Why did he not rather strengthen in him his image and the goodness of nature, so that there would be no risk that he with his descendants would not live for ever. ‘After a Pauline rebuke for demanding from the just and most wise God a reason for things, he states that righteousness can be practised only through obedience, and obedience is set over against disobedience. ‘By his own fault not God ‘s he fell away from God and perished.’19 The further discussion in The Providence of God relates primarily to predestination rather than to sin. It begins with the objection that people are not righteous because the Father has not drawn them. Bullinger observes that from the beginning God gave man full powers.20

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Providence 788.2–5, 789. 9–10. Providence 789.24–790.4. Providence 790.11–21. Providence 793.14–794.15. Providence 795. 16–22. Providence 796.16–797.18. Providence 797.22–798.15.

230

Chapter 8: Sin and the Fall

‘The Christian Religion’ and ‘The Decades’ As with many areas of Bullinger’s theology, the most extended treatment is in The Decades, which is the longest of his more systematic works. Six years after The Decades in 1566, Bullinger published The Christian Religion which offers a comprehensive statement of the Christian faith for lay people. Its subtitle and preface make clear that it is intended to provide ‘what it is necessary for every Christian to know, believe, do, and leave undone, and also to suffer and die blessedly’. In ten articles Bullinger offers ‘a short explanation of God’s ten commandments, the twelve articles of the Christian faith, also the Lord’s Prayer and the holy sacraments’. He is conscious that there are other books, but opines that they are so long, bitter, and disputatious that people do not want to read them. Bullinger’s approach is characteristically pastoral as he offers ‘a summary of the Christian religion and the Christian life’. His hope is that ‘godfearing people who seek nothing other than God, piety, and salvation’ will find that this book will suffice them. What he has written is drawn from the bible and his desire is to lead his readers to scripture, and indeed, like Christians in Acts 17, to test what he has written by scripture.21 The sermon on Sin in The Decades does not come till the end of the third decade. Its title outlines most of the key elements: original and actual sins, sin against the Holy Spirit, and the just punishment of sins.22 The main element missing, salvation from sin, features in the following sermon on the gospel of God’s grace. The first references to sin, however, come in the very first sermon of The Decades which speaks briefly of man’s sin both by the work of the devil and by his own fault and of God’s pardoning him by laying the weight of punishment on his only Son. It is instructive in considering sin to see how differently a subject is presented in these two works – broadly by noting the main elements in The Decades which are not present in The Christian Religion. The most obvious and substantial difference is that The Decades includes frequent, often lengthy, quotations from the fathers, especially Augustine. These are omitted, as are some biblical references. Otherwise, the omissions were generally the detailed exposition which would unduly lengthen or complicate the more practical understanding needed by ordinary Christians. A typical example is in the way the sermon in The Decades begins. Bullinger begins by considering a variety of words for sin in Latin, Hebrew, and Greek and 21 See the title page and the preface to Christian Religion A1 v 22–26, 2 r 15–16, v 3–5, 20–24, 30A4 r 7. 22 HBTS 3. 32.34–33.6,19–27; Decades 1.42–43.

Sin from Man not God

231

also varied definitions of sin in Augustine. Alongside them he offers his own: the natural (inborn) corruption of mankind and the action arising from it contrary to the law of God, adding that it brings on us God ‘s wrath, that is death and punishment. He recognizes, however, that the definition does not fit the sin of Adam and Eve.23 In The Christian Religion, sin is the third of the ten articles in which Bullinger expounds the main points of the Christian faith. The preceding article on God has already introduced the subject of sin. It includes the creation of Adam and Eve ‘good, righteous, and holy’, with God’s requiring only obedience and thankfulness. They were free to do according to their pleasure, with no lack or compulsion. They were, however, ungrateful and disobedient. They believed the devil more than God, and suffered the penalty of death. Yet in his grace, goodness, and unspeakable mercy God did not wait for man to turn and desire grace, but hastened after him. He took from him the guilt and punishment of sin, and laid it on Christ, who gained and gave to all believers eternal life.24 Bullinger begins by maintaining that sin was not created or commanded by God, indeed it was forbidden by God. It arose in man from unbelief and disobedience through the instigation of the devil and was then inherited by everyone. From original sin come actual sins which are contrary to God’s law. These lead to God’s wrath, the punishment of sins, death, and eternal damnation.

Sin from Man not God Bullinger expounds the article biblically in five chapters: The Knowledge of Man and Sin is from Man not God; The Origin, Progress, and Advance of Sin; Original Sin; Actual Sin; and The Punishment of Sin. Whereas the article puts the devil’s part first, the exposition begins with man’s guilt and the transgression of God’s command. Not only did God not create sin, but he also forbade it in giving ‘a good and holy command’. Before offering a defence of God, Bullinger rejects the asking of ‘curious questions’ such as why God gave the commandment not to eat or why he permitted the devil to tempt man. Ecclesiasticus 3:23–24 states, ‘Do not inquire into high and difficult things… that is beyond you. Many of those who have sought to go too high have fallen and been destroyed…We cannot do better… than to believe and say of God that he wills no evil. Even less does he do evil.’ On the contrary, as Psalm 5 states, ‘You are not a God who has pleasure in the godless…. You hate all who do evil.’25 23 HBTS 3. 450.6–451.15, in particular 451.10–15; Decades 2. 358–361. 24 Christian Religion 29 r 9–15, v 2–12, 18–23, 30 r 3–7, 15–27, v 5–12. 25 Christian Religion 34 r 24–35 r 8.

232

Chapter 8: Sin and the Fall

There are, however, challenges to the view that God is not the author of sin, such as references to God’s hardening hearts and to his giving people up to a perverted mind. Bullinger simply rejects these challenges, although he deals with them in other works. Here he says that the Christian reader should realise that what God does he always does with right judgment. St Paul’s response to such questioners is, ‘Who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Should what is made say to the one who made it why have you made me like this?26 In The Decades Bullinger examines at some length other causes for sin than God, the nature of man, or the devil, such as the influence of the stars under which people are born. Bullinger dismisses this in part by noting how different such people as Jacob and Esau were. Finding a cause outside ourselves is as old as creation. Adam does this with Eve and then with God for giving him Eve. Bullinger notes also that those ascribing power to the stars were rejected by Augustine and condemned in the First Council of Toledo. ‘Therefore, the blame for sins is in no way to be imputed to them.’27 In comparison with The Christian Religion Bullinger quotes a large range of biblical testimonies in The Decades in rejecting the view that God is the author of evil, asking why, for example, he would punish evil-doers since they would be doing his will by sinning. Adam’s responsibility is maintained by Paul when he writes that ‘sin came into the world by one man, and death by sin’ (Romans 5: 12). Bullinger also argues theologically in recognising that by his absolute power God could have prevented sin, but that he acts ‘by an appointed law and pact, I say by suitable means and lawful (legitimo) order’. He acts ‘in a human way’, appointing laws and rewards and punishments, commanding us to embrace the good and avoid the evil, and granting us his grace, without which we can do nothing.28 The emphasis in The Decades is also on man, followed by the devil. Bullinger states that ‘the origin of evil is derived from man himself and Satan, his inciter and instigator’. He says, however, that Satan was corrupted first and that he then corrupted man. ‘He would not, however, have been able to do anything of himself, if man had not consented to evil of his own accord.’ Bullinger stresses that man’s will was ‘most free and holy’. He had the ability (facultates) to do good and evil. Bullinger maintains that when the serpent tempted and persuaded man, ‘ he understood and knew that the serpent’s counsel was in conflict with the Lord’s command’ and that God and Satan did not compel him in his resistance. Yet Bullinger can also say that the devil was ‘the beginning of evil, adding that Adam and Eve were ‘led by the hope of obtaining a more excellent life and wisdom’ which their seducer had falsely promised. He was the beginning of sin, as he was 26 Christian Religion 35 r 18-v 1. 27 HBTS 3. 451.18–453.25, in particular 451. 27–29, 453. 8–9, 24–25; Decades 2. 361–365. 28 HBTS 3. 454. 35–37, 21–24, 453. 25–36; Decades 2. 367, 365

Sin from Man not God

233

the first sinner. On the basis of John 8:44 and 1 John 3:8, Bullinger maintains that he was created in truth and goodness, but did not stand fast in them. From his now evil nature all evil spread into the world.29 In The Decades Bullinger examines issues in greater detail, including those which in The Christian Religion are dismissed as ‘curious questions’. He does this so that his readers can answer those who ask such questions. There is the view that God is the author of sin, because he created Adam and therefore sin, or that he created man so that he might of his own will incline to evil. To the first he replies that sin is the corruption of a good nature created by God and not something created by God, and to the further challenge that Adam’s will and ability were from God and therefore that sin comes from God, he argues that they were not given to do evil any more than was the father’s giving money to the prodigal son. Bullinger’s response to the argument from Adam’s frailty, after a rebuke for disputing with God, is that God made man with the possibility of falling (labile) because only so could there be praise for what he did. The possibility of falling is for Bullinger a condition of human life, as – by implication – God alone is not able to sin.30 There are two further theological objections, the first from God’s foreknowledge and the second from God’s determination to liberate the human race from bondage. Against the argument that God’s foreknowledge of the fall made God the author of sin, Bullinger maintains with the support of Ambrose and Augustine that something does not happen of necessity because it is foreseen. Bullinger also repudiates the view that, as God determined to rescue us from sin, it behoved us to sin so that God’s glory might shine even more, in keeping with Paul’s writing,’Where sin abounded, there grace abounded much more.’ He observes that God is glorious from eternity, and therefore he is glorious without us, for we as creatures are not from eternity. We should not misinterpret God’s grace in delivering us; rather it should lead us to give all glory to God alone.31 There are finally objections relating to biblical references to God’s giving people up to a reprobate mind, blinding their eyes, and hardening their hearts, which Bullinger had considered in 1536 in The Providence of God. He cites Augustine’s interpretation of God’s giving people up to a reprobate mind as a work of judgment or justice. God manifested himself, but they were not only ungrateful but also confident in their own wisdom, and thrust on God I know not what kind of worship. God gave them up to shameful lusts so that he might know by experience that they were fools and ungodly. Typically, Bullinger concludes discussion of something which calls in question God’s character with a biblical or 29 HBTS 3. 455. 12–15, 21–23, 30–33, 456.6–10, 23–30, 457. 7–9; Decades 2. 368–371. 30 HBTS 3. 458. 7–13, 16–26, 38–459.8; Decades 2. 373–375. 31 HBTS 3. 460. 10–33, 36–461.2, 15–17; Decades 2. 377–379.

234

Chapter 8: Sin and the Fall

personal statement about God. ‘Now the Lord does all these things with just and holy judgement. When God is said to blind people’s eyes, he removes from people the light of his truth which they despised, leaving those delighting in darkness to remain entangled in darkness. They were condemned as they loved darkness more than light.’ (John 3:19)32 At greater length Bullinger explores the meaning of references to God’s hardening hearts. He states that the withdrawing of God’s grace is the hardening of our hearts, and when we are left to ourselves, we are hardened. Using the analogy of a human father and son, Bullinger argues that, although God’s grace may lead to the hardening of our hearts, that is not his intention, but is our fault. When Pharaoh was delivered from some evil which was God’s punishment, he hardened his heart. But then Bullinger clarifies this by noting, after the reference to God’s hardening Pharaoh’s heart, that Pharaoh said, ‘I have even now sinned; the Lord is just, but I and my people are unjust and impious.’ ‘But when Pharaoh saw that it had ceased raining, he continued sinning and hardened his heart and it exceedingly hardened.’ (Exodus 9:27,34) These words must be compared with the words ‘I have hardened’ to yield a godly sense, that is a sense which does not make the most righteous God the author of sin. Bullinger’s final comment is, ‘The Lord is just in all his ways, and holy in all his works.’ (Psalm 145:17)33

The Origin, Progress, and Effect of Sin In The Christian Religion Bullinger puts an emphasis on man rather than on the devil. Sin is related to man who, although created free by God, did not persist in God’s good will and word. The devil lay behind this, but he did not compel, for he could not. ‘Man is of himself evil and sinful.’ Sin arose by man’s falling from God’s word, through the instigation of the devil. In the supporting biblical testimonies, Bullinger begins with the evil which comes from a person’s heart, before several quotations which speak of the role of the devil with no part played by God. The effect of sin is to corrupt people’s reason and understanding, their mind and will, so that they are unable to do good.34

32 HBTS 3. 461. 18–24, 29–31, 33–35; Decades 2.380. 33 HBTS 3. 461.37–462.4,12–18, 31–463.1,26–27; Decades 2. 381–382,384. 34 Christian Religion 35 v 21–26, 36r 15–17, v4–37r12. The Decades does not have a separate section on the origin, progress, and effect of sin. The issues covered by it are considered in the discussion of the origin of sin. ‘God created man for immortality…. Death came into the world from the envy of the devil.’ (Wisdom 2: 23–24) (35 r 14–17)

The Origin, Progress, and Effect of Sin

235

Original Sin Underlying sin is original sin, which is inherited by us. We are by nature evil. We ‘neither will nor are able to do good’, but ‘are inclined to all evil’. It is sin, even before it expresses itself in actual sins. It means being ‘estranged from God and all good’. The image of God in us is extinct, as according to Paul the image is innocence, righteousness, and holiness (Ephesians 4: 23). Our guilt leads to death and eternal damnation. In baptizing children, as with circumcision in the past, we confess original sin and our impurity, which God will not reckon to us for Christ’s sake.35 Bullinger draws biblical support from Psalm 51, which must refer to original sin, as Paul testifies that marriage itself is not sinful. Christ and Paul maintain original sin in stating that we must be born from above (John 3:3) and that we are by nature children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3), as well as in the statements about Adam (Romans 5:12–19). The effect of original sin is not only the wrath of God but also guilt, punishment, torment, death, and damnation.36 In The Decades the exposition of original sin is much more detailed than that in The Christian Religion. It comes from Adam and Eve and ‘is in our nature from our mother’s womb’. It is ‘a disease or vice, a depravation of judgment and concupiscence, or a corruption of the whole of human nature, that is of the intellect and will and all human power’. As original sin begins with Adam, Bullinger immediately engages with the Pelagian view that Adam affected others by example and not by heredity or propagation: ‘they all imitated him that sinned first’. In his response, Bullinger draws substantially on Augustine, noting also that he presents testimonies from eastern and western fathers, and in particular Jerome. Bullinger draws the implication of this for children more powerfully than in The Christian Religion. He states ‘every inclination, disposition, desire of our nature, even in a child one day old is in conflict with the divine purity and will, which alone is good’ and that people are punished for their own sin not that of their fathers. Consequently the calamities that afflict all children are part of God’s just judgement.37 Adam was created in the image of God. Original sin means the blotting out of this image, and our being born in the image of Adam, in accordance with Genesis 5:3, ‘Adam gave birth to a son in his likeness and image.’ In his exposition of original sin, Bullinger is aware of the attacks on Zwingli’s view of sin, and defends him here from Account of the Faith, as elsewhere from The Marburg Articles. Zwingli, referred to as ‘most learned and godly’, did not think original sin was ‘in 35 Christian Religion 37 v 12–19, 38 r 15–21, v 20–25, 39 r 21–27. 36 Christian Religion 39 v 2–27, 40 r 10–14. 37 HBTS 3. 463. 36–37, 464. 17–20, 25–465. 3, 467. 8–10, 466. 15–20; Decades 2. 384–390.

236

Chapter 8: Sin and the Fall

itself unhurtful to infants’. ‘It is such a sin that whoever is born in it are enemies and adversaries of God.’ The extended discussion of sin can be understood only in the context of salvation. ‘For if there is no original sin, there is no grace.’ If we are strong and healthy, ‘we shall have no need of a doctor’. ‘Therefore, the Son of God, who was sent, came in vain.’38

Actual Sin From our corrupt nature come actual sins which are expressed in desires, thoughts, words, and deeds, which are contrary to the law of God. The law relates to sin in at least two ways. Its fundamental role is, as for Luther, to expose sin. This role is expounded by Bullinger in his consideration of the law. A further role is in defining it as whatever is contrary to God’s law. Thus, there are natural desires, such as sleeping, eating, and loving one’s children, which ‘in the right measure’ are not harmful, but there are desires, such as coveting one’s neighbours wife which, even if they do not turn into deeds, Jesus calls sin.39 There is variety in sins. Thus, sins of thought are lesser sins than sins expressed in words or deeds. Sins against God are graver than sins against people. Sins against others also vary. Killing a person is evil, but killing one’s father is even worse, just as committing adultery a second time is worse than committing it once. Bullinger sees these distinctions as evidenced by the variety of God’s punishment for sins. Another difference is found in what Bullinger calls daily sins: those sins committed from ignorance and weakness, for which we daily pray ‘Forgive us our debts’. Temptation varies, moreover, as some people for example, are more angry than others.40 In describing actual sin in The Decades, Bullinger uses his perception of the soul (anima) as having two parts: the understanding, mind or judgment, and the will or appetite. His definition of actual sin, which arises from original sin, is what is committed in thought, word, and deed against the law of God with considered judgment and the consent of the will. Bullinger’s account of the different kinds of actual sin, such as sins of ignorance and involuntary sins are expounded by reference to scripture and substantial quotations from Augustine. Bullinger distinguishes the law of God from other law, by implication church law, as sin is the transgression of divine not human law. He also maintains that it is not for us to determine which sins are small and which are great. (To show how flawed our judgment is, he shows how differently from Jesus we would judge calling 38 HBTS 3. 469. 12–14, 471. 13–34, 472. 19–21; Decades 2. 394, 397–400. 39 Christian Religion 40 v 1–10, 26–41 r 5. 40 Christian Religion 41 r 15- v 14.

The Origin, Progress, and Effect of Sin

237

someone ‘You fool’.) We are rather to look to scripture, for whereas the Stoics regarded all sins as equal, God does not. We see this in New Testament texts punishing some sins more than others.41 In the variety of actual sins in The Decades there are those which are not mentioned in The Christian Religion, and others which are developed. In discussing involuntary sins Bullinger rejects Seneca’s support for suicide, as it is forbidden by the command ‘You shall not kill’. At the same time, however, he states that we must show mercy in judging those who involuntarily, because of madness, commit suicide. Likewise he agrees with Augustine in relation to a woman who is raped: ‘Not to suffer unjustly, but to do unjustly is sin before God.’ In discussing hidden or private and manifest or public sins, Bullinger notes that although private sins can be known to a few, public sins occur ‘with the knowledge and offence of the whole church’. Public sins are greater because they cause offence to many.42 Bullinger keeps the category of mortal sins, although he uses it in a variety of ways. It can refer to such diverse major sins as blasphemy and idolatry, murder and the oppression of wives and orphans. Bullinger recognizes that believers can fall into such sins, although they can resist them by the grace of God. It can be used for sins which cry out to God for vengeance, as the sin of Cain, of the Sodomites, and of not paying the poor their day’s wage.43 But he also uses mortal sin for the sin against the Holy Spirit, a sin which he discusses throughout his ministry. The exposition in The Decades is briefer. It rejects the distinction between mortal sin, as every sin done by unfaithful people, and venial sin, as every sin done by faithful people, as in scripture all sins are mortal. But mortal sins can be made venial, that is pardonable, because they are ‘made pardonable through the grace of God in the faith of Jesus Christ’, for they receive pardon by the mercy of God. We sin, but ‘by grace it is not imputed to death’.44 The sin against the Holy Spirit is described in terms of the work of the Spirit in enlightening people through the word. If one will not hear what God wills to use to heal, sets oneself against his persuasion and warning, and persists in this, then, like Pharaoh, Saul, and the Pharisees, one sins against the Holy Spirit. Among causes leading to the sin against the Holy Spirit, Bullinger mentions the scorn of divine things and desire for worldly honours and bodily goods. He notes biblical references to receiving honour from each other rather than from God, hatred of God’s word and those who proclaim it, and the arrogance in which we are 41 42 43 44

HBTS 3. 474. 5–7, 12–14, 475. 12–21, 475. 29–476.7; Decades 2. 404, 406–408. HBTS 3. 479. 34–480.3, 479. 22–26, 480.22–28; Decades 2. 414–416. Christian Religion 41 v 15–42 r 18. HBTS 3. 480. 29–34, 481. 6–8, 15–16; Decades 2. 416–417.

238

Chapter 8: Sin and the Fall

knowledgeable in our own eyes. The Lord says, ‘If you were (that is, recognized yourself to be) blind, your blindness would be taken away.’ Those not wanting to fall into the abyss of sin should say with the psalmist, ‘Lord, enlighten my eyes and show me your way.’45 In The Decades, before expounding sin against the Holy Spirit, Bullinger considers whether there are sins in baptized infants and whether the good works of the heathen and the good works of believers are sins. With the support of Augustine, Bullinger argues that sin remains in baptized infants, but that ‘it is not imputed through the grace of God in the merit of Jesus Christ’. Bullinger maintains that God has his elect among the heathen, who have the Holy Spirit and faith. The works they do by faith are, he says, good and are not sins, citing Cornelius as evidence. He states, however, that the faith of Cornelius would afterwards be fully completed and the gift of the Sprirt bestowed more plentifully. Finally, Bullinger examines the question whether the good works of believers and saints are sins. He maintains that they are sins, as they are the works of those who are not without blemish, However they are also good, because of faith in us and because they are done by us who are by grace sons of God.46 Bullinger’s presentation of the sin against the Holy Spirit in The Decades is drawn entirely from the New Testament, apart from the briefest reference to Augustine. It is defined as ‘ a perpetual blasphemy of the revealed and known truth’. It is contrasted with blasphemy against the Son of Man, which comes from ignorance (Luke 23:34, 1 Cor. 2:8, Acts 3:17,19). Bullinger holds that the Pharisees were convinced in their minds by clear reasons and indisputable miracles and could not deny that Christ’s teaching and works were divine, but that from envy and rebellion they stated that Christ did everything by the inspiration of the devil. Like the Pharisees for Bullinger are those of his contemporaries who understand salvation to be most purely set forth in Christ, yet nevertheless abandon it and approve the contrary teaching and condemn the orthodox view and hiss at it as heretical. They are later described as incessantly calling the illumination of the Holy Spirit darkness. Bullinger sees the sin against the Holy Spirit in Hebrews 10:26–27 with its reference to there being no sacrifice for sins for those sinning willingly after receiving knowledge of the truth. It is ‘the sin to death’ in John (1 John 5:16). Augustine describes it as ‘final impenitence which follows apostasy, blasphemy, and contempt of the Holy Spirit or the word of truth revealed by the Holy Spirit’.47

45 Christian Religion 42 r 19-v13. 46 HBTS 3.481. 24–27, 481. 36–482.6, 18–24; Decades 2.418–419. 47 HBTS 3. 483. 9–12, 28–30, 484. 13–27, 485. 7–8, 11–12, 34–35, 486. 16–20; Decades 2. 420–425.

The Origin, Progress, and Effect of Sin

239

The Punishment of Sin The last of Bullinger’s five chapters on sin considers the punishment of sins.48 He recognizes different kinds of sin, but maintains that, whatever kind they are, they are punished in keeping with God’s word and his righteousness. It may be temporal punishment and affect people in body, soul, or possessions. Bullinger lists punishments as diverse as doubt, dishonour, sickness, poverty, imprisonment, war, and death. They include punishment inflicted by magistrates and fathers. By contrast, eternal punishment begins after this life and involves unspeakable pain and distress for all eternity. God uses his creatures, be they angels, men, or the natural elements such as hail, in imposing temporal punishment.49 With eternal punishment, it is God alone who punishes and, unlike human punishment, it is always just. It is just not only because God is just, but also because he alone knows ‘people’s hearts and secrets… how, where, and when, and how gravely a person has sinned’. Bullinger appeals to the prophets, the gospels, and the epistles to show that punishment varies according to the sin committed. Believers are exempt from eternal punishment, but not from all temporal punishment, such as suffering. Bullinger quotes Augustine’s distinguishing troubles before forgiveness from those after it, which are to exercise faith and enable the believer to increase in righteousness. Job’s friends misinterpreted his suffering, for God proves his own as gold in the fire. Scripture and that daily experience, to which Bullinger often appeals, show that God mostly protects his friends from the plagues that affect his enemies. Bullinger acknowledges, however, that as in Psalm 73 and Luke 16 God’s enemies sometimes experience little or no punishment in this life.50 Bullinger accepts the idea that there is a mystery in punishment in this life. Evil is not always followed at once by punishment or, indeed, seems not to be punished at all. His response to this is characteristic: to draw on two kinds of biblical testimony. First, there are passages that offer some explanation. God delays not because he is not angered by sin, but because he is waiting for amendment. If there is no amendment, then punishment is severe, indeed to the third and fourth generation. Second, there is the simple affirmation that all God ‘s judgements are true and righteous. We are ‘ to love him as a Father and fear him as a Lord’ for ‘he is almighty, wise, and just’.51

48 Somewhat surprisingly the account is more detailed than that in The Decades, except that Bullinger dedicated an earlier sermon to this area. See HBTS 3. 286–312; Decades 2. 64–111. 49 Christian Religion 42 v15–43 v 30. 50 Christian Religion 43 v 11–44 v 3. 51 Christian Religion 44 v 4–45 r 6.

240

Chapter 8: Sin and the Fall

Sin in Bullinger’s Later Works The succinct and unpolemical presentation of sin in The Catechism in 1559 is part of an exposition of the creed. It follows the article on the church.52 That explains two distinctive characteristics. First, it states that forgiveness of sins is the work of the trinity in the church, for that is where Christ and the promise of life are, and outside the church there is eternal destruction. Second, it places sin in the context of the forgiveness of sin, with the emphasis on forgiveness, including its source in the death of Christ and its mediation through the preaching of the word and its being received by faith.53 The exposition of sin covers all the main points, such as the author of sin, original sin, actual sin, mortal sin, sin against the Holy Spirit, the law and the punishment of sin. The points are generally presented in brief questions and answers. Thus, the answer to the question about the author of sin is ‘the corrupt will of man and the inspiration and incitement of Satan’, with no assertion that God is not the author of sin. The unpolemical character can be seen, for example, in the insistence that all sins are forgiven by Christ, without any reference to Anabaptists and heretics holding a different view.54 In the following year in his second work against Anabaptists, Bullinger considers different groups of Anabaptists, two of them in relation to sin. First, there are the holy and pure Anabaptists who are without sin. They base their views on the standard texts (1 John 3:9–10, Ephesians 5:27). Bullinger identifies their views with heresies which the fathers refuted and condemned with scriptural testimonies. In his critique Bullinger begins with the need to interpret scripture not by our own judgment but with scripture, so that, for example, this text must be compared with ‘If we say we have not sinned we make him a liar and his word is not in us.’ (1 John 1:10) and ‘If we say we have no sin…’ (1 John 1:8). The latter text is in the present and therefore means that believers sin. The implication is that Anabaptists are imposters who do not have God’s word or the truth.55 Bullinger maintains that the apparent contradiction in the epistle is explained by distinguishing between sins and between believers and unbelievers. Sin is contrary to God’s law, but unbelievers are not concerned with God’s law and do not recognize their sin or they make light of or excuse their sin. They do not believe what Christ has done for their sins. It is different when believers sin. They do not excuse or make light of sin, but rather seek forgiveness. They believe they have been cleansed by the blood of Christ. So with God their sins are not imputed 52 53 54 55

For The Catechism, see HBBibl 1 no. 377, for the German text, see HBBibl 1 no. 380. The Catechism 46 v 15–47 r 2, 48 r 6–49 v 23; GT 13 r 2.45-v1.4, 13 v 2.20–14 r 2.36. The Catechism 47 r 13–16, 49 r 15–23; GT 13 v 1. 14–16, 14 r 1. 44 – r 2.36. The Anabaptists 26v 12–23, 27 r 1–6, 12–29.

The Origin, Progress, and Effect of Sin

241

for damnation. In that sense, on account of Christ, they do not sin. They fight against sin. Hence they are not slaves of sin. Believers who dwell in Christ and Christ in them, do not sin, and that not of themselves but on account of Christ – not because they do not have sins but because they are not imputed on account of Christ.56 After a very brief discussion of mortal sin, Bullinger considers the description of the church as without spot or wrinkle. In effect this is parallel to the way in which the believer is holy. The church is holy and blameless for by grace Christ imparts his purity to believers or, as some think, the reference could be to the future when we lay aside our flesh. As elsewhere, Bullinger draws on John 15 which states that those who bear fruit are purged to bear more fruit (John 15:2) and asks why if someone is wholly clean he needs to wash his feet. In their different ways these passages show that we are pure and holy, however, when we contemplate the mystery of faith, the grace, redemption, and righteousness of Christ, but when we look at ourselves, our nature, and weakness, we never cease to find in ourselves sins and failings. The saints in Old and New Testament, unlike the Anabaptists, did not boast that they were pure and without sin, as is evident in passages such as Psalm 130:3, and 143:2, and Galatians 3:22.57 Third, Bullinger appeals, as other reformers, to the Lord’s Prayer. It is, he says, horrifying to hear that these holy Anabaptists leave out of the Lord’s Prayer the petition for forgiveness of sins, as if they had no need of forgiveness. Yet the Lord commanded his disciples, who were without doubt more holy than all the Anabaptists, to pray in this way.58 Briefly, Bullinger makes two further points. Fourth, he argues that the prayers of believers are not to be despised, citing, for example, Paul’s requests to the Ephesians to pray for him. Fifth, he presents his case for original sin in opposition to the Anabaptist view that infants are pure and without sin and therefore do not need baptism.59 Bullinger repeats his defence of Zwingli against evangelical and papal opponents, as well as Anabaptists. He maintains that Zwingli affirmed original sin and distinguished between it and actual sin which is committed knowingly and willingly. Some misrepresent Zwingli, as if he simply denied that original sin (vitium) in infants is sin. However at Marburg Zwingli maintained that original sin is in all born of Adam, that sin condemns all people and that without the death of Christ they would suffer death eternally. In his Account of the Faith he distinguishes original sin from actual sin. He argues that original sin ‘in the children of Adam is not properly a sin, for it is not an act against the law’. ‘It is properly a 56 57 58 59

The Anabaptists 27 r 30–28 r 3. The Anabaptists 28 r 4–29 r 24. The Anabaptists 29 r 25-v 5. The Anabaptists 29 v 6–30 r 10.

242

Chapter 8: Sin and the Fall

disease and condition’, ‘ a disease because as he fell from self-love so do we, and a condition, because he became a slave and subject to death so we are born slaves and children of wrath and subject to death.’ Zwingli adds that he does not object after the manner of Paul to call it sin and ‘such a sin that whoever are born in it are enemies of God’. Bullinger concludes that as infants have sin they are to be baptized for the remission of sins – not that the element of water washes away their sin (1 Peter 3:21).60 Bullinger later attacks the teaching of the Libertines including their teaching on sin. They ascribe to God sin which was imputed to human beings, for scripture says that he works all things in everyone, and quote passages such as God’s hardening, blinding, and handing over to a reprobate mind. Bullinger begins with God’s governing all things by his providence, but maintains that we must not confuse what is set forth in the bible and attribute to God or man what is to be attributed to the other. He insists that the fall was Adam’s fault and as often as he sins it is because of his depraved nature.61 Bullinger responds briefly with similar arguments to those he uses elsewhere on God’s hardening, blinding. and handing over to a reprobate mind. He states that the ancients interpreted this as God’s permitting it, to which he adds that permission must not be seen as removing from God the directing of things, making him idle, and yielding all power to Satan and sin. ‘For unless in this permission God kept for himself the directing of things, confined sin, constrained and curbed the devil, evil and destruction would certainly break out and rage more than the human race could bear. But God by his powers turns evil into good and the destructive purposes of Satan to the glory and salvation of the elect….’62 He cites the story of Job in which Job ascribed to God what he knew had been done by the devil and by people. He knew that God had not taken his hand from the tiller. He could have prevented it and turned it away. But he permitted it to happen. It was determined by God for good and to test him. Because of God’s righteous directing and because of the good, he said, ‘The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away.’ Similarly Joseph did not diminish the sins of his brothers or ascribe them to God. Because of God’s good directing, turning evil to good, he said, ‘I was sent ahead here not by you, but by God.’ (Genesis 45:8) Joseph’s clear interpretation – ‘You intended to harm me, but God turned it to good… that he

60 The Anabaptists 30 r 11-v 25. 61 The Anabaptists 68 v 23–29, 69 v 17–70 r 5. Bullinger also stresses the role of Satan, ‘Satan vero tentando, inspirando, instillando, illiciendo, et incitando causam dat…ut peccatum ab homine perficiatur.’ 69 v 29–32. 62 The Anabaptists 71 v 12–31.

The Origin, Progress, and Effect of Sin

243

might save many people’ (Genesis 50:20) – Bullinger regarded as a sufficient answer to the Libertines.63 The Second Helvetic Confession contains no further development or change, except perhaps by implication. In his condemnation of heretics (Pelagius and Pelagians, the Jovinians who with the Stoics regard all sins as equal, and Florinus and Blastus who make God the author of sin) he states, ‘in this matter we agree in everything with St Augustine who derived and defended his views from the holy scriptures’. Some see Bullinger at this stage as accepting original guilt as well as original sin. It is not, however, explicit, although he might be unlikely to dissent in an emphatic way from Zwingli, and perhaps also from his earlier explicit rejection of original guilt.64 As with some other chapters in the confession Bullinger expresses some things succinctly. Thus, he defines sin as ‘that innate corruption of man… from our first parents… by which we are inclined to all evil … we cannot of ourselves do, even think, anything good’.65 The subject treated at greatest length is that God is not author of sin. He mentions as elsewhere three statements that seem to contradict this: the biblical references to God’s hardening, blinding, and delivering up to a reprobate mind. His summary response is to state that what God does he does by a just judgment as a just judge and avenger. More precisely, he maintains that ‘whenever in scripture God is said or seems to do something evil, it is not therefore said that man does not do evil, but that by his just judgment God permits and does not prevent it. He could prevent it if he wished.’ Or, God ‘uses people’s evil for good, as with the sins of Joseph’s brothers’, or he governs sins lest they break out and rage more widely. He supports this with Augustine’s saying, that God ‘allows it, not unwillingly, but willingly’, and that ‘being good, he would not permit evil to be done, unless being omnipotent he could bring good even out of evil.66 There are questions which Bullinger dismisses as ‘curious’, such as whether God willed Adam to fall. Bullinger recognizes, however, that it may be necessary to deal with them when challenged by heretics and others, as godly doctors of the church have often done. Yet Bullinger hints at his reply with statements such as our ‘knowing that the Lord forbade man to eat of the forbidden fruit and punished the transgression’. He also considered such issues in The Decades.67

63 The Anabaptists 71 v 31–72 r 30. 64 RB 2/2 285. 23–28; Cochrane 236. See Staedtke, Theologie 164. He also refers to Ritschl and to Koch (Theologie 79–80) who recognizes that there is no explicit statement on original guilt, but regards it as implicit. 65 RB 2/2 284.29–285.2; Cochrane 235. 66 RB 2/2 285.28–286.16; Cochrane 236–237. 67 RB 2/2 286.17–24; Cochrane 237.

244

Chapter 8: Sin and the Fall

Free Will Bullinger discusses free will in the context of sin, but also in the context of providence and predestination. Thus, in a letter of 21 January 1526 he engages with Erasmus’ book on the freedom of the will, which he describes as ‘ungodly and blasphemous’. He insists that the issues raised in Romans 9 must be argued from the bible and not the fathers. He presents his view with stark simplicity, ‘If there is providence, there is no free will; for otherwise providence would not be providence. Moreover, if there is free will, then there is no providence, for otherwise free will would not be free will.’68 In the same year free will is related to election in Bullinger’s lectures on Thessalonians (1 Thessalonians 2:13) and Ephesians (Ephesians 1:5). Free will is generally discussed explicitly, as here, in the general context of salvation, which is God’s work, not ours. Thus, in 1533 in his exposition of Acts 9:1–2. Bullinger notes that Paul refers his conversion to God’s mercy, while he himself refers to John 6:44. This text shows that they are mistaken who attribute conversion to our powers and free will, for it is God who works in us to will and to do.69 Alongside his criticism, however, Bullinger speaks highly of Erasmus, of his contribution to languages, eloquence, and ‘good letters’. He repudiates, however, the wisdom of the world in ‘divine letters’. In 1525 in commenting on Romans 2:14–15, Bullinger relates free will to sin. He rejects the sheer madness of those, such as the fathers, who use this passage to argue that people can do something because of free will, for nature can do nothing but sin.70 It has a similar purpose in a work on the eucharist in June 1525. Bullinger recognizes that some errors have been held since the time of the apostles, but a doctrine is not right because of its antiquity. Free will obscures the death of Christ for our sins. Bullinger can even say, ‘if we have free will, then God is not God’.71 In 1536 Bullinger discussed free will in a work on providence, predestination, grace, and free will. Free will is related to grace and is set in the context of salvation. Bullinger observes that the doctors of the church held that human beings do not act by fatal necessity, nor are they dragged like the trunk of a tree, but they use free will. This has, however, been misinterpreted by some to maintain that there is in us the power to do the good and to will not to. Bullinger refers to Augustine’s writing on grace and free will. Passages which tell people, for 68 HBBW 1.86.25–88.10. He is critical of Origen, who was used by Erasmus, and notes how Augustine retracted his earlier erroneous views. ‘Ergo non patrum dictis placitisque, sed collatione scripturarum locus Roma. 9 [9] rumpendus erat. Christiani sumus, scripturis pugnamus, non patrum placitis.’ 87. 12–14. 69 Thessalonians (1526) 44. 39–42; Ephesians (1526) 44. 22–34; Acts 109 r10–16. 70 HBTS 1. 74.19–27. 71 HBTS 2.50.19–26.

The Origin, Progress, and Effect of Sin

245

example, not to harden their hearts or to be converted and live, Bullinger interprets in terms of God’s giving what he commands. He notes that in Ezekiel ‘make yourself a new heart’ is followed by ‘ I will give you a new heart’. He allows that our will is free, but that it is not always good. Either it is free from righteousness, when it serves sin, and then is evil, or it is free from sin, when it serves righteousness. Then it can increase and become so great that it is able to fulfil God’s commands.72 In 1536 Bullinger and others prepared The First Helvetic Confession. After the articles on man and original sin, there is an article of similar length on free will. It affirms free will in the sense that ‘we knowingly and willingly do good and evil’. Of ourselves, however, we can do evil, but we cannot do good ‘unless we are enlightened, awakened,and impelled by the grace of Christ’. ‘For it is God who works in us both to will and to act according to his good will.’ (Philippians 2:13) ‘Our salvation is from God, but from us there is nothing but sin and corruption.’73 The clearest presentation of Bullinger’s understanding of free will is in The Second Helvetic Confession in 1566. Its place is similar to that of the earlier confession: coming after articles on man and sin and before predestination. The 1566 articles are both longer and more comprehensive. That on free will considers human beings before the fall, after the fall, and after regeneration. Before the fall man was upright and free and ‘was able to remain in goodness and decline to evil’. Declining to evil, he brought sin and death upon the whole human race. After the fall his understanding and will were not taken from him but they were so ‘changed and weakened, that they are not able to do what they could do before the fall’. ‘For the understanding is darkened, and the will which was free has become an enslaved will. Now it serves sin not unwillingly, but willingly.’ However, man was not ‘totally changed into a stone or trunk of a tree’.74 People are not compelled by God or Satan, but do evil of their own free will. God does not take away this freedom to do evil, although he may intervene as when Joseph’s brothers determined to do away with him. People are not, however, capable of good in itself. Indeed, we are not of ourselves capable of thinking anything good (2 Corinthians 3:5). The mind (mens) or intellect guides the will, and when the guide ‘is blind it is clear how far the will can reach’. Those who are not regenerate have no free will for good and no power to accomplish what is good. Nevertheless, God permitted people’s intellectual ability (ingenium) to remain, though differing greatly from before the fall, and commands us to cultivate it.75 72 73 74 75

Providence 824. 5–825. 25. RB 1/2 46.7–12; Cochrane 102. Interestingly The Basel Confession has no article on free will. RB 2/2 287. 1–15; Cochrane 237. RB 2/2 287. 15–39; Cochrane 237–238.

246

Chapter 8: Sin and the Fall

At greater length the confession describes free will in the regenerate. As with the fall the understanding was darkened, so with regeneration the understanding is enlightened by the Holy Spirit, so that it understands the mysteries and will of God. The will itself is not only changed by the Spirit but it is also equipped by the Spirit so that it wills and is able to do the good of its own accord (Romans 8). Among the supporting testimonies are references to writing the law on people’s hearts (Jeremiah 31:33) and God’s being at work in people both to will and to act according to his good will (Philippians 2:13).76 Bullinger draws on Augustine to argue that the regenerate work actively and not only passively, rejecting the Manichaean view which makes people like passive stones or blocks of wood. The will is still weak in the regenerate, as in them the flesh struggles with the Spirit to the end of their lives. However the powers of the flesh are not able wholly to extinguish the work of the Spirit. Believers must acknowledge their weakness and not glory in their free will. They must remember Augustine’s quoting of the Pauline question, ‘What do you have that you did not receive?’ and that the outcome of things is in God’s hands. That is why Paul prayed the Lord to prosper his journey (Romans 1:10).77 Alongside the power or weakness of free will in relation to doing good or evil, is the issue of our freedom in external things. In them both the regenerate and the unregenerate enjoy free will as, for example, other living creatures. Yet even here the bible shows the power of God, so that Zachariah could not speak as he wanted (Luke 1:22). As in several of the chapters of the confession, Bullinger condemns certain contemporary views as ancient heresies. On free will he condemns those who deny the role of human free will in the beginning of evil as Manichaean and those who maintain that people have sufficient free will to do the good which is commanded as Pelagian. Both are refuted by scripture – the one by ‘God made mankind upright’ (Ecclesiastes 7:29) and the other by ‘If the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed’ (John 8:36).78 In Questions about Religion in 1559 which is concerned with papal challenges to evangelical faith, the question on Free Will (whether or not a person has a free will for good or evil) follows those on The Trinity and The Church. It is, he says, the basis of the belief in human merit, for it is as if there is some good in us and as if we do good by our own strength, so that God owes us eternal life Bullinger maintains that the word of truth teaches us otherwise: of ourselves, of our strength, we can do no good. The reason is that because of the fall our under-

76 RB 2/2 288.1–14; Cochrane 238–239. 77 RB 2/2 288.15–289.3; Cochrane 239. 78 RB 2/2 289.4–15; Cochrane 239.

The Origin, Progress, and Effect of Sin

247

standing and will are darkened and weakened, inclined to evil and not to good, unless we are born again by God.79 Those born again are slaves of sin whom Christ has made free – free from sin, death, the devil, and hell. By the Spirit they do good freely, without compulsion. Moreover, they ascribe the good they do to the grace of Christ and the work of the Spirit. Bullinger adduces familiar passages, such as John 8:36,15:5,1 Corinthians 4:7, and Philippians 2:13. He recognizes that our freedom is constrained by our being in the flesh until we die, and that the flesh is in conflict with the Spirit. Paul, he maintains, ascribes the good which he does to the grace of God and not to his free will (1 Corinthians 15:10). By contrast the evil we do comes from us, but not by compulsion.80 Interestingly in the tenth chapter of Firm Foundation in 1563 the discussion of free will immediately follows sections on election, providence, and sin, and is followed by human merit. In their different ways they are all concerned to show our weakness and our dependence on God, but as in the exposition of sin not to deny our role or responsibility. In expounding free will he refers to John 8:34, but then states that people are the slaves of sin and yet that they sin of their own accord. They do the evil they wish when God by his power and judgment does not prevent or hinder them. The slaves of sin are not free to do good. They must receive redemption by grace through Christ in order to be free, so that they may understand, will, and be able to do what is right and good. Quotations from John (6:44 and 15:5) and Paul’s epistles (2 Corinthians 3:5, Philippians 1:29 and 2:13) emphasize our total dependence on God or Christ. At the same time the children of God keep the weakness of the flesh till the end and therefore to the end, far from boasting of free will, must pray for forgiveness. The chapter ends with a section on human merit. It refers to those who had done all that they were commanded and who only described themselves as unworthy servants who had done only their duty. When scripture speaks of reward, it is grace, not merit. Thus, when Paul wrote that he had worked hard and done much, he added that it was not he but the grace which was given him (1 Corinthians 15:10).81

79 Questions about Religion 66.4–67.9. 80 Questions about Religion 67.10–69.15. 81 Firm Foundation 30 r 19–31 r 27.

Chapter 9: The Law

The law has a significant part in Bullinger’s exposition of the Christian faith. This is evident when one considers the space given to it in The Decades, The Christian Religion, and The Catechism. Moreover, as early as 1532, he refers to the law as one of the themes on which the reformed faith is sound, catholic, and orthodox. In a dedicatory letter to Philip of Hesse he mentions their enemies virulent attacks on their teaching as being ‘inconstant, factious, and heretical’ and on themselves as ‘schismatic and seditious’. In support, Bullinger cites the scriptural defence of their teaching by Zwingli and Oecolampadius and then refers to his confirming of it in his commentary on Hebrews. In his list of the main subjects of their religion, he begins with scripture and then before reference to God he mentions covenant and law.1

The Early Works In his earliest works the law does not feature largely, in part because they are mostly either commentaries or concerned with the mass. Even in Introduction to Study he does not give it a prominent place in the numerous themes (loci) which he lists at the end. His first two published commentaries discuss the law in several places, reflecting the text they are expounding. In his Kappel commentaries on Romans and Hebrews, Bullinger refers to the law in a variety of ways, but does not consider it systematically. They show the influence of Luther and Melanchthon, but also differences from them. He does not, like Luther, oppose law and gospel, and although he maintains a negative role for the law, he affirms its positive role in salvation. In Romans there is understandably an emphasis on law as revealing sin. At the beginning, Bullinger states that the third chapter shows us that the law was given only to reveal sin, not as a way to be saved. This enables Paul to show that acceptance with God comes from 1 Hebrews A3 v 1–25. The law has only a minor place in some of his works.

250

Chapter 9: The Law

God’s grace alone through faith in Christ, without any merit on our part. In 2:14 Bullinger comments that the law, which teaches us what to do and what not to do, makes us into sinners. This is later described as ‘the true apostolic office’.2 Bullinger expresses the positive christological role of the law in salvation in a variety of contexts in Romans. Thus, in expounding 2:17–24, Bullinger goes beyond the text in saying that the law was given so that we might not seek consolation in ourselves, but in Christ alone. In the discussion of Adam in chapter 5, he states that the law was given that we might recognize the sinful Adam in ourselves and flee to the One who was prefigured in Adam. In chapter 3 Bullinger relates the law to faith in commenting on 3:20 and 3:31. On the former he writes that the law was not given so that we work, but so that we believe. Responding to the question why we are not saved by the works of the law, Bullinger states that the law was given that we might recognize sin. He explains this by saying that we can obey the command not to covet outwardly, but not inwardly. Therefore, we sin. What we do are works of the law. Works of the law are sin. They do not justify us. The law simply shows sin. He also notes the positive role of the law in salvation in expounding 3:31. ‘Do we then make the law of no effect through faith? By no means, but we uphold the law.’ He replies, ‘Paul answers, “No. the law is not given to teach us works, but faith.’’ But faith fulfils everything.’ According to the letter, the law is a handmaid of death. According to the Spirit, God teaches us through the law what he wills and that he is Spirit and wills to be worshipped in the Spirit and in truth. Christ did not come to abolish the law. Jeremiah speaks of the law’s being written in the hearts. For Bullinger, law is also used to refer to scripture as a whole as in John 7:49. He notes that it is also used in John 10:34 and 15:25 to cover quotations from the psalms.3 In Hebrews there are three ways of understanding law, which are developed later by Bullinger in expounding 7:11–21, he speaks of ceremonial law as given to draw us from idolatrous abuses and to keep us with God but also to figure Christ to us. In another passage, he relates the idolatry to Egypt. Among the themes (loci insignes) he states that ‘the sum of the law and the prophets is to do God’s will: that is to believe’. The most frequent reference to the law is to its being done away with the coming of Christ, who fulfilled what was represented in the Old Testa-

2 HBTS 1.35.18–23, 71.31–33, 78.33–34. 3 HBTS 1.76.3–6, 131. 13–16, 92.33–93.6, 101.33–102.8, 91.27–32. Staedtke points to the positive role in drawing to Christ in his commentary on Galatians. ‘Also ouch dz gsatzt zücht uns wider unseren willen zuo Christo als zuo dem einigen heiland.’ ‘Dz gsatz ist alein dorumb gegeben, dz es uns inzunte in dz testament und glouben an Jesum, also dz wir imm selbigen heil suochtend und nitt ussbrechend in die grechtigkeit unser werchen, die ouch xin sind vor dem gsatzt.’ (Theologie 126–127)

The Early Works

251

ment. The Mosaic and Aaronic law was only a model and introduction and not perfection, which is in Christ alone. Christ fulfilled the law.4 In his commentary on Romans in 1526, Bullinger challenges the interpretation of nature in Romans 2:14 as the law of nature. In keeping with his use of rhetoric, he considers the scope of the passage. The heathen do not have the law of Moses which make the Jews sinners. Paul wants to prove that, although the heathen do not have the law, ‘they are nevertheless sinners’. Bullinger therefore interprets nature – with Paul elsewhere – as ‘everything which is from the old Adam’. To do by nature is to despise God and to seek one’s own. The work of the law is to make sinners. ‘Therefore, what the law is in Jews, nature is in the heathen.’ He disagrees with the interpretation of Luther and Melanchthon, because it ignores the scope and intention of Paul. Otherwise, in effect, one would be saying that despising God, robbing, lying, and sinning are a law of nature.5 In his 1533 commentary on Romans, Bullinger affirms the law of nature in Romans, although he recognizes scholars have different views on this. The Gentiles now are seen as without the law in the sense of the written Mosiac law; they do, however, have the law of nature. Bullinger maintains that the law of nature does not refer to our corrupt nature, for unless God touches our hearts we are not able to do for others what we wish to be done to ourselves. The word nature is simply ‘the perpetual operation and disposition of God’. Worshipping God, not harming anyone, doing good to all, and similar things come not from our nature, but from God. After maintaining that no one except God could write in our hearts, Bullinger compares God’s writing in our hearts with his making himself known to the Gentiles through visible things in Romans 1. This leads Bullinger to conclude by asserting that whatever is honest, true, or just among the Gentiles is to be ascribed wholly to the divine wisdom.6 There is a brief discussion of the law in the substantial excursus on interest at the end of Anabaptist Teaching in 1531. It shows in parts Bullinger’s kinship with Zwingli. In a section distinguishing law from sin. Bullinger begins by defining law as ‘the eternal will of God’. As God is ‘high, holy, pure, and immaculate’, so is God’s law. We by contrast are ‘impure and sinful’, and so the first work or stage (grad) of the law is to lead us to knowledge of ourselves. This shows us what God requires of us and therefore that we are his debtors. Second, there are in the law prohibitions so that our sin will not be committed in such a way as to harm

4 HBTS 1.183.21–23, 194.2–7, 221. 25–26, 179. 20–25, 188. 2–3, 15–21, 184. 2013, 190. 31–32, 193.23–28. 5 HBTS 1.71.18–28,73.11–14, 74.25–28. The issue is discussed in Staedtke, Theologie 129–134 and Hausammann, Römerbriefauslegung. 6 HBTS 6.58.6–7, 57. 15–19, 58. 10–25, 59. 17–20.

252

Chapter 9: The Law

people. If, however, it does, then there are, third, punishments to constrain the harm and to stop injustice getting the upper hand.7 Bullinger illustrates this with the examples of theft, adultery, murder. The commands not to covet and not to be angry shows us that God is pure good but that we are sinners with inborn desires. So that we do not harm others, we are given other commands in the one case not to steal, rob, or commit adultery and in the other not to kill. If however we give way and harm our neighbour there comes punishment.8 In the light of this, Bullinger reconciles the apparently contradictory descriptions of the law as condemning us and yet making us joyful, as a rule of life and also a condemnation, or how no law is given to the godly. In the first stage, in which we learn that God is pure and holy good, we rejoice that God has let us know his holy will. Yet when we look at our lives in the light of the law, we see our weakness and acknowledge our sin and condemnation. In the second stage, the law is a rule of life and is good, holy, and just. In the third, it is punishment and so is not given for the godly. Bullinger then distinguishes law and sin, and in the following section on interest he maintains that the first work of the law does not make non-Christians, and that interest does not make non-Christians.9 In The Old Faith in 1537 Bullinger argues that true Christian faith has been present from the beginning of the world.10 This influences Bullinger’s presentation of the law in the chapter on the law entitled ‘The law of God given by Moses leads to Christ…’. The chapter follows a chapter on the patriarchs who lived before the law was given. The chapter ends by stating that they ‘were saved not by the law or by their own strength and merit but through the blessed seed, our Lord Jesus Christ’. Living among the Egyptians, they learnt idolatry and all kinds of superstitions, although many like Moses had knowledge and faith in Christ. Eventually, in his goodness and mercy, God delivered his people, a deliverance, as the passover lamb shows, for the sake of the blood of Christ, the blessed seed who had been promised. On Mount Sinai God bound himself to the people and received them as his people, giving them his law, which concerned the honour and love of God and the love of other people.11 For Bullinger, the ten commandments given by God to Moses were not new. They were known and practised by the patriarchs, as he shows with examples from Genesis. What God wrote on people’s hearts, he then wrote on the tablets of stone. He did not require anything different, but was putting things in brief 7 8 9 10

Anabaptist Teaching 147 v 23–148 r 14. Anabaptist Teaching 148 r 15-v27. Anabaptist Teaching 148 v 28–149 v 6. The references are to the second edition in 1539 (HBBW 1 no. 100) and the English translation by Miles Coverdale (HBBW 1 no. 108). 11 The Old Faith C8 r 10–14, 22-v1, 17–21, D1 r 4–10, v 4–7, 16–23, 26–28, 2.11–15; ET 37–39.

The Early Works

253

summary form.12 Bullinger considers a possible objection to his view. It is ‘if all truth is contained in these ten commandments why is there no mention of the blessed seed promised to the fathers’. The law with its commands and prohibitions implies that we are saved and accepted by God by our works and merit and by keeping the commandments. The patriarchs, however, were promised that they would be saved through the blessed seed, by God’s grace and not by merit. In his reply, Bullinger points to Paul’s response in Galatians. He maintains that even a human will or testament is final so that nothing can be added. How much more is it true with God’s will or testament that nothing can be added to it or taken from it. In his testament with Abraham, God promised a seed in whom Abraham and his children would be saved. It is a seed, that is Christ, not seeds, that is not in something created or in our power or works. The law which came centuries later does not annul God’s promise of salvation by his grace and not by what we do.13 Bullinger develops his exposition by responding to a further possible question: why God added the law to the testament, if salvation was already clearly expressed and was ascribed to God’s grace. He answers that Paul gave the reason when he stated that the law was given because of transgression till the seed came that was promised. The time spent in Egypt had led the people astray, so that they did not know right and wrong, nor in what salvation and damnation stand. Through the law they learned God’s will and that what God requires was not in their power and that ‘all the world needed a mediator’. ‘The law, therefore, was given to further the promise, namely that through the law we might be led only to Christ.’ Far from annulling the promise, ‘the law confirms the first promise of the blessed Seed and teaches that we obtain all salvation in him alone’. The law is also a rule of life showing what to do and not to do. ‘Where there is faith, it does not cease to do good according to the law’.14 Bullinger comments briefly on the ceremonial law which relates to the first four commandments. He places them in the context of God’s ‘setting the event of Jesus Christ clearly before the eye of he people’. He gives as examples the passover lamb and the serpent lifted up by Moses, and cites 1 Corinthians 10:4. It refers to their drinking of the spiritual rock which followed them, the rock being Christ. Bullinger shows how the tabernacle, the priesthood, and the oblations are ‘sacraments and signs of heavenly invisible good things’. ‘All the sacrifices and all the shedding of blood in the sacrifice of the ancients signified the death of our Lord Jesus Christ.’ ‘The beloved friends of God did not look only to the outward, but looked much more with the eyes of faith to Christ.’15 12 The Old Faith D2 r 25-v8, 3r 17–23; ET40–41. Other laws were added later which explained the commandments and helped a better understanding of them (D3 r 29-v 9). 13 The Old Faith D3 v 10–25, 4r 13-v15; ET 41–42. 14 The Old Faith D4 v 28–5 v1,24–6 r4; ET 42–43. 15 The Old Faith D6 r 5–13, v 12–13, 26–7 r 4, 21–24, 8 r 7–12; ET 43–46.

254

Chapter 9: The Law

Reformed worship, unlike Roman worship, was totally unlike that of the Old Testament. This makes Bullinger’s comments on the origin and end doubly interesting. The people saw the outward splendour of Egyptian worship and were led astray in Egypt by idolatry. Had they been as steadfast as the patriarchs they would have remained with a simple form of worship. In order to keep them in faith in the only God and on the promised blessed Seed and from worshipping other gods or worshipping God in a heathen way, God appointed an outward form of worship. In this worship God prefigured Christ until Christ came and fulfilled this. With his coming, the Old Testament ceremonies were done away with.16

‘The Christian Religion’ and ‘The Decades’ In The Christian Religion one of the ten subjects is the law. In The Decades five of the fifty sermons concern the law while a further thirteen expound the ten commandments. The five on the law cover over a hundred pages of the roughly thousand pages in the critical edition.17 The considerable space given to the law and the ten commandments reflects Bullinger’s practical emphasis on the living of the Christian life. In The Christian Religion he expounds the law in the first two and last three of the fifteen chapters, the rest concern the ten commandments.

The Law and the Law of Nature Before his biblical exposition, Bullinger outlines what he has to say about the law and its purpose. In the law, given on Mount Sinai God made known for all times to Israel his will, what all his servants should do or not do. He did this partly by his own mouth and partly through the ministry of Moses. The law was give primarily to show people their sin, together with condemnation, so that they might know themselves and not put their trust in themselves. It was given secondly as a rule or criterion for our lives, showing what pleases or displeases God. Thirdly, it was

16 The Old Faith D 8 v 18-E1 r 13, r 23-v3; ET 46–47. In a final paragraph (E1 r 4–25; ET 47–48) Bullinger refers to judicial laws. They expound the last six of the ten commandments, which concern living in peace and godliness. These were written in people’s hearts and then written by Moses. 17 The last two decades are longer than the first three so that the space given to the law is effectively more than a tenth. Although the five sermons are in number one sixth of the thirty sermons in the first three decades, they are about a quarter of the length.

‘The Christian Religion’ and ‘The Decades’

255

given to discipline and punish those who disobey it in order to establish and maintain peace and quiet.18 Fundamental to Bullinger’s understanding of the will of God is that we can know his will only if God makes it known. Bullinger underlines this by noting that at Sinai God spoke ‘with his own mouth’ and later wrote the commandments ‘with his own finger’. Then as God’s majesty was too much for the people he used Moses to present his law to the people.19 God did not reveal his will first to Moses. He also revealed the ten commandments to the patriarchs from the beginning of the world, together with the warnings and promises. As his people had become corrupted in Egypt, God explained his will and law anew, so that Israel would be a mirror in which all the world could see the true law of God and true religion.20 The Decades does not begin with the patriarchs and Moses, but with the law of nature and non-Christians, following the definition of law by Cicero. The law of nature is not something inherent in the nature of human beings. Rather God has placed in people’s minds and hearts an instruction of conscience, a certain direction to teach them what to do and not to do, or as he puts it later ‘some general principles of religion, justice, and goodness’. The word nature used by Cicero in speaking of the reason as ‘implanted in nature’ is for Bullinger ambiguous. It means the proper disposition of something, but in human beings it is evil, as it has been corrupted by sin.21 Bullinger illustrates this by reference to Romans 2:14–16 in which the Gentiles have a law given to them by God, although they do not have the law of Moses, and transgressing it are sinners.22 There are two elements in the law of nature corresponding to statements by Paul and Christ: ‘Whatever may be known of God is manifest among them, for God has disclosed it to them …so that they are therefore without excuse, since though they knew God they did not glorify him as God, nor were they thankful.’ (Romans 1:19–21) and ‘Whatever you wish people to do for you, do also to them.’ (Matthew 7:12) The first means that ‘from the large book of nature’ God taught them that ‘there is a God who is to be acknowledged and worshipped’. The second concerns ‘the preservation of friendship and society’. A comparable statement was made by the Emperor Severus.23

18 19 20 21

The Christian Religion 45r11-v24. The Christian Religion 47r26-v12. The Christian Religion 46v4–47r9. The first sermon on the law begins by referring to the previous sermon on the love of God and neighbour which is he states ‘the sum of all laws’. All good laws come from God, but he begins with the law of nature and considers the law of God in the following sermon. HBTS 3. 120. 10– 15, 18–32; Decades 1.193–194. 22 HBTS 3.120.32–121.6; Decades 1 194–195. 23 HBTS 3.121.33–122.5, 15–20; Decades 1. 196–197.

256

Chapter 9: The Law

Bullinger maintains that the law of nature corresponds with the written law and supports this from a range of non-Christian writers. He quotes Pythagoras’ belief in one God and Zaleucus’ affirming that creation shows us that there are gods who are to be worshipped and God’s delight is in virtue and the doing of works which are good and just. At greater length, after citing Cicero, he quotes Seneca. He speaks of worshipping God properly and not with superstitious practices, of his governing of all things, of his being good and his punishing people to make them good. But he is critical of Seneca as well as recognizing that so much of what he writes is agreeable with true religion. In particular Seneca speaks of gods as well as stating that God is one in substance, and Bullinger rejects the view of some that this is evidence of a belief in the trinity, unlike the use of Elohim in the bible. Moreover, with other wise Gentiles, he does not teach firm trust in God.24 More briefly, Bullinger cites other Gentile writers to show that the other nine commandments were known and practised by the Gentiles. They were against idols as Plutarch on Numa Pompilius and Augustine quoting Marcus Varro show. Bullinger refers, for example, to Hierocles’ great honouring of parents, Julia’s law against adultery and abominable intercourse, and Juvenal on not coveting. These examples are for him evidence that there is even among the Gentiles knowledge of God and precepts on what is to be avoided and desired. However, besides the law of nature God set forth his will in other ways, such as the living tradition of the patriarchs and the written laws of the wisest and most religious men. ‘With all these God helped the law of nature.’25 Of crucial importance for Bullinger is that the ability to obey the law of nature as well as the understanding of it depend on God. ‘In this, nature without grace accomplishes nothing.’ He agrees that Gentiles such as Melchizedek, Job, and Jethro, and indeed ‘many others’ are praised for their righteousness. Yet ‘if any of the Gentiles are saved, they are saved not by the works of nature or their own merits, but by the mercy of God in Christ Jesus our Lord’. God does not implant the law of nature,’ so that people can be saved without grace and without Christ’. He does it to teach what is good and what is evil and to prove that we are sinners and without excuse before the Lord. Paul does this and shows that justification is in Christ alone.26 In The Decades the first sermon on the law ends with a brief section on human laws, meaning those which people have made and published ‘for the preservation and benefit of the republic and the church’. There are civil or political laws. They are enacted by government ‘according to the places, times, and people for the 24 HBTS 3. 122.26–123.7, 10–13, 23–124.2; Decades 1.197–201. 25 HBTS 3.124.2–126.5; Decades 1.201–205. 26 HBTS 3.126.5–19; Decades 1.205–206.

‘The Christian Religion’ and ‘The Decades’

257

preservation of public peace and integrity’. ‘They are to come as near as possible to the laws of God and nature and not be in conflict with them.’ Peter commands us to obey just laws. Second, there are ecclesiastical laws which he defines as taken from the word of God, accommodated with respect to the people, times, and places, and recognized and used in the church. The accommodation leads to some diversity, but not to discord. Scripture is the fundamental criterion for the laws, but Bullinger also mentions the criteria of love and decorum and, in 1 Corinthians 14:12, 40, those of decency, order, and upbuilding.27 Finally, Bullinger rejects superstitious laws and human traditions. The first are essentially self-styled, ecclesiastical laws, which are not in or alien to scripture. Human traditions are described as human in origin which are either contrary to or without scripture. He regards celibacy as an example which is unsupported by scripture. In support, he quotes Christ’s and Paul’s’ rejection of human traditions and precepts (Matthew 15:3,9, Titus 1:13–14, Colossians 2:8, 22) and Cyprian.28

Moral, Ceremonial, and Judicial Laws The discussion of moral, ceremonial, and judical laws, is very brief in The Christian Religion. The discussion of the ceremonial laws is about three small pages in The Christian Religion, which would compare with less than one page of The Decades. By contrast The Decades has a sixty page exposition. This reflects the more practical focus of the former, intended to help lay people in the Christian life, and the more didactic role of The Decades, offering ministers and others both the biblical and patristic evidence which they might need, and answers to the questions and challenges they might face. In The Christian Religion Bullinger states that the whole of God’s law, as expressed in writing by Moses, is one, but that to understand it better it is divided into three. The ten commandments are the foundation and main points of all God’s commandments and all other commandments relate to them. The ceremonial law gives outward ordinances concerning eating and drinking, purity and impurity, but especially concerning matters of worship such as the tabernacle and churches, priests and sacrifices. Judicial laws concern judgment and justice, government, the duty of subjects and government, punishment of the evil and protection of the good, buying and selling, borrowing, and households. Ceremonies and judgment are subject to the ten commandments and serve to explain and confirm them. Everyone needs to know and understand and keep the ten commandments, for they are meant for Christians and not only Jews. The ten 27 HBTS 3. 126.19–127.24; Decades 1.206–207. 28 HBTS 3. 127.21–128.7; Decades 1.207–208.

258

Chapter 9: The Law

commandments are divided into two tables, the first four concern God and the worship of God, the remaining six concern people and how to relate to one’s neighbour. They correspond and are summed up in the two commands of Christ: to love God and one’s neighbour.29 After ten chapters expounding the ten commandments, there is a chapter on ceremonial and judicial laws. He relates ceremonies to the time Israel was in Egypt, the Egyptians being evil and addicted to idolatry and images. To save his people from idolatrous worship contrary to the first commandment, God gave them ceremonies and for their worship, besides other things, altars, sacrifices, and priests. Even in the promised land the stubbornly looked back to Egypt and began to honour Baal and Asherah. The ceremonies served first to keep them simple and united with the one God and his worship in the first table of the law. They also had under these figures the matter of the Messiah. In Hebrews the priesthood and sacrifice are types of the priesthood and sacrifice or passion of Christ. All believers agree that the ceremonies were sacraments or mysteries of Christ. In many ways God has presented the redemption of Christ. Judicial laws served to protect the first table and the true worship of God and to uproot false worship invented by men. The Judicial laws served to further and maintain the second table. Significantly he concludes by saying that God did not wish only to have his law and will written in stone but also to have his law taught and preached daily by the priests, enforced with punishment by the authorities, and lived by the people.30 In sermon 12 of The Decades, before he begins to expound the commandments, Bullinger comments briefly on the moral, ceremonial, and judicial laws. Since Bullinger regards the patriarchs as Christians, he naturally sees them as having the moral law before it was given by God to Moses. He gives examples from Cain, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph and others of their belief in and worship of the one God, such as not taking his name in vain, honouring one’s father and mother, not killing, stealing, and committing adultery. Their knowledge of God’s will was not inherent in them, but came from God who wrote it in their hearts, and not as with Moses on tablets of stone.31 Similarly the patriarchs had the ceremonial and judicial laws, although Bullinger qualifies this. They had their priests as well as their ceremonies, altars, and sacrifices. Likewise they had laws on matters such as inheritances, property, and punishment, and also on the punishment of offenders. At the same time, however, there were ceremonies which they did not have, such as the tabernacle, the ark of the covenant, the Levitical priesthood, and the feasts and holy days. This 29 The Christian Religion 48 r 7-v 23, 50 r 26-v12. 30 The Christian Religion 68 v 13–70 r 4. 31 HBTS 3. 128.29–129.16; Decades 1.210–211.

‘The Christian Religion’ and ‘The Decades’

259

was of no importance in comparison with the moral law, for the ceremonial laws were abrogated by Christ, whereas the moral law was for all times, places, and people. The contrast between the laws is expressed symbolically in the fact that the ceremonial and judicial laws were given by angels to Moses and by Moses to the people, whereas the moral was revealed not by a human being but by God himself, and were written not by Moses, but by God, and in stone to last for ever.32 Bullinger dedicates two sermons, about one twentieth of The Decades, to the ceremonial laws.33 Broadly speaking he examines ‘holy persons, holy time and place, and holy things … [that is] sacrifices and sacraments’.34 He sees these ceremonies as support to the first four commandments relating to the worship of God. They are given by God until the coming of Christ, to represent and veil the mysteries of God and in their worship of God to keep them in the lawful religion and in the society of one ecclesial body.35 Of some, such as the lamb at passover, he can say more precisely that it prefigures what Christ will be, what he will do for the world, how the godly will participate in him, and how to behave before him. This explains why Bullinger refers to them as given until the coming of Christ. Then they were taken away, for in Paul’s word law is our tutor to lead us to Christ.36 If the ceremonial laws ceased with the coming of Christ, it could seem that they are no longer relevant for Christians. Bullinger rejects this in the light of Paul’s use of some of the ceremonies and the allusion to all scripture as being profitable and having divine authority. This leads him to a discussion of allegory. He notes ironically that some in their regard for pagan writers are happy to read Homer and Vergil allegorically, but do not see ‘the profit and wisdom’ hidden in the ceremonies given by God. ‘For in them the mysteries of Christ and the catholic church are clearly, finely, and excellently described.’ Bullinger also notes Paul’s interpretation and application of leavened and unleavened bread, understanding the one as standing for malice and wickedness and the other for sincerity and truth.37 Bullinger uses a variety of terms in interpreting and applying the ceremonial laws about sacred or holy ‘people, places, times, and things’. He refers to mysteries, types, and figures or signifying and prefiguring.38 Thus, Aaron as the chief 32 HBTS 3.129. 16–130.14; Decades 1.211–212. 33 Despite the extensive and detailed exposition of the ceremonial laws, he can say that he will not deal in detail with every particular. HBTS 3.339.34–36, 358.13; Decades 2 159 and 191. 34 HBTS 3.372.7–25; Decades 2. 216–217. 35 HBTS 3.321.15–19, 322. 7–22; Decades 2. 126–128. Compare HBTS 3.327. 31–33; Decades 2.137. 36 HBTS 3. 323. 3–7, 353 20–25; Decades 2.129,183. 37 HBTS 3. 323.7–19, 355. 12–15; Decades 2. 129–103, 186. 38 The terms are often used similarly. Thus, a passage on the lamb as a figure of Christ includes the words mystery, significance, and prefigure. HBTS 3.353.20–25; Decades 2.183. It is re-

260

Chapter 9: The Law

priest (summus sacerdos) was the type of Christ the greatest king and high priest (pontifex). The Old Testament Pentecost was a type of the day on which Christ, the end of the law, sent the Holy Spirit, and the scape-goat was a type of the future expiation through Christ.39 The word mystery is frequently used. Sacrificing in only one place contained the mystery of Christ who was sacrificed only once and in one place. In the ceremonies of the tabernacle ‘the mysteries of Christ and the church are hidden’. After a detailed interpretation of the tabernacle, referring to the tabernacle, the curtain, the ceiling, the rafter, the ornament, the bar, the pillar, and the socket, Bullinger states: ‘Hidden in these therefore those of old had the chief mysteries of Christ and the church’, elaborating this as Christ’s being ‘true God and man, the highest and only king and priest, the true Saviour of the world, in whom alone the faithful have the whole of salvation’.40 Likewise Bullinger can use the words signify, significance, figure, and prefigure quivalently, often in the same context. Indeed, it is interesting that the English translation on occasion translates the verb signify as figure.41 Bullinger does not deny the historical character of the Old Testament texts which he interprets and applies allegorically, although he does not use that term and does not expound all of them. An example is Bullinger’s exposition of clean and unclean animals. The camel with its long neck teaches us to flee pride and arrogance. The rabbit or coney represents people who are immersed in earthly things. The hare is a fearful animal which warns us to banish all cowardly fear. The pig is a type and symbol of impurity. As for fish they need to have fins and scales, for as the bodies of fish are governed by the fins, so the whole man must be governed by firm hope. The scales are hard and protect the body. If we are not constant and patient in the work of the Lord, the Lord abominates us deservedly.42 It is noteworthy that Bullinger’s conviction of the coherence of scripture is shown in his concern to show this in unexpected places. That is evident in a discussion of the tabernacle in the interpretation of ‘high places’ in 1 Kings 3:3. By appealing to the reference to high places in 2 Chronicles 1:3, he is able to portray Solomon positively rather than negatively, as others do.43 Even in his relatively uncontroversial exposition of ceremonial laws, Bullinger seized an opportunity to attack Anabaptists, though not by name. In his treatment of the way passover is

39 40 41 42 43

vealing that the almost contemporary English translation translates ‘adumbrate’ with shadow, type, sign, and figure. (HBTS 3.362.1–3; Decades 2.198). HBTS 3.324.37–38, 342. 38–343. 2, 20–23; Decades 2.132, 164–165. HBTS 3.333.4–35; Decades 2. 147–148. HBTS 3.336.27–28, 35–36, 337. 11–13, 353. 21–26; Decades 2.153–154, 183. HBTS 3.370. 10–34; Decades 2.213–214. HBTS 3. 334.21–335.10; Decades 2.149–150.

‘The Christian Religion’ and ‘The Decades’

261

celebrated he maintains, ‘By which there is signified that outside the church in the sects and schisms of heretics neither Christ nor salvation is to be found.’44

The Judicial Laws In a relatively brief exposition of the judicial laws Bullinger states that his main concern is to edify. The laws came from God through Moses and he does not give us anything which is not profitable for us. In comparing these law with the laws of other people, Bullinger observes that they are far fewer and yet despite that they contain ‘the main points of judgement and justice’. They are, moreover, more ancient than the laws of other peoples and are the source of all the good laws to be found in their laws.45 The judicial laws, like the ceremonial law, are an exposition of the ten commandments, mostly the fifth to the tenth commandment but also in related to ‘the care and protection of true religion’ the first four. Their purpose was ‘the conservation of peace and of public honesty and tranquility’, or as he later puts it, ‘they inform the judges how to decide on controversies and questions, how to judge justly, how to punish the evil and defend the good, so that there may be peace, honesty justice, and public tranquility. That is the sole aim of the judge and the judicial laws.’46 Laws are dead unless there are judges to administer them. With a just judge, however, they are alive, and for that reason a just judge is called the living law. Therefore, laws concerning the office and election of rulers and judges take precedence. They indicate the qualities they need. They should be ‘wise, prudent, and honest’ and ‘brave… godfearing… hating avarice’, hating to take money or bribes. They are shepherds of God’s people. In their judging, they are not to be respecters of persons. They must guard against rewards which blind the eyes of the wise and pervert just causes’. They must not be prejudiced either for or against the poor. They are warned not to put to death the innocent and righteous nor to oppress aliens, remembering that they were aliens in Egypt. Finally, in a reference to kings, Bullinger emphasizes that kings are not over God’s word and laws but are to govern in accordance with them. In a later context he allows that the punishment a judge gives will depend on a judgement of the circumstances by the judge.47 44 HBTS 3.355.2–4; Decades 2.186. 45 HBTS 3.373. 3–5, 7–13, 18–20; Decades 2.217–218. Characteristically Bullinger cites a pagan writer, Cicero, in his support of the law’s coming from God (3.374, 3–10; Decades 2.219). 46 HBTS 3. 374. 25–375. 4, 373. 15–17. 374. 19–25; Decades 2.220, 218, 220. 47 HBTS 3.375. 16–28,33, 376. 4–8, 16–19, 377. 3–6; 381. 26–29; Decades 2. 220–222,223–224, 232. In this Bullinger quotes widely from the Pentateuch.

262

Chapter 9: The Law

The judicial laws include ‘the care and defence of pure religion’. Bullinger deliberately omits the many laws in scripture concerned with ‘sacred buildings’, ‘things consecrated to God’, and ‘the maintaining and propagating true religion’, and focusses briefly on doing away with false religion. There is particular emphasis on the destruction of images, alongside overthrowing temples, not making idols, demolishing altars, and not entering into agreements or relationships with the heathen, who could lead people to serve strange gods. Later he says that in keeping with Old Testament laws schismatics, apostates, and false prophets are to be put to death.48 When Bullinger moves to the other laws, he begins characteristically with the poor, for the texts he quotes refer to the widows, the fatherless, and aliens or foreigners. A similar concern for the poor and needy is also found when he includes under not stealing keeping back and not paying each day the wages of a hired servant who is poor. Bullinger is also committed to the merciful treatment of those who are dependent on us, such as neighbours who have pledged a garment and bonded Hebrew servants.49 In a general way Bullinger expounds each of the commandments, beginning with bearing witness. He cites Deuteronomy 19:15–16, 18–19, in particular with the punishment of those who bear false witness.50 In a chapter on the end and use of the law Bullinger gives three reasons for the law: it shows sin, it offers a rule of life, and it punishes disorder and maintains order. The law shows all people their sins, corruption, death, and damnation, so that they see that they are lost sinners. The law of God demands that we love God above all things and our neighbour as ourselves and that we perfectly and wholly fulfil God’s law. If we fail, as we do, even in one part we are damned. Paul expresses this by stating that through the law comes the knowledge of sin.51 Bullinger adds that, in a measure, the law leads to Christ. When we learn from the law, as from a mirror, that there is no good in us, then we no longer look for righteousness and salvation in ourselves or in any human being. At least we realise that we must seek them elsewhere. He sees this in Paul’s stating that the law consigned all things to sin so that what was promised through faith in Christ might be given to those who believe, and that the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, as well as his contrast of the law as the letter which kills with the gospel as the Spirit who gives life.52

48 HBTS 3.377. 10–29, 381. 35–39; Decades 2.224–225, 232–233. 49 HBTS 3.377. 29–35, 380.28–32; Decades 2.225,228. The marginal note refers to the poor. The text mentions the others. 50 HBTS 3.377.35–41; Decades 2.225. 51 The Christian Religion 70 r 5- v12. 52 The Christian Religion 70 v 13–71 r 13.

‘The Christian Religion’ and ‘The Decades’

263

This use of the law should not lead people to despise the law or to speak about it immoderately for the law is also a rule or criterion for our lives. When we have been justified by faith and reconciled to God, the law shows us how we are to live, to do what is good and to avoid what is evil, as we see in Matthew 5. It is a form of righteousness and all kinds of good works. In their reformations the kings of old judged in accordance with the law.53 The third use of the law is to restrain and punish those who despise everything, mock and pervert true religion, disturb public peace and tranquility. It warns and improves them and if there is no improvement, the law punishes them. This is in keeping with Paul’s statement that the law is not given for the godly but the ungodly. Bullinger adds that order is the responsibility of Christian government.54 There is a further chapter on the fulfilling and abolishing of the law, although Bullinger recognizes that some would consider this in the article on grace. The apostles call Christ – alone and eternally – the fulfilment of the law. As he fulfilled all that was figured and promised in the law, Christ has become our righteousness and perfection. As we could not satisfy the law in our strength, God sent his Son to fulfil it, so that his righteousness could be reckoned to us who believe in him. We fulfil the law when ‘we recognize our sin, seek no righteousness in ourselves, but only through faith in Christ, and believe that his perfection and righteousness is ours’. Those justified by grace receive the Spirit who impels them to love in accordance with God’s law. We never do this perfectly in this life. However, as believers are united with God, what they do pleases God.55 Bullinger argues that we are under grace and not under the law. Christ’s fulfilment of the law has by God’s grace become ours. He has given us a free spirit which loves God and does what the law demands, as far as possible for it. The ten commandments are therefore not done away, so that they are no longer to be preached or that we are not to live in accordance with them. Those without the Spirit of Christ ought not to boast freedom and the abrogation of the law. The word ‘law’ has a variety of uses. It may stand for the curse or punishment which the law threatens or the sin which it reveals. Sin is forgiven by God’s grace, not that there is no sin in us, but it is not reckoned to us for damnation. We are therefore under grace not under the law.56 Briefly Bullinger shows in what way ceremonial and judicial laws are done away. Types, ceremonies, and rituals have been done away and abrogated by 53 The Christian Religion 71 r 14-v 3. 54 The Christian Religion 71 v 4–16. 55 The Christian Religion 71 v 17–72 v 9. In The Decades Bullinger supports our fulfilling the law through our faith in Christ by comparing John 6: 47 and Matthew 19: 17 (HBTS 3.391. 29–37; Decades 2.251). 56 The Christian Religion 72 v 10–73 r12.

264

Chapter 9: The Law

Christ. We have instead what the apostles established, and the scriptures which relate them. We are to expound the scriptures with Christ in whom is all perfection. Judicial laws are also done way. Before Christ they were expressed in accordance with time and place. Christians are free from them and shape public peace and equity in accordance with time and place and people.57 In The Decades exposition of the three uses of the law is similar to that in The Christian Religion, except that in the first use of the law there is a stronger focus on the law as leading to Christ. Bullinger begins by maintaining that the chief and proper use of the law is to convince all people that they are guilty of sin, or more briefly to reveal sin. In this he contrasts the law’s showing a our disease with the gospel’s giving us a medicine or remedy. He states that although Moses gave the law he ‘also preached Christ and life in Christ’, for Jesus said, ‘If you had believed Moses you would have believed me for he wrote of me.’ (John 5:45–46) Bullinger adds that the law teaches justification by faith for Paul speaks of the law as our tutor to lead us to Christ ‘ that we may be justified by faith’. He supports this by stating that the Old Testament saints ‘used the law and the ceremonies as a guide and tutor to lead them to Christ, ‘to whom all people must flee to obtain righteousness’.58 With its lengthier discussion, The Decades is able to elucidate certain points or treat them at greater length. Bullinger has made the fundamental point that in our own strength we cannot fulfil the law because we keep our corrupt nature throughout our life. He supports this from Romans 7 which, following Augustine and Jerome, he interprets as a reference to Paul – and so to those who are under grace rather than to those who are under the law. The statement that no one is justified by works of the law means that they are not justified ‘not indeed through any fault of the law, but through the fault of our corrupt nature’. Moreover, Bullinger draws on Augustine as well as Paul in arguing that the works of the law applies to the moral laws as well as to the ceremonial laws.59 In his more detailed exposition Bullinger asks how righteousness is promised to those who keep the law if no one by himself can satisfy the law. The promise has regard to the perfect righteousness of Christ which is imputed to us. After stating that there is no contradiction in the scriptures, Bullinger says that those who keep the law do that for which the law was ordained. ‘It was instituted to convict us of sin, and condemnation and so send us from ourselves and lead us to Christ who is the perfection of the law for the justification of everyone who believes.’ This shows how the apparently contradictory texts agree: ‘Whoever 57 The Christian Religion 73 r 13-v 10. 58 HBTS 3. 385. 22–23, 384. 31–32, 385. 30–31, 386. 11–15, 19–20, 387. 8–15; Decades 3.237, 239– 242. Zwingli sees the law as gospel in the sense that it is good news that we know God’s will, but here Bullinger sees the law as having elements of the gospel in it. 59 HBTS 3. 388. 34–35, 389. 2–4, 12–24, 27–390.15; Decades 2.245–248.

‘The Christian Religion’ and ‘The Decades’

265

believes in me has eternal life’ (John 6:47) and ‘If you wish to enter life keep the commandments’ (Matthew 19:17).60 In expounding how we keep the law, Bullinger shows how, with the change which takes place in believers, two apparently contradictory texts can be reconciled: ‘The commandments of God are heavy, which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear’ (Acts 15:10) and ‘This is the love of God that we keep his commandments, and his commandments are not heavy’ (1 John 5:3). Believers receive the Spirit ‘who inflames our breasts with love and zeal for the law of God so that we duly strive to express and show it in what we do’. We can never do this perfectly in this life, but what we do is by grace and for the sake of Christ approved by God. They are not heavy for those who are united with Christ and endowed with the Spirit of God. Stimulated by the Spirit, believers do good to all of their own accord, as far as their ability allows. They do so from love of God, not from fear of punishment. By contrast ‘without Christ and faith in Christ they are most heavy’.61 In expounding the abrogation of the law, Bullinger begins by stating that the law as the perfect will of God is eternal. It continues to be a rule for our lives, restraining us through the fear of God and stimulating our listlessness. In certain senses the law is abrogated, such as the law as curse, sin, punishment, ceremonial, and figures. Through Christ’s fulfilling of the law, the curse of the law is abrogated for believers. Bullinger shows that the moral law embodied in the ten commandments is not abrogated, as each of them finds parallels in the New Testament, although he allows that the fourth commandment is partly ceremonial. Although the ceremonies have been abrogated, Christ can be preached from them, as the letter to Hebrews does. They can be read in church as long as one looks for Christ in them and then preaches. Bullinger himself has done this in The Decades to help others to do it.62 Bullinger offers a detailed treatment of the new covenant which unites Jew and Gentiles. The rending of the veil of the temple showed that sins were forgiven and that the people of God were freed from the yoke of the law. The Jews, however, continued with the ceremonies and so Christ overthrew the temple, as foretold by Daniel. In a characteristic way Bullinger confirms his biblical testimony from the history of the church, drawing on Theodoret and Rufinus. He relates in detail how when in the reign of Julian, they sought to rebuild the temple, a storm, an earthquake, and a fire destroyed their efforts and consumed all who did not flee – and the appearance of crosses led all but their leaders to confess Christ. Bullinger rejects the Jewish defence that Exodus 12:17 refers to the rite as everlasting, 60 HBTS 3. 391.22–37; Decades 2.250–251. 61 HBTS 3.392.6–11,21–29; Decades 2.251–252. 62 HBTS 3.393.5–12, 394.13–395. 6, 16–23; Decades 2.255–257.

266

Chapter 9: The Law

insisting that everlasting means long lasting and for human beings unchangeable. God, however, ordained ceremonies until the time of amendment (Hebrews 9:10) and so was not inconsistent. Moreover, as the thing signified by the rite does not perish but only the figure, the rite in its substance is everlasting.63 Among the varied examples are the year of jubilee, the decrees of the council of Jerusalem, and the sacraments. Bullinger rejects the Roman jubilee, as the spiritual meaning of the jubilee, according to Christ in Luke 4, was the free remission of all sins through Christ by faith in Christ. The jubilee has therefore been abrogated by Christ and its use by Rome is the gravest possible dishonouring of Christ. Bullinger cannot conceive that Rome could do anything more abhorrent. ‘For the glory of the only begotten Son of God, the only Saviour of the world.’64 The sacraments of the Jews (circumcision and passover) have been replaced by Christ for the people of the new covenant with baptism and the eucharist. Indeed, the eucharist contains all that is expressed in the various sacrifices. They are essentially concerned with the expiation of sins and thanksgiving to God. It comprehends everything which the sacrifices figured, so that the church was not deprived of anything good or necessary.65 Bullinger quotes Christ’s rejection of the distinction between clean and unclean food, and then discusses at length the decree of the Council of Jerusalem which appears to contradict it. It could seem to imply that the ceremonial law was not fully abrogated, as it required abstinence from blood and from things strangled. Bullinger argues from the context and from other parts of the New Testament that this command was temporary. It was an act of love in the hope of winning Jews who every day would hear the reading of the law and would be offended by seeing Gentiles break it. The letters Paul wrote later show, however, that the decree was temporary. In support of this Bullinger quotes the council’s repudiation of false teachers of the law and its affirmation of Paul and Barnabas, Peter’s assertion of salvation by grace, and the speech by James. He adds that had Paul thought that the decree was in conflict with Christian liberty he would have opposed him, as he did Peter.66 The discussion of the abrogation of the judicial laws is relatively brief. They are abrogated in the sense that ‘no Christian commonwealth, no city, no kingdom is compelled to be bound and to receive those laws which were promulgated by Moses for that nation according to time, place, and state’. They are free as long as 63 64 65 66

HBTS 3.395.23–397.30; Decades 2. 257–262. HBTS 3.399.20–29, 37–400. 2, 11–18; Decades 2.265–267. HBTS 3.401.1–3, 36–402.1, 7–10; Decades 2.269–371. HBTS 3.402.20–21, 28–38, 403. 30–33, 404.24–28, 405. 15–16, 407. 10–14; Decades 2.271, 272, 273, 275, 276, 279.Typically, Bullinger applies the decree which speaks of not laying any greater burdens to reject the innumerable burdensome ceremonies imposed by councils of the church since the apostles. HBTS 3.405. 19–24; Decades 2.276.

Later Works

267

they do not reject ‘the substance of God’s laws’. The purpose of the laws is the furthering of honesty, peace, public tranquility, judgment, and justice. (Bullinger later adds the honouring of God the Father through his Son.) He observes that Paul did not, for example, disapprove the election of magistrates, and notes the agreement of the laws of various Christian emperors and also some laws of nonChristians.67

Later Works In The Catechism in 1559, the law of God follows sections on Scripture, God, and God’s Covenant. As a catechism, it naturally emphasizes the ten commandments and the creeds. It dedicates almost a third to the former and over a third to the latter. Most of the section on the law expounds the ten commandments. After three general questions he expounds the ten commandments at length, concluding with eleven brief general questions.68 The most notable element in the answers to these questions is the focus on Christ in the question on the true use and benefit of the law. Bullinger describes the first benefit and use of the law as in two ways, leading people as it were by the hand to Christ. It does this by showing that we are sinners in that it demands from us what we cannot do by ourselves. Righteousness is not to be sought from ourselves or from our own strength, but from the mediator, in accordance with Paul’s referring to scripture’s consigning all things to sin that the promise through faith in Christ might be given to those who believe. Accordingly the law adumbrates Christ and his fruit with types and figures and invites us to believe in him.69 There is no article on law in The First Helvetic Confession, but there is a chapter on it in The Second Helvetic Confession. There it precedes that on the Gospel, which is described as ‘opposed to the law’, for whereas ‘the law works wrath and announces a curse’, ‘the gospel preaches grace and blessing’. This puts the emphasis on the role of the law in exposing sin.70 The law expresses what God ‘wills or does not will us to do, what is good and just, or what is evil and unjust’. The law, he adds, is ‘good and holy’. Bullinger begins characteristically with the law of nature which was written by God (Romans 2:15). It was written first by God in people’s hearts (Romans 2:15) and later inscribed on the two tables of Moses, and copiously expounded in the books of 67 68 69 70

HBTS 3.407.24–33, 36–408. 5, 12–13; Decades 2. 280–282. Catechism 8 v 16–29 v 9; GT 2 vb 21–8v a 41. Catechism 28 v 1–15; GT 8 r b 21–40. RB 2/2 299.3–5; Cochrane 249.

268

Chapter 9: The Law

Moses. There are three kinds of law: moral, ceremonial, and judicial. They are not expounded, although references in some chapters in the confession are related to them. He maintains that the law is complete with all the commands we need for life, as otherwise we would not have been forbidden to add to or take away anything from it or to turn aside from it (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12 32).71 For Bullinger, the law was given not to justify us, but to show us our sin and to lead us to faith in Christ (Romans 3:20, Galatians 3. 21–22,24). As the weakness of the flesh remains with us till the end of our lives, we cannot satisfy or fulfil the law. Christ is the perfecting and our fulfilment of the law, and through faith he imparts to us his fulfilment and his righteousness and obedience are imputed to us. As a result the law is abrogated in that it no longer condemns us, for we are no longer under the law, but under grace Christ has fulfilled all the figures of the law (essentially the ceremonial law), and with his coming the shadows ceased. Nevertheless Bullinger insists that he does not reject the law, for Christ came to fulfil the law, not abolish it. In the law we have patterns of virtues and vices. This relates to Bullinger’s second use of the law which guides believers in living the Christian life. Bullinger comments that when the law is set forth by the gospel, it is not to be removed from the church – an understatement given the prominence Bullinger gives to the exposition of the ten commandments in The Decades.72

71 RB 2/2 297. 13–27; Cochrane 247–248. 72 RB 2/2 297.28–298.25; Cochrane 248–249. Sermons 22–34 expound the commandments and there are four further sermons on the law.

Chapter 10: Justification and Good Works

In an article on the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith. Berndt Hamm argues for fundamental agreement among the reformers, while allowing for differences.1 He analyses various elements in the doctrine, such as the unconditionality of grace and salvation, a radical view of sin, the imputing of the righteousness of Christ, a critique of scholastic ideas of justification, and the role and understanding of both faith and good works.

Justification in Zwingli Zwingli emphasizes the centrality of salvation through Christ alone, his atoning death, and our response in faith. It is striking, however, that with him the doctrine of justification is not central. He affirms it, but, unlike Luther, Melanchthon, and Bullinger, his references to it are relatively brief. There is a notable contrast between the Lutheran Augsburg Confession, in which the doctrine is prominent, and Zwingli’s Account of the Faith, also written for the Diet of Augsburg, from which it is absent.2 In it Zwingli affirms salvation through Christ alone. He emphasizes the goodness or mercy of God, his righteousness, his election, and the role of Christ as mediator, whose sacrificial death satisfies the righteousness of

1 He recognizes, for example, that with Zwingli the concept of justification has a modest secondary role (12). Berndt Hamm ‘Was ist reformatorische Rechtfertigungslehre?’ Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 83 (1986) 1–38. 2 Köhler comments, ‘Von der Rechtfertigungslehre, Luthers Herzstück, sagte Zwingli nichts. Verleugnet war sie darum nicht, aber sie passte nicht in den Rahmen, sie schaute vom Menschen aus, Zwingli von Gott aus – ein Unterschied lutherischer und reformierter Religionsbetrachtung auch sonst.’ See Walther Köhler Huldrych Zwingli (Stuttgart: K.F. Koehler Verlag, 1952) 223. Already in the nineteenth century the distinction between Zwingli and Luther was expressed in terms of Zwingli’s emphasis on giving God alone the glory and Luther’s on justification by faith. See Kurt Guggisberg Das Zwinglibild des Protestantismus im Wandel der Zeiten (Leipzig: Verlag von M. Heinsius Nachfolger, 1934) 212–213.

270

Chapter 10: Justification and Good Works

God3 The word justification is. however, used only once, and then only to deny ‘the justification and satisfaction of our works.’4 In discussing Zwingli’s marginal notes, Köhler notes the influence of Origen on Zwingli’s understanding of justification, seeing his influence as a pointer to his unease with Luther’s doctrine. Origen insists that forgiveness is for past not future sins, in other words that one does not receive forgiveness in order to go on sinning.5 Whatever may have influenced Zwingli, there is an emphasis in Zwingli on both forgiveness and the new life in Christ. In Commentary on True and False Religion, Zwingli defines the Christian religion as ‘nothing other than a firm hope in God through Christ Jesus and an innocent life formed according to the example of Christ as far as he gives’.6 This double concern for forgiveness and the new life is clear in chapters 5 to 11 which cover Religion, The Christian Religion, The Gospel, Repentance, The Law, Sin, and The Sin against the Holy Spirit. Zwingli begins with Adam’s turning from God and his hiding from God because of his guilt. The initiative in changing this lay with God.7 ‘God’s goodness found a way of satisfying righteousness and allowing mercy to open its arms generously without harm to righteousness.’8 Zwingli’s concern is to lead people to have faith in God for their salvation and so he asks whether people are righteous because of their works and whether almsgiving is a good work. He responds to the scholastic view that it is a good work ‘when a person does what is in him’, by showing that it is not good and moreover that such a view makes Christ superfluous, for all people can do what is in them, and would therefore be justified.9 Zwingli concludes his chapter on The 3 Throughout Zwingli’s works there is a stress on Christ as our righteousness and on his having satisfied God’s righteousness through his sacrificial death, as for example in his Exposition of the Sixty Seven Articles (Z II 230.15–18; 235,16–22). 4 Z VI ii 796. 14–30. Huldreich Zwinglis Sämtliche Werke (Berlin, Leipzig, Zurich, 1905- ), abbreviated as Z. It is interesting that Zwingli speaks here of God in his goodness electing whom he will and in his justice adopting and uniting the elect to himself through Christ without expounding justification, whereas Bullinger uses these terms later as an expression of what justification is. Bullinger, however, does not emphasize election in this context, as Zwingli does. 5 Köhler ‘Randglossen’ 95f. W. Köhler, ‘Die Randglossen Zwinglis zum Römerbrief in seiner Abschrift der paulinischer Briefe 1516/17’ in Walther Elliger (ed.), Forschungen zur Kirchengeschichte und zur christlichen Kunst. Johannes Ficker als Festgabe zum 70. Geburtstag dargebracht (Leipzig, 1931) 86–106. 6 Z III 765.7–10. Melanchthon criticizes Zwingli’s understanding of faith, saying that after instruction Zwingli accepted their understanding, although he had expressed a different view in the past. He comments erroneously that the Swiss speak of justification as if the works which follow faith are people’s righteousness (CR 1.1099 15–17). 7 Z III 666.13–16, 667.9–12. 8 Z III 676.26–28. 9 Z III 678.35–679.12.

Justification in Zwingli

271

Christian Religion by stating that his desire was to make the saving righteousness of Christ clearer and that Christ is our righteousness, our innocence, and the price of our redemption.10 The emphasis on the new life is examined in the context of Sin and its presence in those who have been justified or forgiven. In expounding the Gospel, Zwingli maintains that it was not God’s purpose in redeeming humanity for the world to persist in evil. Indeed, it would have been better for God not to have sent a redeemer, if there were to be no change from our former condition and if we were to continue to do wrong. To be a Christian is to be a new person.11 At the same time Zwingli recognizes that sin remains in the believer. In considering sin in the believer, Zwingli refers to Paul’s settling the issue in the controversy about those who are just by faith or by works. He does not discuss the term justification, but does briefly contrast salvation by our innocence and salvation through Christ’s righteousness. He defends the latter from the charge that such an emphasis on Christ’s grace might make Christians dissolute, by maintaining that Christians have become new people and so strive to do God’s will.12 Justification is not central in Zwingli, but faith is. Unlike Luther, the main contrast in Zwingli is not between faith and works, but between faith in God and faith in anything or anyone other that God, which includes works. That is, for Zwingli, the contrast between true and false religion.13 It is perhaps significant that the context for some of the relatively few references to justification is not an exposition of the doctrine, but the refutation of the views of others. Thus, Zwingli argues that if, as his opponent holds, we are justified by works, then Christ died needlessly.14 In his commentaries, Zwingli refers to Christ’s righteousness becoming ours through faith, so that we are reputed to be righteous. Thus, in commenting on ‘not having my own righteousness’ (Philippians 3:9), Zwingli states that there are two kinds of righteousness, the one of the law and the other of God. ‘The righteousness of God or of Christ is that Christ the righteous died and made satisfaction for us who are unrighteous.’ ‘The righteousness and innocence of Christ become ours through faith which comes from the Spirit of God alone.’ It is 10 11 12 13 14

Z III 691.1–5. Z III 692.32–693.2. Z III 711.26–27, 716. 35–717.6, 17–20. Z III 674. 20–23. Z III 679. 5–10. References to justification are frequently to what we are not to seek justification from, not least the sacraments. In Baptism, Rebaptism, and Infant Baptism he maintains that Christ in taking the curse of the law took from us all outward justification. We are not to look to outward things, such as baptism, for justification. (Z IV 216. 26–217.9) Compare Z V 787. 27–30, VI iii 265. 16–19.

272

Chapter 10: Justification and Good Works

‘by this righteousness that we are and are reputed righteous before God.’ The righteousness of Christians is to trust in Christ and to be engrafted into Christ.15 It is interesting that Zwingli, as Bullinger, refers to righteousness, including imputed righteousness in relation to John as well as Paul. Thus, in expounding John 15:1, ‘you are clean’, Zwingli maintains that there is a remnant of sin in those who believe, but that those who believe are counted as righteous and the remnant of sin is forgiven because they believe.16 In his comment on Matthew 9:16, Zwingli states that righteousness is from God and by it people are inwardly pure and holy and do good. Howeverr, they are displeased even with their good works and see how impure what they do is. They know that they are unprofitable servants and far from trusting in their own righteousness, they always pray for forgiveness.17 Already in Exposition of the Sixty Seven Articles he has stated that ‘as Christ alone is our righteousness our works are not righteous’ and ‘our works are good as far as they are Christ’s, but as far as they are ours they are not good’.18 Bullinger’s overall understanding of salvation, including his emphasis on the new life in Christ, coheres with Zwingli’s, although it is in part differently expressed, and in particular in the doctrine of justification. The importance of justification for Bullinger in contrast to Zwingli reflects in part the role of Luther and Melanchthon in his coming to a Reformation faith, with his reading of Luther’s Babylonian Captivity, The Freedom of a Christian, Assertion of All the Articles, and Sermon on Good Works and Melanchthon’s Loci Communes.19 In his presentation of the doctrine, the impact of Augustine is evident in his wide and frequent reference to and quoting from Augustine and his works. It is, however, the role of Luther and Melanchthon which chiefly differentiates Bullinger’s development from Zwingli’s.

The Context Bullinger’s exposition of justification is primarily a challenge to what was taught and practised in the medieval church. This means that his appeal is both to scripture over and against the teaching of the church and to the confirmation of the doctrine in the fathers and the early church. In the light of these, he criticizes 15 S VI ii 215. 46–216.9. Huldreich Zwingli’s Werke. Erste vollständige Ausgabe durch Melchior Schuler und Joh. Schulthess (Zurich, 1828–42) (abbreviated S). 16 S VI i 753. 42–44. 17 S VI i 260.24–35. 18 Z II 238. 25–28. 19 Heinrich Bullingers Diarium (Annales vitae) der Jahre 1504–1574 edited by Emil Egli (Basel, 1904) 6.4–6.

The Context

273

the teaching of the schoolmen and the Council of Trent. It is this challenge which provides the context and form of most of his presentations of the doctrine. On occasion, however, he argues for the doctrine with Anabaptists. In Anabaptist Teaching in 1531, it is discussed in one of twenty articles, although it covers barely seven pages in a work of over three hundred and seventy pages. The discussion is in the form of a dialogue between Simon, an Anabaptist, and Joiada, with Joiada (in effect Bullinger) persuading Simon on each point in turn. The issue they discuss first is that blessedness and righteousness are to be ascribed not to works, but to faith. Joiada presents a series of quotations from Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and Titus to demonstrate that Paul maintained that faith justifies and not works. Joiada regards these testimonies as so clear and irrefutable, that those who speak against them are not Christian.20 Simon accepts this evidence, but raises the point that James 2 ascribes justification to works. Joiada argues, and Simon agrees, that we must understand a single passage of scripture in the light of many passages and not many in the light of one passage, and also that the various apostles have one and the same Spirit and teaching. If this is the case, then James cannot mean that works save us, as James’ one passage must be consistent with the many Pauline passages. That leads to the acknowledgement that James did not want to prove that works justify and that faith does not justify, but rather that faith without good works is not faith. James uses the word faith not of true faith, which is a gift of God and which produces a change in us, but uses it of false faith, such as the devil has, which produces fear not change for the better and salvation. In the texts he has quoted, Joiada maintains that true faith is not without good works. It is this active faith which justifies.21 Simon, the Anabaptist, then comes back with a further argument that salvation is given to works, on the basis that, as faith is not without works, faith and works are one and the same thing. Joiada rejects this by analogy with the person of Christ. The divinity and humanity of Christ are one person. It does not, however, follow that the divinity is mortal. By analogy with this, when we say that faith justifies, faith refers to God’s election, grace, and redemption, and not to our works, although they cannot be separated from faith (Rom. 8:30). They are, indeed, signs of faith and election. Simon asks finally why scripture ascribes salvation to our works and merit. Joiada replies that works come from faith and faith, as all good, comes from God. This can be compared with what Jesus says about the fruit coming from the vine and yet ultimately not from the vine, but from God. Therefore, salvation and works come from God and his election. Our 20 Anabaptist Teaching 35r 1–36 r 23. 21 Anabaptist Teaching 36r 24–37 r 17.

274

Chapter 10: Justification and Good Works

works are God’s work, so that all the glory is God’s. Simon finally capitulates with the simple confession that the Anabaptist teaching on justification is ignorant and harmful.22 Thirty years later in Against Anabaptists, Bullinger gives a somewhat fuller exposition of justification. It is ‘the chief doctrine of the gospel of Christ’ (or ‘of the faith’), and in it Anabaptists are said to err not a little.23 The doctrine of free justification by grace through faith in Christ, without our works or erits, which has been held from the beginning of the world is ‘the supreme doctrine’ of the Christian religion.24 As the title of the first chapter of Book Four states, the doctrine that salvation is in Christ and that it is received by faith and not by works is ‘prophetic, evangelical, and apostolic’.25 The second chapter concerns good works and justifying faith. It is followed by two chapters on law. The main elements in Bullinger’s doctrine of justification, as outlined later in The Grace of God, are present here in the first two chapters of Book Four.26 He does not present them in the same systematic way, but they are all present and are supported with a wide range of biblical testimonies. Bullinger begins his exposition by affirming Christ’s full satisfaction for us sinners. (It is God’s free gift, for before the foundation of the world we were elect so that by grace we would be washed by the blood of Christ.) He then maintains that justification or salvation is in the one and only Christ by faith alone without works, and finally that it is received by us by faith – or, more fully, communicated to us by the Holy Spirit and received by us by faith without works.27 Moreover, if as the New Testament states, works in accordance with God’s law do not justify, how much less do works thought up by us.28 The Anabaptist context is clear at the end of the chapter, where Bullinger defends the doctrine against the Anabaptist harge of being soft or easy going. He asserts that, in that case, the teaching of Christ, the apostles, and the prophets was soft or easy going. He notes that in Paul’s day there were those who taught that people should do evil so that grace would abound. They abused the preaching of grace, Christ, faith, and Christian 22 23 24 25 26

Anabaptist Teaching 37 r17–38 r 19. Against Anabaptists 17 r 27. Against Anabaptists 22 r 9–17, v 24; cf. 123 r 19–22. Against Anabaptists 117r 14–18. Bullinger says that he seeks to do this briefly with biblical testimonies. As he is concerned with Anabaptists he does not use patristic support (118v 20–29). For De Gratia Dei Justificante (abbreviated as The Grace of God), see HBBibl 1 no. 276. The main elements are: the grace of God justifying on account of Christ; by faith alone; without good works; overflowing in good works. 27 Bullinger seems here to use the words ‘salvation’ and ‘justification’ interchangeably. The third chapter begins by referring to ‘justification and salvation by faith’ as the chief doctrine (Against Anabaptist 124v23–25). 28 Against Anabaptists 117v 30–118 r 10, 118 v 5–10, 119 r 13–17, 120 r 29–31.

The Context

275

liberty, to satisfy their desires. Nevertheless, Paul continued to preach grace. Nor did he change his teaching. He vehemently and constantly taught and wrote that we are justified by faith and not by works.29 The second chapter deals with the New Testament teaching on good works and keeping pure and inviolate the doctrine of faith alone justifying. Bullinger begins by asserting that he does not despise the good works of believers, but that he does not attribute justification to them. The good works the faithful do come from faith, just as good fruit comes for a good tree.30 The many supportive testimonies, include, for example, our abiding in Christ and bearing fruit. Bullinger observes that ‘in all his epistles Paul writes carefully first about faith then about good works’. Bullinger teaches and urges good works, but also attacks errors, such as doing invented good works, ascribing merit to works and trusting in them, and that good works are necessary to salvation, so that no one is saved without them.31 He affirms that the works which we do from faith are acceptable to God ‘on account of Christ’s righteousness which is ours through faith’. But ‘it is by the first righteousness of Christ that we are justified by faith without our merits’, as distinct from ‘the second righteousness which follows from faith’.32 Bullinger maintains that there are various reasons for teaching justification: it has been held by the faithful since the beginning (see Genesis 3:15); it was affirmed by the Council of Jerusalem; and it was taught above all in John’s gospel.33 The doctrine of justification gives God the honour due to him. If we claim a part of justification for ourselves and our works, we rob Christ of his honour.34 With justification by works there is no place for God’s promises to Adam and David. There is also doubt and uncertainty, if salvation depends on our works, as we know that they are imperfect. Bullinger contrasts putting our ‘hope of salvation in flesh and blood and in the imperfect powers of sinful flesh, with putting it in the merit and redemption and supreme power of the living Son of God’. ‘Where there is no faith, there are no good works, but only sins.’ The Anabaptists, therefore, err in urging works repeatedly, but faith less.35 There are different emphases in works intended for those upholding the teaching of the medieval church. There is the same appeal to scripture, but also an appeal to the early church, as he argues that the doctrine is not new or heretical. This is evident in works, such as Evangelical and Papal Teaching in 1551 and Evangelical Churches in 1552, written after the statements on scripture and 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Against Anabaptists 120v 15–16, 26–121 r 2. Against Anabaptists 121.8–11, 14–18, 25–29. Against Anabaptists 121 v 5–7, 121v 19–122 r 1. Against Anabaptists 122 r 1–9. Against Anabaptists 122 r 19-v6. Against Anabaptists 122 v 13–16. Against Anabaptists 123r 1–5, 7–9. 14–16,28–29, 32-v2.

276

Chapter 10: Justification and Good Works

justification by faith by the Council of Trent.36 In longer works, such as The Decades, he engages also with scholastic views of justification. Bullinger had been strongly opposed to any colloquy with the Church of Rome, as he judged that it would only compromise the gospel. In response to the Council of Trent, he wrote Evangelical and Papal Teaching, which was published in several editions and translations. This brief work was intended to show the incompatibility of papal teaching with evangelical teaching by presenting them in parallel columns. In chapter 3 in theses 2 and 3, Bullinger contrasts the evangelical teaching that, through his sacrificial death for us, Christ has become our righteousness, so that being wholly pure we enter heaven at death, with the Roman view that most believers need to be purified through purgatory to enter heaven, and the evangelical teaching that our forgiveness comes through Christ’s grace and mercy, with the Roman view that our merits are also necessary alongside God’s grace and mercy. In chapter 4 in theses 10 and 11 he contrasts the evangelical teaching that we are justified by grace through faith alone in Christ and that being justified we can do good works, good works being those commanded by God and which are done ut of faith and love through the Spirit of God, with the Roman view that grace and faith through Christ do not justify, but faith and works together justify, and further that the grace of God helps in justification and in doing good works, works being good, if they are done with a good intention, even if not commended by God or expressed in his word.37 In Evangelical Churches (1552) in which Bullinger argues that evangelical churches are not heretical but orthodox, the general emphasis is on scripture and the faith to which it and the Apostles’ Creed testify. It is notable, therefore, that at two critical points the focus is on justification by faith. After a brief summary of the first half and again at the end he turns first to justification.38 This shows its key role in his defence of reformation according to scripture. He argues that evangelicals have not invented new teaching, but maintain the ancient biblical faith. He begins with the grace and mercy of God through Christ and his death for us to receive justification, that is the complete forgiveness of our sins, righteousness, and eternal life. He refers then to our receiving Christ with his gifts through faith and his dwelling in our hearts through faith. This faith is learnt from the gospel through the Holy Spirit, by grace not by merit. Human merit and works have nothing to do with this.39

36 For Evangelical and Papal Teaching, see HBBibl I no. 231. For Evangelical Churches, see HBBibl 1 no.258. 37 Evangelical and Papal Teaching a iv v 10–19, vii v 8–19. 38 Evangelical Churches 28 r 18 and 47 r 2. 39 Evangelical Churches 28r 18-v13.

The Context

277

After supporting this exposition with quotations from Ephesians 2 and 2 Peter 2, he defends the teaching that faith alone justifies against the charge of its being new and heretical. He argues that it is drawn from the gospels and epistles and orthodox teachers. Although faith itself is the only cause of our salvation, yet it is a faith which bears fruit. It is through Christ’s grace not our works that we are justified, so that his righteousness, and not our sin, is reckoned to us. (If righteousness came from obeying the law, Christ would have died in vain.) It is those who are righteous who do righteous works, but they do not ascribe righteousness to the works, although they know that they please God. If those teaching this are heretical, then so are the writers of the New Testament, Origen, Chrysostom, and Ambrose.40

Expositions of Justification Bullinger expounds his understanding of justification both in his commentaries and in his theological works. In introducing his 1525 commentary on Romans, Bullinger refers to our being justified only through faith in Christ as ‘the sum and main part of the epistle, having already stated that Romans is ‘the main part of the whole New Testament and the core of the whole of divine scripture’.41 At the end of his exposition of justification in 1:17, he states ‘Faith alone without the addition of works makes alive and justifies.42 This statement contains the heart of his doctrine, although it represents only two of the four elements which he expounds in the our books of The Grace of God.43 The other two are not emphasized, as they are not the focus of his concern. There are references to the grace of God (‘Justification comes … only from the sheer grace, love, faithfulness, and promise of God’)44 and also to our need for the imputed righteousness of Christ which is related to his death for us.45 The conviction that faith overflows in good works is also not emphasized. This happens later, as controversy develops, but is present where, for example, he refers to its being impossible for a good and 40 Evangelical Churches 28 v14–30r 25. 41 HBTS 1.33,10–12, 35. 7–9. The significance of justification for Bullinger is evident in the way he introduces it where it is not obviously in the text he is expounding (e. g. 1 Peter 50 v 1–4). For 1 Peter, see HBBibl 1 no.52 42 HBTS 1.52.7–12, cf. 114. 26–27. 43 They are: the grace of God justifies on account of Christ, through faith alone, without works, overflowing in good works. For The Grace of God, see HBBibl 1 no. 276. 44 The role of grace is demonstrated also in a discussion of 4.24–25. He argues that had Abraham been justified by works, righteousness would have been deserved. But when righteousness is imputed, it is from God’s grace, not from our deserving (HBTS 1.114.26–30, 115. 8–11). 45 HBTS 1.40.15–20, 48. 17–21, 49. 11–16, 24–26, 104. 28–30, 105. 31–33.

278

Chapter 10: Justification and Good Works

fruitful tree not to bear much fruit.46 Interestingly, in his 1533 Romans commentary this fourth element has become a necessary part of the discussion, so that in commenting on 4:6–8 he maintains that Paul ‘does not say that faith is to be without works or that the believer is not to do anything good’.47 His concern, however, is to assert that righteousness is not imputed because of our works, but because of God’s grace. In his 1525 commentary on Romans, Bullinger is both dependent on Luther and Melanchthon in his fundamental understanding of justification, and independent of them. For example, he does not, like them, set it in the context of law and gospel, he differs in his translation of ‘from faith to faith’, and he does not follow Melanchthon in speaking of the Holy Spirit as given to us to fulfil the law which we could not do in our own strength. Like Luther and Melanchthon, Bullinger understands the righteousness of God not as a righteousness which is in God (or in the law), but as a righteousness which comes from God to us. Bullinger interprets righteousness in the light of John 3:13–16 and Romans 3:22–26, as the righteousness of Christ. That righteousness is related to Christ’s sacrificial death for us which satisfied the righteousness of God.48 It is characteristic of Bullinger both here and later to set justification in the context of John and not just of Paul. Bullinger affirms that the justified person remains a sinner and, therefore, is righteous through the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. In expounding Romans 4:7–8, Bullinger notes that the people who are blessed are those whose unrighteousness is forgiven and whose sin is covered. They are those against whom God does not reckon their sin. As sin always remains, we are always impure. Therefore, our works are also impure. The blessed person is not one ‘who has no sin or who does many works, but the person to whom sin is not reckoned’. In this Bullinger follows Luther in maintaining that we are simultaneously just and a sinner.49 This does not conflict with references elsewhere to faith’s fulfilling the law, as for Bullinger the role of the law is to expose sin, not to lead to salvation.50

46 HBTS 1. 131. 26–132.3. He uses this analogy also to illustrate the fact that we are sinners and so cannot boast of our works for salvation, for a bad tree can bear good fruit (106.8–10). 47 Romans 63 v 20–22. For Romans, see HBBibl 1 no.42. In commenting on 1 John 5. 1 in 1532 he states that faith is not an idle human quality but the power of God from which innocence and love are born (1 John 44 r23-v2). For 1 John, see HBBibl 1 no.37. 48 HBTS 1.48.13–21, 114.17–22. 49 HBTS 1.105.28–106.7. ‘Ob wir glich sünd habend und glöubig sind, werdent sy doch hingenommen etc.’ (106.7) The godless do not confess theirs sins, but wish to be always righteous. ‘The one who trusts in God alone receives mercy, that is, sin is not reckoned to that person.’ (106.7,14–17) 50 HBTS 1.93.1–6.

The Context

279

Strohm regards Bullinger’s doctrine in 1525 as having five elements.51 (These are largely present in Hausammann, though not explicitly identified in this way.) 52 First, Bullinger emphasizes, as Luther, the forensic aspect of justification, with the justified person remaining not partly but wholly a sinner. He takes over Luther’s presentation in The Freedom of the Christian of the transfer of the alien righteousness of Christ to believers. He does not, however, use Luther’s image of the bridegroom and the soul as the poor little prostitute, for although as Strohm notes Bullinger describes faith as a wedding garment, he recognizes that this is not the same as an exchange between Christ and the believer. He stresses justification by faith alone no less strongly than Luther and Melanchthon. (Strohm regards Melanchthon as less consistent than Bullinger in the way that for Melanchthon the fulfilling of the law through the outpoured Holy Spirit follows the imputing of righteousness.) It is, however, distinctive of Bullinger that he illustrates the Pauline justification by means of John’s gospel, whereas Luther and Melanchthon interpret it in the context of law and gospel from Augustine’s interpretation of Paul. (He sees the context for Luther as that of medieval apocalyptic anxiety about judgment in contrast to the eschatology of John whom Bullinger uses). Finally, they differ in that Bullinger relates faith to God’s faithfulness or to God himself, whereas for Luther faith primarily takes hold of the promises as the gifts of God.53 For Bullinger, faith, as spiritual eating in John 6, means becoming one with Christ and the presence of Christ in the Spirit. In this John’s thought world illustrates the presence of Christ and his righteousness which Luther expresses in the bride and bridegroom metaphor and the joyful exchange. By the late 1530s Bullinger emphasizes the exchange between Christ and the believer in the figure of the bride and the bridegroom. It is interesting that it is used in 1539, although not in the explicit context of justification, but in the context of salvation as being united with God by Christ. (The words justification and salvation can be used synonymously by Bullinger). The title of the first chapter of The Origin of Error, the 1539 expansion of his 1528 work on the eucharist, concerns the mystery of our redemption and the union of the faithful 51 Strohm, 540–545,569. Christoph Strohm ‘Frontstellungen. Entwicklungen, Eigenart der Rechtfertigungslehre bei Bullinger’ in Emidio Campi and Peter Opitz (eds) in Heinrich Bullinger. Life – Thought – Influence (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2007) 537–572. 52 See Susi Hausammann Römerbriefauslegung zwischen Humanismus und Reformation. Eine Studie zu Heinrich Bullingers Römerbriefauslegung von 1525. (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag Zurich, 1970). 53 Hausammann (Römerbriefauslegung 205, 235) observes that, although Bullinger, like Luther, speaks of faith in God’s promises, he does so differently. For Luther, the promise is God’s gift of salvation, which we receive in faith. For Bullinger, it is faith in God rather that his gifts, The promises are ultimately examples pf God’s faithfulness from which we learn to trust him. This difference, she notes, is important in the context of the sacraments.

280

Chapter 10: Justification and Good Works

with God through Jesus Christ.54 This union is related to Christ’s role as mediator through his sacrificial death. Bullinger begins by maintaining that the whole of scripture asserts that ‘the highest good…and the truly happy life is to be united with…the true God’.55 This happens not from human merit, but ‘by the pure grace of the mediator’ Jesus Christ.56 It is through faith working with love that ‘we are ingrafted in Christ and are united with God’, faith which is ‘not a human work… but a divine gift’.57 Bullinger relates this to a series of texts, which speak of Christ living in us or our becoming partakers of the divine nature. Faith unites not only with Christ but also with his members.58 After this exposition Bullinger uses the figure of marriage, drawn from Old and New Testament, with the husband giving all his goods to his wife and taking to himself her weakness and turpitude. From this, he moves to the figure of the head and the members and that of the vine and its fruit.59 In passing, at the beginning of the following chapter, there is an explicit reference to justification by faith, as he speaks of being in Christ by faith and being justified by faith.60 In his first sustained exposition of justification by faith, in his commentary on John’s Gospel in 1543, Bullinger refers to our justification ‘by the grace of God on account of Christ through faith not through works’ as the chief doctrine of the Christian faith. He then speaks of ‘our expressing faith in truly good works’.61 This is the structure which he formalizes a decade later in The Grace of God. It is Bullinger’s most comprehensive presentation of justification by faith, and it expounds his doctrine under four heads: the grace of God justifying us on account of Christ; through faith alone; without good works; a faith overflowing in good works.62

54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61

Origin of Error (1539) 489.6–7. For The Origin of Error, see HBBibl 1 no.15. Origin of Error (1539) 489.9–17. Origin of Error (1539) 490.5–8. Origin of Error (1539) 491.19–492.3. Origin of Error (1539) 492.17–18, 493.11–12, 25–27. Origin of Error (1539) 497.24–498.4, 499.6–11, 18–24. Origin of Error (1539) 504.23–27. John Preface aa5v 23–30. For John, see HBBibl 1 no. 153. For Melanchthon’s appreciation of John, see his letter of 25 March 1544 (HBBW 14. 157. 2–15). 62 The marginal summaries show how each of those elements is developed. They begin with a biblical examination of the word ‘justify’ and continue with being justified through Christ, sharing in Christ by faith, being justified by faith in Christ, by faith alone, a faith which relies on the mercy of God through Christ. He considers works, arguing that no one is justified by works, that the saints glory in God’s mercy, not in their works, and that good works do not precede faith but follow it. Such faith is not without works. Good works, which he defines, are rewarded, but against those who speak of merits, he quotes Augustine’s statement that God crowns our merits as his gifts.

The Context

281

The exposition in the preface to his commentary on John is fundamentally a defence of the doctrine which Bullinger describes as ‘the foundation and most stable basis of our life and salvation’. Some, like Bullinger, assert that ‘believers are justified by faith alone in the Lord Jesus’. Others, however, condemn this as heretical and ‘attribute justification to a person’s works’, while yet others ‘apportion justification equally to faith and works’: ‘the beginning of justification to faith, absolution to works’.63 Bullinger indicates that he will present the doctrine on the basis of scripture.64 He begins with various uses of the term ‘justify’ in scripture. This leads to a forensic definition in which ‘God imputes righteousness without works’.65 It is ‘absolution from sins, and liberation from damnation, the redemption and remission of sinners, and indeed the adoption of the sinner into the grace of God and the inheritance of life’.66 Bullinger elaborates this definition after referring to Christ as our mediator and intercessor by stating that Christ took our sins to himself and communicated his righteousness to us. Later, in a similar context, he speaks of Christ as our intercessor and therefore as wholly ours, and all his gifts and good things as ours. We were made inheritors of all the good things of Christ, of righteousness, and of eternal life.67 With testimonies from both Old and New Testament, Bullinger argues that justification comes from God’s grace, for the sake of Christ, and through faith in him.68 It is through faith that we participate in the redemption and righteousness

63 John aa2r 17–25. 64 He maintains that he does not wish people to believe him without ‘the clearest testimonies of scripture’ (John aa 4r 31–32). 65 ‘Justificatio enim est iudicis declaratio, pronunciantis reum esse iustum, id est ab accusatione et damnatione intenta absolutum sive liberatum….’ (John aa 2v 12–14). 66 John aa 2r 30–31, 34–35, v12–14, 22–24, 31–34. 67 John aa 2v 44–45, 4r 13–23. 68 Bullinger maintains that different terms and expressions may say the same. Thus, the statements that we are justified by the grace of God and that we are justified through Christ or for Christ’s sake are not in conflict, as Christ is the gift of God and the fullness of all grace (John aa 4r 2–9). Similarly, there is no conflict between saying we are justified either by the grace of God, or through Christ and by his merit, or by faith in Christ. Reference to grace attributes justification to its origin in the mercy of God; reference to Christ and his merit points to the one through whom we are justified; while reference to faith in Christ considers how we become participants in Christ and grace. (John aa4v 15–23) There is a similar expression in The Decades: ‘but as often we mention faith, we understand the grace of God exhibited in Christ which is applied to us freely through faith and grasped and received as a free gift of God’ (HBTS 3. 437. 14–17; Decades 3. 334). Strohm (‘Frontstellung’ 538, 549–551, 555) criticizes the use of grace alone rather than faith alone as enabling a compromise with the role of works alongside faith in Roman Catholic theology. It is, however, also clear that Bullinger can use the phrase without intending anything less than a full statement of the doctrine of justification. In The Grace of God he shows the importance of terms other than grace, when he heads a chapter with the statement that grace does not abolish the redemption

282

Chapter 10: Justification and Good Works

of Christ and ‘all his gifts and goods become ours’.69 He argues from a range of texts that, although the word ‘alone is not used in relation to faith in the bible, faith alone is the proper understanding of the references to faith in justification by faith’.70 It is faith, not our works, which makes us pleasing to God. This happens ‘not for our sake, for the sake of our works, but for Christ’s sake’. This faith is one, which ‘relies not on our works or merits but on the divine promise and the merits of Christ the Lord’.71 We are not justified by good works (or ‘works of grace’), as good and just or righteous works can be done only be those who are good and just. They ‘do not precede but follow justification’. ‘They are done by the justified.’ Only those who are just can do what is just; and it is faith which makes them just. Bullinger also recalls Paul’s words in Romans 7 and therefore maintains that there is always ‘a remnant of the flesh’ in Christians so that ‘they never come to full perfection’ in this world. ‘There is always weakness and imperfection in the works of even the holiest people’, whereas in Christ there is nothing lacking.72 Bullinger is conscious that his attack on so-called good works as a ground for justification could lead to a disparagement of good works in the life of a Christian.73 This leads him to affirm them, having carefully defined them. They are ‘those done by the regenerate’. They come ‘from the good Spirit of God through faith, and in accordance with the word of God’. They are ‘for the glory of God, an ornament of life, …and for the good of one’s neighbour’.74 God himself is ‘the author of all good works’. As we are corrupt, we cannot of ourselves do good works. God, however, ‘regenerates people through his Spirit and through faith in the Lord Jesus, so that those who are re-born by him do…the works of God. For the works of the regenerate are born of the good indwelling Spirit of God.’ Bullinger considers the context in which to understand the passages where scripture attributes righteousness to works. Those works are in reality, the works of God in us. Paul with his ‘what do you have which you have not received?’, together with Augustine and Cyprian, supports this interpretation. The works of God are not ours, although they are ours in the sense that they are not the works of someone else.75

69 70 71 72 73 74 75

of Christ the Lord, but that we are justified and saved by God on account of Christ (The Grace of God 9r 26–27). John aa3r 37–43, 4r 9–24. John aa 4v 31–5r 46. John aa5r 47-v2. John aa 6r 16–21, 45-v5, 41–43. ‘Faith’, he says, ‘is not without good works. Nor indeed are the works of Christians in vain because they do not justify.’ (John bbi r 30–48) John bb 1v 11–13. In The Decades Bullinger gives those three reasons, though without the word honestas used in the preface to his John commentary (HBTS 3. 448. 38–39; Decades 3.356). John bb1v 16–22, 44–47.

The Context

283

Faith, for Bullinger, is a living faith. It purifies and sanctifies. It is the faith which Paul describes rather than faith as human opinion, to which James refers. This accounts for the apparent difference between Paul and James, in which one ascribes to faith what the other ascribes to works. Their differing uses of the word arise from the fact that they are attacking different views. Paul is confronting those who attribute righteousness and salvation to the good works they have done in accordance with the rule of God’s law, and who therefore despise Christ. This can be seen in Galatians where Paul writes, ‘I do not despise the grace of God. For if righteousness is through the law, Christ died in vain.’76 However, Bullinger also confronts those who abuse this teaching by giving free rein to the flesh. They claim to have faith which saves them, although they do not do any good works. Against them he maintains that living faith is active in good works. This is the situation which John and James faced and which Augustine also condemned. ‘Therefore, when the apostles urge good works, they urge that true faith in Christ which is active in love’, ‘nevertheless they attribute all things to the grace of God, including those works which they require of the faithful.’77 When he considers merit and reward, Bullinger rejects the scholastic understanding of merit. The word merit does not occur in scripture, although the word reward does. He cites Augustine in support of the view that our merits are God’s gifts and that God crowns his gifts, not our merits. Therefore, ‘the unbroken and infallible catholic doctrine persists that the faithful are justified and saved by faith alone or by the grace of God alone.’78 Bullinger states that there is nothing new in The Grace of God, although he states that he treats the subject at greater length and with more scriptural and other testimonies and does so more clearly and suitably.79 He gives extended discussion to some of the affirmations, such as the view that our works prepare us to receive grace.80There is a double context for The Grace of God: the Council of Trent with its statement on Justification by Faith, and the asylum sought by John à Lasco and other reformed Christians in Lutheran Denmark.81 The latter led to the dedication to the King of Denmark of a work which shows the unity of Reformed and Lutheran in the central doctrine of justification by faith. Mel76 He later expounds good works at greater length in terms of works arising from faith, works commanded by God and not invented by us, works prepared for us by God, works flowing from one incorporated in Christ and works for the glory of God and the good of our neighbours and not for our own benefit (John bb4r 38–46, v 24–30, 5v 11–16) 77 John bb 2v30–31, 3r 11–12, 24–40, 47-v 21. 78 John bb3 v 27–29, 41–47, 4r 30–37. 79 The Grace of God cc2r 31-v6. 80 The Grace of God 7v 15–16. 81 See Kurt Jakob Rüetschi ‘Heinrich Bullinger und Danemark. Die Widmung von “De gratia dei iustificante” an König Christian III in Jahre 1554’, Zwingliana 15 (1980) 215–237, in particular 221–228.

284

Chapter 10: Justification and Good Works

anchthon wrote to Bullinger on 28 August 1555 expressing his pleasure at the agreement on this doctrine between their two churches.82 Even if there is nothing new in The Grace of God, some elements in Bullinger’s understanding of justification emerge more clearly in it.83 He emphasizes the four aspects of the doctrine not only including them in the title, but also by repeating them at significant points.84 After presenting them in the preface,85 he refers to God justifying us, Christ justifying us, and faith justifying us.‘God justifies us: we are justified by grace; justification is our acceptance or adoption as sons of God. Christ justifies us: our justification is by his incarnation, passion, wounds, blood, death and resurrection; our justification is remission of sins. Faith justifies us: we receive justification by faith, and the just live by faith.’ Indeed, God, Christ, Christ’s death and faith can each be described as our righteousness.86 Bullinger’s presentation is trinitarian. Characteristically, he relates the doctrine of justification to God as the primary cause, who accomplishes it through the Son in the power of the Holy Spirit.87 At intervals in this work, Bullinger follows a series of biblical testimonies with testimonies from the fathers.88 This reflects the fact that Bullinger is writing to defend the orthodoxy of the doctrine of justification against the Roman teaching defined by the Council of Trent and against Roman attacks on the orthodoxy of Zurich.89 (He responds to this in the accompanying letter to the King of Denmark as well as in the work itself.) In referring to his use of the fathers, Bullinger states that in this work, as in his others, he quotes the fathers for those who attribute more to the fathers than to canonical scripture.90 The emphasis, however, is on scripture. This is evident in the conclusion which is largely a presentation of biblical testimonies, with an indication of his fundamental theological concerns. They are characteristically focused on the glory of God and the grace of God which, unlike our works, is the only sure basis for our peace with God.91 So fundamental and scriptural is the doctrine of justification that Bullinger asserts, that even if the whole world rejected it or if five hundred ecumenical councils, in which there sat myriads of pontiffs, bishops, and kings, ascribed salvation not to 82 Cum allata essent exempla tui scripti peri dikaiosunes statim emi et legi, ac laetatus sum consensu vestrarum ac nostrarum Ecclesiarum.’ (CR 8.523-No. 5827) 83 Interestingly he states that the bible uses the terms ‘justify’ and ‘save’ indiscriminately (promiscue), although he can say that no one is saved who has not been justified. 84 The Grace of God 1 r 30- v 6, 4v 12–22, 102 r 7–23. 85 The Grace of God 1r 30-v6. 86 The Grace of God 1v15–23. 87 The Grace of God 4 v 24–28. 88 E. g. The Grace of God 37rv, 54r–57v, 60v–62r. 89 The Grace of God Aa 2r 22–28. 90 The Grace of God 3v 3–14. 91 The Grace of God 99v 26–100r 9, v 5–12.

The Context

285

the grace of God but to our works and merit, piety would require us to adhere to the teaching of the prophets, the gospels, and the apostles. This teaching is summarised in Ephesians 2:8–10.92 Perhaps most surprising is that immediately before his final exhortation and ascription of praise, he quotes Erasmus in praise of Christian faith.93 Compared with some earlier works, there is as great an emphasis on the Christian life, on faith overflowing in works. This is stressed even at the beginning of the third book which maintains that believers are justified by faith alone and not by works. Bullinger gives several biblical examples to support this, such as the thief on the cross and the paralytic, but only after stating that faith is not alone, just as in the sun light and heat are united.94 He makes the distinction between good works as necessary and their being necessary for salvation, a view that makes us into co-redeemers! The good works come from the indwelling Spirit.95 The most succinct comprehensive exposition of justification by faith is in The Second Helvetic Confession.96It is adumbrated and set in a theological context by the chapters (8–14) which precede it: The Fall and Sin, Free Will, Predestination, Jesus Christ, The Law of God, The Gospel of Christ, and Repentance. It is interesting to see how much is stated before the chapters dedicated to Justification by Faith. Fundamental to the doctrine of justification are human sin and God’s grace in Christ. Through the fall all people have become ‘subject to sin’, ‘unable to do or even to think anything good of ourselves’; we have ‘no free will for good’ ‘no strength to perform what is good’. However, God ‘of his sheer grace’ has from eternity elected those ‘whom he wills to save in Christ’ and ‘on account of Christ’. They were, moreover, chosen in Christ to be ‘holy and blameless before him in love’. The centrality of Christ is seen in the fact that by his life and death Christ ‘reconciled our heavenly Father to all the faithful’. ‘He is our righteousness’. He is ‘the eternal Saviour of the human race…in whom by faith are saved all those who before the law, under the law, and under the gospel were saved’. Those who ‘seek salvation in any other than Christ alone have fallen from the grace of God and make Christ null and void for themselves (Gal 5:4).’97 As part of his saving 92 93 94 95 96

The Grace of God 99 v9–23. The Grace of God 101 v6–102r 6. The Grace of God 49v7, 50r 1–4, v 8–32. The Grace of God 76 r4–9, v33–77 r13. For The Second Helvetic Confession, see Reformierte Bekenntnissschriften ed. Heiner Faulenbach (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2002) (abbreviated as RB) and Reformed Confessions of the 16th Century ed. A.C. Cochrane (London: SCM Press, 1966) (abbreviated as Cochrane). There is no article on Justification by Faith in The First Helvetic Confession, although Article 9 of The First Basel Confession is on ‘Faith and Works’. 97 RB 2/2 284. 28–29;285.1–2; 287. 29–31; 289. 18–20, 26–28, 31–34; 295.16–296.13, 33–35; Cochrane 235, 238,240,246,247.

286

Chapter 10: Justification and Good Works

purpose God has given the law, so that we may know our ‘weakness, sin, and condemnation, and, despairing of our strength, may be converted to Christ in faith’. ‘Therefore, the law was our schoolmaster to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.’ (Gal. 3:21–24) The gospel is ‘an old doctrine, even if today it is called new by the papalists when compared with the teaching now received among them’. Indeed, it is ‘the most ancient in the world’ going back to Genesis 3:15. Repentance is joined with the gospel, which involves ‘a turning to God…and a turning away from the devil.’ It is ‘a sheer gift of God and not a work of our strength’.98 Against this background the doctrine of justification is presented in two chapters: The True Justification of the Faithful, followed by Faith and Good Works, Their Reward, and Human Merit. Bullinger gives a fourfold definition of justification: ‘to remit sins, to absolve from guilt and punishment, to receive with favour, to pronounce a person just’. He immediately adds that we are ‘by nature sinners’, justified ‘solely by the grace of Christ and not from any merit of ours’. It is because Christ ‘satisfied divine righteousness’ that God does not impute our sins to us, but ‘imputes Christ’s righteousness to us as our own’.99 Opitz rightly criticizes Koch’s comment that Bullinger’s doctrine of justification, unlike Luther’s, looks inward to the Christian’s faith for certainty.100 Opitz argues that faith in Bullinger, which is a gift of the Spirit, is listening to Christ (Mt 17:5). There is, moreover, nothing in the text which suggests that Bullinger was concerned with certainty about the reality of justification. Elsewhere, when he is dealing with election, Bullinger points those who are uncertain to Christ. The consistent emphasis in Bullinger on imputing righteous conflicts with Koch’s view. The lines Koch quotes to support his statement actually follow an emphasis on God’s imputing Christ’s righteousness to us on account of Christ. This paragraph is preceded by a definition of justification and a statement that we are justified on account of Christ.101 There is similar focus in The Decades: ‘For when we speak of faith, we do not speak of a quality inherent ‘in our minds, but of Christ the Lord himself with his righteousness and gifts, in whom as the sole foundation our faith rests.’102 98 RB 2/2 297. 28–298.6; 299. 5–9; 300. 23–28; 301.1, 13–17; Cochrane 240,249, 250–251. 99 RB 2/2 304. 30–305.1, 9–12, 16–24; Cochrane 255–256. 100 Opitz, Dekaden 277–278. See Peter Opitz, Heinrich Bullinger als Theologe: Eine Studie zu den Dekaden (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2004). He refers to Koch’s statement, ‘Die Rechtfertigungslehre des Zweiten Helvetischen Bekenntnisses ist letztlich bestimmt durch den Blick nach innen – in den erneuerten Menschen hinein. Im Gerechtfertigten lebt Christus. Gewissheit über die Tatsȁchlichkeit der Rechtfertigung gibt es nur dadurch, dass die Rechtfertigung auch aufweisbar ist.’ See Ernst Koch ‘Kirche und Konfession’ ZWA 12 (1967) 527. 101 RB 2/2 306.8–10, 305. 16–306.1, 304.30–30.15. 102 HBTS 3. 436.28–30; Decades3.333.

The Context

287

We are therefore ‘righteous and heirs of eternal life’. Central to the imputing of Christ’s righteousness is faith. Indeed, we are justified by faith alone, not by works. Faith is in no way ‘our work… it is the gift of God’, for it ‘receives Christ our righteousness and attributes everything to the grace of God in Christ’. Bullinger supports this from John 6 as well as Romans and Ephesians. He rejects the view that justification is to be ‘ascribed partly to Christ or faith, partly to us’ or ‘our love or works’. It is to be attributed ‘wholly to the grace of God in Christ through faith’. People’s love and works are pleasing to God only if done by those who are righteous. It is only by faith that we made righteous. Faith, however, is not passive but active, active in love. Paul, derives love from faith (1 Tim 1:5) and so it is necessary for us to become righteous by faith ‘before we may love and do good works’. By faith Bullinger means not a dead empty faith, such as James describes, but a living faith ‘because it apprehends Christ who is life and makes alive… and shows that it is alive by living works’. There is, therefore, no contradiction between James and Paul in what they say about faith and works.103 The longer chapter on Faith and Works begins by defining faith as ‘a most sure trust and a clear and steadfast assent of the mind’. It is also ‘a most certain apprehension of the truth of God presented in the scriptures and in the Apostles’ Creed and therefore of God himself…and especially of God’s promise and of Christ who is the fulfilment of all promises’. The source of such faith is not in us, but in God, a point supported by a range of New Testament texts and emphasized by describing it as a pure gift, a gift of God’s grace, a gift to his elect, a gift to whom he wills, a gift given by the Holy Spirit, and given by means of the preaching of the gospel and prayer to God.104 Good works were an essential part of justification in papal and Anabaptist teaching. This meant that the reformers had both to show that good works have no part in justification which is by faith alone, but also that properly understood they are an essential part of God’s purpose for us. Bullinger defines good works in terms of their origin and character: they come from God and they reflect God’s will. They are described as ‘arising from a living faith’ ‘by the Holy Spirit’ or ‘done by God’s grace through the Holy Spirit’ and also as ‘in accordance with the will or rule of God’s word’. In this less polemical work he does not elaborate on works which ‘we choose according to our own judgement’, such as indulgences or pilgrimages. He does, however, with New Testament testimonies, expound their purpose. They are not to be done for profit or display, but ‘to glorify God, to adorn our calling, to show gratitude to God, and to benefit our neighbour’.105 As elsewhere, Bullinger recognizes the need to affirm 103 RB 2/2 305. 25–306.1, 8–10, 14–33; Cochrane 256–257. 104 RB 2/2 307.6–13; Cochrane 257–258. 105 RB 2/2 308–1–3, 9–10, 13–18; 309. 13–14; Cochrane 258–260.

288

Chapter 10: Justification and Good Works

good works. We are not saved by them, and, although he does not give his usual examples here, such as the thief on the cross, we may be saved without them. Nevertheless, we were ‘not created and not regenerated through faith to be idle… but rather without ceasing to do those things which are good and useful’. (He condemns those who despise good works and babble that they are useless.) These works, that is those done by faith, are pleasing to God. They are, moreover, as scripture testifies, rewarded by God. Although Bullinger does not here, as in The Decades, explore the meaning of reward, he makes it clear that it is not something owed to us, as wages would be. It is given to us through ‘the goodness, generosity, and truthfulness of God who promises and gives it’ and not through our merit. What is more, in the works we do there is much that is unworthy of God. God accepts them, however, when people do them ‘for Christ’s sake’. Bullinger quotes Augustine that ‘God does not crown in us our merits but his gifts’, as well as quoting Cyprian and Paul (1 Cor. 4:7). He ends the chapter with a condemnation of those who defend merit in such a way as to invalidate the grace of God, indicating that God’s grace is what is crucial in the doctrine of justification by faith.106 In Questions of Religion in 1559, Bullinger considers whether we are justified before God by faith alone through Christ or by good works.107 It is a strikingly focussed expression of his teaching on justification. First, justification means being found guilty of sin and damnation before God’s judgement seat (Romans 3), being freed from guilt and punishment and damnation (Romans 5), being redeemed from sins (Acts 13), and being adopted as children and heirs of God. Paul says that justification is by faith and John that to those who believes in him he has given the power to become children of God. Second, the reason of God’s forgiveness and adoption is his grace and mercy. Through it he sent his Son through whose sacrificial death we are justified and become heirs of eternal life, because his righteousness is imputed to us as ours. All this is testified among others, he says, in Romans 3–5, 2 Corinthians 5, Ephesians 1, Colossians 1–2, 2 Timothy 1.108 Third, we must see how the grace of God in Christ, together with redemption, righteousness, and eternal life, are communicated and given to us so that Christ lives in us and we in him, for it is the Spirit who makes alive (John 6) and it is through faith and not through anything else that we receive. It is through the 106 RB 2/2 308.26–30; 309. 3–6, 12–13, 30–310. 9; Cochrane 259–261. 107 Questions of Religion is the title of a sixteenth century English translation which I have not seen – see HBBibl 1 nos 386 and 393. References are to the selections of Carl Pestalozzi Heinrich Bullinger (Elberfeld, 1858) 526–549 (see HBBibl 1 no. 391), followed by those in HBBibl 1 no. 386. 108 Questions of Religion 542.28–543.20; 74.1–75.27.

The Context

289

Spirit that all the graces and gifts of God are communicated, and we ‘receive through faith, and through nothing else’. This is why we rightly say, that through faith alone people are justified, and through gazing upon, that is believing in the crucified Christ, as with gazing on the serpent (John 3.14–15), we are freed from eternal death. This is confirmed by his interpreting eating in John 6 as believing. The emphasis in justification on faith alone is supported by Romans 3 and 4 and Galatians 2. Faith, however, is not our work, but the gift and grace of God. It looks to the grace of God in Christ. The insistence on faith alone in Christ as justifying is an insistence on the glory of God and Christ which is not to be attributed to others. This means that we have a true and constant righteousness.109 Fourth, Bullinger explains not only why they do not ascribe justification to works, but also why they cannot assign it in part to faith and in part to works. For this reason they say explicitly ‘through faith’ and not ‘through works’. He gives no fewer than six reasons. First, God does not want us to trust or glory in ourselves, but in him alone and his grace alone (Roman 3, 1 Corinthians 1, Jeremiah 9). Second, good works come from the godly. Similarly, a tree must be good to have good fruit. The fruit does not make a tree good, but is a sign that the tree is good. Similarly, we have to be already just to do good works. Third, the works even of believers, because of human weakness, are never so wholly sure that they can ascribe righteousness to them. Bullinger refers to Job 9, Psalm 143:2, and Romans 7. Fourth, if anyone were justified by works, Abraham and the apostles would have been. Romans 4 and Galatians 2 show that they were not, so we should not ascribe our justification to the living works of faith. Fifth, we should allow nothing in the church to obscure or nullify Christ’s death and merit. Galatians 2 and 5 show that ascribing justification to works nullifies them. Sixth, we should keep to the apostles’ teaching. Paul’s epistles and Acts 15 show that we are saved by grace through faith, not through works. Bullinger then quote Ephesians 2. 8–10 as a text that completely expresses his position.110

Justification and Sanctification Strohm quotes The Grace of God to show that justification in Bullinger is distinct from sanctification, yet although they are distinct they seem sometimes to be parallel terms, as appears to be the case in Paul’s epistles.111 Bullinger quotes Paul 109 Questions of Religion 543.21–544.15; 75.28–76.27. 110 Questions of Religion 544. 16–545.19; 76.17–77.14. 111 See Strohm ‘Frontstellungen’ 538, 571–572. Strohm criticizes Burrows’ reference to Bullinger’s speaking ‘of sanctification in essential identity with justification, as two aspects of Christ’s one saving act’, which distinguishes his approach from Lutheran counterparts, while also establishing a precedent later followed by Calvin.

290

Chapter 10: Justification and Good Works

in describing Christ as our righteousness and sanctification. Through faith in Christ we are justified and sanctified, His righteousness and sanctification are imputed to us, and so we may be described as righteous and holy. Being justified and sanctified, we do what is righteous and holy, and yet at the same time we remain sinners, and all that we do is imperfect. In sermon 29 of The Decades on Christian Liberty, Bullinger examines various objections to the doctrine of justification by faith which ascribe it to works. His opponents had argued that as we are justified by grace and that as good works belong to the grace of God therefore good works justify. Bullinger responds by maintaining that God’s grace is not divided, but that its operations are distinct. Bullinger distinguishes God’s general grace in creation, by which he sends rain on both the just and the unjust from his singular grace by which he justifies believers, but not both believers and unbelievers. There is also a grace which brings forth good works. This grace does not justify, but it brings forth the fruits of righteousness in those justified.112 Bullinger then rejects a further argument of his opponents that grace or faith and works, as well as justification and sanctification are so inseparably joined together that what applies to the one applies to the other. He contrasts faith which justifies with works. Although our faith is weak and imperfect, it rests on the perfection of Christ, and so it justifies. Our works, however, are always defective on account of our inborn disease, but it does not follow that the grace of God is polluted by any defect of ours. This shows that it does not follow, when things are joined together, that what applies to the one applies to the other. Although the light of the sun is never separated from the heat, the light is not the heat. Nor does it follow that if the sun lightens the world, then the heat lightens the world, because in the sun heat and light are not separated. The sun lightens the world in respect of the light, but in no way in respect of the heat. ‘So we are freely justified by the free mercy on account of Christ our Lord, not on account of the works of grace although they are engendered and produced by the grace’.113 After dealing with similar objections, Bullinger engages with passages of scripture which, because faith and works are inseparable, appear to ascribe justification to works. He agrees that because they come from the Spirit, faith and works are inseparable. Therefore, ‘sometimes there is attributed to them [i. e. works] what is rather more properly to be attributed to faith, but most properly of all to be ascribed to Christ apprehended by faith, Christ being the foundation of faith’.114

112 HBTS 3. 434.27–435.9; Decades 329–330. 113 HBTS 3. 435. 9–24; Decades 2. 330–331. 114 HBTS 3. 438. 1–7; Decades 2. 335.

The Context

291

Bullinger enlarges the point by noting that in true faith there is reconciliation and obedience. There is reconciliation as we believe ‘God is reconciled to us on account of Christ, through whom we are adopted as sons of God’. There is obedience as ‘those reconciled dedicate themselves wholly to God, to whom they are reconciled, deserving to do his will’. There are, therefore, two sorts of righteousness: justifying or reconciling and obeying righteousness. Bullinger quotes Romans 5. 1–2 and 6.16 and relates them by stating that what is properly attributed to reconciling righteousness through Christ in the first quotation is improperly attributed to obeying righteousness in the second. The latter comes from the former, and is not called righteousness without the former, Moreover, those justified put no trust in their obedience because in this world it is always contaminated on account of our flesh.115 This leads Bullinger to argue that the most proper work of faith is purification and sanctification. In sanctification scripture shows two things.116 First, ‘all believers are freely purified by the blood of Christ’. Second, those ‘sanctified by the blood of Christ through faith do daily sanctify themselves and give themselves to holiness’. Purifying ourselves is called sanctification ‘not because it is done by us, but because it is done by those sanctified by the blood of Christ’. ‘For unless that sanctification precedes, which alone is the true sanctification, ours indeed is not sanctification’. Nor do we put any trust in our sanctification. For Bullinger, these explanations account for the passages which attribute righteousness to our good works.117

115 HBTS 3. 438.7–24; Decades 2. 336. 116 In expounding Matthew 16:18, Bullinger states, ‘The church is the assembly of all the truly faithful, who grafted by faith in Christ, are being sanctified by the Spirit, and who live by the Spirit of Christ and do works of righteousness, sincerity and love.’ Matthew157 r 17–19. For Matthew, see HBBibl 1 no. 144. 117 HBTS 3.438.24–439.14; Decades 2. 336–337.

Chapter 11: The Church1

The church is central to Bullinger’s theology, although not the centre of it.2 Salvation itself is inseparable from the church, so that he frequently quotes Cyprian’s statement that there is no salvation outside the church. It is not just that it is the church which has the message of salvation, but rather that salvation is understood in terms of a community and not simply in terms of individuals.3 1 The main studies of the church in Bullinger’s theology, besides those on church discipline and the relation of church and state which are not considered here, are the following: Peter Walser Die Prädestination bei Heinrich Bullinger (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1957) 27–31; Heinold Fast Heinrich Bullinger und die Täufer (Weierhof, Pfalz: Mennonitischer Geschichtsverein, 1959); Joachim Staedtke Die Theologie des jungen Bullinger (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1962) 216–226; Simon van der Linde ‘Die Lehre von der Kirche in der Confessio Helvetica Posterior’ in Joachim Staedtke (ed.) Glauben und Bekennen. 400 Jahre Confessio Helvetica Posterior. Beiträge zu ihrer Geschichte und Theologie (Zurich, 1966) 337–367; Ernst Koch ‘Kirche und Konfession im Zweiten Helvetischen Bekenntnis’ Zwingliana 12 (1967) 522–532; Ernst Koch Die Theologie der Confessio Helvetica Posterior 216–246 (Neukirchen, 1968); J. Wayne Baker Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant (Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1980); Fritz Büsser ‘“Die Stadt auf dem Berg”. Bullingers reformatorisches Vermachtnis an der Wende zum 21. Jahrhundert’ Zwingliana 25 (1998) 21–42; Peter Opitz Heinrich Bullinger als Theologe. Eine Studie zu den ‘Dekaden’ (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2004) 417–461; Herman J. Selderhuis ‘Kirche am Kreuz. Die Ekklesiologie Heinrich Bullingers’ in Emidio Campi and Peter Opitz (eds), Heinrich Bullinger. Life-Thought-Influence. Vol. 2 (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2007) 515–536. 2 See, for example, van der Linde (‘Die Lehre’ 337) who asks whether the church could not be seen as the centre of his thought rather than the covenant. It is notable that it is one of his sermons on the church which is published to represent Bullinger in The Library of Christian Classics volume on Zwingli and Bullinger. See G.W. Bromiley (ed.) Zwingli and Bullinger (London: SCM Press, 1953). Selderhuis (‘Kirche’ 516) refers to the church as ‘the centre of Bullinger’s thought and work’. In his reference to it as the centre of Bullinger’s thought, he goes beyond his quotation from Bruce Gordon ‘… and the emphasis of his work was therefore upon ecclesiology and Church reform’. 3 The Christian’s relation to Christ is not apart from the church, but set in the church. In commenting on the vine and the branches, Bullinger states that the union of Christ and the saints is ‘in the church’ (John 167 r 35–36). To be orthodox and catholic is also not simply a matter of personal faith, but is set ‘in the one and holy church of Christ founded on Christ’ (Matthew 32 r 35–37). The chapter on the church in The Second Helvetic Confession begins: ‘But because God from the beginning has wished people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of

294

Chapter 11: The Church

This is expressed in images of the church, such as God’s house, the body of Christ, and the vine. After the description of the church in The Decades as God’s ‘most excellent work’, Bullinger states that in his goodness God has chosen men and women ‘in whom he may dwell’, and who will be ‘called by his name a people, a house… or church of the living God’.4

The Context for Understanding Bullinger’s Teaching on the Church The emphases in Bullinger’s discussion of the church reflect in part his controversy with conservative and radical opponents. Debate with his papal opponents, focuses on the understanding of salvation and scripture in relation to the church, as well as the issue of unity. With the Anabaptists, beside the unity of the church, there is the issue of its membership and therefore of the holiness and catholicity of the church. These also relate, though in different ways, to salvation. From the beginning, Bullinger rejects the papal view of the church, in particular, in his maintaining the authority of the word of God over and against the authority of the church.5This is developed at length in 1538 in The Authority of Scripture and in 1571 in A Discourse on Scripture. Bullinger rejects the papal view that the church is prior to and greater than scripture and that scripture needs the confirmation or approval of the church. He argues, initially from the Old Testament, that the word of God, spoken and written, is prior to the church, indeed the truth, it is absolutely necessary for there always to have been a church and for there to be now, and to the end of the world.’ (Campi 310. 12–14; Cochrane 261). In Sermons on the Apocalypse (82. 21–22; ET 183) the church is related to the preaching of the word rather than to salvation, where Bullinger maintains that the church will never cease to be, as the word of God will exist for ever. For The Second Helvetic Confession, see Emidio Campi (ed.), Reformierte Bekenntnissschriften (gen.eds Andreas Mühling and Peter Opitz) Vol. 2:2 1562–1569 (Mihaly Bucsay, Emidio Campi et al (eds)), (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2009) and A.S. Cochrane (ed.) Reformed Confessions of the 16th Century (London: SCM Press, 1966). Van der Linde (‘Die Lehre’ 352) regards the article on the church as linked to that on justification, which immediately precedes it. For details of Bullinger’s published works, see volume one of Heinrich Bullinger Werke I: Bibliographie Vols 1–3, edited by Fritz Büsser et al. (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972–2004) – abbreviated HBBibl. For John, see HBBibl 1 no.153 For Matthew, see HBBibl 1 no. 144. For Sermons on the Apocalypse, see HBBibl 1 nos 327 and 355. 4 HBTS 3. 740. 7–15; Decades 4.3. For The Decades, see Peter Opitz (ed.) Heinrich Bullinger Werke Part Three Theologische Schriften Vol. 3 (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2008) and Thomas Harding (ed.) The Decades 4 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1849–1852). For Bullinger’s works, see Heinrich Bullinger Werke Part Three Theologische Schriften Vols 1 – , edited by Fritz Büsser et al (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1983-) abbreviated HBTS. 5 In writing to the Margrave of Brandenberg (3v15–25) Bullinger defends his teaching against Luther’s assertion that his teaching has been held for a long time, maintaining that the church is based on God’s word and not length of time. For Margrave of Brandenberg, see HBBibl 1 no. 34.

The Context for Understanding Bullinger’s Teaching on the Church

295

that the church is itself born of the word of God. In this context, he deals with the quotation from Augustine that he would not have believed the gospel unless the authority of the church had compelled him.6 Generally, Bullinger discusses the relation of the church and scripture in the context of scripture – both before the issue came to a head in the Council of Trent, as in The Authority of Scripture, and after. Thus, later, in Evangelical and Papal Teaching (1551), it is placed in the opening articles on the authority of scripture, just as it is in the opening sermons of The Decades on The Word of God.7 The other key areas in which Bullinger attacks the papal view of the church concern Christ and salvation.8 This is evident in his responses to the Council of Trent in 1551, but it is, of course, also present in his early works.9 In the articles on 6 See the discussion in W.P. Stephens ‘The Authority of the Bible in Heinrich Bullinger’s Early Works’ in Reformation and Renaissance Review 10 (2008) 37–58. For various discussions of the saying of Augustine, see 2 Corinthians (HBTS 6.477.19–30), Galatians 21v10–22r12, HBTS 4. 37–40 and A Discourse on Scripture 48r–49v. For Galatians, see HBBibl 1 no. 72, and for A Discourse on Scripture, see HBBibl 1 no. 565. In The Authority of Scripture, Bullinger draws on Gerson’s interpretation of the church’s role in terms of the primitive church’s witness to Christ, as those who saw and heard him, and on his inverting the saying into not believing the church unless the authority of scripture had impelled him. He also cites Marsiglio of Padua’s idea of the church’s discerning between the voice of the good shepherd and the voice of a stranger, expressed in recognizing the canonical, but not the apocryphal gospels. The church does not authenticate the word any more than the sheep authenticate the shepherd’s voice. (HBTS 4.38.26–39.20) Bullinger adds that the church is the congregation of the faithful. However, as faith comes from the word, the church is dependent on the word. ‘For if faith comes through the Holy Spirit from hearing the word of the Lord and faith makes one a believer, and the church is the assembly of believers, it follows that the gospel or the word of the Lord is before the church and that the church is born from the word of God and so it (the word) is prior and greater.’ (HBTS 4. 39.29–40.3) 7 For Evangelical and Papal Teaching, see HBBibl I no. 231. A detailed contrast between evangelical and papal teaching is present in his Reply to Faber (D 2r 14-v30) in 1532. For Reply to Faber, see HBBibl 1 no. 35. See also, for example, a passing reference in 1 Corinthians in 1534, ‘Ecclesia enim non est domina scripturae, sed scripturae se subiicit, et omnia sua ad istarum praescriptum agit’ (HBTS 6.271.20–22) and the more extended discussion in A Discourse on Scripture: ‘For the authority of canonical scripture is greater than that of any person, or any bishops, or any synods, or even the whole church.’ Bullinger adds that even if the whole church, past, present, and future, were gathered in one place, we could not put our faith in anything without the testimony of scripture. He cites Gerson’s stating that the judgement of one man advancing the scripture is to be preferred to a universal council as well as Augustine’s observation that it is right even for plenary councils to be corrected by later councils. (33 r 16-v1, 23–25) ‘For the authority of the gospel does not depend on the church, but whatever the church has depends on the word of God.’ (39r3–6) 8 Opitz (Dekaden 419) rightly stresses the strongly christological character of Bullinger’s doctrine of the church as well as the centrality of Christ for Bullinger’s theology. ‘Theologie ist Christologie, und Ekklesiologie ist nichts anderes als erweiterte Christologie.’ 9 In 1525 and 1526 Bullinger refers to the church as hanging on Christ, built on the rock, firmly trusting in Christ, hearing his voice, standing fast with him to the end, and cleaving to Christ as head (HBTS 1 162.3,18, 158. 15–22, 2.111.10–12). Christ is said to rule in the church (HBTS 2.112.23). (Bullinger later makes as well the medieval moral contrast between Christ and the

296

Chapter 11: The Church

the church in Evangelical and Papal Teaching, the evangelical view describes the church as ‘built on Christ the rock’. It ‘hangs on the universal shepherd, and as it accepts no other name than Christ’s, so it orders itself in accordance with Christ alone’. By contrast Bullinger describes the papal view as ‘built on Christ and Peter and his successors’. It ‘hangs on Christ… but also on the pope as the universal shepherd… and believes that all churches should order themselves in accordance with the Roman church.’ The previous articles on Christ make a similar contrast. The evangelical view maintains that ‘Christ is the only head of his church and never leaves it’. He is ‘the righteousness… of all believers’, so that through his death, when believers die, they at once attain eternal life. The papal view regards Christ as ‘the head of the church’, but also the pope at Rome, who is ‘Christ’s vicar on earth’. Again, Christ is ‘the righteousness… of all believers’, but in the papal view most believers do not go straight to heaven, but must be purged in purgatory. (aa iv v–vi r). Bullinger interprets the rock in Matthew 16:18 of Christ and not of Peter or the pope, claiming that this is the catholic and orthodox position. He accepts that many in the early church held that Peter was first or chief in the apostolic college; but that was for Bullinger a matter of order and administration. He rejects that view that Peter was the head or foundation of the church. The authority of prophets and apostles counts for more than the authority of any human writers – and they refer this to Christ, not Peter. Being present in his church, Christ has no need of a vicar. (Matthew 157 r 31–39) In The Second Helvetic Confession, after rejecting the pope as head of the church, Bullinger attacks the primacy of Rome, as Christ forbade primacy and dominion among the apostles and their successors (Campi 312. 3–30; Cochrane 263–264).10 In the Council of Trent, Bullinger maintains that God has given us everything that belongs to salvation in Christ, so that those who ‘possess him in true faith’ have life in its fullness. As he lives in the church by his Spirit, he does not need a vicar.11 In Ephesians (161 v 9–10) after referring to Christ as the head of the church, Bullinger states, ‘The church lives by the Spirit of Christ’. He has instituted ministers, who preach the gospel and administer the sacraments, and pope, observing in 1549 that Christ did not offer his feet to be kissed (Perfection 70. 22–71.1). For Perfection, see HBBibl 1 no. 249.) In Ephesians, in keeping with one of his principles of interpretation, he interprets the reference to the prophets and apostles as the foundation of the church in the light of the other texts, such as 1 Corinthians 3.11, which states that there is no other foundation than Christ (143 r 5 – v 21). For Ephesians, see HBBibl 1 no. 72. 10 Bullinger uses the images of the bridegroom and the shepherd as well as that of the head in arguing against having any other head for the church than Christ (The Christian Religion 98 v 21–29). 11 The church is related to the Spirit, but not as pervasively as the church is related to Christ, although there are many references, such as that Christ rules in the church in the Spirit (HBTS 2. 112. 23, 29–30).

The Context for Understanding Bullinger’s Teaching on the Church

297

effects the salvation of believers in the ministry of the word and sacraments. For Bullinger, whoever claims what belongs to Christ alone or changes what he instituted is anti-Christ. In contrast to what the pope claims for himself in relation to councils, he is seen by those who preach the gospel as the ‘author of all the errors and corruptions in the church of God’.12 The reformation of the church is fundamentally not the work of the reformers, but the work of Christ. Thus, in Perfection (41.16–42.1) Christ is described as ‘the most perfect reformer of the church’. The reformation of the church means restoring it to the original form given to it by God, removing from it abuses and human inventions. A difference in the understanding of scripture also underlies Bullinger’s different understanding of the church from that of the Anabaptists. In debate with them, Bullinger insists on the determinative role of the whole bible, including the Old Testament.13 This supports his stress on the unity of the Old and New Testaments, with one covenant and one people. In keeping with this, he argues against Anabaptists that the church includes children as well as adults, and also that the government has a role in the life of the church. Indeed, he refers to magistrates in addition to ministers as being necessary to the church.14 The different understanding between Bullinger and the Anabaptists of membership of the church is related to their different interpretation of scripture as well as to the authority of both the Old Testament and the New. For Anabaptists the true church consists of believers living holy lives. For Bullinger, by contrast, the church in the New Testament, as in the Old, is a mixed church, in which the godly and ungodly live together until judgement day. In Anabaptists (1560), in which he describes their origin and gives his fullest account of them, Bullinger sees having a separate church as the fundamental issue with Anabaptists.15

12 Council of Trent 392. 9–30, 396.1–8. For Council of Trent, see HBBibl I no. 230. 13 In a letter to Berchtold Haller on 4 June 1532, Bullinger maintains that the Old Testament must be used with Anabaptists as well as the New Testament and supports this with examples from the New Testament (HBBW 2. 130. 9–11, 131. 62–132. 85). For Bullinger’s letters, see Heinrich Bullinger Werke Part Two Briefwechsel Vols. 1 –, edited by Fritz Büsser et al (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1973-) abbreviated HBBW. The role of the Old Testament is evident in his early work on baptism (HBTS 2. 72. 3–8). 14 In The Testament (1534), Bullinger refers to the need for the magistrate to deal with evil people who subvert the church and attacks those who exclude them from the church (19r 18-v 4, 12– 20r 1). For The Testament, see HBBibl I no. 54. Compare the preface (aaa6r 3–6) in Matthew. In The Decades, Bullinger can say, ‘No one denies that God often uses the work of soldiers and magistrates in defending the church against the ungodly and tyrants’ (HBTS 3. 758. 27–29; Decades 4.34). 15 Anabaptists deserted other churches. They maintained that in their churches there was manifest amendment of life. By contrast, in evangelical churches, although they preached some things from the gospel, there was no amendment or repentance. There can be no

298

Chapter 11: The Church

This issue features largely in Anabaptist Teaching (1531).16 In the opening epistle he refers to a key text, ‘God is not a God of discord, but of peace’ (a iii 9– 12). For Bullinger, Anabaptists have no ground for separation. If they preach scripturally, as Bullinger does, why do they separate (3 v 17–24)? Separation is not something they have learnt in Christ (4 r 9–10). The sixth article rejecting Anabaptist teaching states that re-baptism is rebellion against Christian unity (7r 11– 14). Moreover, he rejects their claim to be sent by God, as God is not a God of discord, but of peace and unity (16 v 26–17 r 2).17 In the third of his twenty five articles Bullinger maintains that Christ and the apostles did not rebel about outward, temporal things, but acted for the peace of the church (6 v 23–28). By outward things Bullinger means things which do not concern salvation. He charges Anabaptists with separating for outward things, such as interest, tithes, water, riches, and government, contrary to Christ’s example (21r 14–15, 23 r 19v3). Bullinger defends himself against the charge of separation, although he implies that separation is right when the truth of the gospel is at stake. He maintains that Anabaptist preaching deals with outward things, whereas he, by contrast, deals with faith, innocence, and love. (24v 20–27, 25r 6–12) The following year, in The Prophet, Bullinger condemns those who desert the church for a trivial reason and whose view and practice of baptism divide the church (17v 13–16, 18 r 20–21).18

The Church – Catholic and Holy There is a broad picture of the church in many of his works, but Bullinger’s view is presented most clearly and systematically in Second Response to Cochlaeus, The Decades, and The Second Helvetic Confession.19 The Decades contains Bullinger’s most comprehensive discussion of the church and it provides the most coherent

16 17 18

19

fellowship with those who are impure. (17 v 15–26, 18 r 17–28) For Anabaptists, see HBBibl 1 no. 396. For Anabaptist Teaching, see HBBibl 1 no. 28. In his exposition of Ephesians 4: 4–6, after referring to the Anabaptists who destroy the unity of the church, Bullinger states that ‘they sin most gravely against God himself and all things sacred who disturb the peace of the church’ (Ephesians 153r 22–23, v 13–15). For The Prophet, see HBBibl 1 no 33. In expounding Matthew 3: 7–8, Bullinger describes Christ as ‘the author of unity not dissension’, who bound together ‘in the fellowship of the one body’ (31r 25–27). ‘He commanded the apostles to unite the church through this doctrine of unity (salvation in Christ) in one body and gather together it through the sacraments…so that they may be one in Christ and there may be no dissensions and sects in the church…’ (Matthew 31v 43–48). For Second Response to Cochlaeus, see HBBibl 1 no. 160. There is a brief, but comprehensive picture of the church in The Christian Religion (97–100), in effect a more popular version of The Decades. For The Christian Religion, see HBBibl 1 no. 283.

The Context for Understanding Bullinger’s Teaching on the Church

299

presentation of his view of the church.20 It is in a measure an exposition of the Apostles’ Creed, which he sees as ‘a compendium of scripture’ (Campi 316.7; Cochrane 268). There is a brief consideration in the first decade and a more extended one in the fifth. Although his presentation reflects the words of the creed, the accents and emphases are Bullinger’s. He starts, as the creed, with the word ‘believe’ and the distinction between ‘believing’ and ‘believing in’, before turning to the church as catholic and holy. ‘Believing in’ belongs only to God and not to what is created. In the creed, the words ‘believing in’ apply to the Holy Spirit and not to the church or to the other phrases, such as the forgiveness of sins. In support, Bullinger draws on Cyprian, Augustine, Paschasius, Leo, and Aquinas to demonstrate the difference between believing in God and believing the church.21 In The Christian Religion, ‘Believing the church’ means that we are ‘incorporated into this holy church, have communion with God and all his saints, and that within it we share in the Holy Spirit and all the holiness, which he has granted to his church, and so we are also truly holy.’ (98 r 18–25) Bullinger generally uses ‘church’ of the Christian church, but he can refer to a Jewish or Muslim church.22 Usually, however, he defines the church in terms of the faithful or the saints, but also occasionally in terms of the elect. (The words ‘believer’ and ‘elect’ are sometimes seemingly parallel terms in description of the church, as in Firm Foundation (35 r 17–21).23 In the fifth decade, the church is described as ‘the company of the faithful calling on the name of the Lord’ or ‘all the faithful… in heaven and on earth’, ‘fellow heirs with the saints from Adam to the end of the world’, and ‘the faithful and elect of God’ (HBTS 3.740.20–21, 741. 5–6, 742.22–25).24 In the first decade Bullinger relates the church to faith, sal20 Much of the substance is adumbrated in his second response to Cochlaeus in 1544. 21 After citing Cyprian, who distinguishes the creator from what is created and what is divine from what is human, he quotes Paschasius’ words ‘we believe the church, as the mother of regeneration; we do not believe in the church, as the author of salvation.’ (HBTS 3. 100. 30– 31,101.1–2; Decades 1.159) 22 The Christian Religion 98 v 7–13. 23 For Firm Foundation, see HBBibl 1 no. 426. 24 The double description of the church in terms of faith and holiness is clearly expressed in the exposition of Matthew 16:18: ‘The church is the assembly of all the truly faithful, who, grafted by faith in Christ, are being sanctified by the Spirit, and who live by the Spirit of Christ and do works of righteousness, sincerity, and love.’ (Matthew 157 r 17–19) In The Second Helvetic Confession, the church is described first as ‘an assembly of the faithful’ and then, reflecting the creed, as ‘a communion of all the saints’, a term which essentially elaborates the word ‘faithful’ with the amplification of ‘being sanctified by the blood of the Son’ or ‘who truly know and rightly worship and serve the true God… and who by faith share the benefits freely offered’. Later, in the same chapter Bullinger refers to those who enjoy Christ in the church as ‘the elect’. (Campi 310. 14–18, 311. 28–30; Cochrane 261, 266) The communion of saints is in effect ‘an explanation of what we understand by the church’ (The Christian Religion 100r 26– 28).

300

Chapter 11: The Church

vation, and the profession of Christ. He describes it as ‘the communion of all who profess the name of Christ’, ‘all the faithful’, and ‘all who are saved and shall be saved to the end of the world’ (HBTS 3. 101.21–22, 102. 3–6; Decades 4. 161–162). Although the creed describes the church as holy and catholic. Bullinger begins with the word catholic, before giving a longer exposition of the church as holy. It is catholic in time – being both militant and triumphant. It extends across the ages, including those who lived before and after Christ, and embraces all the faithful from Adam himself to the last saint at the end of the world. It is also catholic or universal in space as well as time, and includes all particular churches, which are described as being ‘as it were members in one body under one head’.25 Already in his Comparison of Ancient and Contemporary Heresies (ciir 20–26) in 1526 he has contrasted the character of the church as catholic or universal in space with the Donatist limiting of the church in Africa and the limiting of it to those linked to Rome by papal preachers.26 In Questions of Religion, Bullinger discusses the question whether the Roman church, as a local church, can be catholic or universal.27 It is rather, he argues, that like other local churches, it is a member of the catholic church. It is also not catholic both because it is impure and because it lacks the signs of the true church. The word of truth is not only not preached in it, but it is forbidden and persecuted with sword and fire. It is new, and not the ancient Roman church. (529–531) The reference to the catholic church as triumphant and militant, leads to a discussion of the church as holy. Unlike the church triumphant, the church militant is mixed. (Strictly speaking only the elect and faithful are members of the church militant ‘joined to Christ not only with outward bands or marks but also in spirit and truth, and sometimes by these and not by bands or marks’.) Bullinger distinguishes the visible church from the invisible church. Unlike God, we cannot judge who are elect and faithful. They are known or visible to him, but they are invisible or unknown to us, in the sense that we do not know what they are inwardly (HBTS 3.742.22–27, 748. 5–14; Decades 4.7,17).28 In the first decade, in a characteristically trinitarian way, Bullinger describes the church as holy, as it has been sanctified by God the Father in the blood of the 25 HBTS 3.100.6–102.2; Decades 1. 158–162. Compare HBTS 3. 741.5–742.21; Decades 4.5–7. 26 For Comparison of Ancient and Contemporary Heresies, see HBBibl 1 no. 1. 27 For Bericht,wie die Verfolgten antworten sollen (abbreviated as Questions of Religion), see HBBibl 1 nos. 386–393. I quote from the text in Pestalozzi (no. 391). See Carl Pestalozzi, Heinrich Bullinger. Leben und ausgewahlte Schriften. Nach handschriftlichen und gleichzeitigen Quellen. (Elberfeld, 1858) 526–549 28 In The Second Helvetic Confession the terms visible and invisible are applied not only to an obviously visible church, as in Corinth, but to a situation in which the church seems to be extinct, as with the seven thousand unknown to Elijah, who had not worshipped Baal (Campi 315. 13–23; Cochrane 266–267).

The Context for Understanding Bullinger’s Teaching on the Church

301

Son and the gift of the Holy Spirit. The church is pure, not on its own account, but Christ’s. It is not perfect while here on earth, but its holiness is ‘most perfect in Christ’, for it has been washed by the blood of Christ (cf John 13:10). This understanding of holiness is continued in Bullinger’s reference to the communion of saints which expresses our communion with God and with others, and ‘our sharing in good and heavenly things’ (HBTS 3. 102.6–33; Decades 1. 162– 163).29 The church is a mixed body, as we see in the parables of wheat and tares and good and bad fish. Bullinger recognizes, using the examples of David and Peter, that holy people can fall, but that, unlike Judas, who also fell,30 they do not totally forsake Christ. We cannot tell which is which, for we can judge only the outward appearance and not the inward reality. It is here that Bullinger and Anabaptists differ (HBTS 3.745.35–746.17, 747.5–12, 36–748.5; Decades 4. 13–17). In the fifth decade, Bullinger discusses this issue in examining whether the church may err. He argues that the church triumphant, unlike the church militant, can never err. The church militant, however, which includes the good and faithful and the evil and hypocrites, both errs and does not err in life and doctrine.31 The church does not err in doctrine and faith, ‘for it hears only the voice of the Shepherd’. Based on the foundation of the prophets and apostles, the church can be described as the pillar and ground of the truth. It errs, however, when ‘it turns from Christ and his word’. The Old Testament shows that the church can and does err, when a part of it, having lost God’s word, errs; it does not err altogether, inasmuch as some remnants are preserved by the grace of God, by whom the truth may flourish again….’ Paul could describe the churches of Corinth and Galatia, despite their failings, as ‘the holy churches of God’.

29 For Opitz (Dekaden 419), the church is essentially the communion of the saints. 30 In The Second Helvetic Confession he gives examples not only of Christians who fail, as Peter, but also of churches in which there are serious offences, as in Galatia and Corinth (Campi 315. 9–13; Cochrane 266). 31 Bullinger discusses the issue in The Origin of Error in 1528 (d 1r18-v4). In response to those who say that the church cannot err, Bullinger states that the sheep who hear the voice of the shepherd belong to the Lord’s sheepfold (d1r 18–24). For The Origin of Error, see HBBibl 1 no. 10. (The importance of ‘hearing the shepherd’s voice’ is evident in its constant use by Bullinger.) In The Authority of the Bible in replying to Cochlaeus, Bullinger challenges the view that the church without qualification cannot err, affirming that the church cannot err only as it is governed by the rule of canonical scripture which is inspired by the Holy Spirit (HBTS 4.87. 9–10, 88. 25–27, 89. 22–25). He also gives examples from the Old Testament of the church’s erring by abandoning the light of God’s word, which happens despite God’s promises to dwell in them and be their God (91.27–92.21). Compare Second Response 8 v30–9 r40. In The Second Helvetic Confession he expresses this succintly. The church ‘does not err as long as it rests upon the rock Christ, and upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles’. (Campi 311.27–28; Cochrane 263)

302

Chapter 11: The Church

The church on earth errs in life, as it will never be free of sin. It will always have to pray ‘Forgive us our trespasses’. For Bullinger, there neither is nor will be any church on earth that is ‘without blemish’. At the same time the church, which has blemishes, can be described as pure, as without spot or wrinkle, because of God’s mercy and forgiveness (Galatians 3:22); for on account of Christ’s innocence such spots are not imputed to those who embrace Christ by faith. The church strives to have as few spots as possible, but it is ‘chiefly by the benefit of imputation’ that the church is without spot or wrinkle. (HBTS 3 759. 4–760.8, 27–33; Decades 4. 35– 38) The mixed character of the church militant raises the question of whether and, if so, how we can recognize such a mixed body as the church.

The Marks of the Church There are two principal outward marks by which we may know the church militant: the sincere preaching of the word of God and the lawful partaking of the sacraments of Christ.32 Bullinger sees Matthew 28:19, Ephesians 5:25–26, and Acts 2:38 as evidence that the New Testament regards word and sacrament as the means Christ uses to establish a church and with further biblical testimonies he maintains that word and sacrament are outward marks of the church. ‘For these bring us into the society of the ecclesial body and keep us in it.’ (HBTS 3. 748. 16– 17, 19–23, 28–34, 749. 1–2, 17–19; Decades 4. 17–19) In giving these traditional outward marks of the church, Bullinger does not exclude from the church all those without them. ‘For there are undoubtedly many in the world who do not hear the ordinary preaching of God’s word, who do not come into the company of those who call on God, and who do not receive the sacraments.’ Bullinger is not referring to those who despise these things, but those, such as the sick or imprisoned, who cannot have the word and sacrament that they desire. After citing the biblical precedent of the exile in Babylon, he also includes those, for example, in Persia and Arabia, who are deprived by Muslim 32 Bullinger notes that some add to word and sacrament: ‘zeal for godliness and unity, patience in suffering (in cruce), and calling on the name of God through Christ’, but he regards them as included in the others. He observes that in Acts 2: 42 zeal for unity and love and calling on the name of God are with the eucharist joined to the sacrament of baptism, mentioned in other places (HBTS 3. 748. 17–19, 37–749.1; Decades 4. 17–18). The church’s suffering and the reasons for it are considered at length in Persecution in 1573. For Persecution, see HBBibl 1 no. 575. His Sermons on the Apocalypse was written for churches suffering persecution. He maintains that the true church always has been, is, and shall be subject to adversity and persecution. Bullinger uses the teaching of Jesus and the Book of Revelation both to show that suffering was prophesied and to offer consolation. (Apocalypse Preface a 2 r 28 – v4, a 5v 6–29, b3 v19–4r30) Suffering and indeed persecution are seen to be marks of the church throughout Bullinger’s ministry, for example, in The Testament (The Testament 38v 12–41v17).

The Marks of the Church

303

ungodliness and cruelty. They are joined in the same spirit and the same faith with those who have the visible signs. (HBTS 3. 749.28–34, 750. 8–17; Decades 4. 19–21) In The Second Helvetic Confession, Bullinger maintains that the church is not bound by its signs, so that those who do not share in the sacraments are outside the church. This was true in the Old Testament of those in exile in Babylon who were deprived of their sacrifices for seventy years. (Campi 315. 1–9; Cochrane 266) For Bullinger, however, it is not sufficient to state that word and sacrament are marks of the church, as the Arians had the word, but used it contrary to ‘the sense of scripture and the orthodox faith or the articles of the faith’. (Arians had the adulterated word, not the pure or sincere word of God.) Similarly, those who have the sacraments must use them lawfully, unlike Jeroboam. He did not sacrifice lawfully and was regarded as having defected from the true church. However, if heretics administer baptism in the threefold name to the catholic faith and not to error, it is ‘not the baptism of heretics but the baptism of the church’. Nevertheless, that does not make heretics the true church (HBTS 3.750.17–20,23–36, 751. 1–3, 6–11; Decades 4.21–23).33 There are also inward marks of the church.34 Unlike the outward marks which characterize the church militant with its mixture of believers and hypocrites, the inward marks belong only to the godly. They make the outward marks fruitful and they make people acceptable and pleasing to God where, by some necessity, the outward signs are missing. ‘They are the communion of the Spirit of the Lord, sincere faith, and twofold love.’ (Later, he says that by these we can easily tell whether or not someone is ‘in the fellowship of the church’.) They unite the faithful to Christ the head and to the other members of the church. The New Testament teaches that ‘Christ is joined to us by his Spirit and we are bound to him by faith, so that he lives in us and we in him’. Christ gives us his Spirit and by 33 In his exposition of Acts 2, Bullinger states that ‘the true, ancient and apostolic church’ is the church which has scriptural teaching in which evil is challenged and penitence and the remission of sins are preached. He adds that we ‘do not doubt the church of Christ to be’ where we see baptism and the eucharist, prayer, fellowship, and love. (Acts 37 v 8–20) He then contrasts these with their corrupt forms in the Church of Rome. For Acts, see HBBibl 1 no. 43. Fast (143) is, therefore mistaken in seeing Bullinger as moving towards the Anabaptists in 1560, where, besides referring to word and sacrament, he mentions prayer and love. He has stated this already in 1533 in his commentary on Acts. 34 In The Christian Religion Bullinger gives a concentrated exposition of the church in the context of the creed (97v 100v). Perhaps for that reason, in mentioning the inward and outward marks of the church, he mentions the fellowship of the Spirit before the word through which it becomes the church. Although Bullinger often repeats what he has said in other works, he frequently includes new elements. Here the church is described as living in the fear of God, in love and unity with all people, particularly its fellow members and serving God with patience in suffering. These are given with penitence and amendment of life as signs of the church which one finds in Acts. (98 v20–99 r10)

304

Chapter 11: The Church

the Spirit people ‘burn with the love of God’. (HBTS 3. 751. 22–28, 32–35, 752. 25– 26, 753. 27–28; Decades 4. 23–24,26)35 The word is a mark of the church, as it is from the word of God that the church is born and indeed built up and preserved. Bullinger supports this with a range of New Testament testimonies, such as ‘for faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God’ (Romans 10:17), and it is by faith that we are made true members of Christ and his church. Bullinger contrasts this with the Roman view which, in effect by the role it gives to human decrees and doctrines, sets up a human church rather than the Christian church which is founded by Christ’s word. It is for this reason that God has given teachers ‘to found, build, maintain, and enlarge his church by his word, his word alone’ (HBTS 3. 753. 34–36, 754. 1–6, 23–25, 755. 4–6; Decades. 4. 26–28). In The Second Helvetic Confession he emphasizes the word as the mark of the church, saying that the true church has ‘the signs or marks of the true church’, ‘especially the lawful and sincere preaching of the word of God as it was delivered to us in the book of the prophets and the apostles which all lead us to Christ’, who said in the gospel, ‘My sheep hear my voice….’ (John 10:5,27,28) This is followed by a passage in which he mentions participation ‘in the sacraments, instituted by Christ, delivered to us by the apostles’ and ‘used in no other way than as they received them from the Lord’. He mentions these, however, in the midst of several inward marks such as love. The word is, no doubt, emphasized as it leads to the true worship of the one God, and the seeking of salvation in Christ alone as mediator, intercessor, and head of the church. (Campi 314. 1–20; Cochrane 265) In the light of these two marks, Bullinger rejects the papal view that ‘they have a most certain mark of the apostolic church in the continued succession of bishops coming from St Peter… to Julius III…’. Bullinger does not deny that ‘the sure succession of pastors in the primitive church was of great weight’, but argues that since the time of Gregory the Great, the larger part of the bishops have not been true shepherds but devouring wolves, as Zechariah prophesied (Zechariah 11:15–17). Succession does not guarantee that a church is apostolic. An apostolic church is one which preserves the apostles’ teaching through which the church ‘is preserved and will be spread till the end of the world’. Bullinger supports this by observing that the true prophets of God in the Old Testament did not stand in a continual succession of priests and yet those believing them are held to be the true church. Furthermore, Christ was opposed by those who were supported by the succession of high priests (pontifices),36 and yet they were not regarded as the 35 Faith, in the sense of trust in God’s mercy and the outward confession of faith, unites us to each other as well as to Christ (HBTS 3. 752. 30–39). 36 The word ‘pontifex’ is used for high priests as well as for popes. See, for example, Luke 128 r39–42 and 130 v 32–38. For Luke, see HBBibl 1 no. 173.

The Church as One

305

true church; and the apostles also could not appeal to a succession of high priests, ‘and yet the church gathered by them is recognized by everyone to be the true and holy church’. Characteristically, by reference to Tertullian, Bullinger draws on patristic as well as biblical testimony in support of the apostolicity of churches which do not have a succession of bishops, but whose teaching is that of the apostles. (HBTS 3. 755. 8–10, 16–20, 33–756.2, 9–22, 38–757.3; Decades 4.28–32) In Questions of Religion, Bullinger responds to the question how one can recognise the true Christian church. He does not answer by giving the external and internal marks but combines them in a distinctive way. With biblical references he states that we recognize it ‘primarily by true faith and the pure word of God, by love and innocence and the amendment of life and by the constant and patient calling on the name of God’. He then adds the sacraments which are, however, not present in some situations – and that is why he has given first place to the others. (526–527) He rejects the papal view that one can recognize the true church by the succession of bishops, as can be seen by the succession of high priests in the Old Testament. It is conformity with the teaching of the apostles which makes the church apostolic. Acts 20 warns that some of those succeeding the apostles would be wolves (526–529). In The Second Helvetic Confession Bullinger rejects unity and antiquity, as well as the succession of bishops, as marks of the church. He does not there elaborate antiquity. Unity refers to the charge that the evangelicals were divided, unlike the Roman Church with its one head, the pope. Bullinger replies by pointing to the Roman church’s ‘sects, contentions, and quarrels’. He emphasizes that there was no disorder in the church before there was a pope and that ‘God was in the apostolic church and that it was a true church, even though there were disputes and dissensions in it’. Moreover, the ‘most distinguished doctors of the church have differed among themselves on important matters… without the church’s ceasing to be the church’. (Campi 313. 1–5, 9–24, 314. 20–23; Cochrane 264–265)

The Church as One In a separate sermon Bullinger describes the church as one, a word not used in the Apostles’ Creed. The church is one in the senses he has already stated – before Christ and after Christ, on earth and in heaven.37 After two brief biblical refer37 The sense of the church as one is expressed in part in various ways and contexts in his early writings. There is one church before and after Christ as there is one covenant. In Reply to Burchard the covenant is one and eternal, and so we and the ancients before Christ are one people, one church, with one God, covenant, and faith’. (HBTS 2. 151. 31–33) The constant affirmation that there is one church before and after Christ is related, but not limited to Bullinger’s understanding of the covenant. In 1525 in a reply to Bullinger, Jud cites Lactantius’

306

Chapter 11: The Church

ences, Bullinger draws on Cyprian and Lactantius to argue his case for the church as one, even when it spreads throughout the world. It is like a tree with many branches or a spring with many streams. Indeed, the church is called catholic or universal, because all these members are united perpetually in one body under one head Christ. The church is one: both the church militant and the church triumphant and the church before Christ’s coming and the church after his coming. Drawing on Augustine, he argues that the fact that the church is mixed does not make two churches any more than having traitors and true citizens in a nation makes two nations. Therefore, when people depart from the church they do not destroy its unity, but leave it purer. He cites Cyprian and Lactantius to support his view that there is no salvation and no people acceptable to God outside the church. ‘Whoever is separated from the church is joined to an adulteress.’ (HBTS 3. 767.26–769.24; Decades 4.49–52)38 Bullinger does not, as elsewhere, discuss why there is only one church. In Perfection, the unity of the church derives from there being ‘one God, one saviour, one faith, one baptism’ (59.12–14). In The Second Helvetic Confession he gives a comprehensive account of why there is one church: ‘And since there is always one God, and one mediator between God and people, Jesus the Messiah, and one shepherd of the whole flock, one head of this body, and, to conclude, one Spirit, one salvation, one faith, one testament or covenant, it necessarily follows that there is only one church.’ (Campi 310.25–29; Cochrane 262)39 He expresses this more succinctly in Two Sermons where he states that the unity of the church is from God and disunity from the devil (27r 25-v10).40The fact that there are two people (Jews and Gentiles) and two Testaments (Old and New) does not make two churches, any more than the fact that there is a church militant (with many particular churches) and a church triumphant. ‘There is salvation in one Messiah, in whom they are united as members of one body under one head, in the same faith, and sharing in the same spiritual food and drink.’ As the body of Christ they all receive life from Christ, the head. (Campi 311. 3–6, 11–12, 14–19, 312. 3–5; Cochrane 262–263) There is an extended discussion of the unity of the church in Questions of Religion, written by Bullinger to help those who are persecuted to answer questions put to them. It is part of his answer to questions whether there is reference to ‘one church of those before and those after Christ who are saved by the one Christ’ (HBBW 1. 81.19–22; cf HBTS 2.78.27–79.7). 38 There is a possible qualification in The Second Helvetic Confession in the words‘no certain salvation’. It states that ‘as there was no salvation outside Noah’s ark…so, there is no certain salvation outside Christ’ (Campi 314.26–31; Cochrane 266). 39 The unity of the church in The Christian Religion is related to the one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (100 r 17–21). In The Institution of the Eucharist, it is related to the Spirit (HBTS 2. 102.11–12). 40 For Two Sermons, see HBBibl 1 no. 582.

The Church as One

307

salvation outside the Roman church and whether those who intentionally separate from it are to be regarded as heretics and apostates. He maintains that in German and Hebrew the word heretic is related to separation and that in Latin it is expounded (similarly) by the word sect. Where separation or heresy occurs there must have been unity. In the light of Matthew 10:34–35 and the separation of the apostles from Judaism, Bullinger holds that there can be a false unity. He is concerned, however, to examine true unity. ‘As there is one God, one world, one Son and so on, so there is only one divine truth, only one true Christian faith and only one universal Christian church, in which all believers obey and adhere to the divine truth alone, love the one true God with all their heart and soul and strength, adore, invoke, and worship him alone.’ Bullinger expounds this further in terms of Christ as the only saviour in whom there is fullness or perfection. Believers ‘have everything in Christ alone and need and desire nothing more’. They trust ‘in the Father alone, through Jesus Christ, God’s Son, in the power of the Holy Spirit’. Through the sacraments they pledge themselves to God and his church and serve one another in love. (Campi 535–537) The church in the Old Testament was also one. God gave one law, one covenant, one temple, one sacrifice, one priesthood. Moreover, they had their sacraments which ‘served this unity, so that they were one people under one God and one faith’. Bullinger maintains that Jeroboam divided the one and only congregation, withdrawing the ten tribes from the one temple and sacrifice, and from the prescribed worship, and following his own pleasure he built two churches or temples, with idols. After him came Ahab who led them even further from unity. A comparable disunity occurred in the early church as people, for example, rejected doctrines such as the trinity and asserted human merit against divine grace. Bullinger compares this with the Roman church’s preferring its own views to God’s word, invoking created things and not God alone, and denying that salvation is in Christ alone. The reformers would have been heretics and dividers of the church if they had done these things, but in fact they have been engaged in restoring ‘the ancient and first simplicity and unity of the true faith and of the true Christian and apostolic church’. This led them to leave the Roman church, but not the ancient Roman church. (Campi 537–539) Bullinger’s emphasis on the unity of the church presents him with a double challenge: to convict the Anabaptists for separating from the church, while defending the apparent separation of evangelicals from the church. Anabaptists separate because the church’s life and teaching are not pure, its discipline is not strict enough, and its ministers are marred by faults and vices. (HBTS 3. 769. 36– 770.4; Decades 4. 52–53) These are wrong reasons for separating. They lead Bullinger to outline the right and the wrong reasons for separation from the church in relation to the teaching, life, and discipline of the church.

308

Chapter 11: The Church

Bullinger allows that one may separate where the teaching of an immutable doctrine of the church is at stake, such as the doctrines of the creed and the doctrines of salvation, for example, justification by faith. When, however, the scriptures are expounded and applied, what is fundamental is that nothing is said ‘contrary to the truth of the faith or the love of God and our neighbours’. Bullinger maintains that there will be diversity in interpretation, but such diversity is not a reason for separation.41 Moreover, following Augustine, Bullinger argues that even if someone errs grossly in interpretation, one may admonish the person, but still not separate from the church. Similarly, applying Christ’s word in Matthew 23:2–3, Bullinger states that a minister’s life is not a ground for separation, while the minister teaches faithfully and distributes the two sacraments lawfully. It is different if a minister does not teach the faith rightly. Christ commands us to flee from false prophets, which means from false doctrine, not from evil life. There are two other matters which do not justify separation: diversity in ceremonies and impurity in members’ lives, which pollutes other people. Bullinger maintains that there has always been diversity in ceremonies and quotes Socrates, Irenaeus, and Augustine to show that in the early church there was unity despite great diversity,42 and that Paul in the case of Corinth and Jesus himself with Judas did not regard a person’s evil life as a reason for separating from the church. Typically, Bullinger concludes his case by combining scripture and the early church. He quotes Cyprian’s charging those who judge in this way with usurping the role which the Father has given to the Son. (HBTS 3. 770. 12–17, 771. 7–9, 27–29. 37–772.2, 9–11, 13–14, 27–28, 32–34, 773.7–8, 18–20, 774.1–2, 14–16, 775. 13–16; Decades 4.53–62) Bullinger has to defend his understanding of the church in two directions: against ‘defenders of the Roman monarchy’ and against Anabaptists. He is charged by the former of a crime similar to the one he condemns in the latter. Their charge is of having deserted the old Roman church in which scripture has authority and the sacraments have their place, simply because of the faults of some of the bishops and priests. This leads Bullinger to define heretics and schismatics and to argue that evangelicals are neither. (HBTS 3. 775. 20–35; Decades 4. 62–63)

41 Bullinger distinguishes what Paul commands in 2 Thessalonians 3: 6 from what the Anabaptists do, for they, in separating from the church, set up a private church (2 Thessalonians 85 r 13–17). For 2 Thessalonians, see HBBibl 1 no. 81. 42 This is expressed rather differently in The Second Helvetic Confession which states both that diversity in rites does not dissolve the unity of the church and that unity does not lie in rites and ceremonies but in the truth and unity of the catholic faith (Campi 316. 3–13, Cochrane 267–268). There are differences between the church in the Old Testament and the church in the New, but they are parts of the one church. Therefore, many differences, for example, in ceremonies, can exist without division.

The Church as One

309

Following Augustine, he relates heretics to doctrine and schismatics to separation. Heretics are further described as advancing and spreading strange views, contrary to scripture, the articles of faith, and doctrines based on God’s word. Bullinger defines what it is to be Christian and catholic in terms of the imperial edict as continuing the religion (concerning the trinity) that St Peter taught at Rome and which Damasus and Peter of Alexandria also taught. In describing schismatics, Bullinger adds the gathering and joining of other congregations to the fundamental idea of separation. Bullinger insists that it is because of their fidelity to scripture and the councils of the church, that evangelicals reject the pope’s false teaching and his new unscriptural decrees, as well as papal abuses and corruption. ‘We flee and reject their tyranny and anti-Christianity, but we do not reject Christ and his yoke, nor flee the fellowship of the saints.’ ‘Escaping from the papal church we are gathered into the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.’ (HBTS 3. 775.35–776.15, 18–20, 28–35; Decades 4. 63– 65)43 In writing on the papal bull against Elizabeth, he maintains that to be true catholics people must leave the Roman church which has departed from the faith and practice of the apostolic and primitive church and join evangelicals who are true catholics (52r 16–53v3).44 Bullinger distinguishes the old apostolic Roman church, to which his opponents appeal, from the present Roman church. He identifies with the former, but rejects the latter. He does not recognize this church, which ‘acknowledges and worships the pope as Christ’s vicar on earth and obeys his laws, to be the true church of Christ’. At the same time he judges that there are many in that church ‘who worship Christ and have kept themselves free from papal pollution’. Despite its claims this new Roman church does not have the outward or inward marks of the church. Indeed, it cannot be tolerated as one tolerates hypocrites and evil people in the church, because ‘the Romanists are the worst and most cruel enemies of Christ’s truth, openly blaspheming the gospel and persecuting believers in Christ’. They subject the bible and its interpretation to the pope, so that they reject as heretics those who, like scripture, call Christ the only head of the church, unless they add the pope to be the head of the church on earth.45 Bullinger maintains that this and other examples show that the Roman church is destitute of the word of God and therefore ‘is not the true church of 43 In the preface to Luke, Bullinger maintains that those who believe that Christ is the head of the church shrink from the pope (AA4 v24–25). He later states, ‘The faith of Peter and the faith of the pope, the teaching of Peter and the teaching of the pope are diametrically opposed.’ (128r 39–40) 44 For A Confutation of the Pope’s Bull, see HBBibl 1 no. 562. 45 Bullinger gives further examples of where Rome calls heretics those who hold what scripture teaches (HBTS 3.785.10–13; Decades 4.68). Generally Bullinger simply contrasts the pope’s claiming to be head of the church with Christ’s being the only head of the church, which is his body. But he also rejects the view that the pope saves the church from disorder. For Bullinger, the government of the church handed down by the apostles maintained order in the early church. (Campi 313.1–8; Cochrane 264)

310

Chapter 11: The Church

Christ’. He also rejects Roman administration of the Lord’s Supper, but not their administration of baptism. Therefore, in his judgement the Roman church lacks both the outward and inward marks of the church. (HBTS 3. 777.4–5, 10–15, 24–27, 778. 1– 2, 18–20, 779. 3–4, 7–8; Decades 4. 65–69) It is fundamental for Bullinger that the church of God has existed from the beginning and does not cease when leaders of the church, as in the church of Rome, prove faithless. He argues this with five examples from the Old Testament, when word and sacrament, the outward signs of the church, were suppressed. At these times God sent prophets, such as Elijah, who spoke his word, although they were not acknowledged by the leaders. God also had a remnant who remained faithful, such as the seven thousand who had not bowed the knee to Baal. This faithful remnant might be unknown to others, as the seven thousand were unknown to Elijah. However, despite the suppression of word and sacrament, they partook of all the gifts of God through faith. (HBTS 3.779.19–21, 780. 15–781.1; Decades 4. 69–72) With these biblical precedents, Bullinger is able to argue that God has a church on earth, although the Roman church is not the church. Everywhere there have been some who have ‘acknowledged Christ the Lord to be the only author of salvation’. Moreover, in almost every age, God has sent ‘godly and learned men’ ‘who challenge the tyranny of the pope, demanding the purging of the church from papal corruptions, and teaching the true doctrine of salvation and the true use of the sacraments’. Nevertheless, the pope condemned, excommunicated, and even killed those ‘who preached the word of God and demanded the reformation of the church’. (This opposition was, indeed, foretold by Christ and by the prophets and apostles.) However, people could still be saved in this unreformed church, because, for example, the Apostles’ Creed (‘the most perfect rule of saving faith’) was recited to the dying. Moreover, God, who saved the thief on the cross, would undoubtedly have mercy on those oppressed by anti-Christ and teach them by the Holy Spirit. (HBTS 3.781.13–21, 27–31, 782.16–20; Decades 4.72–74) Bullinger supports the reformation of the church of his day, by reference to biblical and especially apostolic precedent, arguing indeed for a reformation in the likeness of the apostolic church. (HBTS 3. 783. 19–25; Decades 4.76) At the same time, however, he defends withdrawal from the church. In his letter to Edward VI, Bullinger rejoices at ‘the renovation of religion’ in England and argues that there is no need to wait for a general council to reform the church. His case is negative (the precedent of medieval councils) and positive (the example of Josiah and the early church). He describes medieval councils as having led to superstition and error in doctrine and corruption rather than to amendment or reformation in the church, as they did not accept the authority of God’s word. In particular he attacks the role of Rome which ultimately determines the councils’ outcome. In any council it called, Rome would rather that

The Church as One

311

the gospel, along with Christ and the true church, perished than forgo its decrees, rites, authority, or wealth. By contrast Josiah called a council of princes and priests and did not refer the judgement to the high priest, but submitted himself to the law of God without paying any regard to ancient custom. He defends the calling of in effect a local council by the precedent of the early church, with its provincial councils, and in particular of Cyprian. They dealt with matters of faith and the reformation of the churches and, moreover, made no mention of the Bishop of Rome. (HBTS 3. 557–561); Decades 3. 115–122) Bullinger defends the withdrawal of evangelicals from the Roman church as ‘lawful and necessary’ for salvation. He cites the words of Christ and the apostles ‘to flee from anti-Christ, idolatry, and false prophets’. He contrasts this with other types of withdrawal, such as apostasy, schism, and heresy. He gives examples of each of them, citing apostates, such as Julian, schismatics, such as the Donatists, and heretics, such as Arius. The evangelical withdrawal is ‘not from the true, but from the false church’. It is ‘not from the people of God, but from the persecutors of God’s people’. It is ‘not from the articles of the faith and the sound doctrine of the church , but from errors which obscure’ them. It is ‘not for innovation…but for the recovery of the true faith’. It is leaving the fellowship of darkness to be ‘with Christ, the true light’, forsaking the false doctrine of Rome ‘for the doctrine of the gospel and the apostles, and for Christ the head of the church’. (HBTS 3.783.25–29, 784. 13–785.9; Decades 4. 76–78) Unity was a pastoral as well as a theological issue, as is evident in Firm Foundation. Its extended title indicates that it was written to inform and console simple Christians at a time when there were many divisions and when scholars were in conflict. He argues that Christ and the apostles prophesied discord in matters of the faith and that there were divisions between the Roman and evangelical churches and even among evangelicals, leading to the names Lutheran and Zwinglian (1 r 11-v20).46 There were, however, disputes also in the early church about the faith (4r 22-v 12).47 Bullinger faces the challenge of those who hold that as God is a God of peace and not of discord and as there is discord among evangelicals, evangelicals are not a church and their teaching and faith are false. Bullinger responds by distinguishing between ‘the necessary chief points’ of the faith and ‘the teaching and articles on which people’s salvation does not primarily depend’. He holds that all true believers are agreed on the chief articles or given a little time will be. (5 v 14– 6r 12) Bullinger employs a variety of defence from analogies, such as the unity of a 46 Bullinger maintains that there are divisions in the Roman churches, for example, between Thomists and Scotists (5r 25–29). 47 Bullinger notes that Clement of Alexandria records that Jews accused Christians of being divided and therefore wrong, whereas Jews were united (4r 22–27).

312

Chapter 11: The Church

married couple who disagree on some household matters. He outlines a series of divisions in the New Testament, such as those between Paul and Peter, and Paul and Barnabas, and those among Christians in Corinth; and also divisions in the early church between many of the fathers. (6v1–9v24) Bullinger does not regard discord as good nor does he seek to defend it.48 He gives examples from the early church to offer consolation to simple, godly people, who are troubled by the disputes among theologians. He exhorts them to pray God to bring peace and unity, as he did in the past. Besides praying, they should turn their gaze away from the disputes and not let contradictory opinions turn them from Christ. (10r1-v17)

Images of the Church In presenting particular doctrines, Bullinger often expounds some of the biblical terms used of them.49 He does this with the church, with images such as house, vine, and body.50 These images show his high doctrine of the church in the intimate way they relate God to the church. God builds the church, though he also uses people to help in the building. Christ is its foundation, and also its cornerstone. Perhaps most important is his maintaining that ‘just as a house is dwelt in by people, so God dwells in the church’. (HBTS 3.785.30–33. 786. 5–6, 9, 787.28– 29; Decades 4. 79,80,82)51 Some of these images, such as the body, are directly related to Christ. But some which are not as directly related to him, such as the house and the temple are expounded in relation to Christ. Thus, Christ is the foundation of the house, and he is related to the temple as the pillars upholding it and the entrance into it. (HBTS 3. 786.9–787.12, 23–31; Decades 4.80–83) The image of the vine and branches abiding in each other is directly related to Christ, as is that of the body, of which Christ is the head.52 The body has its life from the 48 In The Second Helvetic Confession, he adds the Pauline reason for dissension in the church: ‘It pleases God to use dissensions in the church to the glory of his name, to illustrate the truth, and so that those who are in the right may be manifest’ (Campi 313. 24–26; Cochrane 265). 49 Büsser (‘Zürich’ 31–32) draws attention to the medieval character of Bullinger’s use of a variety of biblical images for the church. He observes that Calvin used only two images of the church (as body of Christ and mother) compared with Bullinger’s use of several. 50 Bullinger uses the word parable (HBTS 3.785.10–13; Decades 4.68). The order of the images varies. In The Second Helvetic Confession, it is temple or house, bride, flock, and body (Campi 311. 23–312.2; Cochrane 263). In The Christian Religion, it is sheepfold, body, bride, house, and pillar (99 v 2–29). 51 In commenting on the kingdom of heaven in 3:1, Bullinger states, ‘For the church is the house of the living God, the temple of the Holy Spirit, in which God lives and reigns.’ (Matthew 27 r 49–50) 52 The figure of the body and head as well as that of the foundation of the church are used against the Church of Rome and the role of the pope. Bullinger also contrasts the papal view of ‘Roman monarchy’ with Christ’s vision of servant leadership and his refusal of a crown,

The Church as One

313

head, and without the head the body is dead. Moreover, the head is joined to the members through grace and the Spirit. Through the Spirit he is always present, and therefore he has no need of a vicar. ‘Where, therefore, a vicar of Christ is acknowledged, no Christ is there, and therefore anti-Christ reigns in that place.’ (HBTS 3.788.36–789.1,7–8, 11–16; Decades 4. 84–85) The image of marriage has a similar force.53 In the union of Christ and his church, which as a pure virgin, loves him alone, there is a sharing. He takes believers’ weakness, sin, and death and gives his justification, sanctification, and life, so that they may be just and holy and may live through him. Moreover, through the union with Christ (and the seed of his word) the church as a mother begets children. The church of Rome, by contrast with the true church, receives and hands on a new teaching which is alien to the word of God and begets many children, not to Christ but to anti-Christ. (HBTS 3. 792. 13–15, 30–36, 793. 3–6, 16–19, 794. 1–3; Decades 4. 90–92)

Christ and the Church Throughout his works, Bullinger emphasizes the inseparable link between Christ and the church. Staedtke (Theologie 216–220) notes that this is characteristic of the early Bullinger. It is at the heart of Bullinger’s critique of the teaching and practice of the Roman church. The church is described as those who believe in Christ and those who hear the shepherd’s voice’ (John 10:3). Christ is ‘the only head of the church’, and therefore the church does not ‘need a vicar’, which the Bishop of Rome claims to be. ‘Believers in Christ’ are called ‘a house of the living God’ for ‘God dwells in their hearts as in a house or temple’. It is Christ’s sacrificial death which makes them priests. Twenty years later in The Decades, in expounding images of the church, he emphasizes that it is inseparable from supporting this with Jerome’s regarding bishops and elders as equal. The image of shepherd and sheepfold points to Christ as the only shepherd of the universal church. He commits to Peter ministry and not sovereignty and Peter reminds his fellow elders that they are examples to the flock, not lords over it. Bullinger then quotes Gregory’s rejection of the title of universal pastor, which belongs to Christ, but which is claimed by the pope: ‘whoever calls himself universal priest is a forerunner of anti-Christ. (HBTS 3.789. 13–790.6, 20–79210; Decades 4.85– 89) 53 Already in his Reply to Burchard, Bullinger uses the image of the church as the bride of Christ (HBTS 2.147. 25–26). Selderhuis (‘Kirche’ 520–523) emphasizes the eschatological dimension in the presentation of the church in Sermons on the Apocalypse. This is related of course to the text of the Apocalypse. In it, the image of the marriage of the church to Christ with the need for us to prepare to meet the bridegroom gives an eschatological accent to Bullinger’s use of this image. Indeed, our whole life is spent preparing for this. (Apocalypse 252 32–34; ET 565) The eschatological dimension is already present in The First Helvetic Confession, related to Ephesians 5: 27 (Saxer 49. 5–9; Cochrane 105)

314

Chapter 11: The Church

Christ. With the image of the body, he states, ‘Christ is never separated from the church; nor does it live other than from Christ. Although he is absent in body from the church, he is however most present in the Spirit and in operation and government, so that he needs no vicar on earth. He alone governs and remains for ever the only head, the only king, the only priest and saviour of his church.’ (HBTS 3.789.12–16; Decades 4.85)54There is a similar emphasis some twenty years after The Decades in his commentary on Isaiah. In it Bullinger maintains that ‘That is the true church, the congregation or assembly of all the faithful which rests on the foundation Christ, on whom alone it depends as its head, to whom alone it listens and whom alone it obeys in true faith, nor does it have any communion with strangers.’ (Isaiah 12 v27–30)55

54 The intimate relation of Christ and the church is evident in Firm Foundation in 1563. The chapter on the church begins with Christ’s teaching as its only head, lord, shepherd, bridegroom, and ruler. The church is the congregation of all believers, founded on Christ the rock. They are the sheep who hear the shepherd’s voice. They are members of Christ and are content with his teaching. Elsewhere it is said to have all fullness in Christ. (34 v 13–35 v15; 13 r 8–17) 55 For Isaiah, see HBBibl 1 no. 558

Chapter 12: The Ministry1

Unlike Luther and Zwingli, Bullinger was not a priest when he became a reformer. Moreover, after coming to a reformation faith, he engaged in lay ministry at Kappel for five years before he was ordained as a minister in 1528 and took the oath at the synod.2 His years as a teacher of secular and biblical studies may have contributed to the fact that teaching was a key element in his understanding of ordained ministry. It is central to the minister as a prophet and a priest. In his early works, he is critical of the term priest, in opposition to the Roman view of priesthood, but he embraces it in the 1530s as he interprets it biblically in the light of Christ. In his various writings (commentaries and sermons, treatises and confessional statements) there are diverse concerns and emphases. 1 Recent studies on the ministry include: Koch, Ernst Die Theologie der Confessio Helvetica Posterior (Neukirchen – Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, 1968) 246–267. Büsser, Fritz ‘De prophetae officio. Eine Gedenkrede Bullingers auf Zwingli’ in M. Haas und R. Hauswirth (eds.) Festgabe Leonhard von Muralt zum siebzigsten Geburtstag 17. Mai 1970 überreicht von Freunden und Schülern (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1970) 245–257; ‘Bullinger als Prophet. Zu seiner Frühschrift “Anklag und Ermahnen”’ in Irmgard Buck and Georg Kurt Schaner (eds.) Alles Lebendige meinet den Menschen. Gedenkbuch für Max Niehans. (Bern, 1972) 249–270. ‘Les Institutions ecclésiales á Zurich au 16eme siècle’ in Michel Perronet (ed.) Les églises et leurs institutions au XVI e siècle.Actes du 5e Colloque d’Histoire de la Réforme et du Protestantisme (Montpellier, 1977) 201–213; Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575) Leben,Werk und Wirkung vols. 1–2 (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2004–2005); Maeder, Kurt ‘Bullinger und die Synode’ in Ulrich Gäbler and Endre Zsindely (eds.) Bullinger Tagung 1975. Vortrage, gehalten aus Anlass von Heinrich Bullingers 400. Todestag (Zurich: Institut für Schweizerische Reformationsgeschichte, 1977) 69–76; Zsindley, Endre ‘Bullinger als Seelsorger’’ in Gäbler and Zsindely (eds.), Bullinger Tagung 1975 21–31; Biel, Pamela Doorkeepers at the House of Righteousness. Heinrich Bullinger and the Zurich Clergy 1535–1575 (Bern: Peter Lang, 1991); Gordon, Bruce Clerical Discipline and the Rural Reformation. The Synod in Zürich, 1532–1580 (Bern: Peter Lang, 1991) ‘The Protestant Ministry and the Cultures of Rule: The Reformed Zurich Clergy of the Sixteenth Century’ 137–155, 231–234; ‘Preaching and the reform of the clergy in the Swiss Reformation’ in A. Pettegree (ed.) Preaching and the Reform of the Clergy (Manchester: Manchester U.P., 1993) 63–84. 2 The influence of Zwingli can be seen in Bullinger’s understanding of a minister both as a prophet and as a shepherd. In his letter to Mathias Schmid he emphasizes the role of a shepherd who is not to abandon the flock (HBBW 1.93. 21–22).

316

Chapter 12: The Ministry

The Prophet One of the main terms used by Zwingli and also by Bullinger in expounding the ministry is ‘prophet’. It is related to Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians 14:1–4 and finds its expression in the ‘prophecy’ (Prophezei), which was established by Zwingli in Zurich in 1525. (This was anticipated in a measure by Bullinger in Kappel except that in Zurich there were scholars, who – unlike Bullinger at that time – were able to grapple with the Hebrew and Greek text of the bible. In Zurich, moreover, that was followed by the preaching of the word in German to the people.) The role of the prophet was to expound scripture, making use of the original languages.3 In 1525 Bullinger makes use of rhetoric in his understanding of the role of the prophet. He relates the classical orator as teaching, delighting, and moving. (In his unpublished work on the prophet in 1525 the emphasis is on expounding and proclaiming.) Although Bullinger uses the language of rhetoric, it does nor supplant Paul’s understanding of prophecy. It seems rather – at least if one looks at some of his later statements – that the second and third terms used of rhetoric are a means to an end rather than an end. In a way they enable the preacher to succeed in edifying, exhorting, and comforting. The rhetorical term ‘teaching’, although not in 1 Corinthians14:3, is nevertheless not an addition to scripture, but is central to Bullinger’s understanding of ministry. Moreover, the Pauline term edifying or upbuilding expresses a consistent aim for Bullinger in preaching and teaching, even when he does not make it explicit. Introduction to Study in 1528 reflects Bullinger’s earlier presentation of the prophet. In chapters 14 and 15, where he moves from secular studies to study of the bible, Bullinger shows some of his understanding of the ministry. He begins with the need for a minister to be good and to have the necessary linguistic and other skills to expound scripture. He argues that if a speaker needs to be a good person, how much more does someone engaged with the holy scripture need to be good, for scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit. (In it is expressed God’s ‘eternal and infallible will’, so that we can know what pleases God.) Indeed, Bullinger can speak of reading scripture as ‘not so much a reading as rather a godly prayer to God’, for he offers a prayer to be prayed repeatedly while reading

3 Bullinger’s understanding of prophet as an interpreter of scripture may lie behind a reference to prophesying in 1523 (HBTS 2.28. 21–24), but is explicit in his unpublished work on the prophet in 1525. He could be dependent on contemporaries such as Zwingli (S VI/II 178. 8–44) or Erasmus or even Ambrosiaster. See, for example, HBSR 2.241.

The Ministry in the 1530s

317

scripture. It is a prayer for increased faith, so that through reading scripture, we may serve God and may preach his great deeds to others.4 Drawing explicitly on his earlier work, Bullinger states that the reader of the bible needs a knowledge of Hebrew and Greek and of the scope of scripture, to which everything refers, and of certain ways of treating the text which are common to all study. The scope is not, as with Luther and others, law and gospel but the covenant, as we see in Genesis 17 and 22. In it ‘God binds himself to us, promises and shows us who and of what kind he wills to be to us’ and ‘what he requires of us’.5 There are other elements necessary for understanding the bible: study of the context, with a consideration of analogy, different uses of the same word, and trope; the circumstances, such as the cause, place, occasion; and comparison of texts of scripture, bearing in mind the main question or point (status), on which the various arguments depend and which is the point or purpose of the writer. With this Bullinger commends the use of rhetoric in understanding the bible and discusses the right use of allegory.6 In chapter 25 on the prophets, Bullinger states that the prophets of old and the bishops, who also themselves are called prophets (1 Corinthians 14), ‘had the same task’. That task is interpretation, which for the prophet meant the interpretation of Moses ‘as they expound all matters of the law more clearly’. Interestingly in the same passage, Bullinger emphasizes the importance of rhetoric in understanding the prophets.7 The understanding of prophecy as interpretation leads in chapter 30 to a reference to biblical commentaries as prophecies in the light of 1 Thessalonians 5:19–20.8

The Ministry in the 1530s It is instructive to see in some detail Bullinger’s exposition of the ministry in two different contexts in the 1530s. The first, The Prophet, is dedicated to Zurich’s rural ministers at the beginning of Bullinger’s ministry in Zurich. The second, The Institution and Ministry of Bishops, is dedicated to Henry VIII, in support of the reformation of the Church of England.

4 HBSR 1. 14 (58) 2–4, 15 (58) 2–7, (60) 13–18. The footnotes to HBSR 1 follow the numbering in the editions in which the number in brackets is to the page and the numbers before and after it refer to the section and the lines in the section. 5 HBSR 1.18 (68) 8–10, 20 (74) 2–15. 6 HBSR 1. 21 (78) 4, 20–21, (82) 58–63, 68, (84) 98–103, 111–112;23 (90) 13-(92) 3, 27, 27 (104) 74– 75. 7 HBSR 1.96. 1–6, 17–18. 8 HBSR 1. 108. 5–6.

318

Chapter 12: The Ministry

The focus of the first is on the minister as a prophet, a concept familiar to them from the writings of Zwingli. Bullinger himself had expounded the term in some detail six years earlier, and like Zwingli had contrasted his evangelical way of understanding the ministry with the medieval view of the priesthood. The second work does not abandon the concept of the minister as a prophet, but its focus is rather on the minister as a priest, albeit not in the way the Roman Church understood priesthood. In both works, Bullinger adduces patristic support, although the role of the fathers is more significant in the second. Before them there is a critique of the Anabaptist understanding of ministry and between a brief summary of his position in The First Helvetic Confession.

Anabaptist Teaching (1530) In 1530 Bullinger published the first of two major works against Anabaptists. It is in the form of a dialogue, putting both sides beside each other with questions and answers, statements and counter statements. Bullinger regards this as the most effective way of teaching in the controversy.9 A frequently repeated charge is that Anabaptists are false prophets because of their false, unscriptural teaching. The first article maintains that the spirit which is in conflict with scripture is a false spirit. The Anabaptists are like the papists ‘who also do not wish the word of God to be the judge in matters of faith’. Bullinger points out that the apostles in the Acts received the Holy Spirit richly, but ‘did not despise or abandon scripture’. They did not appeal to the Spirit against scripture but used scripture as confirmation in their preaching. In this the Anabaptists are like Montanus.10 Bullinger rejects the Anabaptist view that ministers are to be simple (Matthew 11:25) not learned. When Christ used the word simple, he did not mean ignorant. Simple does not mean someone without understanding or knowledge, but someone who is not false, but rather godly. Bullinger responds to the Anabaptist argument that the apostles were simple, but not learned by stating that they were simple but not untaught. For three years they were taught by Jesus and then endowed with the Holy Spirit so that they understood all languages and knowledge, as one can see from what they wrote and did. Bullinger challenged the Anabaptist view that the Lord did not call the learned by quoting examples such as Paul and Apollos, Tertullian and Cyprian, Lactantius and Augustine. Their learning was not false, but came from God, and was to his glory.11

9 Anabaptist Teaching A7 v 3–9. 10 Anabaptist Teaching 9 r 18–20, v 5–8, 12 r 13–20, 13 v 1–11. 11 Anabaptist Teaching 14 r 18–24, 14 v 2–15 r 4.

The Ministry in the 1530s

319

A major charge against Anabaptist ministers is that they have not been called or sent in the way scripture demands, but rather are self-sent. Bullinger regards their divisive, self-appointed ministry as heretical. He argues from 1 Corinthians 12:27–30 that God appointed only some, not all, to offices, such as those of apostle and prophet, and from Romans 10:15 and Hebrews 5:4 that people need to be sent, to be called by God, and not to take honour to themselves. After several supporting testimonies Bullinger refers to Anabaptists as false prophets, quoting Jeremiah 23, a chapter that refers to prophets whom God did not send. Bullinger rejects the Anabaptist claim to be sent by God because they preach God’s word (John 3:34), citing Arius’ misuse of scriptural words and the devil’s use of scripture in the temptations.12 The Anabaptist preachers were, moreover, unfit for ministry. Some, Bullinger says, could not read, and therefore were like the neophytes who – according to Paul – were not to be ordained. Some had never even seen the bible and know only two or three misunderstood sayings. They are not prophets, as in 1 Corinthians 14, indeed they are no more prophets than a sow. They do not have the languages needed, indeed they despise them and regard German as enough. For Bullinger, one cannot be a bishop or pastor unless called by God – directly or indirectly through the church. He asks who has chosen them, as by implication they have not be called indirectly for they lack the signs or gifts, for example, in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. They have sent themselves. They are proud, seditious, and sectarian. They remind Bullinger of the pope, with the ordaining of every pimp and stable boy.13 Bullinger develops the charge that Anabaptists, unlike Evangelicals, were not prophets, but false prophets because of their false teaching. This leads him to describe them as seditious and heretical. With the word heretic he understands a sectarian who with false obstinate teaching divides the church. The German word heretic means one who tears apart. Bullinger cites Paul’s speaking of those causing dissension as those who opposed his teaching (Romans 16:17).14 In the exposition which follows he describes them as false prophets for their concern with earthly things rather than with faith, innocence, and love. He accuses them of being false and enemies of the cross of Christ in their teaching as also in the article that Christ took away only original sin and that our salvation is in our works.15 12 Anabaptist Teaching 15 r 24–25, 15 v 15–16 r 18, 16 v 8–16. As often against Anabaptists, Bullinger states that God is not God of division (cf 16 v 26–17 r 2). 13 Anabaptist Teaching 18 v 14–23, 19 r 2–29. Bullinger rejects the Anabaptist interpretation of 1 Corinthians, as Paul refers to two or three speaking in church with the rest listening and considering by themselves what was said (19 v 19–24). 14 Anabaptist Teaching 23 v 19–24 r 18, 24 v 8–13. 15 Anabaptist Teaching 24 v 19–25 r 2, 27 r 19–22.

320

Chapter 12: The Ministry

A constant element is Bullinger’s defence of the ministers’ receiving a stipend; not unrelated to this is ministers having a manse. In both cases, as generally with Anabaptists, Bullinger argues from the New Testament. Fundamental in the first case is the quotation, ‘The labourer is worthy of his hire’. However, to meet other objections, Bullinger uses other arguments. Thus, he argues that some commands are to be taken figuratively and not literally, for if they are taken literally they conflict with what Christ and the apostles did. Christ said one should carry no bag or money: but he had them, for Judas was their treasurer. He said one should not have two coats, but John 19 shows that he had two, as Acts 19 and 2 Timothy 4 show likewise for Paul. Against passages which might imply that ministers should not have a home, he cites examples where they had one, such as Philip in Caesarea and Philemon, or where one was implied.16

The Prophet (1532) In his first weeks in Zurich, Bullinger dedicated a work on the prophetic office to ‘all the ministers of the word in the Zurich countryside’.17 Fundamental to it is the presentation of the minister as one who expounds the word of God, but it conceives that broadly. Bullinger sees the background of the word in the Old Testament in those who by divine revelation foresee future things and in those who expound sacred things, challenging error and evil and teaching piety and justice. In the light of this, he describes the office of the prophet as ‘explaining the sacred scriptures, opposing error and evils, defending piety and truth, in a word not only instilling in people’s minds with all zeal and energy but also inculcating justice, faith, and mutual love’. This involves ‘confirming waverers, comforting the dejected, arousing and encouraging those who are slow or hanging back in the way of the Lord’. He cites Jeremiah and Paul ‘the two supreme lights of our religion’ in support of the prophetic (Jeremiah 1:9–10) and expository (1 Corinthians 14:3) roles.18 As the fundamental role is the exposition of the scriptures, which are inspired by God, Bullinger describes what is involved. It starts with prayer to the Spirit ‘ to illuminate our hearts’ so that we may understand and not misunderstand the oracles of God. He draws on Augustine, beginning with the need to know the chief point ‘to which all things refer and on which they rely’. It is not, as some say, law and gospel, but the testament which is ‘the title of the whole scripture and likewise the chief point of the whole scripture’. He describes the testament or 16 Anabaptist Teaching 77v 19–27, 79 r 6–17, 80 v 25–82 r 19, 82 v 21–83 v16. 17 For The Prophet, see HBBibl 1 no. 33. It was given as an address on 28 January 1532. 18 The Prophet 2 v 4–15, 3 r 3-v 5.

The Ministry in the 1530s

321

covenant from Genesis as it concerns God and us, and sees all the books of the bible as referring to the testament ‘that is faith and innocence of life’. From faith comes knowledge of God, especially of his righteousness and mercy, and from innocence come truth, constancy, purity, and love.19 Related to this is the criterion by which the prophet is to judge whether he has expounded scripture in a holy way. It is ‘the gift of faith and love’, in keeping with Paul’s reference to the measure of faith (Romans 12:6) and the love which builds up and without which, even if we have knowledge, we are nothing (1 Corinthians 8:1 and 13:1–2, 4–8). An exposition is sound, if it does not conflict with faith or violate love, provided one gives attention to matters such as time and circumstance. Bullinger can say that ‘knowledge of languages and genuine knowledge are especially necessary for the prophet’ but he can add that ‘if someone lacks them… he should not despair as long as he is led by the rule of love’. Moreover, those who are ‘endowed with the knowledge of languages and manifold learning should remember that they are gifts of the Spirit’. They are given that we may rightly understand the things of God, not for show.20 Bullinger gives the prophet further guidance. He insists that the fathers are not judges, quoting Augustine’s statement that ‘we all have one master and are fellow disciples in the one school’. The prophet is not to approach scripture which is inspired by the Spirit with his own presuppositions, but is to pray to God for illumination by his Spirit as teacher. The prophet is to focus first on the main point (status) on which the subject depends and to which it refers. (Earlier he has referred to the testament as the scope of the bible.) He is to give attention to matters such as circumstances, and Common Places. Besides what he needs for exposition, the prophet needs the ability to express himself in speech which is clear and appropriate. Without it ‘the knowledge of scripture will profit nothing’.21 The prophet, however, is not simply an expositor of scripture, for in scripture the prophets challenge error, injustice, and immorality, and seek the reform of religion and life. Under errors Bullinger refers to those ‘who obscure God’s glory, profane Christ Jesus, divide the church, obscure Christian simplicity with sophisticated trifles’, mentioning ‘the pestilential sects’, papists and Anabaptists. References to heretical masses and the blasphemous intercession of the saints lead him to describe the whole papacy as sacrilege. Bullinger attacks Anabaptists for divisiveness. They separate themselves from the church for minor matters, They divide the church of God with their baptism. They disturb and overthrow

19 The Prophet 4 r 3 – v5, 17–5 r 14, v 2–8. 20 The Prophet 9 r 14–10 v 3. 21 The Prophet 10 v 3–12 r 2, 13 v 13–14 r 14.

322

Chapter 12: The Ministry

the republic with what they teach about government, the oath, and possessions, and set up a monasticism.22 As Bullinger presents it, the prophet attacks social and personal vices, emphasizing faithlessness, luxury, and neglect of domestic matters. From these there come disputes, usury, corruption, wars, and slaughter. In the light of Isaiah 58:1, the prophet is to raise his voice like a trumpet against people’s evil deeds. He must urge the people that ‘they do not just hear the word of God but also express it in faith and innocence of life’. After expounding some of these elements, Bullinger cites Paul’s instructing Timothy both ‘to preach the word in season, out of season’ and ‘to exhort with all gentleness and teaching’. These apostolic words are to move the prophet. They are not to compromise with evil through timidity; nevertheless they are to use their liberty with moderation lest people are lost through their severity. Christ mixed with sinners and died for them. He did not quench a smoldering wick (Matthew 12:20). All things are to be done to edify. With the example of Christ, Nathan, and Peter we are to learn to deal with offenders in private. If that fails, then with public offences the matter may be dealt with publicly, as long as it concerns salvation and not private revenge.23 A feature of Bullinger’s prophetic ministry is his challenge to the council on the use of church goods. Interestingly he gives this as an example of the ministry of a prophet. He does not see this as a proper concern only for him or the minsters of the city churches. Church goods are ‘for studies and the poor’. From the early church he cites the examples of Laurence and Ambrose. Laurence preferred to give his body to be burnt than give the wealth of the church to a godless prince. Ambrose insisted that the emperor had no power in divine things. ‘Palaces belong to the emperor, churches to the priest.’ Bullinger criticizes the abuse of the church’s resources in decorating churches ‘while the poor laboured wretchedly in cold and hunger and likewise college studies were neglected and in their place superstition and barbarism are fostered’. If the study of good and sacred letters perishes, piety will soon perish. Bullinger sees the calamities and errors of his time as coming from the ignorance of an earlier time. Church goods should be used to promote study, so that the people are not reduced to that captivity from which they themselves have at last scarcely extricated themselves.24 Differentiating his understanding of ministry from Anabaptists, Bullinger emphasized the importance of good letters. This includes what we learn, for example, from Cicero and Livy about writing ‘simply and purely’ and speaking so that our listeners may understand what we say. ‘Clarity and simplicity are the ornaments of speech.’ He commends good letters as necessary for sacred letters. 22 The Prophet 14 r 15 – v 13, 15 r 1–3, 14–20, 17 v 13–16, 18 r 20-v24. 23 The Prophet 19 r 20-v 22, 23 r 19- v13, 24 r 3- v 17. 24 The Prophet 25 v 24–26 v 15, 27 r 17-v 2, 8–14, 22–28 r 4.

The Ministry in the 1530s

323

Without them the study of scripture is not felicitous. Paul himself made use of profane authors, ‘but moderately and in their place’. Paul’s preaching was not in words of human wisdom, but in the demonstration of the Spirit and power. Bullinger adds that a holy life adorns the work of he prophet. ‘Some destroy with an ungodly life what they taught holily by holy teaching.’ They are, in Christ’s words, the light of the world. To all the virtues that Bullinger looks for in the prophet he adds constancy, for the others disappear where constancy is missing. Indeed, ‘your learning and integrity of life, splendid in themselves, are in vain, unless constancy is added’.25 Finally, Bullinger presents Zwingli as a model of a prophet. ‘In this man you will find once for all and absolutely whatever you look for in a true prophet of God.’ After reference to Zwingli as a orator and a man of holy life, he points to Zwingli’s role as an expositor with his commentaries on Isaiah and Jeremiah, his refuting of error, and his being the one whom God used to ‘restore glory to his church’. Restoring God’ s glory is expounded in a variety of ways: the restoration of the main elements of the testament and eternal covenant, the renewing of the doctrine of the omnipotence, goodness, and unity of God which had been obscured by the invocation and cult of the saints, the purging of the sacraments from error and superstition, the clear and true presenting of the remission of sins and the keys, and the vanquishing of the reign of anti-Christ. Zwingli was concerned not only with the church and the Christian faith, but also with the whole life of the country. He had a burning love of justice, a zeal for equity, and a love of the fatherland. It was his opposition to luxury, corruption, oligarchy, and wars, that led to his death, This is what we see in the best men both among the heathen and in the bible, as we see with Isaiah, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, and Stephen.26

The Synod in 1532 The synod was established in 1528 to strengthen the Reformation, especially in the countryside. As the ministers were indispensable in this, the proper oversight and correction of their teaching and life were vital They took an oath as members of the synod. This committed them to preach the word of God in accordance with the bible, teach only doctrine agreed by the synod to be scriptural, obey the council, submit to its officers and mandates in all things pious and honest, and maintain proper confidentiality.27 After the defeat at Kappel, there was no spring 25 The Prophet 29 r 2–5, 12–13, 28 v 10–12, 29 v 5–10, 30 r 2–30 v 6, 21–31 r 11. Bullinger cites Moses, Isaiah, Paul, and Athanasius as examples of constancy (31 r 11-v 23). 26 The Prophet 32 r 1–37 r 13. 27 For translations of the oath, see Biel, Doorkeepers 214–215.

324

Chapter 12: The Ministry

synod in 1532 and in the autumn synod the meeting discussed and agreed the proposals for the synod brought by Bullinger and Jud. The synod began with attendance, which was obligatory for all minsters and the taking of the oath by new members. They were followed by the censura or mutual examination of the teaching and life of each of the ministers. Bullinger had his own list of the areas which he judged needed to be considered in the examination.28 After that came the consilia, a general pastoral discussion which considered matters of ministerial concern.29 This was in effect part of their ministerial formation and development. The mutual examination was also vital in the formation of Reformed ministers. It showed Bullinger’s fundamental concern with the proper biblical instruction of congregations, and in addition the testimony of the minister’s life to the truth of his message.30 The mandate relating to the synod reveals elements in Bullinger’s understanding of the ministry.31 The mandate originated in Bullinger’s request to the council. As, for Bullinger, the council has a God-given role in relation to the church, the mandate asks for a councilor to be in the chair alongside a minister, together with seven councilors, to advise and help. (Although the mayor had the right to chair along with Bullinger, in practice it was Bullinger who took the chair).32 Bullinger balances this request by asking the council not to ‘seek to obstruct the authority of the church’ ‘nor to dominate nor ruin, but rather to serve and build up’. He allows, nevertheless, that the council members may reserve consideration of a matter. In the censura (examination) the teaching and life of each minister was considered in turn, and also the form of punishment where that was needed. The synod was convoked for the maintenance of ‘discipline’ and ‘ unity’.33 It succeeded thanks in large measure thanks to Bullinger’s leadership. The intention in discipline was the repentance and restoration of the

28 See, for example, Bächtold, Rat 78, Biel, Doorkeepers 216, Gordon, Clerical Discipline 106, Bȕsser, Heinrich Bullinger I 136. 29 Among many expositions, see Biel, Doorkeepers 53–65, 207–217, Gordon, Clerical Discipline and Bȕsser. Heinrich Bullinger I 134–142. 30 Wood regards ‘as an almost perfect parallel with Bullinger’s criterion for…teaching and life’ the way Bullinger speaks of priests in the light of Levi, as he commends his turning his people away from iniquity by example of life and instruction’ (88). See Jon Dalmas Wood, ‘Bullinger’s Model for Collective Episcopacy: Transformational Ministry in a Society facing Final Judgment’ in Luca Baschera, Bruce Gordon and Christian Moser (eds.), Following Zwingli: Applying the Past in Reformation Zurich (Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 20ll) 81–105. 31 For an English translation, see Biel, Doorkeepers 207–212. 32 Gordon lists the members of the council who were present and his instructions and admonitions they gave the synod over Bullinger’s lifetime. (Clerical Discipline 96–105). 33 Gordon describes the main offences committed by ministers, but also the relative success of the synod’s role in discipline (See Clerical Discipline 185–193, 201–213).

The Ministry in the 1530s

325

offender, not his punishment and exclusion.34 In the conclusion of the synod one minister ‘should stress that each [of the ministers] should be an example to his church in the teaching of the truth, in his life, and in his circumstances’. Ministers, especially in the countryside, clearly had a role in society, expressed, for example, in the reading of the mandates to their congregations.35 It is, however, misleading to refer to them as civil servants which projects onto them an alien modern role.36 In their oath they referred to the council as God-given, for in Bullinger’s theology, the council had a God-given role in the life and reformation of the church. (In this it was not acting as a modern government.) That is the context for their submission to the council and its mandates in things pious and honest. Biel also criticizes the term ‘civil servant’, as with his ordination ‘the minister was God’s if not his own man’ and the government ceased to have control, as it could not dismiss him. She rejects the view that that subordinate ministers to the council as their employer, as not accounting ‘for either the theory or practice of the office in sixteenth-century Zurich’ adding that they ‘were simply like nobody else in their society’. She notes that ministers became part of a body from whom the magistrates agreed ‘to accept critique and advice’.

The First Helvetic Confession The main elements in Bullinger’s understanding of the ministry are present in 1536 in The First Helvetic Confession and the five articles that concern the ministry.37 Ministers are God’s co-workers. God acts through them in giving knowledge of himself and forgiveness of sins, but the power is God’s alone, not the minister’s, and he dispenses it to those he wills in accordance with his free will. The authority to exercise the ministry depends on God’s call and the decision of those elected for this purpose by the church. In their appointment there is a role for both ministers and Christian rulers in judging that they are qualified, in particular in their knowledge of scripture, their godliness, and their zeal for Christ. There follows acceptance by the church and the laying on of hands. The main task of the ministerial office is the preaching of repentance and the for34 Biel (Doorkepers 43) holds that Bullinger ‘resacralized the office of minister’. Unlike Zwingli and Luther who wanted ministers to keep to the same standards as lay Christians. Bullinger insisted on ‘exacting standards regulated by fellow clergy’ to fit them to be representatives of God. 35 Biel Doorkeepers 40–41, 206, 26–27. Gordon observes, ‘This use of the pulpit as the means of promulgating moral legislation had been required of the clergy by the diocesan synods of Constance.’ (Clerical Discipline117). 36 The term is used by Baker (Covenant 107). Maeder uses the term ‘ ein staatlicher Beamter’ (Add. ‘Synode’ 2) 37 Five of the twenty seven articles concern the ministry.

326

Chapter 12: The Ministry

giveness of sins through Christ. Beside that are constant prayer for the people, study of God’s word, and the use of God’s word as a sword to defend Christ’s sound citizens and to warn the evil. People who persist in scandalizing and destroying the church are to be expelled either by the ministers and Christian government or in some other way. If and when they repent and change they are to be restored. The only head of the church is Christ, not the Bishop of Rome. He gives the church pastors and teachers, but that does not include those who are pastors in name only.38

The Institution and Ministry of Bishops (1538) Whereas much of what Bullinger says in The Prophet can be paralleled in Zwingli, although not in the same ordered way, that is less the case with the second book of The Authority of Scripture. Its presentation of the ministry is different, reflecting in part its different context. It was written for Henry VIII and for an early stage of reformation in England, so that its context is essentially Roman or papal. (Its title is The Institution and Ministry of Bishops who are Ministers of the Word of God against the Leaders of the Roman Superstition and Tyranny.) Bullinger refers to it as a brief summary, dealing only with the most important points, but it covers two hundred and thirty pages in the original and over a hundred and fifty pages in the critical edition.39 Bullinger begins not only with the prophets, that is, the ministers of the word, but also with priests and in particular the Levitical priests and how from them through Christ we have teachers of the gospel. In the first chapter he refers to prophets and priests at the very beginning of the bible and the meaning of the terms, prophets broadly as in The Prophet and priests as ministers of holy things or actions. He sees this as including not only sacrifices, altars, temples, vestments, and vessels, but also all matters concerning religion and righteousness, above all holy laws. Priests were chosen from learned and leading men. The Hebrew term for priests means not only sacrificial priests but also leaders responsible for righteousness and religion. A prophet is described as praying for a person. At the beginning, the best and most religious men were prophets and priests. Bullinger speaks of the simplicity at that time – no grand temples or golden vessels, re38 RB 1/2 49. 16–51. 26, 62. 1–64. 4; RC 105–107. There are sometimes surprising differences between the German and Latin texts. The German adds reference to God’s power as being effective ‘for believers’, a phrase reflecting Zurich theology. The reference to those God wills is characteristic of Bucer. Again, the German text adds ‘amendment of life’ to the preaching of repentance and forgiveness of sin, an addition that would be congenial to Bullinger. 39 The Authority of the Bible: HBTS 4.105. 7–10; GT 157, 159–164.The German translation is in volume 2 of Heinrich Bullinger Schriften (Zurich: TV2, 2006).

The Ministry in the 1530s

327

straint in the sacrifice of animals, generosity in relieving the needy, greater readiness to act in righteousness than to institute showy ceremonies They saw that outward things were given only to awaken inward piety.40 Chapters two to five consider the Levitical priesthood, when God brought Israel out of Egypt and decided to make in this people a church for himself and a republic. He appointed men to watch over the laws, that is, a holy government. Then he made known and appointed laws, and finally chose priests not any longer first born from all the people, but men from a certain tribe on account of their strength.41 ‘The Levites were appointed chiefly to teach the law of God and to instruct the people; then to pray for them and bless them; finally to care for the tabernacle and the outward worship.’ Bullinger supports the role of teaching from Leviticus 10:8–11, Ezekiel 44:21, 23 and Malachi 2:4–7.42 Interestingly, the second of the four chapters on priests states that the role of the priest is joined with that of the king. They need each other and cannot succeed without the other. They are both servants, servants of God and the church. Bullinger seem to use the words priest and prophet interchangeably, when he states, ‘The priest does not put himself above the king, nor does the king despise the prophet.’ ‘Kings were later consecrated by the prophets and priests, as minsters of God, and we read likewise that kings were severely reprimanded and rebuked by the prophets for neglect of the law and grave offences.’ Kings who heeded the priests in keeping God’s law are praised in scripture. Although the Levites did not spare princes, they obeyed them. At the same time it is the duty of priests to give their lives rather than neglect the law, and unceasingly to raise their voices against the prince if he acts against the law.43 God cared for the livelihood of his minsters, with tithes for the Levites, while those who were priests shared in the sacrifice. Moreover, it was not the Jews only who honoured their priests in this way, but also the Egyptians. The Levites were responsible for schools and synagogues. Without them, Bullinger maintains that neither religion nor the republic was in good health. Indeed, ‘Jewish priests and Levites were engaged night and day with the law of their God’. Bullinger observes that not all prophets and scribes were priests, that sacred ministries were for the Levites alone, and that the prophets included laymen, such as Isaiah and Amos, as well as priests, such as Jeremiah.44 40 41 42 43

HBTS 4. 105. 10–15, 107. 16–32, 108. 18, 109. 4–16; GT 157, 159–164. HBTS 4.109.24–29; GT 164. HBTS 4. 110.23–111.14; GT 165–166. HBTS 4.113. 14–21, 114. 13–21, 115. 8–10; GT 170–173. Bullinger observes that priests other than the High Priest are a figure of the Christian people (HBT 4. 115. 21–13; GT 173.) 44 HBTS 4. 116. 15–16, 117. 6–9, 177. 19–21, 118. 6–7, 119. 11–17; GT 174, 176, 177, 179–180. As true prophets could be lay and not ordained and would presumably not be paid, they are in a way less typical of a sixteenth century minister than priests are.

328

Chapter 12: The Ministry

The fifth chapter concerns the abolition of the Levitical priesthood and its being succeeded by teachers of the gospel. Christ came to expiate the sins of the whole world and as a light to lighten the Gentiles. He did not come from the tribe of Levi, but from the tribe of Judah; and he chose his apostles from all tribes, as they were to be teachers of all nations and not just of the Jews. For this ministry he taught them for three years, giving them the Holy Spirit to equip them to speak the languages of all the nations, and sent them into all the world The fact that Christ and the apostles were not from the tribe of Levi shows that the Levitical priesthood had been rejected and that a new ministry had succeeded them. The ministry, unlike its predecessor, proclaimed not the promise, but completion or fulfilment.45 In reality, only a part of the Levitical priestly ministry was abrogated, what concerned the tabernacle, the temple, and outward worship. These were types of future things which were fulfilled by Christ. This is only part of the ministry of the Levites. It was instituted for them to teach the law of God and to be examples and teachers of morality, to pray for the people, and to bless them, as well as to minister in the tabernacle.46 Bullinger goes as far as to dismiss the splendour of temples and vessels as giving God no pleasure, unlike integrity and ‘possessing one’s vessel in holiness and honour’ (1 Thessalonians 4:4). Indeed, ‘the souls of the saints are the holy temples of God’. At the same time he affirms the need for temples where there is prayer, the preaching of God’s word, and the administration of the sacraments.47 Sacrifice is no longer needed, for ‘where there is full forgiveness of sins there is no offering for sin’. There were outward sacrifices ‘until the time of reformation’ (Hebrews 9:10). Now is a time for other sacrifices, that is faith, innocence, and love. In this sense we are all priests. We have been given by Christ very few and very modest sacraments. As Christ was not from the tribe of Levi, he was not consecrated with Aaronic ceremonies, and so he did not send out his disciples with such ceremonies. Bullinger discusses the various ministries given by Christ (Ephesians 4:10–11), noting that the apostles were also called teachers, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, bishops, and elders. Bishops were at the same time prophets and evangelists. Prophets were also teachers, elders, and evangelists. In Acts, Philip is described as deacon, apostle, and evangelist, that is, bishop. These forms lasted some centuries, so that there were bishops, prophets, teachers, and deacons. Bishops were also called elders, evangelists, priests, and pastors, that is ministers of the word of God, watching over the flock and teaching the church. Prophets were learned men, expositors of scripture. Teachers were catechists and 45 HBTS 4. 120. 13–18, 121. 10–20; GT 181–183. 46 HBTS 4. 121. 22–29; GT 183. 47 HBTS 4. 121. 22–33; GT 183.

The Ministry in the 1530s

329

schoolmasters. Deacons were their ministers and disciples, but were also called clerics.48 Bullinger’s sixth chapter is significantly entitled the office of a bishop or teacher and minister of the gospel, for his main duties are to teach, to pray, and to administer the sacraments. ‘The gospel of Christ and canonical scripture, and those alone are transmitted by the faithful pastors.’ The aim of preaching the gospel to lead to repentance and forgiveness.49 Bullinger wants learned ministers, but learning for ministers is sought not for its own sake, nor for the ministers’ sake, but for the church’s sake, that is to equip the minister for ministry to ordinary people. Bullinger begins with what is needed in teaching. There is the need to understand the place, the time, or present circumstances and persons. ‘Above all he must have regard to his church and what builds it up and not what pleases him, likewise with how much fruit and not with how much learning he speaks.’ He notes various failings – those content simply to speak rather than striving to convert the hearts (animos) of their hearers; those who are show offs and quote Hebrew, Greek, or Latin to appear expert linguists rather than turning to the Hebrew and Greek to draw out the truth behind the Hebrew or Greek; others practise their oratory as if appearing in the law courts rather than preaching to simple, ordinary people. They are not philosophers, orators, or sophists, but very simple ordinary people who barely understand their mother tongue. They are not built up by hair splitting subtleties or the display of eloquence.50 Doubtless against Anabaptists and Spiritualists Bullinger stresses the importance of education. He rejects their scorn for learning, maintaining that the apostles were not sent into the world to preach the gospel, when they were uneducated, but when they were skilled in languages and the scriptures.51 The role of preacher or teacher is linked to the role of pastor, for the point of a bishop’s learning is to share it with others. Recalling Paul’s going from house to house in Ephesus (Acts 20:20), Bullinger refers to the necessity of watching over those who have been taught, so that they have not been taught in vain. (This is why men are called, ‘pastors’ in scripture.) Moreover, Paul ‘not only established churches but also frequently visited those he had set up’. Bullinger mentions in particular the care of the poor and of students.52

48 HBTS 4. 121. 36–122.2, 10–16, 122. 19–21, 30–33, 123. 26–32, 124. 7–13; GT 184–187. 49 HBTS 4. 125. 1, 7–10, 15–16, 20–24; GT 188–189. This was expressed in the early church by Irenaeus as in Bullinger’s contemporary, Calvin. HBTS 4.126. 11–15; GT 190–191. 50 HBTS 4. 127. 14–30, 128. 1–6; GT 192–194. The chapter ends with a re-assertion of the preeminent role of teaching (HBT 4. 140. 6–11; GT 215). 51 HBTS 4. 128. 31–129. 7; GT 195. 52 HBTS 4. 129. 25–34, 130. 8–12, 17–18; GT 196–198.

330

Chapter 12: The Ministry

In his exposition of the ministry, Bullinger quotes from the fathers, especially Augustine and Jerome, and from Erasmus. He refer to Augustine’s Christian Teaching and Erasmus’ The Preacher both in speaking of rhetoric and more widely. Not untypically he cites Erasmus on the pastoral care as well as the education of the preacher. Education is essential in the minister. Indeed, it is the lack of it which for Erasmus was the source of so much of the damage to the church in his day. But in the same passage he stresses the pastoral responsibility of the bishop, who is answerable to the Lord for every sheep entrusted to him and for whom Christ gave his life. Similarly, while Augustine stresses the importance of rhetoric, he stresses much more what is said and that prayer to God for himself and his listeners must come first, so that he is in effect a man of prayer, before a man of speech.53 In four other chapters Bullinger expounds his understanding of the ministry. In chapter seven he moves from the office to the person. There are three main elements: faith, education, and character. Ministers should be religious, with a knowledge and understanding of scripture.They should have a love of learning and be eloquent and wise; and they should possess a character which is blameless, industrious, faithful, gentle, constant, and courageous. This is similar to but not identical with the quotation he makes from Titus1:5–9. Its reference to ‘one wife’ lends to a lengthy defence of married minsters from the New Testament and the early and medieval church.54 The appointing of ministers should be simple, following the New Testament which refers only to the choice of the minister, the laying on of hands, and prayer. Bullinger supports the role of the people in the appointment of ministers from the early church, while allowing that later the role of the people was exercised by a few only, in order to prevent the choice of the worst persons in place of the best. With the tyrannical abuse by some, notably the pope, Bullinger approves the role of the king or the government in appointing others to act. Then, in keeping with apostolic simplicity, there should be congregational prayer, followed by the laying on of hands by the elders, and their entrusting the church to the person ordained.55 A chapter devoted to stipends for ministers is not only a defence of stipends against Anabaptist objections, but also reflects the problems Bullinger faced with the inadequate stipends, especially for rural ministers. He considers texts used against stipends, such as Matthew 10:8 and Mark 6:8 and Luke 9:3, in the light of Matthew 10:10, Luke 10:7, Luke 8:1–3, and John 13: 27–30. To these he adds other New Testament references, such as 1 Corinthians 9: 4, 7–14, 1 Timothy 5: 17–18, 53 HBTS 4. 128. 18–27, 131. 5–8, 21–24, 132. 9–14; GT 194–195, 199–201. 54 HBTS 4.141. 8–22; GT 217. 55 HBTS 4. 149. 4–5, 8–19, 150. 19–23, 151. 11–13, 18–23; GT 229–230, 232–234.

The Ministry in the 1530s

331

and Acts 4: 34–35, and the early church.56 He draws as well on practical arguments, referring to the needs of ministers, as they have to care for their household and also offer hospitality. Then after describing the insufficient stipend to support the ministers’ families and the need for some of their widows to beg, he mentions the fact that ministers are only human with human weakness, and able people, if they are not adequately supported, will hold back from the ministry.57 In discussing the dignity and authority of ministers of the word of God, Bullinger begins as elsewhere with scripture. The dignity of ministers comes from their origin – in God, not man. Ministers were appointed by the Lord and he willed that they be heard and received as he himself would be. This is supported by Augustine’s saying, ‘Let us hear the gospel, as if the Lord is present, and not say, “How fortunate they were who could see him!”’ God could act without ministers, but he wills to act though them, as he did with Peter and Cornelius. Although our ministry is unfruitful without the Holy Spirit, yet we can be described as ministers of the Spirit in that we openly preach the forgiveness of sins, through the blood of Christ.58 Bullinger draws on the early church and more briefly on scriptural examples, such as Nathan, Jeremiah, and John the Baptist, to show that constancy and independence give authority to the minister of the word. By the liveliness of the teaching and the constancy and sharpness of rebuke, authority is acquired and grows. Ambrose risked death rather than abandon his church to Justina, the Arian mother of the emperor, and refused the Emperor Theodosius entry to the church because of his savage shedding of blood. Similarly Chrysostom would not allow any of his churches to be used by an Arian military leader, despite the support of the emperor. He reminded him that ‘it is not permitted to the emperor, the guardian of piety, to undertake anything contrary to God’s commands’.59 In reflecting on this, Bullinger states that ‘we shall acquire authority by a life and teaching that are clear and pure’, illustrating this with Matthew 5: 14–16. He contrasts this with the attempt in the Roman church to acquire authority through threats, magnificent vestments, and titles. A long quotation from Erasmus shows both a likeness and unlikeness in emphasis. The quotation concerns the life of the preacher and covers the failings not only of medieval priests but also of Reformed ministers, judging by the disciplinary cases in the

56 HBTS 4. 161. 28–164. 16; GT 251–255. 57 HBTS 4. 166. 32–167.5, 11–17; GT 260–261. This reflects in large part the challenges faced by the church in Zurich. 58 HBTS 4. 175. 16–20, 176.22–25, 178. 4–12, 179. 20–22; GT 274, 276, 279, 281. 59 HBTS 4. 181.7–10, 19–182.2, 20–24, 183. 4–6; GT 284–287.

332

Chapter 12: The Ministry

Zurich countryside. Yet the priority in Bullinger is on the teaching rather than the life, with the teaching being rooted in the gospel.60 In the eighteenth chapter Bullinger reflects on two institutions of fundamental importance for ministers: schools and synods. At the beginning he maintains that had synods and schools not become corrupt, they could have restored the institution and office of pastor which had been corrupted. He notes that synods had been held twice a year and considered matters of faith and life.61 He presents a picture of the schools through the centuries, with a clear focus on their purpose. After discussing those engaged in the study of philosophy, he states that they did not stop with philosophy and rhetoric, but ‘all their zeal was directed to holy scripture as the sure and only goal of all studies’. All supported by the church should have the same goal, and those who do not have a sure goal in their study are like those who set off on a journey without knowing where they are going. Their effort is in vain. Bullinger then refers to ‘the good of all studies’ as ‘devotion (pietas) to God and one’s fatherland’. We study languages, the scriptures, jurisprudence, and other disciplines, that we may be pious, honour God, live holy lives, and further the glory of God and the tranquility of the republic.62 The study of the bible is central to study, but other elements are vital. In chapter eight Bullinger describes schools in the early church and the dedication to learning and languages that they might know God and understand scripture, Then he notes that ‘through listening Didymus, who from childhood was deprived of sight, learnt grammar, rhetoric, arithmetic, music, geometry, astronomy, Aristotle’s syllogisms, and Plato’s eloquence, not because these subjects mediate truth, but because they are the weapons of truth against falsehood’. After citing Origen’s engagement with philosophy and language, Bullinger notes that Augustine shows ‘how necessary languages and learning are to understand holy things and overthrow adversaries’. Following this Bullinger sketches the flourishing of learning, in part through the support of Christian emperors, and then describes its decline in the monasteries, where the bible and learning were neglected.63 This neglect and decline applied also to the universities with their Aristotelian logic and scholastic theology, but Bullinger notes where that has changed with the proper study of dialectic, rhetoric, and languages – and so of scripture.64 In keeping with the title, Bullinger dedicates nine of the twenty chapters of the book to a refutation of Roman superstition and tyranny. They attack the cor60 HBTS 4.183. 26–30, 184. 2–5, 10–12, 25–36. 186. 5–7; GT 288–290, 293. See, for example, Gordon, Clerical Discipline. 61 HBTS 4. 217. 4–7, 16–27; GT 342, 343. 62 HBTS 4. 226. 30–227. 6; GT 358–359. 63 HBTS 4. 156. 6–9, 15–18, 157. 28–158. 1; GT 241, 242, 244. 64 HBTS 4.220. 24–221.1, 222.9–223. 15; GT 348, 349, 351–353.

The Ministry in the 1530s

333

ruption of the papacy and the bishops, but contain nothing essentially new on the ministry.

General Presentations of the Ministry The detailed expositions of the ministry for particular circumstances in Zurich and England need to be complemented by the more comprehensive expositions in Bullinger’s later works. They are as varied as sermons, treatises, and confessions of faith. Brief, but not as comprehensive as the others is the sermon The Salvation of Believers. Longest are sermons 43 and 44 in The Decades, but their substance is expressed more briefly in The Christian Religion, written for lay people rather than minsters. The two Helvetic confessions express Bullinger’s understanding of the ministry near the beginning and end of his ministry. The Salvation of Believers In some ways The Salvation of Believers in1555 is the simplest presentation of the reason for the ministry. The full title of the sermon gives the context: ‘how from the beginning of the world salvation has been proclaimed and offered equally through the word of God and the holy sacraments’. The first preacher was God himself with Adam and Eve and with others who followed them. After that God used angels initially and then the patriarchs and others up to Moses. Yet when God’s word was proclaimed through the ministry of men, it did not cease to be what it was in its origin: the word of God. God punished those who despised his ministers and would not hear the word which they had received from the Lord. He punished them as those who disdained not the word of men, but the word of God. Bullinger adds that God has accommodated his word to human language in the use, for example, of figures and speech.65 In his account of the ministry, Bullinger refers to God’s calling priests, prophets, and teachers through Moses. True priests and prophets taught only God’s word of salvation. At God’s command they wrote down what they preached so that we would be instructed, exhorted, and consoled by it. When Christ came as saviour and preacher of salvation, he did not only explain the law and the prophets but also fulfilled them. He chose apostles to preach God’s word of salvation and to put it in writing – in the gospels, Acts, and epistles. This is God’s word through which to the end of the world true salvation is to be proclaimed. True ministers do not add to or take from this word. Christ affirmed that those who heard them heard not them, but him, for the Spirit speaks through them. He 65 Salvation A 6 r 18–23, 6 r 30–7 r 9.

334

Chapter 12: The Ministry

attacks those who despise the outward preaching of the word and think they do not need a preacher and that the inward drawing of the Spirit is sufficient.66 The Christian Religion Over the years, Bullinger characterizes the ministry in a number of ways. They are almost all present in his exposition of the ministry in The Christian Religion (1556) in the chapters on the ministry and the chapter before them.67 Most fundamental is that God is the origin or source of the ministry. This is expressed in variety of ways, such as reference to it as a divine ordinance or to ministers as called by God or gifted by God. This is also the first article in both Helvetic Confessions and in the first sermon on the ministry in The Decades.68 In The Christian Religion, Bullinger emphasizes the divine origin of the ministry before the chapter of the ministry itself. He argues from a variety of New Testament examples which demonstrate God’s use of means. Bullinger distinguishes between what God can do and what he has purposed to do. God could pour faith into us in a miraculous way, but he does not do it. He converted Paul in a miraculous way, but nevertheless he sent Ananias, a minister, to him (Acts 9). He sent an angel to Cornelius, through whom he could have spoken to him without the preaching of a minister. He referred him however to Peter, who preached and baptized him (Acts 10). All believers should obey God’s ordinance and use the means which God has appointed to receive faith, without drawing conclusions from omnipotence. God gives effect to his ordinance in the sending of preachers into the world to preach the gospel (Mark 16: 15–16). Paul also maintains this in Romans 10:13–15, 17 when God has wished to convert a people, he has sent them preachers, as he does in Acts 16.69 The first chapter of those on the ministry begins with the statement that ‘the office of preaching is not a human but a divine ordinance’ and again Bullinger supports the statement from the New Testament from 1 Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4. As it is not simply a temporary biblical ordinance, ‘preachers are called ministers of Christ and the church’ (1 Corinthians 4). Bullinger adds to these testimonies two further examples. He refers first to those who are called and 66 Salvation A 7 r 14–21, 26-v 2, 7 v 29–8 r 1, 8 r 30 – v 18, 25–29, B1 r 7–11. 67 The earlier chapter concerns God’s ordinance for giving, planting, increasing, and maintaining faith (The Christian Religion 104 r 24–107 v 23. Bullinger begins with the context: the views of spirituals who belittle preaching and nullify the ministry of the church (104 v 1–5) 68 RB 1/2 49. 16–50.5; 2/2 316. 18–37. 15 (RC 105, 268–269) and HBTS 3. 794–815; Decades 4.93– 127. 69 The Christian Religion 104 v 15–105 r 29. It is notable that Bullinger uses New Testament examples in these chapters. In marginal references there are four Old Testament references in the section on magistrates, otherwise only one (Ezekiel 18:23) in the chapters on the ministry and one in the chapter on the keys (Isaiah 43:25).

The Ministry in the 1530s

335

chosen rather than those who have chosen the office for themselves or who consider the stipend rather than their fitness for the office. Bullinger observes that Christ chose apostles and that the whole church chose Matthias, and that then some of the ministers, councilors, and people from the whole congregation chose. Nevertheless it is not sufficient for someone to be chosen for and appointed to the ministry, the person must also be gifted by God. Bullinger appeals to the letters to Timothy and Titus in support.70 That God uses the ministry is linked with the ministry as a divine ordinance. The fact that God uses the ministry does not diminish the power of God, for it is God’s sovereign decision to use means. The New Testament describes ministers as God’s co-workers, but also as instruments and means. These descriptions of ministers are contrasted with the description of God as author. Before his chapters on the ministry, Bullinger maintains that, although God could save the human race simply with the word or his commands, his decision from eternity was to save through Christ. Similarly, although God could save and give faith without means, without the need to hear preaching and without reading or prayer, he did not do so as the New Testament shows. As God has ordained means, believers should use them, as God’s way to receive faith. In all his works, as here, Bullinger is insistent that one must not ascribe to instruments what belongs to God. When it says that ‘the word saves, the preacher converts, and the sacraments sanctify, it is to be understood that God alone through Christ in the power of the Spirit saves, converts, and sanctifies, but uses the word, the preacher, and the sacraments for this’. Teachers of old said that these things happen ‘in a ministerial or sacramental way’. ‘The true believer must take care that he does not take from God his honour and ascribe it to other outward things as instruments or implements or to human action.’ In a characteristic way, Bullinger adds that the believer must not reject the instruments God uses or nullify or treat as unnecessary what God requires of us.71 A similar balance is apparent in the affirmation that the ministry is necessary and yet that the power is of God. Bullinger’s insistence on the role of ministers is directed against his radical opponents, while that on the power of God is doubtless directed against Roman exaltation of the power of the priest. After a chapter on how God has ordained that faith is given followed by one on the office of ministers, Bullinger begins the following chapter by stating that everyone can understand how necessary the ministry and ministers are. (He has earlier noted Christ’s reference to Peter’s strengthening his brethren and Luke’s writing of Paul’s and Barnabas’ making disciples.) We can as little do without them as we can without fathers, shepherds, watchmen, teachers, and doctors, words which 70 The Christian Religion 108 r 1-v 3. 71 The Christian Religion 104 v 6–23, 105 r 4–8, 107 r 17-v 7.

336

Chapter 12: The Ministry

apart from the last he has just cited from the New Testament in relation to ministers.72 In the light of his description of the ministry as necessary, Bullinger considers how we are to relate to ministers. Most fundamental is that ‘we do not regard the person but rather the one who acts through them towards us, that is Christ’. If they preach the teaching of Christ, then Christ’s words apply. ‘Whoever hears you, hears me, who ever despises you, despises me.’ ‘We should not therefore wait for Christ to come again from heaven and speak with us. For in his churches he speaks with us daily through his ministers who preach the word of Christ to us.’ As ministers, therefore, are ambassadors of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20), we are ‘to listen intently to the teaching of the gospel, accept it readily, receive rebuke for our good… not grumble…but love the minister as a spiritual father and not refuse him food and drink’. Scripture states that God ‘will not leave it unrevenged, if we despise the ministers’ teaching and sincere warning’. God has always punished unfaithful and evil ministers.73 After this strong affirmation of ministers, Bullinger makes some characteristic qualifications. He considers the central question in the mutual examination by ministers in the synod: the teaching and life of the minister. Ministers are to be concerned with the honour of Christ and the good of the church and not their own good and honour. They should be humble, for they can err. We must not ascribe too much to ministers, in other words what belongs to God, or esteem them too little in their office. This is supported by John the Baptist and Paul. The former contrasts his baptizing with water and Christ’s baptizing with the Spirit, and Paul describes himself as a servant of Christ and a steward entrusted with the secret things of God (1 Corinthians 4:1) and as not lording over their faith, but as working with them (2 Corinthians 1:24).74 For Bullinger, both a good life and right teaching are important, but the right teaching is more fundamental. First, there are those ‘who teach aright and live good lives’. They are ‘ a great gift of God’. Second, there are those ‘who teach aright and lead evil lives’. Bullinger cites Christ’s saying that we should do what the Pharisees teach, but not do what they do (Matthew 23: 3). He affirms, however, that when rightly administered word and sacraments do not lose their power. Following Paul in 1 Timothy 5, Bullinger argues they should be disciplined and punished so that they cease from living an evil life. If that fails they should be deposed and replaced with godly minsters, Third, there are some who teach evilly and live shamefully. Thy are not to be tolerated. If they cannot be removed,

72 The Christian Religion 109 v 3–6, 107 v 15–19, 109 v 6–9, 109 r 7–30. 73 The Christian Religion 109 v 10–110 r 22. 74 The Christian Religion 110 r 23- v 22.

The Ministry in the 1530s

337

people should not hear them, but following Christ’s teaching flee from dangerous wolves and blind leaders (Matthew 7:15 and Luke 6: 39).75 ‘The Christian Religion’ and Earlier Works The main elements in Bullinger’s presentation of the ministry in The Christian Religion are present earlier in Bullinger’s works, although his earliest discussions of the ministry relate primarily to the minister as a prophet. From the beginning, however, in his lectures on Romans in 1525 there is an emphasis on God’s call. In expounding the opening verses of the epistle he states that most important thing in Paul’s being an apostle is God’s call. It is expressed as an inward divine call in the heart, as with Amos and Isaiah, as well as Paul. It is also an outward human call by a congregation, as one sees in Ambrose and Martin and in what Cyprian wrote. Bullinger adds that a sign in those called is the preaching of the word. He uses the reference to Paul’s having received grace and apostleship to observe that Paul did not himself choose his ministry as some do.76 The commentaries generally refer to the ministry briefly when it is mentioned in the text. Again in Romans (1533) as in Hebrews (1532) and 1 Peter, Bullinger stresses the call of God, indeed the necessity of the call of God. God could act without ministers, but he has chosen to use means. In expounding Acts 10: 4–6, he relates this to God’s sending Peter to Cornelius, and then applies this to those, like some radicals, who say, ‘I have a revelation, I have no need of the word.’77 He emphasizes, however, that God is author and ministers are only ‘instruments through whom God acts’, for we are unable to confer faith; only God can do that. As often, Bullinger relates 1 Corinthians 3: 4–9 to aspects of his understanding of the ministry. Ministers are reminded that ‘they are ministers, not masters of the churches’. Further they are ‘not ministers or authors of faith, but instruments through whom God acts’. Paul’s words ‘through whom you believed’ means ‘through whose preaching God led them in the matter of faith’. ‘A person cannot confer faith. Faith is a gift of God.’ Characteristically Bullinger offers patristic support with a quotation from Ambrose. Bullinger opposes the Roman view of ministry and the Lutheran view of the word in the verses about Paul’s planting, Apollos’ watering and God’s giving the growth. Three times in eight lines, Paul refers to human ministering as being in vain (frustra) unless (nisi) the power of God or the power of the Spirit is at work inwardly. There are varied 75 The Christian Religion 110 v 23–111 r 17. There is a discussion of the role of government and the exercise of the keys. The former is considered in the chapter on The State and the latter is that on The Church. 76 HBTS 1.38. 14, 18–20, 39. 11–17, 41. 26–29. 77 HBTS 6.108. 7–10, Hebrews 52 r 1–2, 1 Peter 36 v 24–37 r 7. Similarly in Acts he refers to God’s sending those who teach the truth, as a providential use of means (102 r 11–15).

338

Chapter 12: The Ministry

ministries, such as planting and watering, but Paul says that they are one. They are all ministers. They are diverse, but have one goal: ‘to cleave to the one God through Christ and worship him with a godly life’. Or, as he puts it later, they were one in their scope: the glory of Christ; ‘the ministers were accordingly one’.78 Commenting on 1 Corinthians 3:9, Bullinger interprets our being co-workers of God with the reference to ‘according to the grace of God’, rather than with the reference to ‘according to one’s work’ in the previous verse. The latter view leads to discussion of secondary causes. Bullinger dismisses this understanding of secondary causes as contrary to God’s word. He states of ‘God’s providence and omnipotence’ that it attributes everything to God and nothing to us or to means, through whom or through which he acts’. Bullinger is concerned that, in keeping with the prophets and apostles, we attribute all the glory to God. Bullinger quotes 1 Corinthians 15:10, Philippians 2: 13, 2 Corinthians 3: 5, and Ephesians 2: 8–10 in ascribing all things to God and not to the secondary causes, instruments, or means which he uses.79 Bullinger considers prophets and prophecy in expounding 1 Corinthians 14. He notes that the reason why the one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks with tongues is usefulness to the church, for he edifies. The criterion of usefulness to the church is fundamental. The same applies to the rejection of the role of the pope in favour of that of the church judging prophecy. Bullinger immediately describes prophecy as human teaching. It is to be judged in accordance with God’s word; it does not judge God’s word. Although the minister is always an instrument rather than the author, nevertheless Bullinger makes a comparison of what shepherds are for sheep and doctors for the body, with what prophets are to the church. Happy are the churches to which prophets are given.80 Strong as his concern was for an educated ministry, not least in the knowledge of the biblical languages, he sees such education as ultimately a means to an end. This is expressed in different contexts in his commentaries on Matthew and John. In Matthew in 1542 he discusses study in the context of call of the disciples (Matthew 4:18–19). The point of one’s call and study for the ministry is to win as many souls as possible for Christ and dedicate them to God. Engaging in all the disciplines, that Bullinger has long commended, is useless if one looks only superficially at scripture. Thus, languages are to be studied ‘as instruments of godliness’. He describes those who spend their lives in classical study and languages, but who never consider how they will benefit others, to those also are always preparing for a journey without ever setting out on it.81 78 HBTS 6. 255. 30–256. 16, 256. 25–257.15. I Corinthians was published in 1534. 79 HBTS 6. 257.30–258. 1, 4–15, 259. 9–18. He also quotes Isaiah 10:12–13 and 15 against human pride in ascribing to themselves what belongs to God (258. 30–259. 9). 80 HBTS 6.410. 5–11, 418. 14–22, 409. 18–23. 81 HBTS 6. 410. 4–11, Matthew 48 r 39 – v 4.

The Ministry in the 1530s

339

The scene at the end of John’s gospel in which Jesus commands Peter to feed his sheep mentions several elements needed in a minister. There is in effect a double command to love and to feed, that is to teach, but love, most ardent love, comes before teaching. The faithful pastor is ‘to love God first and then the things of God, righteousness, integrity, innocence, and kindness’. He is to love the flock, for which Christ died, and to pray for it, and bear with its weaknesses. Bullinger maintains that what is required of those to be ordained is a love that is not ordinary and an extraordinary ability to feed, that is to teach. ‘For no profit is to be expected from the ministry of those who are expert in languages, Cicero, and Aristotle, but who do not love Christ and the church and are ignorant of his word. The command, moreover, is: Feed my sheep, not feed your church.82 In the preface to his commentary on Mark in 1545, Bullinger focusses on Jesus as the Christ, that is High Priest and King. Bullinger observes that the chief duty of priests was to teach, then to pray and intercede with God for the people, and to sacrifice for sinners, and to atone for their sins.83

Bullinger’s Later Works Three varied later works show something of Bullinger’s mature understanding of the ministry. His Sermons on the Apocalypse show that he can still speak of a minister in terms of a prophet, a term much used in his earlier works, but not much in his later works. (He can, however, use it when it suits the context, both the biblical context and the context for which he is writing. The Anabaptists offers a critique of Anabaptist teaching on and practice of the ministry. The issues and response are similar to those in Anabaptist Teaching thirty years before. The Second Helvetic Confession effectively avoids the terms prophet and priest which Bullinger has used elsewhere. The use of priest would clearly be open to misunderstanding by those who did not know his positive interpretation of priest as well as his negative one. The term prophet seems to have been replaced by more general terms, such as minister. There are elements in ministry which are not clearly expressed by the term prophet. Sermons on the Apocalypse Sermons on the Apocalypse in 1557 shows a variety of uses of the term prophet, such as one finds in the early Bullinger. It can refer to the prophets of the Old Testament, to the prophets and apostles, to prophets as those who rebuke evil, prophets as those who predict the future and not least prophets as preachers.84 In 82 John 219 v 19–20, 33–37, 41–46. The commentary on John was published in 1543. 83 Mark Preface aa 2 r 8–13, 18–20. 84 Apocalypse 1.8–26, 225. 24–26, 256. 7–13; ET 1, 565, 572–573.

340

Chapter 12: The Ministry

sermon 45 Bullinger refers to those who in his day are called preachers, as being called prophet in the past, as one sees in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14.85 Sermon 47 expounds Revelation 11: 3–6, with its reference to the two prophets. They are understood as preachers. They are sent by God ‘to maintain and defend the truth of the gospel and the glory of Christ, attack anti-Christ and destroy his kingdom, and advance the salvation of the faithful. (These features are later seen as marks of lawful prophets of God.) The ‘two prophets’ are also described as pastors. Their role is to build up the church and tear down anti-Christ. Unlike the pope’s witnesses, who bear witness to his decrees and decretals, the two prophets bear witness to Christ and do so from the scriptures. The preachers are equipped by Christ as well as sent by him. He will not forsake them when they face hostility, as long as they are faithful and depend on him alone. This ministry will continue till the end of the world.86 In Sermon 48, Bullinger expounds Revelation 11: 7–10 which speak of the beast, seen by Bullinger as anti-Christ (that is to say, the papacy) killing the two prophets. He observes that some prophets preach for many years safe from persecution, but that others are immediately imprisoned and killed. As in The Prophet he cites Zwingli as a prophet, but this time he also cites Luther. They were able to preach for many years despite Rome. Bullinger also praises the magistrates and princes who defended them, but notes that Rome stirs up the secular arm against those it calls heretics, Bullinger uses these verses from Revelation to show that God warns us of what will happen, lest the killing of those who preach the gospel makes us doubt the truth of what they preach. If we were to, then we would judge the same of Christ as the apostles.87 The Anabaptists In his second major work on Anabaptists in 1560, Bullinger considers several areas where his understanding of the ministry differs from theirs. Most notable are Bullinger’s giving priority to the teaching of the minister over his life, the dependence of the sacraments on God and not on the character of the minister, his defence of stipends for ministers, his rejection of the Anabaptists claim to be churches and have prophets, and his attack on their interpretation of prophecy. First, Bullinger argues that the question of whether doctrine is true or false is ‘to be judged not from the life of the minister but from the word of God’. It is better to have bad ministers teaching according to the word of God than good ministers 85 Apocalypse 155. 44–46; ET 304. 86 Apocalypse 139, 20–23, 143. 4–7, 139. 26–29, 47–48, 140. 10–12, 15–22, 143. 7–9; ET 312, 320, 312–314, 320. There is a frequent reference to the preachers’ preaching from the scriptures. 87 Apocalypse 143. 29–32, 144. 1–3, 12–17, 20–24, 37–52; ET 321–324. The English translation adds an interesting marginal note on Bucer’s treatment in Cambridge where the text speaks of the digging up of the bodies of the dead. (145. 23–25; ET 325).

The Ministry in the 1530s

341

teaching contrary to God’s word. The underlying reason is that salvation depends on the message of the gospel.88 Bullinger draws typically on scripture but also on the fathers in rejecting the dependence of the sacraments on the character of the minister. As elsewhere, he quotes Augustine in his controversy with the Donatists, but also scripture, such as 1 Corinthians 3: 5–7 which maintains that God gives faith and gives the increase. Christ is ‘true and faithful in his promises and ordinances, and the goodness or evil of the minister does not add to or take anything from him’. This is supported by Romans 3:3–4 (’will their lack of faith nullify God’s faithfulness. Not at all’).89 Bullinger notes as well that the lives even of the apostles fell short and they did not do everything they preached, as Paul testified (Romans 7: 18–19). Yet Paul maintained that he and others were ‘stewards of the mysteries of God. Christ affirmed the teaching of the Pharisees despite their lives (Matthew 23:1–3), and Paul rejoiced that Christ was preached whether in pretense or sincerely (Philippians 1: 15–18).90 Bullinger dedicates a chapter to defending the payment of a stipend by the example of Christ and the apostles, citing the fact that Judas kept the gifts which Jesus was not ashamed to receive from the faithful (John 12:6) and the reference to the women who supported him from their means (Luke 8: 2–3).91 In a chapter on prophecy in 1 Corinthians 14, Bullinger examines various Anabaptist challenges, such as Paul’s maintaining that everyone may prophesy. Bullinger responds by referring first to the context in Paul and then to the Anabaptists. He appeals to Paul’s concern to abolish confusion, to bring order and to edify. Tongues need interpretation. The Anabaptists, however, are ignorant of Hebrew and Greek, and so the passage does not apply to them.92 Bullinger also repudiates the Anabaptist charge that evangelical churches are not spiritual, because unlike the church in 1 Corinthians 14 only one person speaks. Bullinger replies that in most of the churches in which Christ and the apostles preached its people were not Christian. When Christ taught, only the Pharisees and his opponents spoke – and at Pentecost Peter alone among the apostles spoke. The evangelical churches have people with Hebrew and Greek and so there is interpretation and edification. As the Anabaptists do not, theirs are not true, but false churches.93

88 89 90 91 92 93

The Anabaptists 97 v 20–27. The Anabaptists 98v margin, 98 v 31–99 r 31. The Anabaptists 101 v 13–27, 99 v 6–7, 99 v 27–100 r 11, 101 r 30-v 12. The Anabaptists 107 r 21–31, 108 v 30–32. The Anabaptists 108 v 30–32, 109, r 30 – v6, 110 r 5–8 25–27, 111 r 15–18, 112 r 28–29. The Anabaptists 113 r 14–24, v 10–19.

342

Chapter 12: The Ministry

The Second Helvetic Confession In The Second Helvetic Confession the emphasis is on the divine character of the ministry. Bullinger begins by stating that God has always and will always use ministers to gather and govern the church. He continues ‘The beginning (origo), institution, and office of ministers is an ancient ordinance of God’, it is not new or human. Bullinger recognizes that God can join a church to himself by his own power without any means, but he adds that God preferred to use human ministers. Ministers, therefore, are to be regarded not as ministers ‘by themselves alone’, but as ‘ministers of God’ through whom God effects peoples’ salvation. Bullinger maintains that the power of ministers is the Holy Spirit’s, not theirs, but insists that that must be understood in such a way as not to make the ministry void, for in Paul’s words they are ‘God’s co-workers’.94 On the other hand, we must not attribute too much to the ministry, for it is necessary for God to draw people, and he alone gives growth (John 6: 44,1 Corinthians 3: 5–6). ‘God teaches us outwardly by his word through his ministers, but inwardly he moves the hearts of his elect to faith by the Holy Spirit’.95 The emphasis on the divine dimension of the ministry is present in other sections of the confession. It refers to Christ’s choosing the disciples and making them apostles and ‘his teaching and governing the church through their successors to this day’. Becoming a minister is not a matter of our choosing, but of our being called and chosen by lawful and ecclesiastical election’.96 Paul speaks of ministers as ‘servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God’ (1 Corinthians 4:1), indicating that they are not to live for themselves, but for Christ. Paul calls them ‘rowers who have their eyes fixed on their skipper’. Christ is their lord, whose commands they obey. The minister has power committed to him as a steward, and as a faithful steward it can be said that what he binds or looses on earth is bound or loosed in heaven, and that the sins he forgives or retains are forgiven or retained (Matthew 16:19, John 20: 23). This can be said where ‘the minister because of his office does what the Lord has commanded him to do’. Indeed, the confession continues, ‘The Lord confirms what he does and wills that what the minister does be regarded and acknowledged as if done by him’.97 Underlying this delegated power is the conviction, ‘This power the Lord reserves to himself and does not transfer to any other, so that he may stand idly by as a spectator while his ministers work’. In discussing the power of Christ and the power of the minister, Bullinger repudiates the Roman subjection of everything

94 95 96 97

RB 2/2 316. 18–317. 5; RC 268–269. RB 2/2 317. 5–13; RC 269. Bullinger refers to election and faith as the 1536 confession does. RB2/2 317. 26–30, 318.32; RC 269, 271. RB2/2 319. 36–320.2, 320. 30–321.4, 320 21–25; RC 272–274.

The Ministry in the 1530s

343

in the world to the power of the minister, for Christ forbade his disciples to have dominion.98 Bullinger’s understanding of the ministry is both implicitly and explicitly distinguished from the Roman and Anabaptist views. Against the Anabaptists the confession states that it is necessary to have ministers in the church and for them to have the gifts needed by those appointed by the church, that the effectiveness of ministers does not depend on their character, and that it is right for them to receive a stipend. Surprisingly, Bullinger pronounces a condemnation of those not ‘chosen, sent, or ordained’ and also those without the gifts needed for ministry.99 There are more elements in the confession which reject a Roman understanding of the ministry. They include ascribing too much to the ministry and failing to recognize all power is from God, who works inwardly by the Spirit while the minister works outwardly. The confession mentions various names by which ministers are known in the New Testament, all of which apply to ministers today. It contrasts these apostolic terms as sufficient with a host of terms in the Roman Church from cantors to cardinals. In particular it rejects monastic orders, for unlike the early monks their life is contrary to their vows.100 The confession repudiates the priestly character of ministers, stating that there is no priesthood in the new covenant as in the old. It notes that the apostles called all Christians priests, not because of an office, but because they offer spiritual sacrifices. It distinguishes the priesthood of the church from the ministry, that is from those called to the office of minister. There are no priests in the new covenant, for by his coming Christ fulfilled and abolished the ceremonies which pointed to him. Christ remains forever the only priest and therefore in order not to delegate from Christ, the confession does not have the word priest for any minister. In the church of the new covenant Christ did not ordain any priests, understood as those ‘who offer daily the sacrifice that is, the very flesh and blood of the Lord for the living and the dead.101 The confession rejects the Roman understanding of ministerial power, to which everything is subject, as contrary to Christ’s commandment. He prohibited dominion for his disciples. The confession affirms that all power has been given to Christ and that he has not transferred it to anyone else. Ministers who are to exercise power in accordance with God’s word have equal power. In this the confession rejects the way power has been usurped over one’s fellows, for all ministers are equal. It quotes Cyprian in support with his statement that the 98 99 100 101

RB2/2 320. 12–15; RC 273. RB 2/2 316. 26–28, 318. 30–319. 5, 322. 33–40, 323. 5–11; RC 268, 271, 272, 273. RB 2/2 317. 5–11, 317. 33–318.29; RC269–271. RB 2/2 319. 9–25; RC 271–272.

344

Chapter 12: The Ministry

apostles were equal in honour and power with Peter. It draws on Jerome’s description of the development of power and primacy as the work of the devil in support of returning to the ancient constitution of the church. There is a similar challenge to councils, with an appeal to councils which following apostolic example are convened for the good of the church.102 Bullinger describes the ministry as fundamentally a ministry of word (‘teaching the gospel of Christ’) and sacrament. They embrace the variety of ministerial duties. The word includes not just expounding God’s word so as to benefit the hearers and edify the faithful. More specifically it may involve comforting, strengthening, convincing, and rebuking. Administering the sacraments seems to include preserving unity, catechizing, caring for the poor, and visiting the sick.103

102 RB 2/2 320. 11–23, 321. 6–9, 11–14, 22–37, 323. 2–4; RC 274–275, 276. 103 RB 2/2 323. 1–19; RC 275.

Chapter 13: The Word and The Sacraments

Preaching the word of God was central to the reformation in Zurich. Zwingli’s ministry began on 1 January 1519 with his preaching through Matthew’s gospel, and one of his early works was on The Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God. Preaching the word of God was also at the heart of Bullinger’s ministry in Zurich for over four decades. There were periods when he preached as many as five times a week. Preaching was fundamental because preaching the word of God is the means through which people receive salvation.

The Role of Word and Sacrament The sermon entitled The Salvation of Believers in 1555 expresses simply and briefly the role of word and sacrament in the salvation of the world. On the title page it states ‘How at all times from the beginning of the world it [salvation] was proclaimed and offered to people alike through the word of God and the holy sacraments’. In the sermon itself Bullinger says that it is God who proclaims and offers this salvation. The word, which was first spoken and then written – something which recurred with the prophets and apostles – is now spoken by those called to preach. Moreover, as with the apostles, those who hear the preacher hear not the preacher, but Christ. Bullinger rejects as ‘sinning gravely’ those who despise the outward preaching of the word and who think that they do not need a preacher of the word and need only the inward drawing and transforming of the Spirit. After a brief exposition of the sacraments, Bullinger summarises his view by saying that the whole of our salvation is proclaimed in the preaching of the word and offered, signified, or represented in visible form and attested through signs.1

1 The Salvation of Believers a ii v 4–8, vii r 27-v2, v24–26, viii r 30-v18, v 25–26, b i r 7–11, iv r 17– 23.

346

Chapter 13: The Word and The Sacraments

In The Christian Religion in 1566 word and sacrament are set in the context of faith in a chapter about ‘how faith is given, planted, increased, and maintained’. Again Bullinger attacks spiritualists who fantasize wonderfully about the Spirit and inward faith, but belittle the preaching of the word. Bullinger recognizes that God could give faith inwardly, so that people do not need preaching, but he does not do so. He uses means. Bullinger supports this with familiar biblical examples, such as Paul and Ananias. God could indeed save the human race with his word and command, but that would nullify his eternal purpose to save people through Christ. God has ordained that the gospel be preached so that people may know his promises and what they should believe. To accomplish this he sent the apostles into all the world, for as Paul maintained faith comes from hearing and hearing from the word spoken by those whom God has appointed preachers. This is what God has done when he ‘has wanted to convert a people and bring them to faith, as we see in Acts 16’.2 It is only after Bullinger has affirmed the preaching of the word that he adds the fundamental qualification that the outward word by itself can do nothing unless the Holy Spirit draws the heart of the hearers. He supports this from John 6: 44–45 and Matthew 16:17. God must, as with Lydia, open the heart, or as Paul puts it: he and Apollos are servants through whom the Corinthians believed, but it is God who gave the growth. Faith is the gift of God’s grace.3 Bullinger is ever the pastor and realizes that some of the ordinary Christians for whom he is writing will wonder whether God will draw everyone or give faith only to a few. To those who wonder why they should hear the preaching of the word if they are among those to whom God has chosen not to give faith, he replies that they should rely on the comfort of God’s promises. They are to hope and believe all good from God. From them (Ezekiel 18:32, 2 Peter 3:9, Romans 10:11– 12) everyone has good confidence that God will give them faith. Bullinger insists that although we receive faith only through God’s grace, we should not cease to pray for faith, holding before us Christ’s promises, ‘Ask and it will be given you’ and the example of the apostles who said, ‘Increase our faith’.4 It is similar with the sacraments. Everything depends on God, but that does not make the sacraments fruitless or unnecessary, for ‘the Lord who has instituted nothing unnecessary or fruitless instituted the sacraments’. They are like letters and seals attached to God’s promised gifts. When we read that ‘the word saves, the 2 The Christian Religion 104 r 24-v 13, v 18–26, 105 r 9–29. Earlier, at the end of a brief chapter on the reference to the Holy Spirit in the creed, he attacks Anabaptists and spiritualists who, because the Spirit sanctifies inwardly, despise and reject the instruments, the word of God and the holy sacraments, which God has commanded to be used. But we must not ascribe to them more than scripture, the Spirit, and faith allow. (The Christian Religion 97 r 19–28) 3 The Christian Religion 105 r 30-v 25. 4 The Christian Religion 105 v 26–106 v 15.

The Role of Word and Sacrament

347

preacher converts, and the sacraments sanctify we should understand that God alone through Christ in the power of his Spirit saves, converts, and sanctifies believers, but uses word, preacher, and sacraments for this’. Teachers of old spoke of this as happening ‘ in a ministerial and sacramental way’. The orthodox will take care that they do not ‘take his honour from God and ascribe it to outward things as instruments’. At the same time they do not reject the instruments which God uses, nor nullify or treat as unnecessary the obedience and action which God requires of us’. Faith can wax and wane. But God has ordained that people can be strengthened in faith (Luke 22: 32 and Acts 14: 1, 21–22).5 An element that is prominent in The Decades is the relation of the Spirit and faith to the word. The word does not have power in and of itself, as with Luther, but only if the Holy Spirit works with it or if there is faith in the hearer. (Faith is, of course, the gift of the Spirit.) We need to pray for the Holy Spirit ‘that by him the seed of the word of God may be brought to life in our hearts’. The word of God can then be said to ‘find, strengthen, confirm, and console our souls’. Bullinger constantly insists that the word has no power of itself to give faith and that God can give it without the word, but that is not his way. (Therefore, we are not to despise the word.) Bullinger supports these views from the New Testament, for example, with 1 Corinthians 3: 5–7, but also from Augustine. Corresponding with prayer for the Holy Spirit is the prayer that ‘Satan may not possess our minds or close our eyes’. But this application of Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 4: 3–4 does not shift the responsibility from us, which is expressed in Christ’s words that ‘people love darkness rather than light’ (John 3:19). In the previous sermon Bullinger maintains in relation to the parable of the sower that those who love the world hear the word without fruit.6

The Word in the Confessions There is no article and no direct presentation of the word in The First Helvetic Confession. However, the article on the ministry states that through ministers, who are God’s co-workers, God ‘offers to those who believe in him knowledge of himself and the forgiveness of sins’. By implication there is no power in the word which, like ministers, is ‘a creature’. ‘The power and efficacy’ is God’s and ‘is not bound to a creature’ and he gives it ‘to those he chooses according to his free will’. There is no statement about what is offered to unbelievers, but in effect only a

5 The Christian Religion 106 v 16–107 v 23. 6 HBTS 3. 47. 2–6, 21–22, 57. 17–26, 33–37, 58. 6–12, 50. 7–15, 48. 32–35; Decades1.66–67, 85–86, 71–72, 66.

348

Chapter 13: The Word and The Sacraments

statement about what is offered and in effect received by the elect or by those who believe what is preached.7 In The Second Helvetic Confession, the preaching of the word is the second half of the first chapter. On Holy Scripture, the True Word of God. The chapter recognizes the power of God. It is in his power to illuminate us without the word and when we respond to the word it is because God has illuminated us inwardly. The emphasis is not, however, on the power of God but on the preaching of the word, which ‘is the word of God’. It does not depend on the character of the minister, nor is it fruitless because we need the inward illumination of the Spirit, for God wills the outward preaching of the word. Although God can act without it, his usual way of teaching us, as we can see from his command and examples, is through the outward ministry of the word. This can be summed up in Romans 10:17: ‘Therefore faith comes from hearing and hearing from the word of God.’8 The exposition is directed in large part against the Anabaptists with their stress on the inward illumination of the Holy Spirit and their appeal to Jeremiah’s saying that people will not need to teach others to know the Lord (Jeremiah 31: 34). With that Bullinger associates two of Zwingli’s favourite texts (John 6:44 and 1 Corinthians 3:7). In the chapter on Faith, Bullinger states that faith is given by God to the elect ‘by the Holy Spirit by means of the preaching of the word and faithful prayer’. The association of the Holy Spirit with election, faith, and the word is made in the chapter on the church’s ministry. It says, ‘ Therefore let us believe that God teaches us by his word outwardly through his ministers, and inwardly moves the hearts of his elect to faith by the Holy Spirit’.9 The statement in The Second Helvetic Confession that the preaching of the word of God is the word is God is expressed in The Decades as elsewhere, but it needs to be understood in context. In the confession it follows the statement that scripture is the word of God which itself follows the quotation that ‘all scripture is inspired of God’ (2 Timothy 3:16). It is where the word preached corresponds with scripture that it can be called the word of God and this is supported by Paul’s saying that the Thessalonians accepted his word not as a human word, but as the word of God (1 Thessalonians 2:13) and Christ’s stating that those who heard the apostles were hearing him.10

7 8 9 10

RB 1/1 49.17–50.5, 62. 2–8; RC 105. RB 2/2 273. 28–274. 25; RC 225. RB 2/2 307. 10–13, 317. 11–13; RC 257–58, 269. RB 2/2 273. 19–274. 4; RC 224–225. Compare HBTS 3 795. 30–796. 11; Decades 4.95–96.

The Role of Word and Sacrament

349

The Word in ‘The Decades’ In the first sermon of The Decades Bullinger discusses the word of God. It was first spoken and later written and then again spoken, as it is today. He adds, ‘For although the word of God is revealed, spoken, and written by men, it does not cease, however, to be what it truly is, nor does it begin to be a human word because it is preached and heard by humans.’ ‘The matter undoubtedly, the sense, and the intention of both is the same.’ It was the word of God that the apostles preached, for human words could not have converted the whole world.11 In the first of two sermons on the sacraments, Bullinger follows Augustine in denying power to the word spoken in preaching, as also in the sacraments. When the power of God is attributed to the word, it is to Christ as the word of God. The word spoken by human beings is creature and, unlike the everlasting word of God, not creator. In the following sermon Bullinger again makes a comparison with the sacraments in speaking of the preaching of the word. He holds that ‘if the Spirit and faith shine in the mind of the hearers they seem not only to hear the things expounded but also to see them’.12

The Word in Bullinger’s Commentaries Most of what is later expressed more comprehensively in Bullinger’s later works can be found in his earlier works, but generally only in scattered comments and sometimes in a different context or with a different emphasis. In Hebrews in 1526, in expounding 4: 11–13, Bullinger discusses the power of the word. He distinguishes the outward and inward word. He begins by declaring that it is a great error to ascribe too much to the word of God, that is the outward word, as we see in 1 Corinthians 3: 7 and John 6: 63. The outward word does not help where people’s hearts are not inwardly converted. Bullinger maintains that Paul speaks here of the inward word. After reference to the gospel as the power of God to salvation (Romans 1:16), Bullinger cites the conversion of Matthew, Mary Magdalene, and Zaccheus.13 In 1 Peter he follows the Vulgate in translating 1:23 as the living God rather than as the living word of God. Nevertheless he expounds 11 HBTS 3.36.16–18, 22–25, 37.20–25; Decades 1.48, 50. He supports this as elsewhere by quoting 1 Thessalonians 2:13 (HBTS 3.39. 29–34; Decades 1.53). 12 HBTS 3. 895. 25–33, 901. 15–22, 944. 19–23; Decades 4. 258, 266, 331. In the second sermon the text and marginal note refer to ‘power in the preaching of the word of God’. 13 HBTS 1.164. 1–23. Bullinger refers to two loci (themes) on the power of the inward and on the outward word that is ‘beckerdt nitt und ist alein ein gard und geisslen, zuo wecken die menschen’ (167. 8–10). In his 1532 commentary Bullinger does not make the distinction between outward and inward word.

350

Chapter 13: The Word and The Sacraments

the phrase as ‘the efficacious and living power of the word’, but with the strong qualification that it is effective ‘in the hearts of believers’. By contrast, the ungodly hear the word of God, but ‘there is no living power in their hearts’.14 In his exposition of 1 Corinthians 3 also in 1534, Bullinger’s concern is with ‘those who attribute far too much to the outward word’. Bullinger relates the passage to what is said elsewhere about God’s providence and omnipotence where scripture ‘attributes everything to God and nothing to us or to the means through whom and through which God acts’.15 Bullinger elaborates his views in his commentaries in the 1540s. In commenting on Matthew 3: 5–6, he observes that ‘the word of the Lord is not preached without faith’ and refers to Isaiah 55, a text associated more with Luther than Zwingli and Zurich.16 In John there are several different references to the word. It is given by God although God can and does act without it. Bullinger relates it to the Holy Spirit, election, and faith, and attacks those who despise it, whether archbishops or Anabaptists. In the exposition of John 3: 3–4 the word of God is said to be ‘vivified by the Holy Spirit in the hearts of the elect’. As usual he supports the preaching of the word against Anabaptists, but unusually he does so also against the Roman hierarchy. Expounding John 3: 5–8, he states that no godly person rejects the preaching of the word by which faith is planted on the grounds that regeneration comes from the inward grace of the Holy Spirit. This is directed against a typically Anabaptist objection to preaching. Later in commenting on 4:31–34, Bullinger begins with God’s desire to save Gentiles as well as Jews and for salvation to be preached throughout the world. There is, he says ‘nothing more excellent, more useful, and more necessary than the preaching of the word’. ‘Therefore archbishops. bishops, abbots, and the remaining troop of prelates sin most gravely’ in judging the work of an evangelist unworthy of ministers. Bullinger allows that God does not need to use means, and could, of course, ‘by his divine power draw sinners to himself, as if by their hair’, but he uses them. ‘He calls and draws by the word and lawful means’ and ‘they tempt God who neglect the word, prayers, and other lawful means, which the Lord uses in calling people’ and look for miraculous and violent compulsion rather than lawful calling.17 The fruitfulness of the preaching of the word is generally related to the Holy Spirit and faith, but sometimes also, as in the exposition of John 3: 3– 4, to election. Two chapters later, however, where 5: 24 refers to hearing Christ’s word and believing in him, Bullinger writes ‘that vivification is attributed to faith

14 15 16 17

1 Peter 32 v2–11. HBTS 6. 257. 2–4, 258. 12–13. Matthew 29 r 10–11. John 32 r 22–28, 34 r 1–4, 58 r 43 – v 5, 54r 41-v4. Bullinger also quotes Cyril in support (171 v 28–172 r 1).

The Role of Word and Sacrament

351

not because it is a quality in people’s minds, but because it is the gift and power of God’.18 Bullinger’s commentary on Mark ends with a relatively long comment on the final verse, ‘They went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word by the accompanying signs.’ It contains the main elements in Bullinger’s view. ‘Thus, the evangelical teacher preaches in vain outwardly, unless the Lord takes hold of and transforms the hearts of the hearers.’ Bullinger quotes 1 Corinthians 3:7 and Romans 10:17. Yet ‘God’s lively working is not bound to the word so that God cannot convert when, how, and whom he wills’. Nevertheless, we must not despise what God has ordained and expect God to convert in hidden ways. We need to pray constantly to God to work by his Spirit in our hearts on what we hear. With the preaching of the gospel God works in both those teaching and those hearing.19

Sacraments Several of Bullinger’s earliest works concern baptism and the eucharist, he does not, however, discuss the sacraments in general. There are, nevertheless, occasional general references to the sacraments. In The Institution of the Eucharist in 1525 he compares and contrasts the sacraments of the old and new testaments. The old testament sacraments, circumcision and the passover lamb, point forward to Christ, and with his coming were replaced by baptism and the eucharist.20 In The Bread of the Eucharist, after referring to 1 Corinthians 10: 16–18 and 11:29, Bullinger refers to the word sacramentum as an oath. In relation to the Eucharist this is interpreted as binding us to Christ.21 The Sacraments in the 1530s Interestingly in expounding 1 Corinthians 11 on the eucharist in 1534, Bullinger speaks more generally of the sacraments. He does so largely by reference to Zwingli in what is a defence against those who accuse them of being ‘enemies of the sacraments’. After quoting the definition of sacrament as ‘a visible sign of an invisible grace’, he states that ‘in the mystical supper’ they affirm not ‘a bare sign’ but ‘the mystical body and blood of Christ’. He supports this from Oecolampadius and then quotes Zwingli at length, largely from The Exposition of the 18 19 20 21

John 32 r 22–28, 68 r 45–47. Mark 45 v 32–46 r 6. HBTS 2.93. 1–9. HBTS 2. 125. 23–25.

352

Chapter 13: The Word and The Sacraments

Faith, but first from Letter to the Princes of Germany. He cites a passage relating the sacraments to the senses. In this the senses are able to aid the mind. This is a major element in Bullinger’s understanding of the sacraments at this time.22 From The Exposition of Faith he quotes from among the seven virtues of the sacraments, the sixth, the second, the fourth, and the fifth. The sixth states that ‘the sacraments bring increase and support to faith. They do this by enabling the senses to resist Satan, who works by distracting us through the senses. After showing how the senses of hearing, seeing, touching, tasting, and smelling help faith, Zwingli maintains that the sacraments aid the contemplation of faith and that it would not happen so much without them. The second virtue maintains that the sacraments bear witness to something which has happened, such as the death and resurrection of Christ. The fourth states that the sacraments signify sublime things. Zwingli uses the analogy of a queen’s ring, which she does not value by the cost of the gold but by its signifying or symbolising her husband, the king. Similarly, the bread is not just bread, but it is the body of Christ in name and significance or sacramentally. The fifth is the analogy between the symbol and the thing signified. Zwingli mentions a two-fold analogy with the eucharist. The first applies to the Christ. Thus, as bread sustains the body, so Christ sustains human life. The second applies to us. Thus, as the bread is made of many grains, so the body of the church is joined together from countless members’.23 There is only passing reference to the sacraments in The Testament in 1534, but Bullinger states that to write fully about the sacraments would take him too far from his purpose. He is content to maintain that the whole of the covenant is contained in the sacrament of the covenant, as it is in ours. The sacraments are seen as part of God’s accommodating himself to mortals, who have bodies as well as souls, and who are often led by what is visible to consider what is invisible.24 On 17 December 1534 Bullinger and eight other Zurich ministers wrote a letter to Bucer about the eucharist which presents his understanding of sacraments. Indeed, he makes it clear to Bucer that what he has written must not be altered.25 At points it expresses the presence strongly, but at other points somewhat conditionally. He states as a summary of their view: ‘the true body of Christ, broken for us on the cross, and his true blood, poured out for the remission of sins, are 22 HBTS 6. 375. 17–18, 376. 9–11, 21–24, 35–37. 23 HBTS 6. 376. 37–378. 18, especially 377. 1–4, 7–9, 30–33, 36–378. 10, 13–15. The fourth can be seen as transignification in place of transubstantiation. 24 The Testament 44 r 12–19; GT E 1 r 5–25; ET 132. The German edition is more expansive here than the Latin. A brief reference to the sacraments in The Old Faith makes the same point about God’s having regard to our weakness and his enabling us to come through the visible to God’s invisible grace. He adds, however, their role in gathering us together in marking us as his church and people, exhorting us to our duty, and giving ourselves to righteousness. (The Old Faith H iv v 4-v r 8; ET 79–80) 25 HBBW 4. 430. 259–264.

The Role of Word and Sacrament

353

given and distributed to the faithful, who eat and drink in faith the true body of Christ and his true blood. For the sacraments, which the Lord instituted, are symbols, signs, and testimonies of divine grace to us. They do not only signify the divine promises and the free benefits of God for us, but also suggest and represent in a measure to the senses.’ Bullinger emphasizes the presence of Christ against those who charge them with holding that the signs are empty, indeed signs of an absent rather than a present Christ. He insists that Christ is present and distributes himself to his own. Christ did not institute the sacraments in vain, but they were of no profit without faith to unbelievers.26 Throughout, Bullinger insists on the necessity of the Holy Spirit and faith in relation to the sacraments. He appears to make Christ’s presence in the sacrament of the eucharist dependent on the Holy Spirit and faith. The role of the Spirit is related to the believer rather than to the presence of Christ. At any rate it is only believers who receive Christ – and their faith is, of course, the work of the Spirit. In a passage which emphasizes that the sacraments are not ‘bare symbols’ and that we do not celebrate the eucharist ‘without Christ the King’, he adds that Christ gives himself to be eaten ‘to his own’. He follows this with a reference to faith and to Zwingli’s favourite text, John 6: 63, about the Spirit as giving life.27 In several cases Bullinger speaks of the Spirit’s working inwardly as distinct from the sacraments which appeal to the senses or the Spirit as teaching, feeding, and making alive.28 Faith is related to Christ’s presence directly, but more often indirectly by reference to eating in faith.29 In keeping with this, Bullinger repudiates the use of terms such as instruments and channels in relation to the sacraments, which would bind God’s grace to the sacraments and which would mean that grace was poured into unbelievers. Faith, however, is necessary to receive Christ and his grace, faith which comes from the Spirit of Christ. However he can, as Zwingli, use the word instrument when it does not constrain the sovereignty of God. For he also speaks of the way the Spirit effects everything, drawing at one time with an instrument and at another without an instrument where, as much, and how he wills in accordance with his will.30 As elsewhere, Bullinger affirms that what he has written is in accordance with scripture and the catholic church, but also, as Zwingli used to say, in accordance with faith.31

26 HBBW 4. 422. 4–16, 422. 30–423. 35, 43–48, 425. 95–96. He uses words such as ‘vere adesse, dari, distribuique’ ‘dominus se suis praesentem exhibet.’ 27 HBBW 4. 428. 197–200. 28 HBBW 4.426. 139–143, 157–159, 427. 175–177. 29 For example, HBBW 4. 422. 10–11, 423. 39–42, 46–48, 55–57, 424. 68–71, 424. 83–425.97. 30 HBBW 4.426. 152–159, 427. 175–179. The whole sentence, and some of what precedes it, comes from Zwingli’s Letter to the Princes of Germany (Z V1/III 271. 10–12). 31 HBBW 4.429. 228–229, 245–246, 427. 184–185, 428. 191–194.

354

Chapter 13: The Word and The Sacraments

The First Helvetic Confession describes itself in the German text as a confession of the Swiss churches which have accepted the gospel.32 It was produced in large part to overcome the division between the Lutheran and Reformed churches, especially in relation to the eucharist Bullinger had a leading role in this, but Bucer and Capito influenced the eventual statement, both in person when they arrived, and in Bucer’s earlier contacts and correspondence. Bern and Basel, as well as Zurich, had already expressed their faith in formal statements influenced by Bucer – in The Bern Articles in 1532 and The First Basel Confession and The Zurich Confession in 1534. The articles include Zwinglian emphases, but there are other emphases in particular a stress on God’s role in the sacraments in Article 20. Thus, the substance of baptism is first ‘rebirth’ and secondly ‘adoption into the people of God’, and in the eucharist ‘the substance is the communion of the body of the Lord, salvation and forgiveness of sins. Again, ‘the sacraments are not simply outward signs of Christian fellowship’, but they are on the contrary ‘symbols of divine grace’. This is further defined in terms of what God ‘himself promises, offers, and efficaciously provides’.33 Far from separating the sign from what it signifies, the article on baptism refers to the Lord’s offering and presenting the bath of regeneration with a visible sign.34 The article on the eucharist is longer than both of the others. It has a similar emphasis. It states that ‘the Lord truly offered his body and his blood, that is himself, to them’ so that ‘he lives ever more in them and they in him’. This is repeated twice. First, linked with their institution by Christ, they are ‘signs by which the true communion of his body and blood is administered and offered to believers by the Lord himself by means of the ministry of the church’. Then the confession maintains that ‘they present and offer the spiritual things that they signify’.35 Some of these positive statements echo the earlier confessions of faith, but the influence of Bucer is also evident. From 1524 he had related the doctrine of election to the sacraments. It enabled him to defend baptism, to affirm that the body of Christ was given to all, but that those who were not elect did not truly receive eternal life. They were rather like those in 1 Corinthians 11 who did not discern the body.36 The use of the word with is characteristic of Bucer and would probably reflect his direct or indirect influence, as perhaps the emphases on Christ as living in us and our living in him. The First Basel Confession expresses a similar view, as does The Zurich Confession. The letter already shows the impact 32 33 34 35 36

RB 1/2 57. 1–3, 44. 1–4; RC100. RB 1/2 64.6–17, 52. 2–18; RC 107. RB 1/2 52. 20–22. The Latin text has visibili signo (64. 20). Compare RC 108. RB 1/2 65. 7–66.3, 52. 28–53. 25; RC 108–109. See, for example, W.P. Stephens, The Holy Spirit in the Theology of Martin Bucer 222, 253–255.

The Role of Word and Sacrament

355

of Bucer not only in the use of true and truly present and the sacraments as symbols of God’s grace, and perhaps the use of 1 Corinthians 11 and Christ’s giving himself.37 The confession manifests some qualifications which are typical of Zwingli and Bullinger. There are the references to faith, although one of them is not in the Latin text.38 The insistence that the power is in God, not in the sacraments, and the basing of the baptism of children on their membership of God’s people and on God’s word about them. Then there is the repetition – at least in part – of the seven virtues of the sacraments from Zwingli’s Exposition of the Faith. The Sacraments in the 1540s The 1540s were significant for Luther’s final attack on Zwingli and the teaching he associated with Zurich. It provoked a relatively sharp defence from Bullinger in True Confession. This led to correspondence with Calvin and visits by Calvin to Zurich. Out of these exchanges came an agreement between the Zurich ministers and Calvin and so between these two Reformed traditions It embodies a carefully balanced statement to satisfy both Bullinger and Calvin, although some Calvinian elements may not be present.39 True Confession A decade after The First Helvetic Confession, there is an examination of one issue concerning the sacraments in True Confession, Bullinger’s reply in 1545 to Luther’s fierce attack on Zwingli and especially his understanding of the eucharist.40 Luther accuses Zwingli of being a pagan, a charge related to Zwingli’s vision of heaven in Exposition of the Faith as including named pagans.41 For Luther it appears that Zwingli maintains that people can be saved without Christ, the gospel, scripture, and the means of grace, – hence his description of Zwingli as a pagan. Bullinger’s defence of Zwingli is in part a defence of Zwingli against this charge, but at much greater length a defence of Zwingli’s understanding of the

37 The terms are used in The Tetrapolitan Confession (BDS 3. 123.33–125.3, 123. 28–125.1). For the confessions, see RB 1/1 579. 32–35; HBBW 4. 422. 8–15, 423. 46–49, 426. 144–151, 155. 38 RB 1/2 64. 10–11, 65. 11–13 (52. 9–11, 53. 6–7); 64. 12, 15–17 (52. 11–12, 17–18); 65. 1–5 (52. 22– 26); 65. 22–66. 7 (53. 18–30); ET 207–209. The Confession speaks of offering (exhibentes) what it signifies, whereas the third virtue speaks only of setting forth (proponitur/proponuntur) to be eaten. 39 For a discussion of the Agreement and the prior discussion between Bullinger and Calvin, see Stephens ‘The Sacraments’ 62–69. 40 Kurzes Bekenntnis vom heiligen Sakrament (WA 54. 119–167). 41 Exposition of the Faith (Z VI/V. 50–162). See especially 130–132.

356

Chapter 13: The Word and The Sacraments

eucharist and against Luther’s description of Zwingli as an enemy of the sacrament.42 Bullinger’s initial response is to quote Zwingli’s Exposition of the Faith at great length, with a substantial passage from the appendix as well as the extensive section on the virtues of the sacraments.43 It is customary for Bullinger to appeal to Zwingli’s more positive later writings as expressing Zwingli’s view of the sacraments. After his affirmation of Zwingli’s understanding of the sacraments, Bullinger considers the examples Zwingli has cited of heathen who feature in Zwingli’s vision of heaven, before engaging more directly with whether heathen outside Israel were dammed without the sacraments. First, from Romans 1 and 2 he maintains that God reveals himself in a measure to the Gentiles and that there are Gentiles without the law doing what is in the law. Secondly, he observes that some, such as the patriarchs before Abraham, were saved in faith through the grace of God without being circumcised and apart from the Jewish ordinance which had not by then been instituted. Bullinger then names other Gentiles from the Old Testament for whose salvation we may well hope. He supports what he says from Augustine’s statement that many heathen outside Israel belong to God’s people.44 These Gentile examples do not in Bullinger’s judgment mean that Christ is made nought or that word and sacrament are done away. He maintains that they were not saved apart from Christ or without God’s revelation and inspiration. Wherever there is life and salvation, it is through the grace of God in Christ, This happens in a variety of ways. Thus, Job’s proclamation of the forgiveness of sin, the resurrection of the flesh, and eternal life in Christ (Job 19: 23–27a) did not come without the inward and particular inspiration of God. Naaman’s knowledge of the true God came through an imprisoned girl from Israel. God also used his angels, his prophets as with Jonah, and a star as with the wise men.45 From Justin Martyr and Augustine Bullinger gives the non-biblical example of the Sibylls and their prophecies of Christ.46 The fact that some are saved without the sacraments does not mean that the sacraments are done away with. Bullinger notes that Luther mentioned baptism and the eucharist, but adds that there are others, for example, the Old Testament sacrament of circumcision. In Romans 2 Paul refers to the those not circumcised who do the works of the law and those circumcised who do not do them. Paul says that circumcision is of value if you keep the law, but if you do not keep the law circumcision has become uncircumcision. He contrasts this with the heathen 42 43 44 45 46

True Confession 10 r 19–22. Z VI/V 90. 14–93. 3 and 155. 13–161. 18, quoted in True Confession 10 r 29–11 v 4,12–15 v 24. True Confession 16 r 2–19 v 7. True Confession 19 v 8–20 r 28. True Confession 20 r 28–21v 23.

The Role of Word and Sacrament

357

who, although they are by nature the uncircumcision, keep the law and are reckoned as the circumcision. In this Paul does not do away with or nullify circumcision in Israel. However, he does not therefore damn the heathen who are uncircumcised, that is who have not received the Jewish sacrament of circumcision, but who live piously by the strength of God’s grace. From this, Bullinger holds it is clear that ‘salvation or blessedness is not bound to the sacraments’.47 Bullinger then argues the same for the sacraments instituted by Christ. Thus, ‘in the severe Roman persecutions some were martyred without baptism’. The same is to be hoped in Bullinger’s days in severe persecution for godly Christians suffering from severe persecution in lands, such as India and Turkey, who die in true faith without the sacrament. He adduces Augustine in support. He held that ‘some were inwardly cleansed and sanctified without the outward and visible sanctification of the sacraments as, for example, the murderer on the cross’. At the same time Augustine maintained that the visible sacraments are not to be despised, for those who despise them are not invisibly sanctified. Bullinger observes that Christ was baptized in the Jordan and that the eunuch who believed in Christ and Cornelius who received the Holy Spirit ‘were both outwardly baptized with water’ and that the apostles with their firm faith in Christ received the eucharist. He states that therefore they teach that the sacraments are to be received by all true Christians desiring salvation.48 The Zurich Agreement In 1549 Bullinger and Calvin and the ministers in Zurich came to an agreement on the sacraments.49 They had seen the importance of an agreement in the situation they faced. Calvin needed the support of Zurich and therefore Bullinger in his relations with Bern and his concern to aid French Protestants through a Swiss alliance with France. The Council of Trent and the Augsburg Interim with the presence of imperial troops only miles from Zurich in Constance made the matter important for Bullinger. At the same time it was not simply politically motivated or it would have come sooner and more easily. The agreement reflects understandably many, if not all, of their characteristic emphases and qualifications. Not unexpectedly there is an emphasis on God, as one sees in the letter of the Zurich ministers on 30 August 1549 which refers to God as the author of the 47 True Confession 21 v 24–22 r 21. 48 True Confession 22 r 22–23 r 4. 49 The text of The Zurich Agreement (Consensus Tigurinus) is in RB 1/2 481–490. The first reference is to this edition. The text and an English translation by Torrance Kirby are also in Consensus Tigurinus, edited by Emidio Campi and Ruedi Reich. An earlier English translation by I.D. Bunting is in Journal of Presbyterian History 44 (1966) 45–61, abbreviated as ET.

358

Chapter 13: The Word and The Sacraments

sacraments and as having instituted them for legitimate sons of the church.50 Article 8 maintains that God gave them and gives us by his Spirit what they figure, Article 12 that he uses them as helps, but that they have no power in themselves, and it is he who alone acts through his Spirit, Article 13 that the virtue is God’s and that he acts efficaciously where he pleases, Article 17 that God’s grace is not bound by the sacraments, and Article 18 that God’s truth is not overthrown by our unbelief. This is supported by reference to the role of Christ in Article 14, and to the Holy Spirit.51 In several articles the Agreement cites the role of the Holy Spirit, mostly in relation to what God does. Thus, God offers us inwardly by the Spirit what the sacraments figure to our eyes. In the sacraments it is God alone who acts by his Spirit. After saying that the sacraments are sometimes called seals, and are said to nourish, confirm, and promote faith, Article 15 states that ‘the Spirit alone is the seal as well as the author and perfecter of faith’, Article 16 that it is by the Spirit that the elect receive what the sacraments offer, and Article 25 that ‘by the Spirit Christ nourishes our souls through faith’.52 The early Bullinger does not characteristically focus on election in relation to the sacraments. (He mentions it, but refers more often to faith.) Whereas Zwingli discusses the baptism of infants in relation to election as well as the covenant, Bullinger does so in terms of the covenant with little reference to election. He agreed, however, to The First Helvetic Confession, where there is a reference to election but not to the covenant in relation to baptism.53 By contrast, an emphasis on election is more characteristic of Bucer and Calvin. The Zurich Agreement mentions election in Articles 16 and 17. The former maintains that not everyone receives the substance of the sacraments, as God exerts his power only in the elect. Moreover, the Spirit effects that the elect receive what the sacraments offer just as he enlightens in faith only those preordained. Article 17 holds that ‘the truth of the signs’ reaches only the elect, a statement not emphasized in the early Bullinger in this context.54 By contrast, however, the references to faith in Articles 18 and 19 are typical of Bullinger as they are of Zwingli. They concern the necessity for faith in the reception of the sacraments. The first of them makes it clear that the lack of faith in us does not undermine the faithfulness of God and his giving of Christ with his gifts in the sacraments. Lack of faith affects only whether we receive what is offered. Article 19 maintains that the faithful communicate in Christ before and outside the sacraments, as one sees 50 51 52 53

Campi and Reich (abbreviated as CR) 156 and 266 and RB 1/2 489. 33–34, ET 60. RB 1/2 160. 41–43, 161. 20–39, 45–48, 162.1–4, 6–9, 161. 33–36; Articles 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, and 14. RB 1/2 160. 41–43, 161. 22–23, 37–39, 163. 4–5; Articles 8, 12, 15, 16, and 25. RB 1/2 52. 26, 65. 4–5; RC 108. The somewhat tentative reference might not come from Bullinger as there is no reference to election here in The Second Helvetic Confession. 54 RB 1/2 485. 22–486. 45; ET 55–56; CR 133–134, 262.

The Role of Word and Sacrament

359

with Paul and Cornelius. Paul’s exhortation to examine oneself before communicating is understood as referring to the need to have faith. The sacraments then confirm and increase faith.55 The following article maintains that the benefits of the sacraments are not limited to the time in which they were received, but may be effective later, even to the end of one’s life. The article relates the effectiveness of baptism to the fact that the promise in it lives for ever. With the eucharist there can be a delay, which is related to our inadequate response at the time.56 Most, if not all of the various elements in Zwingli’s understanding of the sacraments are present in the articles beginning in Article 2. It refers to them as appendices of the gospel of which one can speak only when one starts from Christ. Article 7 states, ‘The ends of the sacraments are that they may be marks and badges of Christian profession and society or brotherhood.’ Their chief purpose is that ‘through them God may testify, represent, and seal his grace to us’. They do not signify any more than the word does, but they appeal to our senses. Articles 9 and 11 maintain that the signs and what they signify are distinct and that ‘sacraments separated from Christ are nothing but empty masks’, a note sounded in the following articles. They say that the sacraments profit nothing unless God makes them effective, that ‘the whole work of our salvation must be ascribed to God alone’, that ‘it is Christ alone who truly baptizes inwardly and who make us partakers of himself in the supper’, and that ‘the whole effect rests in his Spirit’. Article 15 relates salvation to God alone and in no way to what is created, Article 16 and 17 relate the sacraments to God’s election as Article 18 does to faith, which for Zwingli and Bullinger, of course, depends on God.57 The most obvious difference between Zwingli’s views and those of The Zurich Agreement is the emphasis on the joining of the sign and what it signifies, with the sacrament a sign of grace being given, not just of grace which has been given. This is expressed in references to Christ’s baptizing inwardly and making us partake of himself or God’s offering the gifts of Christ to all. It is expressed in the strengthened role of the Holy Spirit, references to the promises and to the elect, and the use of the words instrument and true in relation to the sacraments. Moreover, although there is still reference to the appeal of the sacraments to the senses, the efficacy of the sacraments is now not restricted to their appeal to the senses.

55 RB 1/2 486. 5–21, ET 55–56; CR 134–135, 263. 56 RB 1/2 RB 2/1487. 22–30; ET 56; CR 136, 263. 57 RB 1/2 482. 12, 483. 15–24, 484. 9, 22–23, 485. 10–15, 20–26, 486, 2–10; ET 50, 52–55; CR 127. 129–134, 259–263.Of course, these elements are not exclusive to Zwingli.

360

Chapter 13: The Word and The Sacraments

The Sacraments in the 1550s The longest exposition of the sacraments is contained in two sermons in the fifth decade – over ninety pages in the critical edition and over hundred and twenty pages in the English translation (They are followed by three sermons on baptism and the eucharist of comparable length, though somewhat shorter in the critical edition.) They are manifestly longer than Bullinger could have preached. The length means that some elements are substantially expanded. Related to it but much briefer is The Christian Religion published five years later in 1556. Different in focus are two short sections on the sacraments in shorter works which contrast an evangelical and papal or Roman understanding of the sacraments. Evangelical and Papal Teaching and Questions about Religion In 1551 in Evangelical and Papal Teaching there are two brief statements on the sacraments, First, comes the affirmation of two sacraments as instituted by God against the Roman assumption of seven. Second, Bullinger maintains that the sacraments ‘do not have in themselves, nor do they of themselves give the grace of God, but they are signs of the mysteries of God. They are also testimonies and seals of the promises and grace of God, They present, offer, and renew to us the benefits and gifts of God, and remind us of our duty.’ (Interestingly there is no qualification here, such as a reference to the offering of the gifts of God to the elect or to believers.) Bullinger opposes this to the Roman view that ‘the sacraments have in themselves and give the grace of God to all who receive them’ and that ‘they are not only signs of God’s grace, but also causes’, ‘instruments and implements through which the power of Christ’s passion is poured into us’.58 Bullinger considers the same issues in more detail in 1559 when offering a response to all kinds of questions raised about the gospel and the Christian faith. There is only one question about the sacraments in Questions about Religion (1559). It concerns the number of sacraments and whether they are efficacious signs of grace through which we obtain the grace of God. Bullinger accepts only two sacraments. He rejects confirmation and extreme concoction as sacraments of Christ and as necessary rites drawn from God’s word. Penance, the laying on of hands or ordination, and a marriage are not sacraments as baptism and the eucharist are, but they are good and necessary ordinances of God when they are used as they were instituted and as used formerly. Not everything in the Roman Church is right and good, but only what is scriptural. Baptism and the eucharist are of God alone not us, seals of divine truth and grace. Bullinger says he has

58 Evangelical and Papal Teaching b ii v 21 -iii v 7,b iii r 21 – iv r 6. Bullinger uses the words ‘fürstellen, anbieten, erneweren’.

The Role of Word and Sacrament

361

shown elsewhere how God’s promises are in the sacraments, signs and memorials of God’s benefits.59 The efficacy of the sacraments is, Bullinger says, that which God intended in instituting them and we must not ascribe something else. If we do not find them efficacious, that has to do not with them – as if what God has instituted is not efficacious – but with our not using them rightly and with faith. In support, Bullinger quotes Simon Magus and Judas. Simon was not cleansed by baptism, not because baptism is not efficacious and is not a sign of cleansing, but because Simon did not believe. Likewise Judas did not receive the body of Christ to life, not because the food of life is not represented and offered in the sacrament, but because he received without faith.60 Our receiving the sacraments does not obtain the grace of God, as a deed or work of ours, but by the grace of God. We receive the sacrament as those who have been pardoned by the grace of God alone in Christ through faith. Bullinger supports this from Romans 4 where Paul states that Abraham was justified before circumcision. But circumcision was not therefore useless or an empty sign. Abraham received it as a seal of the righteousness of faith confirming and testifying that righteousness is of faith, that is, that we become righteous through faith. Bullinger then maintains that the same applies to our sacraments as to the sacraments of the Old Testament, as one sees in Colossians 2 and 1 Corinthians 10.61 The Christian Religion In The Christian Religion in 1556 Bullinger focusses on what is fundamental for a Christian, as distinct from the more scholarly presentation for ministers in The Decades. He expounds an article on the sacraments in four chapters of some thirteen pages.62 The article includes characteristic elements: the sacraments are instituted by the Lord; they are signs and seals of God’s grace; they enable us to share in Christ and nourish us to eternal life, they unite us in one body and separate us from others. The article has a stronger focus on the covenant than 59 Questions about Religion 127. 7–128. 25; LT 40 v 21–41 r 21 60 Questions about Religion 128. 26–129. 21; LT 41 r 22- v 7. The German has ‘anbilde/bezüge und anbiete’’ and the Latin has ‘repraesentur et offeratur’ (129. 19–20; LT 4 v 6). 61 Questions about Religion 129. 22–130. 18; LT 41 v 8–25. 62 The article states that the Lord instituted the sacraments, which he added to the preaching of the gospel. They are signs and seals that he is our God and receives us into his covenant to purify us from our sins, renew, and receive us in his fellowship, to cleave to him alone and to walk in innocence before him. The Messiah promised by God to the fathers has died to be our saviour so that we may be nourished by his flesh and blood to eternal life and that we may keep his death in fresh remembrance and thank him. He has instituted the sacraments that we may remember our duty and debt and walk in the unity of the body of Christ and that separated from all other religion we may keep to this religion alone.

362

Chapter 13: The Word and The Sacraments

might be expected given that it is absent as a theme from The Christian Religion, unlike The Catechism, although it is expounded briefly in two pages in the article of over twenty pages on God.63 In the first chapter Bullinger maintains that the Lord instituted the sacraments, adding them to the preaching of the word. The sacraments are ‘sacred actions, effects, and exercises, which Christ added’ to the preaching of the holy gospel, as ‘signs and seals’ to ‘order, plant, and increase faith’. They are ‘neither unnecessary nor unprofitable’, and must not be separated from preaching. The stress on the divine character of the sacraments is also expressed in God’s instituting them, and in a comparison which Bullinger makes with the word. Just as the word is to be received as the word of God and not as the word of men, so are the sacraments as God’s ordinance. God’s will is to effect in believers, who celebrate the sacraments in accordance with his ordinance, ‘as and what he has promised in his word’. There is no lack or defect in God’s ordinance or institution. God acts in his ordinance and is not hindered by any defect in the minister.64 Strengthening faith is not the work of the outward sign in itself, but is the work of the Spirit who speaks, draws, and works in the hearts of believers, not in unbelievers. The characteristic emphasis on faith is present not only in the opposition between believers and unbelievers but also in the statement that ‘believers are strengthened through the Spirit and faith in the heart’.65 The second chapter states that through consecration the elements are put to holy use from common use, and so become what they were not before. Thus, water is no longer used to wash and bathe and bread and wine are no longer used to nourish our bodies. Baptism is a sacrament of regeneration and forgiveness of sins, and the eucharist a sacrament of the body and blood of Christ nourishing us spiritually for eternal life. The power of consecrating does not lie in human words or blessings, but ‘in the will, word, command or institution, and invocation of God’. Bullinger compares this with Naaman’s obedience and faith in God’s word and being made clean. The change in the water, bread, and wine does not mean that they cease to be water, bread, and wine, for the bible refers to them by these names. The change is that before they were not sacraments, whereas now they are sacraments, renewing and nourishing us spiritually.66 The third chapter considers why God instituted the sacraments and their being called signs. God accommodates himself to our weakness by the use not just of 63 64 65 66

The Christian Religion 30 v 22–31 v 18. The Christian Religion 138 v 8–18, 139 r 5–9, 21–24, 139 v 8–30. The Christian Religion 143 r 8–17. The Christian Religion 140 r 16-v10, 18–24, 140 v 30–141 r 23. Although the covenant does not feature significantly in The Christian Religion it is used several times mostly in relation to baptism (137 v 18–138 r 3, 142 r 13–14,v 13–26, 144 v 21–26).

The Role of Word and Sacrament

363

words but also of signs and sacraments. They appeal to our sight, and the ancients described them as visible words. In the sacraments we have in word and sign the salvation effected by Christ and our duty and debt. Sacraments consist of a sign and what is signified. In the sacraments the sign which is outward and visible is added by the Lord to the word. In the action (the pouring of water, the breaking, distributing, and eating of the bread, the pouring and drinking of the wine) the matter of salvation through Christ is accomplished. In sacraments we are to look not just to the signs, but rather to what is signified; they are no longer ‘common elements but sacraments of Christ’.67 In expounding the sacraments as seals, Bullinger appeals to the way we make covenants, agreements, and testaments. We do so in words, but we also put them in writing, and then add seals to the letter we have written, as a testimony to others later. Similarly Christ made an eternal covenant and an eternal testament. Instead of letters and seals he gave his sacraments as a testimony to the truth of our salvation. This is the reason Paul refers to circumcision as ‘a seal of the righteousness of faith’. Thy are ‘seals and visible testimonies which like the word of God states that God is gracious to us, that we are purified children of God, that Christ truly died for us, and has brought us to life again, so that we live in him and he in us’.68 Besides the strengthening of faith in believers by the Holy Spirit, God instituted the sacraments for a further purpose. God’s will is to have a visible church and particular people which is separate from all other peoples and religions and which confesses, praises, and worships him. Therefore, he has ordered it so that those who believe in him gather into a worshipping community. He instituted the sacraments to effect this separation and incorporation with his church alone. We are baptized into one body and we are all one body as we eat of one loaf.69 The fourth chapter examines the number of sacraments before Christ and after Christ and the differences between them. As the other reformers, Bullinger insists on only two sacraments which are based on God’s word and have been used from the beginning, as they are now. At the beginning in the Old Testament there were sacrifices, but then God gave his people circumcision and the passover lamb. They prefigure the future Messiah and his grace. Christ replaced them with baptism and the eucharist. Paul not only related circumcision to baptism and the passover lamb to the eucharist, but also our sacraments to theirs, so that, for example, they ate and drank of Christ. Although the sacraments were like each other, there are differences between them in the two testaments, ours excelling theirs. Theirs pointed to a future good, ours that it is present. Theirs promised 67 The Christian Religion 142 r 24 – v5, 10–15, 24–27, 142 r 1–12, v 9–12. 68 The Christian Religion 142 v 13–143 r 7. 69 The Christian Religion 143 r 18-v 3.

364

Chapter 13: The Word and The Sacraments

Christ, ours show that he has come with all his graces. Theirs were obscure and burdened with ceremonies and expense, ours are clear and simple and not burdened with many ceremonies or expense. Theirs served only Israel. ours serve a much greater community. We have, moreover, received the gift of the Spirit more richly, and so on.70 The Decades The most obvious difference between The Decades in 1551 and The Christian Religion in 1556 in the exposition of the sacraments, apart from the difference in length, is that the latter draws only on scripture whereas The Decades draws substantially on the fathers, with dozens of quotations from Augustine. Of course, The Decades regards scripture as fundamental as ‘the word of truth’, but the testimonies of the fathers as acceptable, if they are scriptural. Although the fathers are adduced as additional to the testimonies of scripture, Augustine seems at least in part to be the lens through which Bullinger looks at scripture.71 Another significant difference is the extended seven page consideration of signs with which the first sermon of The Decades opens. Bullinger begins the discussion of signs with Augustine’s, distinction of natural and given signs, then past, present, and future signs, signs given by people and by God, natural, paradigmatical, and finally sacramental signs. They are called sacraments, for which Bullinger offers the definition of Lombard (‘a sign of a holy thing’) and Augustine (‘a visible sign of an invisible grace’), and two lengthier definitions of his own. He concludes this discussion with three terms sacramentum or oath (like the enrolling of a soldier), musteria or mysteries, and sumbola or symbols, and his own summary.72 The sermons are shaped in part by Bullinger’s conviction that his opponents, papal and Lutheran on the one hand and radical on the other, ascribe either too much or too little to the sacraments, although the emphasis is much more on refuting the former than the latter. It is expressed in the biblical examples of the ark and circumcision. (The papal error is embodied in the doctrine of transubstantiation and the teaching related to it). Fundamental to Bullinger is the conviction that the power is not in the sacrament, but in God. He supports this view by quoting Aquinas, who wrote, ‘He institutes something, who gives it power

70 The Christian Religion 144 v 15–20, 143 v 9–144 v 3. 71 The Christian Religion 138 v 1–3; HBTS 3. 922. 1–3, 884. 32–34, 904.30–31; Decades 4. 298, 243, 271. 72 HBTS 3. 874. 24–882.21, especially 875. 4–25, 876. 6–9, 877. 34–878. 1, 15–17, 879.21–26, 879. 26–880. 6, 19–27, 881. 6–9, 26–30, 882. 13–20; Decades 4. 227–239.

The Role of Word and Sacrament

365

and virtue: but the virtue of the sacrament is from God alone; therefore God alone is able to institute sacraments.73 In the subsequent discussion Bullinger makes the distinction between the sign and the thing signified, noting with Chrysostom that the sign is outward and is perceived by the senses and the thing signified is perceived by the mind ‘not of the flesh but of faith’. He maintains that Christ is ‘the power and substance of the sacraments’ and that without him they have no effect. He rejects the view that the words of the institution of the sacrament mean a bodily or essential presence. He holds that this cannot be proved from scripture and that the biblical examples used to support it are not relevant. The words of the minister do not effect Christ’s bodily presence, as the sacraments are sanctified ‘by the nature, will, deed, and command of God’ and not by human words. Thus, Naaman was cleansed by the power of God (and not by the power of the water) and by Naaman’s obedience to God’s command. Moreover, ‘by the word (sermonem) of the Lord’ (by which the disciples were made clean in John 15) he understands the preaching of the Lord, that is, by believing in the death and resurrection of Christ. Blessing, for example, is to thank or praise or multiply or make fruitful, not miraculously to change the substance of the signs by the words of consecration.74 A further reason for distinguishing the sign and what it signifies is in John (6:47, 11:26). Following Augustine and others such as Bucer, Judas ‘ate the bread of the Lord but did not eat the bread, the Lord’, for otherwise he would live for ever, but he died eternally. Bullinger rejects attempts to argue for transubstantiation by analogy with forming Adam from clay and Eve from a rib and turning Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt. With the eucharist we still perceive bread and wine, but with Adam, Eve, and the pillar of salt we do not perceive the earth, the rib, or Lot’s wife.75 Bullinger regards transubstantiation as contrary to the apostles’ teaching on the true incarnation of Christ and refers to Scotus’ rejection of transubstantiation as not held by the apostles. He affirms the distinction between the sign and the thing signified, while maintaining the likeness between them. The likeness leads to the calling of the former by the name of the latter.76 73 HBTS 3. 918. 29–919. 5, 934. 1–7, 953. 9–13, 919. 9–921. 10, 882, 21–30; Decades 4. 294, 316, 345, 294–297, 239. 74 HBTS 3. 888.23–26, 891. 10–21, 893, 10–18,893. 24–894.3, 895. 21–28, 899. 22–27, 900. 3–14; Decades 4. 249, 253, 254, 255, 257, 258, 263, 264. Examples such as water flowing from the rock, the Nile turned to blood, the water into wine, the sweet water at Mara, and the rod turned into a serpent are not relevant as they were under the form or likeness that they were before, nor were there words of blessing. 75 HBTS 3.904. 15–30, 906. 24–907. 20; Decades 4.270–271, 274–275. He notes that in Mark the words, ‘This is my blood…’, come after the disciples drank the wine. He argues that if people explain this sequence by a figure of speech, they admit what they had rejected in interpreting the eucharist. 76 HBTS 3.908. 29–909. 9, 910 25–26; Decades 4.277–279.

366

Chapter 13: The Word and The Sacraments

Nevertheless the sign is not the thing signified, as Augustine frequently makes clear. Augustine, moreover, argues that a command should be regarded as figurative, where taking it literally would appear to command doing evil or forbid doing a deed of love, as for example ‘except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man… you have no life in you’.77 Related to Bullinger’s rejection of transubstantiation is his rejection of the view that the sacraments give grace. He sees this as misunderstanding Augustine’s stating that the Old Testament’s sacraments ‘promise’ whereas the New Testament’s ‘give’ grace. Grace is the good will of God who justifies us and endues us with his gifts for the sake of Christ. Bullinger argues that if the sacraments give grace (by implication to those who do not have it) then the recipients are saved and justified by what they do. The view that the grace of God is contained in the signs led to the astonishing judgment of Pope Innocent that if a mouse eats the sacrament ‘then miraculously the substance of bread returns again, not at bread which was turned into flesh, but … instead of it other bread is miraculously created, which bread is eaten’. He supports this from Bonaventura, while admitting that Bonaventura was mistaken is some related things. Bullinger’s understanding seems in part related to an opposition between the material and spiritual, with the former unable to convey the latter, as well as by his conviction of the sovereignty of God. It is rather the Holy Spirit who gives.78 Bullinger draws on biblical examples, such as Abraham and the Ethiopian eunuch, which show that faith precedes the reception of the sacrament, the sacrament being a seal of the righteousness which came by faith. He recognizes that it could appear that people receive nothing in the sacraments, Bullinger asserts that they are holy, not profane, as they are instituted by God and instituted for godly not profane people, and that with godly believers they have the effect for which they were ordained. They are people who already have fellowship with Christ, and the sacraments, which are testimonies of God’s grace and seals of the truth of his promises, strengthen this.79 In the last part of his exposition, Bullinger quotes passages from Zwingli to show that he does not despise the sacraments. Thus, sacraments bear witness to something which has happened. Moreover, what is fundamental in them is the work of the Holy Spirit, as is faith which is the work of the Holy Spirit. The 77 HBTS 3. 910. 28–916. 13, especially 910. 28–29, 915. 19–916. 13 and 917. 19–27; Decades 4. 282, 284–289. 78 HBTS 3.921. 4–14, 924. 3–6, 11–21, 925. 2–16, 927. 14–21, 928. 27–28, 929. 31–34; Decades 4.296–297, 301–302, 306, 308, 309. In passing Bullinger rejects the view invented, he says, by Lombard ‘that sacraments have received power to confer or give grace by the merit or passion of Christ’. 79 HBTS 3.930. 27–931. 3, 23–28, 932. 18–22, 28–31, 933. 16–20, 26–30; Decades 4. 311,312, 313, 314, 315.

The Role of Word and Sacrament

367

sacraments seal God’s promises, but not to unbelievers who distrust them. They also represent things, not in the sense of bringing, giving, or making bodily present, but in resembling them and setting them before our eyes, calling them to mind. In discussing the analogy between the sign and the thing signified, Bullinger appears to speak more positively. As bread and wine are changed into substance of a person’s body so Christ, being eaten by the godly faith is united to them by his Spirit, so that they are one with Christ and he one with them. The sacraments appeal to our senses through our eyes so that the mind can meditate on them inwardly. Through our senses we are caught up into heaven and our faith strengthened. This happens, however, through the Holy Spirit and faith. Following Augustine, Bullinger holds that sacraments unite us to the body of Christ and separate us from other religions. ‘Sacraments therefore visibly graft us into the fellowship of Christ and his saints, who were invisibly grafted by his grace before we were partakers of the sacraments.’80 It is characteristic of Bullinger’s understanding of the sacraments that he ends by emphasizing the necessity of faith. The sacraments do not benefit people without faith, but they are not superfluous to those who receive them with faith. Typically, he supports this with testimonies first from scripture and then from Augustine. It does not follow, however, that the sacraments depend on us or our worthiness. In a stronger expression than he often uses, Bullinger states that it is one thing to offer and another to receive. The illustration of the patient’s refusing medicine which could benefit him makes the point while not corresponding with someone’s receiving without faith. Additionally, Bullinger argues that God would not have given the sacraments if they had not been needed. As the sacraments do not depend on our worthiness, neither do they on the worthiness of the minister. Even Judas preached and baptized. But he preached Christ’s doctrine and baptized in the name of Christ. While insisting on the necessity of the sacraments, Bullinger continues to affirm, following Augustine, that God is not limited to them and can sanctify people without them. This does not apply to those who despise them.81 The Second Helvetic Confession In The Second Helvetic Confession Bullinger expresses his mature view of the sacraments in a form that is remarkably condensed. Although the chapter is entitled The Sacrament of the Church of Christ, the main emphasis is on God or 80 HBTS 3. 940. 13–16, 939. 29–31, 940. 34–941. 5, 11–13, 24–31, 943. 27–29, 944. 9–11, 14–19, 945.7–12, 20–23; Decades 4. 325, 324, 326, 327, 330, 331, 332–333. Bullinger cites Zwingli to support the role of the senses (HBTS 3. 944. 34–945.1; Decades 4.332) and the sacrament as an oath (HBTS 4. 949, 6–9; Decades 4. 338). 81 HBTS 3.950. 11–15, 951. 2–3, 20–22, 24–26, 29–952.3, 953. 15–18, 956. 4–6, 9–10, 954. 27–32; Decades 4. 340, 341, 342, 343, 345, 349, 357.

368

Chapter 13: The Word and The Sacraments

on Christ, the Son of God. Compared with many statements earlier in his ministry, Bullinger makes clear that the reality of Christ’s promise is not dependent on the faith of those receiving. Only their reception of what God offers is dependent on their faith.82 Much of the chapter reflects, though more concisely what Bullinger has expressed at length in earlier works. Sacraments are mystical symbols or sacred actions, ‘instituted by God himself, consisting of his word, the signs, and the things signified’. By them ‘in the church God keeps in mind and from time to time renews the great benefits he has shown humanity’. In them God also seals his promises, and performs for us inwardly what he represents outwardly and as it were offers to our sight. Thus ‘he strengthens and increases our faith through the work of God’s Spirit in our hearts’. Furthermore, by them ‘he separates us from all other peoples and religions and consecrates and binds us to himself ’, and also ‘signifies what he demands of us’.83 The rest of the chapter expounds or fills out this initial statement. The Confession maintains that God has always added sacramental signs to the preaching of his word. Before Christ he instituted circumcision and the passover lamb. With the coming of Christ, to whom they pointed, they were replaced by him with baptism and the eucharist. As sacraments pertain to the worship of God, they must be instituted by God, not us. Therefore, ceremonies not instituted by him cannot be sacraments. Consequently, Bullinger rejects the other sacraments of the Roman Church, although he allows that penance, ordination, and marriage are profitable ordinances of God.84 Fundamental to a sacrament is that God is its author and that he still works in it. The character of the minister does not affect the sacraments. ‘The integrity of the sacraments depends on their institution by the Lord’, and it is the Lord who gives the substance and not the minister, who gives only the outward signs. There are differences in the two Testaments between the outward signs, but the substance of the sacraments both in the Old Testament and the New is Christ. The New Testament ones ‘testify that the substance and promise have been fulfilled or perfected in Christ’. They are simple; they will last to the end of time; and they kindle greater faith, leading to a greater abundance of the Spirit.85 Sacraments consist of word, sign, and what is signified. It is the word which constitutes a sacrament. Bullinger associates this with the invoking of God’s name and the renewing of their first institution and sanctification. ‘For Christ’s first institution and consecration of the sacraments always remains effectual in 82 83 84 85

RRB 2/2 327. 7–12, RC 281. RB 2/2 323. 16–23; RC 277. RB 2/2 323. 24–324.5; RC 277–278. RB 2/2 324.5–325. 13; RC 278–279.

The Role of Word and Sacrament

369

the church of God’, and we enjoy what was enjoyed then if we celebrate the sacraments as Christ instituted them. Hence our repetition of Christ’s words. Bullinger notes that the signs take the name of the thing signified. The sign is not changed into what it signifies, but there is a sacramental union so that a believer does not only receive bread and wine, but also partakes spiritually of Christ.86 Bullinger rejects views associated with his opponents: Roman, Lutheran, and Anabaptist. He repudiates the Roman view that ascribes the sanctification of the sacraments to the power of the words spoken by the priest with the intention of consecrating or to some other word or example which does not come from Christ or the apostles. On the other hand he dismisses the view of radicals for whom the signs are simply ‘common signs, neither sanctified not efficacious’. They scorn the sacraments, holding that as they have what the sacraments signify then the sacraments are superfluous. Likewise the Confession does not approve the Lutheran view that ‘grace and the things signified are bound to and included in the sacraments, so that whoever shares in the outward signs shares inwardly also in grace and the things signified.87 The chapter concludes with a strong affirmation of the sacraments. They are not affected by those ministering or those receiving. In a comparison with the word, Bullinger states that the sacraments remain true and inviolate, regardless of the character of the minister or the unbelief of the recipient. Despite them the sacraments still signify sacred things and in them God offers the things signified. Where these things are not received through the recipients’ unbelief, the fault is theirs, not God’s. But in words that in this context go beyond Zwingli, the confession states, ‘their unbelief does not nullify the faithfulness of God’ (Romans 3: 3–4).88

86 RB 2/2 325. 13–16, 27–34, 326.5–6, 12–14; RC 279–280. 87 RB 2/2 326. 15–26; RC 281. 88 RB 2/2 327. 1–12; RC 281.

Chapter 14: Baptism

Zwingli engaged with the issue of baptism and especially infant baptism and rebaptism before Bullinger. Not surprisingly, therefore, Bullinger draws on many of Zwingli’s arguments, including his use of the covenant. Shortly before Bullinger’s first work on baptism in late 1525, Zwingli wrote Baptism, Rebaptism, and Infant Baptism in May 1525 and Reply to Hubmaier in November 1525.There is much in common in these two works, but also there are interesting differences between them. All three works are concerned with infant baptism, but they also speak of baptism in general, most obviously in the first of Zwingli’s two works.1 Zwingli’s first work focusses in part on Roman views of sacraments, which the other two do not, but it does not expound the covenant. It begins by rejecting the view that ascribes to the water of baptism ‘what it does not have’, as outward things ‘cannot make us pure or righteous ‘ or ‘take away sins, or make us holy, but only Christ’. Indeed, Christ did away with outward things so that we should not seek justification in them. The word sacrament is ‘a pledge’ (pflichtszeichen). Zwingli compares it with the white cross which marks someone as a Swiss confederate. In the first section on Baptism, Bullinger outlines four uses of baptism, followed by inward and outward baptism, and baptism as an initiatory sign, ‘the beginning of a new life’, like the cowl which the young wear when they enter a religious order. It is ‘an initiatory sign’, a pledge with which people commit themselves to God, testifying the same to our neighbour with the outward sign’. Zwingli describes baptism also as incorporating and engrafting us into Christ.2 Reply to Hubmaier is different in part because it replies in detail to Hubmaier’s case against infant baptism and in favour of believers’ baptism, but also because it relates baptism to Zwingli’s understanding of the covenant. Baptism is now seen as a sign of God’s covenant with us rather as a sign of our covenant with God. 1 There are references and some discussion of baptism by Zwingli in 1523–1524. In early 1525, however, Zwingli writes at greater length in A Commentary in which he differentiates himself from Roman and Lutheran opponents, as well as Anabaptist opponents. 2 Z IV 216.19–21, 28–29, 217. 6–8, 28–29, 218. 3–5, 219. 26–220.4, 225.4–6, 231. 26–30, 241. 27–30, 252. 13–16. See Stephens, Huldrych Zwingli (199–206) for a discussion of this work.

372

Chapter 14: Baptism

What is of particular interest is the different way in which he presents the covenant compared with Bullinger in On Baptism. After replying to Hubmaier’s work in the first part, Zwingli repeats the theses from the earlier work which Hubmaier did not consider. First, he cites the three theses from the section on Baptism: that nothing outward can purify the soul, but only God’s grace, that baptism cannot therefore wash away sin, and that – as it cannot and yet is instituted by God – it must be a pledge (pflichtszeychen) of the people and nothing else. He elaborates the third by saying that baptism is the circumcision of Christians. Circumcision is a pledge (Genesis 17) – so it follows that ‘baptism is a pledge, covenant, or initiatory sign’. These are followed by two theses from the beginning of the section on infant baptism, which underlie Zwingli’s position. ‘The children of Christians are no less children of God than their parents, just as in the Old Testament. If they are God’s, who will keep them from baptism in water?’ ‘Circumcision was for the ancients, as a sign, what baptism is for us. As it was given to children, so should baptism be given to children.’3 The covenant is introduced in the context of infant baptism to support Zwingli’s thesis that children are no less God’s children than their parents. In this there is a clear difference from Bullinger. Bullinger begins by reference to the Anabaptists in Bern, but indicates that he will deal with baptism in general and various aspects of it, the baptism of infants being the last of them. Following Jesus, Peter, and Paul he will deal with baptism on the basis of scripture.4 Zwingli describes the covenant made with Abraham, noting that children were given the sign of the covenant because they were no less in the grace and covenant of God than their parents. God would not have commanded that they be given the sign unless they were members of his covenant and people. (Zwingli argues further that the children of Christians are ‘no less God’s than Abraham’s’. By analogy with Peter’s statement in Acts 10:47, it follows that ‘we neither should nor may deny them outward baptism.) By contrast, Bullinger expounds the covenant and then simply notes that ‘this covenant is made not only with the adult (alten) Abraham who had understanding but also with his children – not for five thousand years, but for ever’.5 Bullinger begins strikingly not even with Abraham but with Almighty God’s creation of heaven and earth. In one brief reference we have the creation of them and also of human beings who deserted the God who loved them. Then in the second sentence Bullinger states that God ‘in his fathomless mercy’ made ‘a 3 Z IV 627. 16–18, 627 26–629.7. 4 HBTS 2. 71.6–7, 22–72.8. 5 Z IV 631. 6–11, 641. 5–9; HBTS 2. 72 21–22. ‘die gründ des touffes… wo der touff angehept, von wem er üffgesetzt, was er sye und vermög, worfür und wie er von den alten zuogedienet sye, und ob man kinder touffen möge’ (74. 23–75.1).

Baptism and the Covenant in 1525

373

covenant, testament, and agreement with Adam, Enoch, Noah, and especially clearly and expressly with Abraham and his seed for ever’.6 Thus, unlike, Zwingli, Bullinger unfolds all that he has to say about baptism from the covenant rather than coming to it as the answer to a question or thesis. Bullinger’s work on baptism in 1525 presents an almost complete picture of his understanding of infant baptism it.7 It does this in the context of the covenant made with Abraham and his descendants. This also provides the basis for baptism in general.

Baptism and the Covenant in 1525 In On Baptism in 1525 Bullinger gives his first exposition of both the covenant and baptism. In three lines he refers to God’s creation of the world and of the human race, which God loved and endowed above all his creatures but which turned from him. Then he describes how God in his mercy made a covenant (testament or agreement) with Adam, Enoch, Noah, and in particular Abraham. The covenant is one in which God wills to be Abraham’s God. For his part Abraham is to take him as his God and walk before him in holiness and penitence. The covenant was made not only with Abraham but also with his children, and it was made not just for five thousand years but for ever.8 A sacrament (pflichtzeichen), circumcision, was added to this testament as a sign, pledging to it. Bullinger regards the blood in circumcision as a sign that the Son of God would die and confirm the covenant with his blood. Circumcision is a sign of God’s people, as the white cross is of the Swiss.9 Bullinger argues from the Old Testament that the covenant is eternal and that all the godly up to John the Baptist received circumcision. Then, going beyond Zwingli in giving a key role to John, he states that the law and the prophets ceased with John, but not the 6 HBTS 2.72. 9–14. 7 This is the first of three works written against Anabaptists. See further the introduction to the Baptism of Infants. Hughes Oliphant Old’s article on baptism shows Bullinger’s detailed knowledge of and indebtedness to the schoolmen as well as his differences from them. He notes the way Bullinger ‘followed rather closely the outline of the typical Scholastic treatise on baptism’. Bullinger raised the same questions, such as What is baptism? and Who instituted baptism?; and in typically scholastic fashion, he treats the form, the matter, the necessity, the minister, the recipients, and finally the effects of baptism. Old observes also that Bullinger ‘always went beyond Lombard and Gratian, digging deeper into both the Scriptural and patristic sources’. See H.O. Old, ‘Bullinger and the Scholastic Works on Baptism; A Study in the History of Christian Worship’ in Gäbler and Herkenrath Heinrich Bullinger I 191–207, especially 192, 206, 207. 8 HBTS 2.72.9–22. 9 HBTS 2.72.23–76.16.

374

Chapter 14: Baptism

testament which is fulfilled in Christ’s coming, With John there is not a new covenant, for he preached Christ.10 To the preaching of Christ, John added baptism as an initiatory sign for those repenting and receiving Christ as Messiah. John also challenges the people by stating that the pouring of water is not enough. People must not claim to be children of Abraham and of the covenant unless they obey God and believe in him. God can make children of the testament from the Gentiles. John, however, baptized only with water, whereas Christ will baptize with the Spirit and fire, that is love.11 Circumcision ceased, although there is only one testament, as the blood in circumcision was a figure of Christ’s blood. Figures or shadows cease with the coming of Christ (Hebrews 10:1). The Colossians were told by Paul not to be concerned at being uncircumcised. They were circumcised through Christ, having baptism in place of circumcision (They should, however, look to inward baptism.) In support of baptism’s replacing circumcision, Bullinger adduces Lactantius, Origen, Augustine, and Tertullian.12 In arguing for one baptism, Bullinger argues that Christ and the apostles did not have a different baptism from John. Christ was baptized as an example. He taught as John did, and through his disciples he baptized. He sent his disciples out to preach what he and John had preached.13 Bullinger rejects the view that a reference to old and new testament means two testaments. There are differences. The old one had fleshly ceremonies and only the promise of Christ, whereas with the new testament Christ has come and the ceremonies cease. The new is made with a new people, the Gentiles. Baptism, begun by John, was for Christ and the apostles a covenant sign of God’s people, as circumcision before Christ.14 Understanding baptism in the context of the covenant does not begin with Bullinger. He draws on Zwingli’s controversy with Anabaptists. Yet from the beginning there are differences between him and Zwingli. Perhaps most notable 10 HBTS 2. 73.10–74. 25. 11 HBTS 2.74.26–75.16. 12 HBTS 2.75. 17–23, 76.1–24. When Paul says that Christ does not profit those who are circumcised he means that those circumcised are still waiting for Christ, and that he has therefore not redeemed us from the law. In place of circumcision we have the friendly element of water, that is baptism. (75.23–33) Bullinger summarizes his view in these words: ‘Zum ersten der touff nütz anders dann ein anfenglich zeichen des volck gottes, das uns zuo Christo und zuo einem unstrefflichen leben pflichtet. Zum anderen ist sin krafft, uns zuo Christo, in das testament oder zuo einem gottseligen leben halten.’ (77. 5–8) 13 HBTS 2.77. 9–20.Bullinger argues from Acts 3 that Peter does not preach the testament with Abraham differently from the prophets and John, and when people argue for the circumcision of the Gentiles in Acts 15 Peter says that they are signed with the Spirit in baptism and that grace makes godly through faith. Similarly Paul in Galatians 3 and 4 and Acts 19 has the same teaching and baptism as John. (77. 21–78.26) 14 HBTS 2.7.27–79.12.

Baptism in the 1530s

375

is that Bullinger moves from the covenant to baptism, whereas Zwingli moves from baptism to circumcision. For Zwingli baptism in Colossians is the Christian circumcision. For Bullinger, what circumcision was in Genesis 17, baptism is also: a pledge, a covenant sign, or an initiatory sign.15 Major elements in Bullinger’s view of baptism are present in his exposition of baptism in 1525. The covenant is eternal, and so implicitly one. Its unity is defended against the possible view that the use of old and new implies two testaments. The covenant has a sign which binds a people to God with the obligation to live in innocence. Its unity is supported by showing that John’s baptism is the same as that of Christ and the apostles for they have the same teaching. Further grounds which Bullinger adduces are Christ’s example and Paul’s stating that there is one baptism. Bullinger also makes a distinction between outward and inward baptism in stating that he baptizes with water, but Christ will baptize with the Holy Spirit.

Baptism in the 1530s Most of the discussion of baptism in the 1530s is in Bullinger’s commentaries, for his second work against Anabaptists in 1531 is concerned with the baptism of infants rather than baptism in general. Some issues are relevant to baptism and the issue of infant baptism, such as who instituted baptism and when. Bullinger comments on Acts 2: 38–39, ‘By baptism we are received into the church of God and dedicated to Christ.’ This involves abandoning other religions and consecrating ourselves to Christ, ‘for in him there is forgiveness of sins’. Forgiveness, however, is not attributed to the element of water, which is the sign, but to faith in Christ. Very often there is attributed to the sign what should in reality be attributed to what is signified. On 2:41 he states, ‘They are baptised because none of the faithful despises an ordinance of the Lord, however humble.’ Bullinger makes clear that denying that cleansing comes from the water does not mean that the water is superfluous. ‘The Lord has instituted nothing which is superfluous.’ ‘The Ethiopian eunuch is an example of this. He did not say, ‘If faith in Christ saves, then what need is there of baptism? For the faithful mind cannot despise an institution of the Lord.’ It asks for baptism, knowing that by it ‘the faithful are admitted into and joined together in one body’ and are bound to holiness of life.16 In the light of the baptism of the eunuch, Bullinger rejects the use of water consecrated with a formula. For him, all that is needed is pure water. He rejects 15 Optiz, Dekaden 321. 16 Acts 31 v 18–26, 33r 3–7, 107 v 10–16, cf. 108r 16–24.

376

Chapter 14: Baptism

the use of rivers (in an obvious challenge to Anabaptists) when there are churches to baptize in, and also rejects baptism by women and midwives as it is administered out of superstition and not in accordance with just order, whereas Paul requires everything to be done decently and in order.17 Bullinger argues that as the Lord is one in being and three in person, baptism in the name of the Lord is the same as baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.18 A persistent note in the commentaries is that baptism in water does not effect anything in and of itself. This is expressed in different ways. It can be said to depend on God or the Holy Spirit or to be related to faith or faith and election, both of which are, of course, dependent on God. In expounding Acts 19: 1–17 Bullinger states that it is not ‘efficacious unless faith and the election of God, which are indeed conferred not by humans, but by God, cooperate with the sign.’ This, he explains, applies to ‘the outward sacrament of baptism’, whether given by John the Baptist or by the disciples, and not to ‘the inward baptism of the Spirit by which Christ alone baptizes’. The former ‘does not expiate sin unless faith and election are present’. On 1 Corinthians 1:13–17 Bullinger refers to those who attribute to ‘us what belongs to God’ and regards Anabaptists and papalists as attributing too much to the sacraments. ‘The power and the combination of the benefits are not from the visible water but from God who works through it and offers in accordance with his promise.’19 The First Helvetic Confession in 1536 has only a brief article – effectively a sentence – on baptism and another on infant baptism, although only one sentence in the German version. The former describes it as a bath of regeneration which the Lord offers and presents to his elect with a visible sign through the ministry of the church.20 There are two elements which could show the direct or indirect influence of Bucer: the use of with in ‘with a visible sign’ and the qualification ‘to his elect’. There could be some ambiguity in ‘the Lord offers and presents’. It could appear to maintain more than Bullinger says about baptism, but the subject, of course, is not the sacraments but the Lord, and reflects Bullinger distinction between baptism in water and baptism in the Spirit.

17 Acts 107v 20–108 r 14. While using only pure water, Bullinger uses characteristically sacramental language about it as he does elsewhere of the eucharist. 18 Acts 132 r 4–8. 19 Acts 232 v 2–21, HBTS 6. 239. 29–32, 240, 17–18, 341. 34–342.2. There is a variation on this earlier in his comments on 1 Corinthians 10:1–5 where he maintains that confessing the Lord, being baptized, and sharing in the eucharist do not suffice for salvation without amendment of life (341.10–14). 20 RB 1/2 52.20–26, 64.19–65.5; RC 108.

Baptism in the 1540s

377

Baptism in the 1540s Bullinger’s commentaries in the 1540s are on the gospels, with the most substantial discussion of baptism in the commentary on Matthew.21 There it arises in the context of John the Baptist’s baptism and Christ’s commission to baptize. The main elements in Bullinger’s understanding of baptism are expounded in relation to John’s baptism, although not the issue of infant baptism. In an extended exposition of Matthew 3: 5–6, Bullinger states that God is the author of baptism, not John whose ministry of teaching and baptizing comes from God. Moreover John’s baptism is true Christian baptism, for Christ did not institute a new baptism after the resurrection when commanding the disciples to baptize. It was because he was ordained by God that John was called the Baptist. By his baptism by John, Christ testified that he had become our brother, and we co-heirs of eternal life if we are incorporated in him. The difference with John’s baptism is that John baptized only Jews, whereas Christ commanded the apostles to baptize all nations.22 There is variety in Bullinger’s account of what baptism is and does, as in his more systematic statements. In baptism we are baptized in the name of the Lord so that God testifies and represents purification, gathers us in one body, and reminds the baptized of their duty. In relation to Christ’s baptism, Bullinger mentions the analogy between baptism and washing. Water washes our bodies clean, while in baptism our cleansing is signified, by which we are invisibly expiated by the Lord. By grace our souls are cleansed. There must be a correspondence between the types and figures and what they point to. For baptism this is the flood (1 Peter 3: 18–22) and the crossing of the Red Sea (1 Corinthians 10:1– 2). Baptism represents dying and being made alive. Invisibly the old Adam is put to death and we are renewed in the image of God who created us. In baptism there is ‘the promise that God wishes to be our God that is he wishes to receive us into his grace, wash us from (our) sins, and number us among the saints’.23 In this context, Bullinger comments on the different words used in baptism, whether ‘in’ or ‘into’ the name and whether ‘of the Lord’ or ‘of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit’. By synecdoche ‘the Lord’ is to be understood of the trinity, and so there is no substantial difference between them. Baptism into the name means to be enrolled in the help, power, and grace of God, while to be named in the name of God is to be counted part of the family of God. ‘I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit’ means ‘By the commission of 21 Bullinger distinguishes commenting from Common Places (loci communes), see Matthew 30 r 49–50. 22 Matthew 29 r 43 – v 9, 36v 41–50. 23 Matthew 29 r 42–45, v12–21, v8–9.

378

Chapter 14: Baptism

God the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit I receive you visibly into communion with him so that he may sanctify you invisibly, I receive you into his family, so that through his grace and adoption you will in future be called a son of God’. ‘By baptism God represents, indeed testifies, and seals to us his grace, that is forgiveness of sins and cleansing.24 Indicating in effect his dissent from Anabaptists, Bullinger states that baptism is valid for the whole of life and applies to all sins in the whole of people’s lives. Paul’s reference to baptism as putting on Christ means becoming one with Christ, ‘being incorporated into Christ so that he lives in us and we in him’. This grafting effects in us regeneration and renovation of the mind. Christ ‘was baptized in the same baptism with us, so that he might declare himself to be our brother and so that we might believe ourselves to be co-heirs of Christ’. Finally, baptism reminds us of our duty, to live innocently, deny the world, put to death our flesh with its concupiscence, be buried with Christ in his death, so that we may be raised with him in newness of life, and may love the brethren as members of the body and live in unity. Baptism also exercises and strengthens faith. It is true faith, which receives the gifts of God.25 There is also an extended exposition of Matthew 3:11 which contrasts John’s baptism with water and Christ’s baptism with the Spirit and fire. ‘The Lord baptizes with fire, that is, he urges us and confers on us forgiveness of sins and the love of God and mutual love among ourselves. Water does not wash away sin, but signifies that Christ washes us, and sanctifies or cleanses us from sins.’ What John promises, he does not confer, but it is given to us by Christ, who transforms our hearts by his Holy Spirit. In discussing them Bullinger distinguishes outward baptism, as the rite or ceremony which John and the apostles administered, from inward baptism which is Christ’s baptizing with the Holy Spirit. Yet in distinguishing them, Bullinger insists that they are not to be divided or torn apart. His concern is that people should not attribute to the creature what belongs to the creator; confusing the sign with what it signifies, the one who ministers the sign and the one who gives the power. In a long quotation from Augustine, he notes that Christ could have given the power to ministers so that they could give the power as if in his place. But he did not wish this (the word noluit being in capital letters), so that the hope of those baptized might be in him and not in them.26 There is a further discussion of baptism in Bullinger’s exposition of Matthew 3: 13–15, when Jesus comes to be baptized and in this way affirms ‘expressly and clearly that the baptism of John is Christian and true’. Therefore, the command to baptize in Matthew 28 was not instituting something new. By his baptism 24 Matthew 29 v 33–52. 25 Matthew 29 v 51–30 r 48. 26 Matthew 34 v 40–49, 35 r 6–38, r 49-v3.

Bullinger’s Later Works

379

Christ was making himself our brother and if we are truly incorporate in him coheirs of eternal life. Indeed, Christ’s baptism destroys many heresies. For example, it was not polluted by being a baptism for sinners. It contradicts the Messalians who claimed that they did not need sacraments as it was sufficient to have the Holy Spirit. Bullinger supports this with the example of Abraham, who believed and was justified but was circumcised and the Ethiopian eunuch who believed and was justified but who did not despise baptism but ardently desired it. Moreover, Peter did not say that centurion did not need outward baptism, since he had the inward baptism of the Spirit. These are examples of the joining of faith and baptism in Mark 16: 16.27 Typically, Bullinger balances a positive affirmation of outward baptism with an affirmation of inward baptism. He adds a statement from Augustine that visible sanctification does not profit without inward sanctification. This is illustrated with New Testament examples. Outward baptism did not benefit Simon Magus without invisible sanctification, whereas the thief in the cross was not sanctified with a sign but was cleansed by inward sanctification. Cornelius, however, received baptism, although he had received the Holy Spirit, showing that baptism is not superfluous.28

Bullinger’s Later Works The consistent character of Bullinger’s understanding of baptism is evident in the way in which his summary of it in The Second Helevetic Confession can be paralleled in his other later works. The Confession offers a seven point summary. The Decades expounds them partly in the same order, but at much greater length. First, it was instituted by God, initially practised by John, before passing from him to the apostles. By it ‘the elect of God are consecrated to God’. The Decades, after a definition of baptism, makes the same point, with testimonies to God’s instituting John’s baptism (John 1: 34 and Matthew 21: 25). It states that it is God who effects salvation in the elect so that the efficacy of baptism is not hindered by evil ministers.29 It also goes beyond what is at most implicit in the Confession, as does The Christian Religion in denying that baptism began with Christ’s commission in Mark 16 and in Matthew 28, maintaining that Christ renewed it. But this relates it to the Confession’s next point.

27 Matthew 36 v 41–37 r 19, 28–50. 28 Matthew 37 r 50 – v12. 29 RB 2/2 327. 19–27, RC 282; HBTS 3. 967. 11–29, Decades 4.352–353; The Christian Religion 145 r 6–12.

380

Chapter 14: Baptism

Second, the Confession affirms ‘one baptism in the church, that it is sufficient once to be baptized and consecrated to God’. ‘Baptism once received lasts through the whole of life and is a perpetual sealing of our adoption.’ The Decades deals with these issues in widely separated places. Bullinger argues for one baptism common to John and the one committed to the apostles by Christ. He maintains from a variety of passages that the message of repentance and forgiveness of sins preached by John and Jesus was the same, with baptism added as a seal. Moreover, if there were not one baptism, then Christ was not baptized in our baptism nor were we in the baptism of Christ. There is a difference in that Christ baptized with fire, that is, the gift of tongues, but that gift and the gift of miracles ceased.30 It is near the end of the sermon that Bullinger maintains that ‘baptism is sufficient and efficacious for people’s whole life’ and applies ‘to all the sins of all baptized. For God’s promise is true…. The power of Christ is always efficacious to cleanse and blot out all the sins of those who are his.’ In The Decades Bullinger relates this to our being grafted in Christ by baptism ‘so that he may always effect salvation in us, until we are received out of misery into glory’. He adds that Abraham practised the mystery of circumcision throughout his life ‘and rested in God himself and the seed promised to him’. This reference to the covenant is more explicit in The Christian Religion: ‘For to the end we have in our body the covenant of our Lord God as a testimony that he wills to be our God, recognize us as his children, cleanse us from our sins, renew, protect, and shelter us, and so on.’31 The third section expounds the meaning of baptism. It is the largest section in the Confession. Each element is present in The Christian Religion. The Decades does not have a comparable section, although elements of it are present almost incidentally. Baptism in the name of Christ means to be enrolled in the covenant and to be received into the family, in other words to be adopted as sons of God. The Christian Religion says the same but adds – reflecting Bullinger’s pastoral concern for a lay readership – that when a little boy heard his name he would recall the name he was given when circumcised and that he was in the register of the covenanted and the children of God. Likewise we should remember the name given us in baptism and remember that we were baptized in God’ s name, in God’s protection and salvation, and belong to him as those who bear his name as his own.32 The covenant is expounded briefly earlier in the work. It is cited twice in the next paragraph in relation to cleansing from sin, in the following one in 30 HBTS 3. 967.35–969.31, Decades 4. 354–356; The Christian Religion 145r 13-v 18. The Christian Religion states that Christ did not institute it, but he ‘ernüweret und erlüteret vil me / das sine junger ouch sollind fürfaren mit touffen/und wie sy soellind touffen’ (145 r 28- v1). 31 RB 2/2 37. 28–30, RC 282; HBTS 3. 993. 20–994.1, Decades 4. 398–399; The Christian Religion 146 v 15–23. The Decades cites Augustine in support and refers to Gratian. 32 RB 2/2 327. 31–33, RC 282; The Christian Religion 146 r 1–18.

Bullinger’s Later Works

381

relation to being one with Christ and all believers, then in relation to baptism lasting the whole of our life, and finally – after two paragraphs without explicit reference to it – to giving the covenant sign of baptism to the children of Christians. As they are in the covenant, Christ is their saviour, and the promise of the cleansing from sin is for them.33 Besides enrolling in the covenant and adoption as sons in God’s family, there is cleansing from or forgiveness of sins. Cleansing from or the forgiveness of sins are presented briefly in The Decades and The Christian Religion. This may be because they consider cleansing and forgiveness in other contexts, but also perhaps as Bullinger states in The Decades, because the sacraments seal what was communicated to us before baptism. The same may also apply to the description of baptism first as joining us to Christ, but to all believers also, and as bestowing various gifts that we may lead a new life or God’s granting his grace that we may lead a new and innocent life. Moreover, in The Decades Bullinger states that our being joined to Christ does not begin with baptism, but is sealed by it.34 Two of the three remaining elements in the Confession are expounded in the exposition of the sacraments in The Decades and The Christian Religion: that baptism calls to mind and renews the great benefit (beneficium) God has shown to the human race, and that in the water by which those great benefits are represented and, as it were, set before our eyes to be beheld.35 Both works, however, expound inward baptism through the Spirit and outward baptism in water – The Decades at some length. It distinguishes the role of the minister from that of Christ or God for the grace and power belong to them. The distinction in The Decades consists almost entirely in two long quotations from Augustine. The first from his tractates on John distinguishes between power and ministry, the second is part of his rebuttal of the Donatists who held that baptism was fruitless if the minister’s life was immoral. He ends this point by referring to the discussion in his sermon on the sacraments.36 The fourth point is the analogy between water which washes, cools, and refreshes hot, tired bodies and the grace of God which does this to the soul, but invisibly and spiritually. The Christian Religion is equally brief, but expresses this in a characteristically trinitarian way in saying the grace of God acts ‘through the

33 The Christian Religion 146 r 19–22, 29 -v 1, 6–7, 18–23, 147 r 18–26. 34 RB 2/2 327. 33–328. 4, RC 282; HBTS 3. 993. 7–994.1, 980. 24–30, 994. 1–22, 994. 10–15, Decades 4. 397–398, 377, 399; The Christian Religion 146 v 18–147 r 5, 146 v 6–14, 147 r 6–17. The Decades has a brief summary (HBTS 3. 994. 29–995.11; Decades 4. 400–401). 35 RB 2/2 327. 34–35, 328. 6–8, RC 282. There is, however, a brief reference in The Christian Religion to the second (149 r 28–29). 36 RB 2/2 328. 4–8, RC 282; HBTS 975. 13–976.22, especially 975 18–20, 976. 6–9, Decades 4. 367– 370; The Christian Religion 146 r 23-v5.

382

Chapter 14: Baptism

Spirit with the blood of Christ’.37 The fifth describes the obligation or duty of baptism in terms of God’s separating us from other religions and peoples by baptism and consecrating us to himself as his own people. This involves confessing of the faith, obedience, mortification of the flesh, and a new life, as members of one body, agreeing in the one, same religion and mutual service. Apart from its soldierly reference to being enlisted in the military service of Christ for a lifelong light, the details of this point are included in The Christian Religion. It has, however, a stronger emphasis on the lifelong confessing and repenting of our sins than the Confession. The Decades concludes with this practical point, with, if anything, a greater emphasis on our being members of Christ’s body or branches grafted into the vine than the other two.38 The sixth point on the form of baptism is relatively long in the Confession as it is a statement of the ancient faith of the church, based on the bible. It is very long in The Decades which is intended for ministers, unlike The Christian Religion intended for lay people. The Confession regards the most perfect form as that by which Christ was baptized and which the apostles used. He therefore rejects additions, such as exorcism, lights, oil, salt, spittle, and various ceremonies. ‘It is sanctified in God’s first sanctification, and consecrated by the word, and is effectual also today by God’s first blessing.’ In The Christian Religion there is at most an implicit reference to this in the statement which relates to the institution of baptism. It is that baptism is to be given by a minister of Christ and the church with the pouring of water in the threefold name for the forgiveness of sins and amendment of life.39 In The Decades Bullinger states that ‘the servant should add nothing to the institution of the Lord’. It is, however, in order for us to add the baptismal words elements from the New Testament: the promises of God, the creed, faith in those seeking baptism and those bringing infants for baptism, and prayer. With quotations from Tertullian, Jerome, Augustine, and Rabanus Maurus, Bullinger notes the increasing number of ceremonies over the centuries, but against them including those in the early church Bullinger appeals to the apostles as providing the proper foundations. Bullinger rejects the need for consecrated water, advocated by Cyprian, as ordinary water, for example, the River Jordan was used in the New Testament. The water of baptism is holy not because of some human words or actions, but because of God’s institution and its holy use and the prayers of God’s people. This is supported by types of baptism, such as the Red Sea.40 There are some matters which are indifferent, such as whether to dip or sprinkle with 37 RB 2/2 328. 8–11, RC 282; The Christian Religion 146 v2–5. 38 RB 2/2 328. 12–18; RC 282–283; The Christian Religion 146 v 24–147 r 17; HBTS 3. 994. 29–995. 12, Decades 4. 400–401. 39 RB 2/2 128. 19–26, RC 283; The Christian Religion 145 v 19–26. 40 HBTS 3. 970. 25–37, 972. 24–973. 14; Decades 4. 358, 362–364.

Bullinger’s Later Works

383

water and whether to do it once or three times, although Bullinger gives reasons for each. Bullinger does not treat the place for baptism in the same way, perhaps because of the impact of Anabaptists. He argues that it is fitting for it to take place in churches which are dedicated for worship. Nevertheless, necessity means that one may baptize elsewhere, following the precedent of Philip. As for the time of baptism, it is left free to the judgment of the godly, as no law has been prescribed by Christ, but it should not be delayed. Over the centuries there have been different practices. What is fundamental is that there is no freedom to omit baptism, any more than with circumcision whose place it takes.41 The last point on baptism in general in the Confession concerns the minister of baptism. Given Paul’s excluding women from ecclesiastical office, of which baptism is one, the Confession states that they teach that women and midwives may not baptize. Again The Christian Religion is not as explicit as this and simply states in applying Matthew 28 that ministers are to baptize. The Decades, by contrast, asks two questions: Who ought to baptize? and What does baptism effect? Bullinger considers the second first, distinguishing the baptizer who gives the sacrament of regeneration and testimony of the forgiveness of sins visibly from the Lord who gives regeneration and forgiveness invisibly. It is the same as the distinction between baptizing with water and with the Holy Spirit or with the fathers between ministry and power, illustrating this at length from Augustine.42 This question leads into the second and the statement that the minister of the church, lawfully ordained ought to baptize. He emphasizes, following Augustine’s response to the Donatists that the character of the minister, however evil, does not affect the baptism, as the grace in baptism belongs to God not the minister. Baptism by midwives is not related to this distinction as women are forbidden to minister in the church. ‘Therefore, they cannot and ought not to baptize.’ Paul’s instruction is supported by Tertullian, Epiphanius, and the Fourth Council of Carthage. He dismisses the precedent of Sephora, the wife of Moses, who circumcised their son, insisting that one example does not constitute a law. God’s response reflects God’s mercy not the righteousness of what she did.43

41 HBTS 3. 973. 24–975. 11; Decades 4. 364–367. 42 HBTS 3. 975. 13–976. 6; Decades 4. 367–368. 43 HBTS 3.976. 6–977.31; Decades 4.369–372.

384

Chapter 14: Baptism

The Baptism of Infants Bullinger expounds infant baptism in three works written against Anabaptists. The first is a relatively brief letter on baptism sent in 1525 to Heinrich Simler. The second, Anabaptist Teaching, is a longer and more general work on Anabaptists. The third, The Anabaptists, is more comprehensive and offers a detailed examination of the origin and development of Anabaptists and their doctrines. Bullinger’s letter in 1525 deals exclusively with the issue of baptism, whereas the longer works treat baptism simply as one issue among many. Anabaptist Teaching is divided into four books, followed by an extended discussion of interest and tithes. Only the second book concerns baptism, while the first deals with the common errors of Anabaptism. Likewise when Bullinger examines the origins and development of Anabaptists in1560 he does not focus primarily on baptism. The work is divided into six books. The first two categorize and discuss the various types of Anabaptists, while baptism itself is not examined till the sixth and final book after a discussion of the church and salvation. The works, though different, have certain common characteristics. They are not theoretical expositions of Christian doctrine, but are intended to win people from erroneous Anabaptist teaching and practice. Their aim is to restore the peace and unity of the church.44 They begin with an insistence on the need to settle the issues on the basis of scripture.45 In them, Bullinger makes use of the fathers, but he insists that they are not an independent human authority. He uses them because they draw their views from scripture and confirm them by God’s word.46 The works all engage directly with the arguments of the Anabaptists, though in different ways. In 1525 Bullinger adduces only four Anabaptist arguments and does so only after he has outlined his understanding of baptism. By contrast, in 1531 he presents the whole discussion in the from of a dialogue between Simon representing an Anabaptist and Jehoiada representing the truth, In Anabaptists he presents the Anabaptists from their books and statements as

44 HBTS 1 71. 6–12; Anabaptist Teaching Epistle A iii r 9–20, Av r 13–16; Anabaptists Preface bb 5 r 3–13, v 5–14. The concern for unity ia also fundamental in Zwingli’s writings against the Anabaptists: Baptism, Rebaptism, and Infant Baptism, A Reply to Hubmaier, A Refutation (Huldreich Zwinglis Sämtliche Werke, Vols 1–14 edited by Emil Egli, Walter Koehler, Fritz Blanke, Edwin Künzli, Joachim Staedtke, Georg Finsler, Oskar Farner, Leonhard von Muralt, Rudolf Pfister, Fritz Büsser, Markus Jenny (eds.), (Berlin, Leipzig, Zürich, 1905) (hereafter Z) Z IV 206. 19–207. 10, 590. 3–591. 24, VI/I 195. 24–196.4. 45 HBTS 1. 72 3–8, 84. 6–7 Anabaptist Teaching Epistle A 3 r 24-v11, iv r 17–24; Anabaptists Preface, bb 4 21–24. 46 Anabaptists Preface bb 4 v 21–5 r3.

On Baptism

385

well as from books written against them.47 He begins with their case and after answering that advances his own position, though in doing so he largely redeploys the arguments which he has already used. The covenant with Abraham is the basis of Bullinger’s understanding of and case for infant baptism. The substance of what he will say later is present from 1535, but the arguments are expanded over the years and the critique of rebaptism is developed in the works which follow it. This happens initially in Anabaptist Teaching. In the commentaries and works, such as The Decades and The Anabaptists, Bullinger continues the debate.

On Baptism In 1525 Bullinger expounds the place of children in the covenant before considering at greater length four objections Anabaptists had made to infant baptism. First, he considers the covenant and the sign which is given with it. He notes that the covenant was made not only with Abraham, a rational adult, but also with his children; and it was made not just for 5000 years but for ever.48 A sacrament (pflichtzeichen) was added to this testament as a sign, pledging to it. The sign, circumcision, belongs to all who confess this testament and to the children born to them and who have Abraham’s God as theirs. They do not have first to be taught and to walk before God in innocence. Like Isaac, who was in the testament from his mother’s womb, they are circumcised first and then taught. The testament is understood only when children reach the age of reason, but in their childhood they are nevertheless God’s by grace. It is different if, when they grow up, they do not obey the covenant. Similarly a child is not disinherited until it grows up and acts against the wishes of the father expressed in his will.49 After this, Bullinger argues that there is one covenant in the Old and New Testaments. That means that children as well as adults are in the covenant and therefore that children as well as adults are to receive the covenant sign, that is baptism. Why would children be excluded from the covenant and the covenant sign in the time of grace? Baptism, like circumcision, is a sign and sacrament (pflichtzeichen) of God’s people. In Mark 10 Christ lets children come to him and says that the kingdom of heaven is theirs. Therefore, we should baptize children 47 Anabaptists Preface bb 2 r 26–4 v 20. Bullinger rejects the view that we should tolerate Anabaptists through love, as dissensions were tolerated in the early church. He insists that the church did not tolerate heretics who set up separate churches and doctrine. (bb 2 r 3–25) 48 HBTS 2. 72. 9–22. Bullinger uses pundt, testament, and gmecht. They are represented in the text as covenant, testament, and agreement. 49 HBTS 2.72.23–73.16.

386

Chapter 14: Baptism

since baptism is a coming to Christ and an initiatory sign. Christ also laid his hands on them and blessed them.50 The case for the baptism of infants is for Bullinger decisive, but he recognizes four objections made by Anabaptists. The first objection is that it nowhere says that John, Christ, or the apostles baptized children. Bullinger uses two of Zwingli’s arguments: women are not to be excluded from communion because they were not present at its institution, and we are not to omit preaching in Bern because the apostles did not preach there. As the will and the testator have children in the testament and do not exclude them or deprive them of the sacrament (pflichtzeichen), how could the apostles who were simply preachers of the testament have disinherited them? Everything must conform with the testament and nothing must be added to it or taken from it (Gal 3: 15–18). His opponents must prove that children are not in the testament and then say that the apostles did not baptize children and that therefore we should not. He argues that children are included in the figure of baptism in 1 Corinthians 10: 2, although women and children are not mentioned explicitly, and that similarly in the New Testament only adults are mentioned but children are understood. Moreover, Paul baptized three households, and in Genesis 17 where a household was circumcised the household included children. Therefore, where children were in households, Paul would have baptized them.51 The second objection is that the apostles taught and then baptized. To this Bullinger responds that when Abraham knew about the testament and circumcision, not only was he circumcised but also his child. Undoubtedly therefore in the time of the apostles children were signed with the covenant sign, as people knew that they were in the testament. Moreover, Origen and Augustine confirm that infant baptism began in the time of the apostles and not, as the Anabaptists say, with Pope Nicholas. Rebaptism, however, began with the arch-heretic Novatian.52 The third objection is that our parents did not know about the covenant and therefore we are baptized in the pope’s baptism. In reply, Bullinger asks whether they were baptized in the name of the pope, and points out that circumcision was not called Babylonian rather than God’s, because it was given during the Babylonian captivity. Bullinger recognizes that the fathers often did not believe. However, like the apostles we have to reply on outward confession as only God knows people’s hearts. The apostles baptized Simon Magus and others because they confessed the faith outwardly, even though their hearts were false. Likewise

50 HBTS 2. 79. 13–29. 51 HBTS 2. 79.30–80.17. 52 HBTS 2. 80. 18–81.14.

Anabaptist Teaching

387

we must be content when people outwardly request baptism for their children, for only God knows what is in their heart.53 The fourth objection is that children cannot fulfil the pledge involved. They also know nothing of baptism and its meaning, and so baptism does not belong to them. Bullinger replies that the same case could be made against circumcision, for children did not understand either the pledge or the meaning. But God commanded circumcision and afterwards children were taught. For Bullinger, this is why baptism is called an initiatory sign, for it binds us to God. As children grow, they are taught.54 The epilogue repeats the argument from the covenant, which God has with the human race. It is the true basis for baptism. The covenant is with children as well as with adults, and Bullinger insists that our children who are under grace are no less God’s than those of old who were under the law. If they are in the covenant, they should receive the sign of the covenant and of the people of God.55

Anabaptist Teaching In Anabaptist Teaching Bullinger has a different starting point and a different approach. He begins with rebaptism rather than with baptism, and with the Anabaptist argument from Acts 19, that rebaptism is of God, rather than with his own fundamental teaching on baptism. It is notable that rebaptism features only slightly in On Baptism, where it is described as originating in the time of the early church with Novatian and as springing from ignorance.56 Of the twenty articles in which Bullinger summarizes his view on Anabaptist teaching and practice, the sixth is that rebaptism is not from God and that there is only one baptism, and the seventh that infant baptism is of God.57 The discussion 53 HBTS 2. 81. 15–82.23. The questions in baptism were: Do you believe in one God? Will you teach the child to pray and the creed? Does not the minister say, ‘I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit’ – and not in the name of this or that pope? Is not the content of the Lord’s Prayer and the creed the same as that of the covenant ‘I will be your God’ (Genesis 17:7)? (82.1–10) 54 HBTS 2. 83. 1–8. The Anabaptists’ error lies in not knowing where and how baptism was instituted and what it is. They hold that baptism is a sign of those who believe in their hearts and that it gives us certainty that our sins are forgiven. Following Melanchthon and Zwingli, Bullinger distinguishes between sacraments and miracles. The former do not assure inward faith, only the seal of the Spirit does that. Baptism is as little a sign of inward faith as circumcision, even less of the washing away of sins. (83. 13–84.5) 55 HBTS 2. 84. 6–21. 56 HBTS 2. 81. 12–14 and 84. 21–22. In a brief discussion of Acts 19 Bullinger simply dismisses the view that there was a rebaptism (78. 13–26). 57 The full form of the sixth and seventh articles is longer when first stated. Their rebaptism is also not of God, but is a new rebellion against Christian unity and a renewal of the heresies of

388

Chapter 14: Baptism

begins with the Anabaptists’ case for rebaptism based on Acts 19. They argue that as the Ephesians received the baptism of Christ after receiving John’s baptism, much more should we receive it after receiving papal baptism. Bullinger follows Zwingli in interpreting John’s baptism as teaching. He argues for this from John 1 and 3 and Matthew 21. He then compares the teaching of John and Christ and the apostles in the gospels to show that they have the same teaching, something confirmed also by an examination of Acts 19. What Paul did was to teach the Ephesians more accurately. Bullinger concludes that if John, Jesus, and the apostles have only one teaching, then there is only one baptism. Consequently there is no example of rebaptism.58Against the view that one baptism was in the name of Christ and the other in the threefold name he argues that there is no difference between them, as Christ was one in being with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Moreover in John’s baptism of Jesus in John 1 it is evident that John recognized not only Christ, but also the Father and the Spirit.59 Bullinger then challenges the next Anabaptist argument which derives Christian baptism from Matthew 28, by pointing to its origin in John’s baptizing. It is for that reason that he was called the Baptist. It is because John preached the new testament and the Messiah as present that he did away with the old sign of circumcision with its blood, and replaced it with baptism. Moreover, if John’s baptism was not the true baptism, then Christ was not baptized and should have been rebaptized. From this, Bullinger argues that there was therefore only one baptism, and so there could not have been a rebaptism in Acts 19. Moreover as, according to Paul, there is only one God, one faith, and one baptism in the church, and no other baptism, the Anabaptists have by rebaptism severed themselves from the church and joined the ancient heretics. The accusation that the Anabaptists break the church’s unity is repeated when a plea is made for the Anabaptist understanding of the purity of the church. For Bullinger, this disregards Christ’s teaching about the lost son, the lost sheep, and the field of wheat and tares. When heretics were baptized in the early church, it was not rebaptism,

Novatian, Auxentius and Pelagius. But infant baptism is of God and has always been in the church from the time of the apostles to the present day and was not invented by the popes. (Anabaptist Teaching 7 r11–17) 58 Anabaptist Teaching 45r 2–48 v11. The Ephesians were baptized once, but taught twice (46v). There is an extended discussion of Acts 19:1–7. Bullinger begins with the comments of Cyprian, Jerome, Chrysostom, and Bede, followed by the views of the Anabaptists. After presenting his view and that of Zwingli of first a baptism of teaching and second a baptism of water, Bullinger concludes by affirming that God is the God also of infants and the parents offering them for baptism. (Acts 232 r 1–235 r 23) 59 Anabaptist Teaching 48 r 11–49v 25. Zwingli argues that the command to baptize in the threefold name was not a formula for baptism (Z IV 235. 23–237.26).

Anabaptist Teaching

389

for since they denied the trinity they were not in the church. Where there had been such a trinitarian baptism, there was only the laying on of hands.60 In his discussion of infant baptism, Bullinger responds to two main Anabaptist objections, that it is not of God and that it is not from the apostles but rather from the pope. That it is not of God is argued on many grounds. Bullinger regards as most substantial the Anabapist argument (from Mark 16: 15–16, Matthew 28: 18–20, Acts 2:41 and 8: 37–38 and Romans 10) that baptism follows faith which follows teaching. The Anabaptists held that as children cannot hear and understand God’s word they cannot believe. Baptism is not for children, as it is a sign of those who believe. For Bullinger, this is not a new argument, having been advanced in 1182.61 Bullinger’s answer is twofold. First, if no one is to be baptized who does not believe in the heart, then Simon Magus and other hypocrites were not baptized. Second, there is more to the word believer than Anabaptists allow, so that children are not excluded. In Genesis children are in the covenant and God counts them as among believers on the basis of his grace and promise. To the Anabaptist challenge that the old covenant has been done away with by the gospel, Bullinger replies that ceremonies have been, as the figures have been fulfilled, but not the covenant. If the covenant had been done away with, then God would not be our God and the God of our children and he would be less gracious now than before Christ. In support of this Bullinger quotes not only the words of Jesus in Mark 10 but also 1 Corinthians 7 which shows that our children are pure on the basis of God’s grace, mercy, and promise They are God’s children and are counted among the number of believers. To the Anabaptist riposte that John 1 declares that fleshly birth achieves nothing, Bullinger states that the basis is not human but divine, for the promise comes from the grace and mercy of God. This is not affected if children’s parents do not believe in their heart. As with Philip’s baptism of Simon we must be content with the parent’s profession of faith. In the bible we have the example of Hezekiah whose father was evil and of Esau whose father was good. However their birth did not help or hinder them, for God’s choice is free.62

60 Anabaptist Teaching 49 v 25–54 r 5. For his discussion of Pelagius who despised infant baptism and of Novatian and Auxentius, Bullinger refers to Cyprian, Ambrose, Eusebius, and others (52 v 8–54 r 5). 61 Anabaptist Teaching 54r 2–55 r2. Commenting on Acts 2:41, Bullinger notes that it does not follow from the fact that those who willingly respond to the word were baptized that children are not to be baptized. Rather, hearing that God is the God of children they present them for baptism (Acts 33 r 8–13). 62 Anabaptist Teaching 55 r 2–56 v9. On Acts 10:46–48 Bullinger refers to Mark 10 and 1 Corinthians 7 and states that the children of Christians are holy not by fleshly birth but by faith and grace quoting Augustine in support (Acts 131 r 5–132 r 3).

390

Chapter 14: Baptism

As with Zwingli’s discussion with Anabaptists, it is an Anabaptist who raises the doctrine of election, although unlike Zwingli, Bullinger does not develop this doctrine in relation to baptism. Simon the Anabaptist asks how one can know that the child is one of the elect and suggests that it would be better to wait until one knows that people are elect and then baptize them. After noting the example of the thief on the cross who, though elect, does not respond until just before his death, Bullinger argues that God’s choice is not always known to us. Moreover the Anabaptists would have baptized Simon Magus thinking that he was elect. Ishmael and Esau were not elect and yet they were reckoned as in God’s people when they were children, for at God’s command they received circumcision, a sign of God’s people.63 Bullinger therefore concludes that they were reckoned among believers. Simon the Anabaptist can allow that they were part of God’s people but not that they are to be counted believers. For Bullinger, God is the God of children as well as of adults and Christ died for children as well as for adults, as he died for the sins of the whole world. Simon says that it would be much easier if one could prove that children had the Spirit of God. Bullinger’s response is characteristic of his way of arguing from scripture when there is no explicit scriptural support. Paul says that anyone who does not have the Spirit of God is not his. It follows that whoever is God’s has the Spirit, and therefore as children are God’s they have the Spirit. Then, following Peter’s example in Acts, Bullinger argues that we should not withhold baptism from those who have the Spirit.64 In the light of Bullinger’s views, Simon argues that unbaptized children will not be damned. This could appear to be Pelagian. Bullinger rejects this. He states that a child is not baptized so that it may become God’s through the washing of bodily water, but it is baptized as it is already God’s by grace and because of God’s promise. Therefore, if children die before baptism, they are God’s and are saved by grace through Christ’s death which was for the whole human race, young as well as old. Similarly in the early church when people were killed before they could be baptized their death was seen as baptism, a baptism of blood. However 63 The First Helvetic Confession gives two reasons for the baptism of infants: the covenant and election. The first is fundamental for Bullinger, whereas the argument from election characteristic of Zwingli and not of Bullinger (RB 1/2 52.20–26, 64. 19–65. 5; RC 108) 64 Anabaptist Teaching 56 v 9–58 r 20. The dialogue form leads to many detailed points of discussion. Thus, Simon insists that Jesus said ‘of such’ not ‘of them’ is the kingdom of God. Bullinger responds that Jesus would not have said that we must be like children if they were not God’s and the kingdom of God were not theirs. Moreover, Jesus also says that whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a child will not enter it. (Anabaptist Teaching 57 v 24– 58 r 7) A similar discussion arises from Simon’s emphasis on ‘teach and baptize’. Bullinger insists that the words apply to adults, but also that teaching comes first and is greater than baptism. As the teaching (or gospel) holds that children are God’s they should be signed and led to God through baptism. Those who are included in the greater, that is the gospel, should not be excluded from the lesser, that is baptism. (Anabaptist Teaching 58 r 20-v 29)

Anabaptist Teaching

391

the fact that salvation is not bound to baptism does not make baptism optional, for no believer despises Christ’s ordinance. If baptism in water were nothing, Christ would not have ordained it. Like everything which he gave it is good and holy and indeed necessary. Moreover baptism is not only water, which is only the sign. For when one considers the whole action baptism is a great mystery and a holy sacrament. With the ancients it was called the purification and forgiveness of sins or regeneration. However the power was not in the water otherwise Simon Magus, Judas, and others would have been purified. The high things belong to the whole action of baptism and chiefly to what is signified by the water. This is not altered by the fact that children do not understand the meaning of the sacrament of baptism, for they did not understand the meaning of the sacrament of circumcision. The need for instructing those baptized leads Bullinger to refer to confirmation which confirms the things begun in baptism.65 The frequent repetitions in the dialogue form of exposition reveal Bullinger’s emphases. The Anabaptist appeal is to New Testament texts which link baptism to faith, the absence of a command to baptize, and the lack of any specific example of infant baptism. Bullinger’s characteristic appeal is first to Genesis 17, to a covenant which is one and eternal and which includes children, and then to supportive New Testament texts, such as Mark 10, 1 Corinthians 7, Acts 10, and Colossians 2, which directly or indirectly support this in what they say about children and about the replacing of circumcision by baptism. Bullinger asserts that God is the God of children, that Christ has redeemed children, and that he has commanded children to come to him. The Anabaptists reject God’s choice and exclude from the covenant those whom God includes. Although there is no explicit command to baptize infants there is also no command not to baptize them.66 The case for the baptism of infants by the apostles is expounded at greater length. Bullinger allows that the pope and others added ceremonies to baptism, but not that infant baptism comes from them. He advances seven arguments in support of the apostles’ baptizing of infants, six of them being ones he has already used in support of infant baptism. The apostles were sent to preach the gospel and to baptize and therefore to baptize infants, for the gospel does not reject 65 Anabaptist Teaching 58 v 29–60 v15. ‘Dann wo der wasser touff nienerfür waere hette inn Christus Jesus uns nit ggeben und verordnet. Nun aber ist alles das heylig und guot das er uns geben hat darumb ist ouch der touff heylig und guot ja ouch notwendig wie obgemaelt ist … darumm des gantzen handels halb ist er ein grosse gheimnuss und heiliges hochwirdigs sacrament.’ (Anabaptist Teaching 59 v 12–23) 66 Anabaptist Teaching 60 v 15–62 v 25. ‘The Anabaptists fight against the holy gospel, against the choice and ordinance of God and against the one eternal covenant’ ‘darumb sy fraefel unnd pundtbrüchig lüt sind/ die da gedoerent Gott usz synem pundt werffen / die er aber wil drynn haben / und sy als die synen bezeychnet haben.’ (62 r 7–13)

392

Chapter 14: Baptism

children but leads them to Christ. As baptism is less than teaching (1 Corinthians 1: 17) then if the latter is for children, so is the former. Second, baptism is for those who believe. This includes children whom God reckons as believers, and as part of his people, and we must regard them as such (cf Acts 10:15). Therefore, as the command to baptize included children, the apostles baptized them. Third, as Peter could not refuse baptism to those endowed with the Holy Spirit, so he could not refuse it to children, as he would have learned that the children are God’s and that the kingdom of heaven is theirs. For children must have the Spirit, as no one can come into the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19:14) without the Spirit. Fourth, the apostles would not have omitted baptizing infants given that baptism replaced circumcision and given the necessity for circumcision in Exodus 4 and Joshua 5. Fifth, in what they did the apostles were accustomed to follow the pattern of the Old Testament. They would therefore have baptized infants, as infants were involved in the crossing of the Red Sea, a figure of baptism. Sixth, the apostles baptized whole households and therefore baptized children, for they were included in a household, as in Genesis 17 and Exodus 12. Even if Anabaptists insist that there were no children in a household, yet the apostles would have baptized them if there had been, for children belong to the household, and the apostles baptize the whole household. Bullinger’s final argument is the evidence from the fathers of infant baptism and of the church’s receiving baptism from the apostles. All this shows baptism did not come from the pope. The chapter ends appropriately with Simon the Anabaptist accepting the case against rebaptism and for infant baptism.67

The Baptism of Infants in Bullinger’s Later Works The Second Helvetic Confession comments only briefly on the baptism of infants of the faithful at the end of the chapter on baptism. It states that the kingdom is of such and that they are in the covenant. In the light of that it asks why one would not give the covenant sign to those in the covenant and why not initiate by baptism those who belong to God and who are in his church? The exposition in The Christian Religion also concludes with this issue and is similarly argued. As the children of Christians are in the covenant with God and Christ is also their Saviour and the promise of cleansing from sins, in which they were born, and of

67 Anabaptist Teaching 63 r 7–66 r 15. Bullinger cites Origen, Cyprian, Lactantius, Jerome, and Augustine for the practice of the apostles. In his reference to 1 Corinthians 10 Bullinger discusses the figure of synecdoche which Zwingli used primarily in controversy with the Anabaptists.

The Baptism of Infants in Bullinger’s Later Works

393

life, why would one deny them baptism, the covenant sign, the sacrament of cleansing and regeneration.68 By contrast, The Decades treats infant baptism at great length – some sixteen long pages compared with one long or two short sentences in the other two. Both The Decades and The Anabaptists offer a substantial exposition of Bullinger’s arguments for the baptism of infants with a significant exception those used in The Decades are repeated in The Anabaptists although in a different context. The presentation of infant baptism does not differ substantially from the earlier presentations, although there are some interesting differences in detail and in the ordering of the arguments. Anabaptist Teaching in 1531 begins with the Anabaptist case for rebaptism based on Acts 19 and Bullinger’s response in terms of Zwingli’s argument that baptism in the phrase the baptism of John refers to John’s teaching. Anabaptists does not begin with rebaptism and Acts 19, but with John’s baptizing in the gospels, and it understands John’s baptism in Acts 19 differently. By contrast, in On Baptism the discussion of John’s baptism comes at the end of the exposition of baptism, which begins with God’s covenant in Genesis, and before the examination of the Anabaptist arguments against infant baptism.69 In Anabaptists three of the four main Anabapists’ objections are considered earlier, while the fourth relating to election is only incidental in Anabaptist Teaching and is not mentioned in On Baptism. Bullinger’s case for infant baptism is more sharply focused in 1560 and is presented in a separate chapter. The chapter dedicated to The Salvation of Infants gives a clearer expression to an issue which is discussed but which is not as fully developed in the earlier works. Baptism is dealt with in the sixth book of Anabaptists, but there are references to it in the first two books, which describe the various groups of Anabaptists and their preaching and practice.70 Thus Müntzer, with whom Bullinger begins, despised baptism in water, asserting that infant baptism was not of God and that it was necessary to be rebaptized with a spiritual and better baptism. The ninth of Bullinger’s groups of Anabaptists regarded sacraments as neither useful nor necessary for believers, so that the godly do not need them. Bullinger counters this as he has done in Anabaptist 68 RB 2/2 329 4–8; RC 283; The Christian Religion 147 r 18–26. 69 HBTS 1 77; Anabaptist Teaching 45v 1–51 v 9; Anabaptists 202 v, 225 rv. More than half way through the discussion of rebaptism, Bullinger deals with the Anabaptist view that Christ’s baptism began from Matthew 28 (Anabaptist Teaching 49 v 25) and then argues that if there is only one baptism then Acts 19 was not a case of rebaptism. 70 The ten line German title of The Anabaptist, unlike the shorter Latin title, refers to the substance of the book: the origin, development, and teaching of the Anabaptists, their separating and establishing of their own church, with a refutation and answer to their articles and an exhortation to them to desist from their error and separation and unite with the church of Christ. For the full title, see HBBibl I 185.

394

Chapter 14: Baptism

Teaching by saying that God would not have instituted something superfluous and unnecessary. To their view that the sacraments confer nothing which was not there before in faith and the Spirit, Bullinger responds with the examples of Cornelius and the Ethiopian eunuch but also especially the example of Christ who had the Spirit more abundantly than anyone. Baptism is not in vain. It has its use and the increase of God’s gifts.71 Bullinger enumerates twenty five Anabaptist doctrines for examination. The issue of baptism is raised in the twenty third, that infant baptism is from the pope and the devil, and the twenty fourth, that rebaptism is the true baptism of Christians, and is to be given to those confessing and repenting, who are taught and are endowed with reason. The ecclesial issue is to the fore in the discussion and it is related to baptism. Thus the first of the twenty five doctrine, the only other one with a reference to baptism states that those received through rebaptism should have no communion with the evangelical and Christian churches.72 The issue of baptism is not dealt with till the final book, and that means that it is set in the context of the earlier presentation of the church and salvation. The main exposition of baptism begins with baptism and its origin. In it Bullinger argues that there is only one baptism. It was begun by John who exhorted people to receive Christ. He preached the new covenant, that is the gospel, and at the same time also baptized with water not only those who believed but also their children. The new covenant is not inferior to the old covenant. It includes infants who receive the covenant sign. This baptism does not come from John, but is from God (John 1:33). The apostles then baptized with the same baptism as John (in John 3 and 4) and so the baptism which Christ commanded after the resurrection (Matthew 28) was not a new baptism. Some distinguish between the baptism, but Paul says that there is only one baptism (Ephesians 4). Baptism is joined to teaching as a seal, and as John and the apostles have the same teaching, the sacraments attached to their teaching are not different. John baptized in water, Christ in the Holy Spirit and fire. It is Christ not the minister who gives the grace of the Holy Spirit, and he does so how, when, and where he wills,

71 Anabaptists 2r 2–9, 45r 3 v 26. Bullinger’s view, though not his alone, that the Anabaptists originated in Germany not Switzerland, was immensely influential, c.f. Fast, Täufer pp 93– 100. 72 Anabaptist 18 r 17–19 r 30. Bullinger refers to the questions for the Zürich Disputation, (1) Children are no less sons of God than their parents, just as in the Old Testament. Therefore, if they are of God who will deny them baptism in water? (2) Circumcision was with the ancients a sign such as baptism is for us; therefore, as infants were circumcised, so they should also be baptized. (3) There is no testimony, or example, or proof of rebaptism in the word of God; therefore, those who rebaptise themselves crucify Christ again… Anabaptists 11 v 14–12 r 9.

The Baptism of Infants in Bullinger’s Later Works

395

with or without the outward sign of tongues and fire. Baptism seals the gift and unites us with Christ and all who believe.73 The first Anabaptist argument (from the order in Matthew 28) is that teaching and faith come first, and then baptism. In response Bullinger states that if the order of the words is stressed he can give examples in which water and what is outward come first and teaching and what is spiritual follow. He makes familiar points to show that the order in Matthew 28 and Mark 16 applies to adults, but does not exclude the baptism of infants or there would be two baptisms. He argues that lay people and women are not to be excluded from holy communion because they are not mentioned in its institution, for from the meaning and purpose of holy communion we can see that it was given for all believers, lay people and women as well as ministers. Similarly if baptism is a sign of the covenant in God’s people and we know infants are part of God’s people, baptism is for them, although they are not mentioned in Matthew 28 and Mark 16. Then Bullinger uses the Anabaptist argument that only believers are to be baptized in support of the baptism of infants, for he says that God reckons children as believers. He also adds the example of 2 Thessalonians 3: 10 where the command that those who do not work shall not eat applies to adults but not to children.74 The second Anabaptist argument is that the references to those baptized do not mention infants but, for example, those confessing faith (Matthew 3) or receiving the word (Acts 2). Bullinger’s reply is first to insist that the fact that those confessing were baptized does not mean that infants are not to be baptized, for they are just as much in God’s people as adults. Moreover, it is the custom of scripture not always to mention women and children. Thus, there is no mention of women in the covenant, but they are not excluded. In 1 Corinthians 10 women and children are not mentioned, but they are included in the reference to the fathers who were baptized into Moses. From the example of Jesus, who was circumcised as an infant, Bullinger argues that if at that time there had been baptism, then Jesus would have been baptized as a boy. As it was, he was baptized when John’s baptism began. The fact that he was baptized at thirty, does not mean that we should be baptized at thirty.75

73 Anabaptists 202 v 11–206 r 24. The sixth book begins with the Anabaptist assertion that they withdrew and set up their own churches because the teaching in the churches was evil and the sacraments were not rightly administered, in particular the baptizing of infants who lack reason and understanding (202 v 16–27). After establishing that there is only one baptism, Bullinger states that there were originally for example in Acts 8, few or no ceremonies associated with baptism. He discusses and rejects various ceremonies, arguing that prayers and the word of God are sufficient. (205 v 8–206 r 11) 74 Anabaptists 206 v 25–207 v 27. 75 Anabaptists 207 v 28–208 r 27.

396

Chapter 14: Baptism

The third argument is that infants cannot understand or fulfil the meaning and obligation of baptism. Bullinger’s response to this point has developed. His response contrasts the Anabaptists’ emphasis on us and the gospel’s emphasis on God. They stress our confession, our mortification of the old man, and the new life. They attribute little to the grace and mercy of God, and much – indeed everything – to our action, our merits, our wisdom. This is contrary to baptism which is pre-eminently a sign of the covenant, a covenant of God’s grace and mercy. It testifies and seals that we are received by God, by his mercy alone and not our merits. In this Bullinger is criticizing the Anabaptists book Verantwortung (reply) which speaks of mercy being shown to children because of their ignorance and simplicity and to others because of their penitence and faith. Nevertheless God commanded boys, who did not understand the mystery of spiritual circumcision, to be circumcised on the eighth day. However afterwards through God’s grace they were able to understand and accomplish it. Similarly with baptism, the burial of the old Adam and the resurrection of the new man may follow as well as precede baptism. Baptism is not given in vain. Bullinger interprets the indignation of the disciples when the children were brought to Jesus in terms of the reasons why Anabaptists reject infant baptism, that children are not capable of hearing, believing, confessing faith, and repenting. However what Christ said and did with infants was efficacious, although they were dumb and lacked the use of reason. Bullinger gives examples to show that God’s action does not depend on either our understanding or our praying and confessing. Thus, in response to a father’s supplication Christ healed the deaf and dumb son who could not hear or speak and therefore pray or confess (Mark 9). Moreover, God showed his care for birds (Matthew 10), though they did not understand.76 The fourth argument from election is given greater prominence and a more detailed response than before. Indeed, Bullinger refers to it as a new argument. For Anabaptists, God’s election is evident only in adults – in their faith. Those who are not elect do not believe. The sign should be given only to those to whom it belongs. We can, however, give baptism without hesitation only to those who confess their faith and we profane it if we give it to those who have not reached the age of reason. Bullinger’s response is that the Anabaptists establish baptism in our merits and in the minister and his need to be certain that the person to be baptized believes. Otherwise they do not regard the baptism as a true baptism. Yet Philip’s baptism was true, although Simon Magus’ faith was false. Bullinger affirms that salvation depends on God’s free election and that only the elect believe and are saved, but then he emphasizes that God’s eternal purpose is his secret. We 76 Anabaptists 208 r 28–209 v 7. On Verantwortung etlicher, die man Toeuffer nennt, vff die fragen, wartumb sy nit zuo kirchen gangind, see Fast, Täufer 79–80.

The Baptism of Infants in Bullinger’s Later Works

397

are not to search out the mystery, but to be content with what is expressly conveyed in God’s word. In his word he counts children in his people. He does not exclude them, nor does he command his disciples to separate people but to preach the gospel to all creatures. The apostles did not begin with election. Nor did they say that those not predestined or elect would not be saved, so that preaching to them is vain, their reception of the sacraments without fruit, and their prayers futile, for salvation depends on election alone. We have examples of their preaching, for example, that God so loved the world that he gave his Son to be the Saviour to all who believe and that people were to pray for faith, and the Spirit whom God gladly gives to those who believe. Christ said ‘Come to me… and I will give you rest’. The apostles proclaimed salvation to all and baptized all who sought baptism for themselves and theirs. They did not dispute about divine election, for they accepted that God knows his own. The church judges that those who, for example, refuse to hear God’s word or who despise the sacraments are reprobate. We cannot say that the children are reprobate, but rather since God embraces them in the covenant we should hope well of them, not ill. We must judge from the word and universal promise of God in Genesis 7 and Mark 10 which includes children. This destroys the Anabaptist objection that infants should not be baptized because those who are baptized as infants in good hope often disappoint our hope and when they grow up do the works of the devil. Moreover although Esau was said to be hated, he was nevertheless circumcised. Furthermore, as Bullinger never tires of repeating, even those who confess faith as adults, such a Simon Magus, could be hypocrites and pretend to believe. We can therefore baptize all infants offered to us by believers for baptism.77 Bullinger examines some less weighty Anabaptist objections: that infant baptism is not commanded in scripture, that it is the pope’s rather than Christ’s baptism, and that it is a false god. Against the first he asks why, if Christ has commanded that the new covenant be spread by word and by baptism, the children of believers who are in the new covenant are to be kept from baptism. Against the second he insists that the fathers testify that infant baptism comes from the apostles and that baptism is in the name of God not of the pope. Against the third he maintains that he attributes salvation, which is offered, represented, and sealed in baptism, not to the outward element but to God, and that Anabaptists despise baptism and disbelieve God’s word where he is seen as the God of infants and where Christ said that the kingdom belonged to children. The

77 Anabaptists 209 v 8–211 r 24. Bullinger noted that Paul knew that only the elect would ultimately be saved. However he did not separate people but wrote his letter to all the Philippians, including hypocrites, saying that he was sure that God would complete the good work which he had begun in them.

398

Chapter 14: Baptism

Anabaptists are enemies not only of baptism but also of the salvation of infants.78 Bullinger’s response to the issues raised by the Anabaptist book Reply does not show any substantially new point. There is, however, a strong emphasis on the new covenant which – contrary to the Anabaptist view – is not taken away but rather confirmed by infant baptism. Anabaptists destroy the new covenant. For them it is not as efficacious and glorious as the old covenant, which includes the children of believers. The Anabaptists have no place for children.79 Bullinger’s case for infant baptism largely reproduces the arguments he has already used. He begins by stating what he sees as agreed: all are to be baptized who are in the people of God or the new covenant of God. What is disputed is: who are in God’s people and covenant. Bullinger gives his answer in the title of the chapter: not only adults who can confess the faith but also the infants born of them are in God’s people and God’s covenant and are therefore to be sealed with baptism, the sign of the covenant. The people of God are recognised by the confession of faith and the divine promise. The two groups of those in God’s people and covenant are: those who confess faith, whether their faith is true (the Ethiopian eunuch) or false (Simon Magus), though only those with true faith are saved; and those whom God recognizes as his people, saying that he is their God. God’s promises show that he is the God not only of adults who can confess him with words and deeds but also of infants born of believing parents who cannot yet confess God with words and deeds. Bullinger cites Acts 19 to show that Peter through a vision from God came to recognize that the Gentiles were God’s people. We must not exclude or reject those whom God recognizes as of his people. God recognizes infants and so they are not to be excluded from the covenant, as if they were not in God’s people. However if they are of God’s people why are they refused baptism, which is its sign? The suspect faith of the parents (as with Simon Magus) or their evil life (as with Jotham and Achan) do not impede the baptism of infants. Bullinger develops the case in response to the Anabaptists’ insistence on the new covenant. He argues that the covenant made with Abraham, which includes children, is eternal, that God is less gracious now than then, and that Christ said 78 Anabaptists 211 r 25–213 r 11. There are often small additions such as that the command to all nations is to be interpreted from the mind of the one who gave it (211 v 8–10) and – in response to the view that rebaptism is necessary as infant baptism is the pope’s baptism and not Christ’s baptism – that Hezekiah was content with his circumcision and not circumcised afresh because his father was evil (212 v 2–12). The example of Hezekiah is used differently in Anabaptists Teaching (56 v 6–9). 79 Anabaptists 213 r 12–214 r 12. Fast (Täufer 123–124) implies that Bullinger no longer sees good in the Anabaptists, as he does not speak of what he and they have in common as in Anabaptist Teaching, but this ignores Bullinger’s comment in 213 v 18–20. Bullinger recognizes that there are abuses associated with infant baptism and wants them to be abolished by the magistrate (214 r 27 – v 2).

The Baptism of Infants in Bullinger’s Later Works

399

that the kingdom of heaven belongs to children. Bullinger quotes Hebrews 8 with its reference to the new covenant in Jeremiah 31. To the Anabaptist objection that God did not write the law in the hearts of infants, Bullinger responds by saying that if God could move John in his mother’s womb to rejoice in Christs’ presence, could he not do more in the hearts of his elect. The covenant is not called new because nothing of the old remains, but because it is renewed and fulfilled. It is called new because it includes Gentiles and not because it excludes children. A further Anabaptist challenge is that the true seed of Abraham is not those born according to the flesh, bur those who walk in the steps of Abraham, who are truly faithful. Bullinger responds that his case does not rest on procreation but on the grace and promise of God. According to the promise they are sons of God by grace.80 The chapter on infant baptism is followed by one on the salvation of infants. This gives an emphasis and focus to points which have been made, often in passing. Who would say ‘of them is the kingdom of heaven’ of those who are not the people or sons of God nor included in his covenant? Why then should we deny baptism to children who are his people? He quotes Jesus’ reference to the little ones who believe in him. Faith is to be understood in two senses: first of those who hear and believe in the word and who show their faith by word and deed, and second of those, like infants, who cannot believe in this way, but who are counted among believers by the sheer grace of God which includes infants in the covenant. Moreover, after this Jesus adds for those who might despise children, as the Anabaptists, ‘See that you do not condemn one of these little ones’, giving as one reason that it is not the will of our Father in heaven that one of his little ones should perish. Bullinger concludes the chapter by saying that they have many strong testimonies for the salvation of infants, showing that they are God’s and should be baptized.81 The last two chapters assert: infants can and should be baptized and the apostles baptized them: and rebaptism is wrong, was condemned and is without true scripture support. Again Bullinger employs arguments he has already used. The main difference is that in Anabaptist Teaching the dialogue form disperses the arguments, whereas the division of Bullinger’s case into chapters in Anabaptists focuses it in several points, although with considerable overlap between chapters.

80 Anabaptist 215 r 8–218 r 3. The Anabaptists held that in the New Testament those born according to the flesh and without true faith are not Abraham’s seed. Infants, therefore, are not the true sons of Abraham, and consequently are not in God’s covenant and people. Bullinger says that infants are sons of Abraham not by procreation but by the grace and promise of God (217 v 2–218 r v3). 81 Anabaptists 218 r 4–220 v 5.

400

Chapter 14: Baptism

First, Christ commanded that they baptize all people and the peoples include infants just as the fathers going through the Red Sea included infants, although they are not mentioned by name. Second, he commanded them to baptize all those in his people, that is believers, which includes the children of believers as they also believe according to Christ (Matthew 18:6). Third, the argument from teaching as greater than the sacrament is now used in support of infant baptism, on the basis that as infants have the greater (the res or substance) the grace of God and forgiveness of sins, who will deny them what is less, the sign. Fourth, Bullinger cites the precedent of Peter’s not refusing to baptize Cornelius as he had the Spirit in favour of the baptizing of infants who must have the Spirit if they are Christ’s (Romans 8:9). Fifth, Bullinger states that baptism succeeds circumcision, a view maintained by Paul (Colossians 2: 11–12) and the fathers, and so children as well as adults are to be baptized, just as they had been circumcised. Sixth, Bullinger maintains that the apostles baptized households which undoubtedly included children giving besides Genesis 17 and 30 the reference to a household with children in 1 Timothy 3:4 to show that households included children even when they were not mentioned explicitly.82 The seventh chapter is on rebaptism, maintaining that it is unjust. Rebaptism was condemned in the past, and is not supported by testimonies from scripture. Bullinger argues that as he has shown infant baptism to be just and to come from God, Anabaptism is unjust. He observes that both Arians and Donatists practised rebaptism. Christ and the apostles baptized only once. The work of the sacraments, he maintains, does not depend on the work of the minister. Arguing as he sometimes does from silence, Bullinger says that those baptized by Judas were not baptized again by some worthier minister. With people before Christ no one was circumcised twice when they had been circumcised by idolatrous ministers. The magistrates should not tolerate Anabaptists.83 Bullinger responds to two Anabaptist challenges which seem to imply both circumcising and baptizing twice He argues that what appears to speak of being circumcised twice in Joshua 5 – quite apart from the impossibility of being circumcised a second time – refers to the circumcising of the uncircumcised children of those who died in the desert, people who had themselves been circumcised in Egypt.84 Bullinger now follows the interpretation in The Decades of Acts 19 with its apparent rebaptism. The Anabaptists argue that Apollo baptized the Ephesians in John’s baptism and then Paul rebaptized them in the name of Christ. For Bullinger, however, there is only one baptism. He recognizes that the Ephesians had 82 Anabaptists 220 v 5–22 v 5 and 30 v 14–25. 83 Anabaptists 223 v 6–8, 13–16, 224 r 17–19, v 1–11, 21–22. 84 Anabaptists 224 v 23–225 r 11.

The Baptism of Infants in Bullinger’s Later Works

401

already been baptized in water by John and that Paul’s baptism would not have been different from John’s. The Ephesians had, however, not been fully taught about the baptism of fire and had not been baptized in fire. They confessed that they did not know whether there was such a baptism. It is not that they were ignorant of the Holy Spirit as they could not have believed without the Holy Spirit. Just as Peter and Philip laid hands on the Samaritans who at once received the Holy Spirit, so Paul laid hands on the Ephesians who also then received the Holy Spirit. This interpretation is confirmed by the preceding words which refer to being baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus and the words following which say that they spoke with tongues and prophesied. Bullinger agrees that he interpreted this passage differently elsewhere, but adds that he regards this interpretation as the simplest.85 The Decades, unlike The Anabaptists, does not expound Bullinger’s understanding of baptism essentially against Anabaptists. Although it uses the same arguments about infant baptism as the later work, it considers baptism itself in a more traditional context. In his rejection of baptism by midwives, he repudiates Augustine’s insistence that baptism is necessary for the salvation of infants. First, however, he argues that circumcision was not essential for infants who died before being circumcised on the eighth day. He argues from the cheerful response of David to the death of his son by Beersheba and his saying that he would go to his dead child ‘to the region of the living’. Bullinger refers also to God’s ‘most certain regard for infants’ in the law. Moreover, girls dying uncircumcised are saved without circumcision, and that would be the case with boys also.86 To the Anabaptist objection to the relevance of the Old Testament, Bullinger responds that as Christ came to fulfil God’s promises God would not be stricter after the coming of Christ than before. He argues that uncircumcised infants are saved by ‘the sheer grace of God in the power of the divine promise through Christ who says in the gospel, “Suffer the children to come to me, for of such is the kingdom of God”, “It is not the will of my Father in heaven that one of these little ones perish”. For God, who cannot lie, said, “I am your God and the God of your seed after you”. Whence St Paul also affirms that they are born holy also are born of faithful people, not that anything holy is born of flesh and blood. The holiness is related to the promise, to the covenant, and to God’s grace. At the same time Bullinger insists that he in no way wants to weaken baptism.87 This leads Bullinger to dissociate himself from Pelagius and Pelagians who maintained that children who are unbaptized have eternal life. Unlike them, 85 Anabaptists 225 r 12–225 v 12. He has referred at the beginning of the chapter to the disagreement in the early church between Cyprian and Cornelius, with Cornelius favouring the reconciling of heretics not by rebaptism but by laying on of hands (223 v 27–224.5). 86 HBTS 3. 977. 31–978, 17; Decades 4. 372–374. 87 HBTS 3. 978.17–979. 25; Decades 4. 374–375.

402

Chapter 14: Baptism

Bullinger maintains that infants are born in original sin and they are not saved without the sanctification of Christ. Pelagius taught that infants ought not to be baptized, for they are without fault or sin or blame, and so do not need the sacrifice of Christ. Bullinger rejects each of these. Although he argues with Augustine in his opposition to Pelagius, he dissents from him in what he says about the salvation of infants and the sacraments. For Augustine ‘unbaptized infants are outside the fellowship of Christ and are condemned’. Bullinger agrees that through sharing in the sacraments we are incorporated into the body of Christ. For him, however, it does not begin with baptism, but ‘on the basis of the promise is communicated to us by the grace of God through the Holy Spirit before the use of the sacraments, and is continued and sealed by the reception of the sacraments.’88 Bullinger rejects the interpretations of Genesis 17:14 and John 3:5 which support Augustine’s view. The penalty for neglecting circumcision in the former applies to adults not infants and the latter applies to ‘the inward and most spiritual regeneration of the Holy Spirit ‘ and not ‘to the outward symbol of holy baptism’. A similar misinterpretation of John 6:53 makes the eucharist equally essential for salvation. It led to putting the sacrament into infants’ mouths for fear of their damnation and, as Bullinger observes, would lead to the condemnation of the whole church in his day. (Bullinger observes also that Augustine’s view leads to other questions, such as whether baptism by a lay person would need to be repeated and whether an unbaptized infant went to some intermediate place between heaven and hell). Bullinger draws on Augustine’s comment that with the thief on the cross baptism was ‘fulfilled invisibly’, as there was no contempt of religion and no opportunity for baptism. Bullinger appeals to such an invisible baptism when infants cannot be baptized visibly. He supports this by reference to the so-called baptism of desire.89

Bullinger and Zwingli on Infant Baptism The case which Bullinger makes in defence of infant baptism is substantially the same as Zwingli’s in Baptism, Rebaptism, and Infant Baptism, A Reply to Hubmaier, and A Refutation. This applies to the argument, expressed in various ways, from the covenant which is fundamental in Bullinger.90 It applies also to the range 88 HBTS 3. 979.31–980.9, 21–30; Decades 4.375–377. 89 HBTS 3. 980.33–982.37; Decades 4. 378–381, especially HBTS 3.980 33–35, 981.13–16, 981. 35– 982. 11, 18–20, 28–37. 90 In The Christian Religion (1556) the reason for infant baptism is that the children of Christians are in the covenant with God (147 r 18–26), whereas in The Second Helvetic Confession it is the second of the two reasons in article 20 which states that they are in God’s covenant. The

Bullinger and Zwingli on Infant Baptism

403

of biblical arguments which they both use. Some of these are traditional arguments and others are a response to those made by Anabaptists, such as the linking of baptism to teaching and faith, the lack of a command about or an example of infant baptism, and the rejection of a case based on the Old Testament. Bullinger, like Zwingli, argues: the sign of the covenant was given to boys who were not taught till later, in the New Testament teaching also follows baptism; baptism has replaced circumcision (Colossians 2); the new Testament is not less gracious than the old; women and children though not mentioned are included in what is said about baptism in 1 Corinthians 10; Matthew 28 and Mark 16 apply to adults and not to children; Mark 10 shows Christ’s response to those, like the Anabaptists, who would hold children from him; like Peter in Acts 10 we should not keep the covenant sign from those who have the Spirit (or who are part of God’s people); as with Simon Magus only God can know whether someone’s inward faith is real; households include children and they would be baptized as part of the household; there is no command not to baptize infants and the omission of reference to infant baptism is not a prohibition of it; children are counted as believers and in God’s people (1 Corinthians 7) because of the covenant and promise; John the Baptist responded in his mother’s womb; women received holy communion though there is no mention of them at its institution; nations and peoples include children; and the fathers affirm that the apostles baptized infants. Bullinger also uses similar arguments to Zwingli’s against rebaptism: baptism can mean teaching and the Ephesians in Acts 19 received John’s teaching not his baptism; baptism was instituted by John the Baptist; there is only one baptism (of John, Christ, and the apostles) as there is one teaching; there is only one baptism (Ephesians 4); Christ and the apostles were not rebaptized; having evil parents does not invalidate one’s baptism; and in the early church people were not rebaptized, but received the laying on of hands. The main difference between Bullinger and Zwingli in the defence of infant baptism is in the doctrine of election. Zwingli increasingly used election, which includes children, against the Anabaptist insistence on faith, which excludes them. He combined this argument with the covenant, affirming that we may be confident of the election of those born within the covenant until we have evidence to the contrary, as we have later with Esau. Bullinger, by contrast, does not pursue the argument from election used the Anabaptists. In Anabaptist Teaching he deals with election only in response to Simon, the Anabaptist, and does this briefly in a dialogue of some thirty lines. Moreover none of the twenty articles he title of the chapter on Infant Baptism in Anabaptists focuses on the covenant: ‘not only adults who can confess the faith but also the infants born of them are in God’s people and God’s covenant and are therefore to be sealed with baptism, the sign of the covenant’.

404

Chapter 14: Baptism

advances against the errors held by most Anabaptists refers to election. By contrast, all of Zwingli’s articles against Schwenckfeld in 1530 concern election.91 In Anabaptist Teaching Bullinger affirms election, while rejecting the Anabaptist use of it, pointing to God’s word and promise in Genesis 17 and Mark 10. When we recall that Zwingli’s controversy with the Anabaptists lasted less than a decade, while Bullinger’s engagement with them lasted forty years after Zwingli’s death, it is not surprising that there are detailed arguments in Bullinger which are not to be found in Zwingli.92 What is striking is that with the significant exception of the use of the doctrine of election and Bullinger’s later interpretation of Acts 19 there is such extensive continuity between them.

91 Yet the sacraments are related to election in article 21 of The First Helvetic Confession (1536), articles 16 and 17 of The Zurich Agreement (1549), and articles 19 and 20 of The Second Helvetic Confession (1566). For Zwingli’s response to Schwenckfeld, see Z VI/V 26–74. 92 Such arguments include the following: baptism is not papal any more than circumcision was Babylonian; baptism was necessary as circumcision was in Exodus 4 and Joshua 5; children are not baptized to become God’s but because they are God’s by grace and because of God’s promise; God’s action does not depend on our understanding or confessing (Mark 9 and Matthew 10).

Chapter 15: The Eucharist1

Bullinger succeeded Zwingli in 1531 and in the following years strongly defended Zwingli’s life and teaching.2 Although his 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 both had a broadly symbolic view of the sacraments, their thinking on them was shaped in part by different people and different texts.3 Zwingli’s death left many unresolved problems for the church in Zurich, including relations with Luther. Division from him became an increasing challenge, both theological and political, in the 1530s. It was focussed in the differences over the sacraments. Neither the Swiss nor the Germans seemed able to grasp the fundamental concerns of the other or to find a way forward. Martin Bucer came close to success in mediating between them.4 In the 1530s he was in contact with both groups, and there were occasions, such as the First Helvetic Confession, when there seemed to be a breakthrough. Ultimately, however, his efforts failed.

1 The material in this chapter was originally published in “The Sacraments in the Confessions of 1536, 1549, and 1566 – Bullinger’s Understanding in the Light of Zwingli’s” in ZWA XXXIII, 2006 57–62. See the Introduction to this volume. 2 Opponents of the reformation in Switzerland used Zwingli’s and Oecolampadius’ teaching on the sacraments to account for their death and the defeat at Kappel. Concern to defend that teaching is evident in the subtitle and text of his reply to John Faber in 1532. See pages A 3v–5v and C 2v–4r. For the full title, see HBBibl 1 No. 35. 3 See, for example, Hans-Georg vom Berg, Spätmittelalterliche Einflüsse auf Bullingers Theologie, and Joachim Staedtke, Bullingers Theologie – eine Fortsetzung der Zwinglischen? in: Ulrich Gäbler and Endre Zsindely (eds.), Bullinger-Tagung 1975 (Zürich: 1977). 4 See, for example, Ernst Bizer, Studien zur Geschichte des Abendmahlsstreits im 16. Jahrhundert (Gütersloh: 1940); K. J. Rüetschi, Bucer und Bullinger in ihren persönlichen Beziehungen, in: Christian Krieger and Marc Lienhard (eds.), Martin Bucer and Sixteenth Century Europe, (Leiden: 1993) 429–39; and O. E. Strasser, Die letzten Anstrengungen der Strassburger Theologen Martin Bucer und Wolfgang Capito, eine Union zwischen den deutschen Lutheranern und den schweizerischen Reformierten herbeizuführen, in: ZWA. 6 (1934) 5–15.

406

Chapter 15: The Eucharist

Bullinger’s correspondence reveals some of the concerns which lie behind the Confession. While Bucer presses the need to satisfy Luther, Bullinger insists that his statements must be acceptable in Zurich and not Saxony (HBBW 6.593–94). He affirms the continuity of his teaching with that of Zwingli and Oecolampadius (2.158.193–99; 4. 370.3–371.9). (Bucer also argues that what he proposes was accepted by Zwingli and Oecolampadius).5 Bullinger’s publishing of Zwingli’s Exposition of the Faith in the weeks following the Confession may reflect his concern to show his fidelity to Zwingli to those thinking that too many concessions had been made. Often in the 1530s 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. (4.378.15–379.24, 423.37–42; 5.101.14–102.2) 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. Bullinger’s relations with Bucer changed over the years. Thus, he was critical of the idea of a concord in a letter of 12 July 1532. (2.153–160) Yet in 1534 he responded positively to him and was prepared to accept obscure and ambiguous expressions such as “exhibere, offerre, uniri, naturaliter, corporaliter et alia nonnulla”. Underlying this acceptance was his conviction that Bucer was on their side. Moreover, the words were capable of a mild interpretation. (4.379.32–38) In March 1535, however, Bullinger asserts that even with a hundred meetings they could not go beyond their Zurich Confession (1534) unless persuaded by very clear scriptures. (5.170.32–34) After Bucer’s part in the First Helvetic Confession, however, Bullinger thanked him for his exceptional care for the church in Zurich. (6.131. 2–3) Behind the First Helvetic Confession there are other confessional statements of some of the Swiss Churches, such as the Bern articles (1532) (abbreviated Müller). The Bern Synod has expressions which reflect the concern to find accommodation with Lutherans, however they are interpreted (e. g. Müller 45.25– 32).6 The Zurich Confession (1534), and the First Basel Confession (1534) 7 each to some degree points forward to the agreement in 1536. The Zurich Confession makes several positive points. “The true body of Christ … is truly present, given, and distributed to believers.” The sacraments which were instituted by the Lord are “signs 5 See Bizer, Studien 207. 6 See E. F. K. Müller, Die Bekenntnisschriften der reformierten Kirche (Leipzig 1903) 43–47. See G.W. Locher, Die Sakramentslehre des Berner Synodus, in: G.W. Locher (ed.), Der Berner Synodus von 1532 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: 1988), Vol 2 219–34. 7 The Basel Confession relates Christ’s presence to faith but also speaks of the true body and blood as being offered with the bread and wine. It refers to Christ’s body as having ascended and to our adoring Christ in heaven rather than in the sacrament of his body and blood. (Müller 97.22–25, 32–43).

Chapter 15: The Eucharist

407

and testimonies of divine grace”. “They not only signify the divine promises but also in their way bring and represent them to the senses.” (4.422.8–15, 425.98–99) They are not empty signs of an absent rather than of a present Christ – something those in Zurich have never taught. Christ makes himself present to his own. (423.31–32,40–41) In the Confession phrases such as eating the body or flesh of Christ are given a Zwinglian interpretation. It is said that they are to be understood as meaning to be persuaded through the Spirit and faith and firmly to believe that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was crucified for us. (424.68–70) This eating and drinking are not limited to the sacrament. We eat his true body truly when we believe with true faith his true body to be given for our salvation. There is no other presence or eating of the body and blood of Christ than the true and spiritual one and no other eating of the body than that which happens truly and through faith. God did not institute the sacraments in vain. However, for unbelievers, without faith, the sacraments are useless. (424.83–90, 425.95–96) Besides the characteristic Zwinglian emphasis on faith, spiritual eating, and the sacrament as a memorial (426.137–41), there is the insistence on God’s not being bound by the sacraments, and on the sacraments’ not being instruments and channels through which grace is poured into unbelievers, on the Spirit’s effecting everything, and on the Spirit’s drawing sometimes without the instrument, sometimes with. Created things can do nothing. (426.152–427.179) These Zwinglian statements inevitably qualify the positive earlier statements and the later affirmation of the sacraments as a tremendous and joyful mystery in which Christ is present (428.203–207). The First Helvetic Confession is introduced as “a common confession of the holy, true, and ancient Christian faith” as well as a confession of the Swiss churches. It involved the civic leaders as well as the reformers who were driven by political as well as theological concerns. It arose both from the Swiss endeavour to establish understanding and communion with Lutherans and from their need to have a statement of faith for the expected council. It is natural for a confession with an ecumenical concern to have a positive character: to emphasise what one believes rather than what one rejects, to use words and ideas which accommodate the criticisms of others, but also to include safeguards and qualifications to disarm those who are most opposed to the others. The First Helvetic Confession has this ecumenical character and consequently manifests continuity as well as discontinuity with Zwingli. It was not the sole work of Bullinger, but he was one of the group who drafted it. Besides the fundamental work of the Swiss in producing the text, there was the role of Bucer and Capito. They arrived when it was complete and proposed amendments to it, undoubtedly strengthening its ecumenical character. The confession has 27 articles, of which only three explicitly concern the sacraments.8 8 Articles 20–22, also numbered 21–23. For the editions, see HBBibl I Nos. 659–84. For the Latin

408

Chapter 15: The Eucharist

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, “baptism is a bath of regeneration which the Lord offers and presents to his elect with a visible sign”.9 In the Lord’s Supper “the Lord truly offers his body and blood, that is himself, to his own and enables them to enjoy such fruit that he lives ever more and more in them and they in him”. (Schaff 225, Müller 107.12–15).10 These articles are in keeping with the article on Ministers. It states that ministers are coworkers through whom “God imparts and offers to those who believe in him the knowledge of himself and the forgiveness of sins”.11 But it adds, and this is later applied to the sacraments, “in all things we ascribe all efficacy and power to God the Lord alone” and not to something created; and he “dispenses it to those he chooses according to his free will”. (Schaff 219–20, Müller 105.7–12). These statements about what God does in the sacraments are qualified by reference to God, election, and faith. The power is not in the sacraments or the ministers but in God alone, and the sacraments are not fruitful automatically, but only in the elect or in believers. Thus, what is given in baptism is given to the elect and what is given in the eucharist is given to “his own” or believers.12 Moreover, certain views of the bread and wine are explicitly excluded. Thus, Christ’s body and blood are not naturally united with the bread and wine nor spatially included in them. They are food not for the stomach, but for eternal life. (Schaff 223–25, Müller 106.33–34, 41–43, 107.3–5, 12–14, 20–25, 108.1–2) It is important to note that the confession speaks about what God does and not what the sacraments do. Thus, on baptism it speaks not of God’s using the sign but of his offering the bath of regeneration with a sign. On the Lord’s Supper it refers to the bread and wine as signs through which the communion of the body and blood of Christ are offered by the Lord through the ministry of the church. Never-

9 10

11 12

text, see H. B. Smith and Philip Schaff (eds.), The Creeds of the Evangelical Protestant Churches, (London: 1877) 211–31. For the German text, see Müller, Bekenntnisschriften 101– 109. The Latin text has «exhibeat», but the German text «anbietet und darstellt» (Schaff 224, Müller 107.5). After stating that the sacraments are not bare signs, the German text describes them as consisting of signs and essential (substantial) things, whereas the Latin text says that they consist «at the same time (my italics) of the signs and the things (signified)» (Schaff 223, Müller 106.26–28). Then three times the word res is given in German as wesenlich and geystlich, again showing the more Zwinglian character of the German text. The Latin text has «administret» (Schaff 219), but the German text has «zuodienet und fürtreyt» (Müller 105.5–6). There is no reference to believers in the Latin version. Where it has «exhibeatur», the German text has «den glöubigen fürgetragen und dargebotten werde». (Schaff 225, Müller 107.21).

Chapter 15: The Eucharist

409

theless, this section concludes by ascribing the power to God alone and not to the sacraments. (Schaff 224–27, Müller 107.2–5, 12–14, 19–22, 108.1–2)13 The prolonged contact and correspondence with Bucer in the 1530s in the endeavour to establish communion with Luther and the German churches led to a more positive statement of the sacraments and to an accommodation to their understanding of the sacraments or at least to a language which would be acceptable to them. Some particular expressions probably reflect Bucer’s influence, such as the use of true in article 22, where the Lord truly offers his body and his blood and where the true communion of his body and blood is administered by holy and true signs, and also the reference to Christ’s offering his body and blood as Christ’s offering himself.14 The reference to the elect in the first part of the article on baptism probably comes from Bucer. (Schaff 224–25, Müller 107.3, 12–22) There are, of course, elements familiar to us from Zwingli: the ascription of all power to God (Schaff 220, 226–27, Müller 105.7–12, 108.1–2), the references to faith (Schaff 225, Müller 106.34, 107.21,25), the basing of the baptism of Christians’ children on their membership of God’s people and on God’s word about them and election of them (Schaff 224, Müller 107.5–9), the reference to the sacraments as signs of Christian fellowship (Schaff 224, Müller 106.36–38), and the relating of the eucharist to remembering and giving thanks (Schaff 225–26, Müller 104.23–25, 32–33). Moreover, the last part is effectively a summary of Zwingli’s Seven Virtues of the Sacraments, apart from the second which says almost exactly the opposite of what Zwingli said. Interestingly it is given as a response to the challenge of attributing too little to the sacraments, as Zwingli’s original statement was a response to the challenge whether – in the light of what he had written – the sacraments had any virtue. (Schaff 226, Müller 107.34–44) The presence of many Zwinglian emphases does not alter the fact that the articles go beyond Zwingli’s statements. Yet this does not mean that Zwingli could not have agreed to the Confession, given the developments in his understanding of the sacraments and the safeguards in the Confession. 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 13 The reference to the signs as true is not in the Latin version. 14 The reference to election here and in the Zurich Agreement is characteristic of Bucer’s understanding of the sacraments, as is the role of the Holy Spirit in the Zurich Agreement. He relates election to baptism as early as 1524. The role of the Spirit in the recipient is in part related to election, as the Holy Spirit works only in the elect. The Spirit makes both the recipient (elect children and believers) receptive and the sacrament effective, as the Lord «accomplishes inwardly by the Spirit what is signified by the signs». Bucer speaks as well of the Holy Spirit as the seal of divine grace, but also later of the sacraments as seals. See the discussion in W. P. Stephens, The Holy Spirit in the Theology of Martin Bucer (Cambridge: 1970) 213–59.

410

Chapter 15: The Eucharist

them. Luther’s positive, though critical, response to the Latin text is, therefore, not surprising.

Chapter 16: The State

Many factors undoubtedly had an impact on Bullinger’s understanding of government, but it is not easy to judge how far they were causes and how far they were the context for his understanding rather than the causes of it. The most notable factors were the sense of an integrated Christian society (corpus Christianum), the growing power of the cities in the affairs of the church, and the works of theologians and thinkers such as Augustine, Aristotle, and Marsilius of Padua.1 Bullinger had an integrated view of church and society and he asserted the power of government. He quoted the writings of Aristotle and Marsilius in expounding his views, and those of Augustine more than those of any other writer in expounding and defending his views. Less obvious at first is the impact on Bullinger of Zwingli, for he is not quoted as often as Augustine, but his understanding and Bullinger’s are remarkably close.2

1 On the growing power of the cities, see for example B. Moeller Reichstadt und Reformation (Gütersloh: 1962) translated as Imperial Cities and the Reformation (Philadelphia:1972); and ‘Zwinglis Disputationen’ in Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, 87 (Kanonistische Abteilung 56, 1970) (Weimar: 1970) 275–324; Hans Morf, ‘Obrigkeit und Kirche in Zürich bis zu Beginn der Reformation’ in ZWA 13 (1970) 164–205; and Robert C. Walton, ‘The Institutionalization of the Reformation in Zurich in ZWA 13 (1972) 497–515. 2 Like Zwingli, Bullinger sees the relation of the church and government as closer to the time of the prophets than to that of the apostles, when the government was not Christian. For Zwingli, see J. Kessler Sabbata ed. E. Egli and R. Schoch (St. Gallen: 1902) 35518–21. There are a host of parallels between Bullinger and Zwingli in their understanding of government and the role of the prophet, although there are some differences, not least in emphasis. Bullinger had a greater caution about engaging in war and one cannot imagine his writing, as Zwingli did, a plan for war. Bullinger also usually qualifies what he says about dealing with tyrants, by reference to the special call of God. This is not evident, however, in a letter to a Scotsman in citing Eusebius’ account of the Armenians. See Original Letters 1537–1558 Vol. 2 746. In the 1540s he maintained a neutral position despite frequent appeals for support, in part to preserve the unity of the confederation, but also because he realised that the support of Zurich and the Reformed cantons would be outweighed by that of the five inner cantons on the other side. See Max Niehans, ‘Heinrich Bullinger als Neutraler im Schmalkaldischen Krieg von 1546/47’ in ZWA 8 (1946) 245–259.

412

Chapter 16: The State

However important these factors were, they do not supplant the dominant impact of the bible, and not least of the Old Testament and the role of its kings, in Bullinger’s understanding of government. Quite apart from the range of references to the bible, Bullinger begins his exposition with it. In some works, such as The Decades, his statements on government are set in a biblical context, as an exposition of the fifth and sixth commandments. Many as are the quotations from the fathers, they are for Bullinger merely human testimony compared with the word of God. Zwingli’s and Bullinger’s focus on the Old Testament also provided their model of the prophet challenging the way government exercises its role in the church. Bullinger’s works are considered in four groups. Two works from the 1520s show that the main elements in Bullinger’s understanding are present before he began his ministry in Zurich in 1531. In this period he challenged both papal and Anabaptist views. Then two works against Anabaptists from 1531 and 1560 show, though not exclusively, the main issues in controversy with them. After this, three works or dedications for English sovereigns pursuing reformation and three works concerned with exposing or answering papal views, show the varied differences between Bullinger and the papal understanding of government. Finally the lengthy exposition in The Decades and the brief summary of The Second Helvetic Confession give a more systematic presentation of his understanding of government, differentiated at points from both papal and Anabaptist views.

Early Works A Friendly Exhortation to Righteousness3 was written in 1526 for Wolfgang Kolin, a Zug senator.4 It was intended to encourage him to make just judgements and to resist the temptations to act corruptly. Although it is brief and personal, it shows some features of Bullinger’s view of society, which are developed or expanded in later works. These include the appeal to the bible and the history of the church, the application of the bible to the life of society, the presentation of the role of the prophet as well as the character of a good ruler, the opposition to war and mercenary service, and the concern for peace.

3 For A Friendly Exhortation to Righteousness, see HBBibl 1 no.2. 4 See Joachim Staedtke, ‘Heinrich Bullingers Bemühungen um eine Reformation in Kanton Zug’, in ZWA 10 (1954) 24–47, especially 41–42.Staedtke (Theologie 281–282) comments: ‘Das Werk versucht in erstaunlich reifer Weise, das Verhältnis von Staat und Kirche – von Staat und reformierte Kirche – zu klären.’ ‘Die Schrift ist ein schönes Zeugnis dafür, welche Voraussetzungen Bullinger bereits mitbrachte, als er in Zürich das schwere Antistesamt zu übernehmen hatte.’

Early Works

413

The work’s sub-title refers to Bullinger’s concern for the land and for the people to live in peace and quiet. In it Bullinger dissociates the reformation from the Anabaptists and associates it with true faith in God. Unlike the Anabaptists, Bullinger affirms the role of the magistrate as given by God to protect the good and punish the evil. A reference to Romans 13 leads Bullinger to ask why, if the civil power is a servant of God, people should not be obedient to it, and then why Christians should not undertake that office, and indeed not bear the sword.5 Bullinger gives several positive examples of non-Christian rulers and nonChristian teaching on government and society. The emphasis, however, of his work, is on the ordering of public life in accordance with God’s word. This is achieved where the laws are based on the bible or where those ruling are well taught in God’s law or have a well- taught prophet and pastor. Bullinger compares and contrasts the role given to God’s word or law with that given by Plato to philosophy. Kingdoms, however, guided by philosophy have perished. Only the kingdoms of Jews and Christians have endured, when they have followed God and his word. Where there is unrest, moreover, it comes not from God’s word, but – as Elijah makes clear – from those who have forsaken God’s word and followed idols. Bullinger gives the example of kings, such as David and Solomon, and notes that as long as Saul followed the prophet Samuel his kingdom grew. He also adds to these the names of Christian emperors, such as Theodosius and Constantine, who ruled with the love of God and the fear of evil and who triumphed over their enemies.6 Comparable with a kingdom ruled by God’s law is one ruled by a Christian ruler, for – to quote Cicero – the powers that be are a speaking law. Paul refers to them as a servant of God. Bullinger cites Erasmus as describing a good prince as more like God than man.7 In various ways, Bullinger describes the person exercising power, whether he be a prince or a judge, and applies his comments both personally to Kolin and generally.8 Typically, Bullinger draws on the bible and the history of the church. The bible prescribes that a judge must be godfearing and wise, and significantly not one who takes gifts. In judging, a judge must have no regard to the person of those he is judging. However, exalted they are, the judge should have no fear, as his judgement is God’s judgement. He should not exalt himself above his brethren nor depart at all from the commands of God. This leads into Erasmus’ description of a godly or just prince as one who is perfect in virtues, living for the good of others, indeed as one who – among other marks – gives himself no rest, so that the fatherland may have rest.9 5 6 7 8 9

A iv r 1–29. A ii r 12-iii r 26. A iii v 31–32, iv r 15–16, B iii v 2–6. B ii v 25–27. B ii v 12–21, iii r 10–13, v 2–7, 20–21.

414

Chapter 16: The State

In his conclusion, Bullinger asks Kolin to look to God and his immortal righteousness. In his office Bullinger desires him to hold fast to God’s word, and to keep God as the only God, lord, and judge before his eyes. He is to pursue peace, remove the evil so that the good may flourish in the fear of God and peace, and in the midst of other things he is to judge justly. Bullinger adds that God will stand by such a ruler. Bullinger exalts the office of the ruler, but not his person. Rather the ruler is to remember that God created him, a poor sinner, endowed him with gifts, redeemed him through his only Son Jesus, and adopted him as his child. He is to remember also that we are pilgrims, drawing every moment nearer to death. We are ashes and will again become ashes.10 Bullinger states that if the love of righteousness, the duty of his office, the fear of God, the constraint of God’s word, the beauty of peace, the misery of war, and above all the example of all the godly, indeed of his faithful ancestors, do not compel Kolin, he does not know what would move him.11 Bullinger’s concern for peace and his attack on the evil of war help to explain why he was acceptable as Zwingli’s successor in 1532. The evil of war is both the evil inflicted on others and the evils that accompany war. War, he says, brings ‘a sea of all vices’. There is the violating of women, the hunger of children, the burning of houses.12 With the Swiss fighting as mercenaries there is the impact of foreign customs and foreign money, leading to luxury and immorality.13 Christians, however, should be lovers of peace rather than of unrest, for peace and love are the signs of those who believe in Christ. Christian rulers should regard the blood of their people as precious (Psalm 72: 14), which certainly ought not to be shed for the sake of money.14 Bullinger, like Zwingli, contrasts the corrupt present with an ideal past. Their forefathers took no gifts, but became rich through righteousness and work. They did not put their trust in great armies. They were made strong by unity and fidelity. They lived godfearing lives and were content with simple clothes. They desired praise and righteousness more than gifts. The young were brought up with discipline, work, and godliness. They enjoyed hunting, jumping, and running. Their usual drink was milk and water. Drunkenness was a punishable vice. Gifts were unknown, so that there was great unity and no greed, strict punishment, brotherly love, and mercy towards the poor. They were victorious in battle against the emperor, the king of France, and other rulers. Indeed, Bullinger 10 C iii v 24-iiii r 19. Again, there is a strong emphasis on the way greed and gifts lead to corruption: ‘unangesehen was gunst/eer/personen/gyt/gaben verheissind/sidmal sy ye und ye ein gegenwirtige verderpnuss…’ 11 B iv r 3–9. 12 A iv v 29-B i r 20. 13 B i r 22-v 15. 14 B i v 26–32, ii r 2–7.

Early Works

415

wonders how he could relate in a short space all the deeds of their godly forefathers. His concern has been to show that there would be honour and joy in a land which was free of greed, self-interest, and gifts.15 In 1528 Bullinger published a larger, related work An Accusation of Almighty God.16 There are significant additions, but although it is similar in substance to An Exhortation, it is different in form. The form may be compared with the way God speaks directly in the Old Testament, as in Psalm 81: 6–16. In it God states what he has done for his people and how they have failed to listen, and also what he will do, if they do listen. This form, in which God addresses his people, reflects the way in which the prophet or preacher speaks not his own words, but the word of God. It is a dramatic example of what Bullinger describes in the earlier work in terms of a prophet who is well-taught in God’s law. The sense of the Swiss as God’s people, like Israel in the Old Testament, is the major new element in An Accusation. In An Accusation, the emphasis is on God. He has chosen the Swiss, as he chose Israel, and has indeed blessed them even more than he blessed Israel. But where a people lives in its way and not God’s, God will punish them.17 The emphasis in An Exhortation, however, as the title implies, is on what rulers must be and do rather than on God. Their ancestors were not motivated by gifts and greed, and when they prospered, prosperity did not corrupt them. They were godfearing and loving and lived simply. They were not driven by self-interest, but held fast to God’s word.18 Bullinger describes God’s deliverance of Israel from captivity in Egypt, his leading them to the promised land, his protection of them and giving them victory, and parallels this with the freeing of the Swiss from oppression.19 He gives an account of Swiss history, in which their amazing victories, sometimes against great odds, were achieved through God’s initiative. Bullinger uses words such as ‘I delivered you’, ‘In all your wars and battles… I fought for you, I protected you, 15 C i v 32-ii v 23. 16 For An Accusation of Almighty God, see HBBibl 1 no. 3. Büsser (249) regards it as having been written in 1525 or 1526. See Fritz Büsser ‘Bullinger als Prophet’ in Irmgard Buck and Georg Kurt Schaner (eds.), Alles Lebendige meinet den Menschen. Gedenckbuch für Max Niehans (Bern: 1972) 249–270. His article gives a detailed outline of the work. Bächtold gives reasons for this date and offers a differently accented outline. See Hans Ulrich Bächtold, ‘History, Ideology and Propaganda in the Reformation: the Early Writing “Anklag und ernstliches ermanen Gottes” (1525) of Heinrich Bullinger’ in Bruce Gordon (ed.) Protestant History and Identity in Sixteenth-Century Europe Vol. 1 The Medieval Inheritance (Aldershot: 1996) 46– 59, footnote 12. 17 For example, An Accusation A ii r 24–27, ii v 27-iii r 8, vii r 24-v2. Of course, God’s punishment is also mentioned in An Exhortation (Ci v 26–28), as is his support (C iv r 8–14). Those kingdoms flourish which hold to God and his word (Aii v 8–10). 18 An Exhortation Aii v 9–10. The motive of self-interest is mentioned frequently, for example, An Exhortation Biv v 3,28–29, 31; Ci r 28, ii v 12. 19 A ii v 27–31; iii r 8, v17–20; iiii r 20–25.

416

Chapter 16: The State

otherwise it would not have been possible for you to do the deeds which you did’, ‘I was with you… I gave you such a steadfast manly heart’. ‘The whole world should learn how good it is for the people that has me for its God and how invincible are those to whom I am gracious’.20 God has chosen them before all others and raised them up, and appeals to them not to be ungrateful, but to return to him. As he has loved them, they should love him. He will be their God and they should be his people. Returning to him means turning to God’s word from human ordinances and traditions. If their ancestors had heard a tenth of what the Swiss have, they would long ago have recognized God’s teaching. So he warns them that he will put up with them only for a time.21 There is a brief exposition of the role of the prophet and a more extended presentation of the role of the magistrate. The picture of the prophet reflects the way Bullinger was to exercise the role himself. Interestingly he begins with the need to have a prophet. He observes that the Old Testament, which is what God said through the prophets before Christ, was written for our instruction. Therefore, if they wish to be servants of God and know what to do and what not to do, they must heed God’s word. For that, they must ‘choose godly men who show with their lives what they teach’. Besides being learned, those who bring them God’s word must be faithful, brave, and peaceful people. They will proclaim God’s will, and people should form their lives in accordance with their teaching.22 As well as prophets, the confederation needs judges and rulers, who judge the people with just judgement. Strikingly, Bullinger discusses government or rulers after and related to what he has said about the prophet, for the prophet will teach from God’s word what they should or should not do. Then they will judge the people rightly. The first requirement, therefore, in a ruler is to be godfearing. They must also be upright, brave, honest, and not fearful – men such as Cato and David. They are to be strong, wise, lovers of justice and of the common good. They should, following the example of the elections of the Amphiktyonen, choose from the best and most godly people in the land, finding out in advance 20 A iii r 24–25, iiii v 14–18, v r 14–15, 20–21, v 26–29. Gäbler notes the ways in which Bullinger reflects Zwingli’s attack on mercenaries and pensions, his appeal to the exemplary lives of their ancestors with God’s enabling them to be victorious, and the parallels with Israel, such as Swiss freedom and Israel’s liberation from slavery in Egypt. Gäbler observes, however, that Zwingli does not, unlike Bullinger, speak of the Swiss being a people chosen before others, like Israel. See Ulrich Gäbler ‘Die Schweizer – ein ‘Auserwähltes Volk’ in Heiko A. Oberman et al (eds), Reformiertes Erbe. Festschrift für Gottfried W. Locher zu seinem 80. Geburtstag (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1992) 143–155, in particular 144–147. 21 A vi v 27- viii v 9. 22 C iiii r 14-v 9. In an address to the council on usury forty years later, Bullinger stresses that the magistrate is to be governed by God’s word in all things (Schriften 6.441.16–19). The sense of the prophet as one to whom God speaks and who speaks God’s word is present throughout his ministry. It is expressed, for example, in Isaiah in 1567, which refers to God’s inspiring the prophet how to deal with the king and what to say to him (Isaiah 38 v 31).

Early Works

417

how they have lived till then. They should spend a year in preparation, becoming familiar with the law of the land. A ruler, who looks only to God, to his word, to the laws, and to what is fair and right, will take no gifts, will have no regard to the person, will help the oppressed, will not engage in wars, planting what is good and uprooting what is evil. When the head is holy and sound, it will go well with the body, the people. They will be godfearing. They will be friendly and merciful, assist what is just, living freely according to God’s word.23 After describing the beauty and fruitful land with which God has blessed the Swiss, Bullinger appeals again for reformation. They must abandon all nonbiblical beliefs and practices, such as the mass and the cult of the saints, but also mercenary service and warfare. He draws on the example of Jehoshaphat to show that it is the duty of rulers to introduce reform. Bullinger promises that if the confederation obeys God’s word, has God as its God, living in faith, love, and innocence, that is, embraces reformation, it will again become one. They will be honoured and feared, just as God’s chosen king, Jehoshaphat. He allowed God’s word to be preached, gave himself wholly to God, planted good and removed evil and all idols. With this example God appeals to them to abstain from pensions, lawlessness, and false worship, and he will make them greater than their fathers.24 There is a strong emphasis on rulers as ruling for the good of the people. Bullinger condemns their living well at the cost of their people. The land should be a democracy, a community, and not an oligarchy. The rulers should be fathers of the people, whom the people see as fellow citizens. They should not follow their own judgement. They should be gods, that is the representatives of God in judgement and justice, in care and punishment.25 Towards the end of the work, Bullinger renews the vision of a godfearing ruler guided by God’s word. He challenges rulers to give themselves for the community, for the fatherland, to be concerned with the common good. Bullinger cites the example of unbelievers who nevertheless gave their lives for the people and the common good. Rulers who are Christians are to be known by love and should give their lives for others, as Christ did for them. They should not allow those who act as wolves in the midst of the poor sheep. They should act as Solomon did with Joab. It is better for such men to die than for a land to be ruined by sedition, hunger, war, and misery. God appeals to them to help the oppressed to punish the evil, but also warns that he has acted so far in mercy, but that he will in future act in righteousness.26 23 24 25 26

C iv v 9-v r 31. C vi r 11–31. B iv v 5–30. C vi v 18-vii r 3, vii r 22-viii r 12. Büsser (‘Zwingli als Prophet’ 257) argues from this passage for Bullinger’s support for tyrannicide: ‘unter Umstände sogar ein Tyrannenmord notwendig wäre’. Compare Emidio Campi ‘Bullinger’s Rechts- und Staatsdenken’ in Evangelische

418

Chapter 16: The State

The Anabaptist and Papal Context Bullinger argues for his understanding of the role of government with Anabaptists as well as with papal opponents and his fellow reformers. Against them all, Bullinger affirmed a role for government in the church. Some of the arguments are similar, although they may be differently presented. But there are differences. The case against the Anabaptists, for example, was largely biblical, whereas that against his papal opponents was theological and historical, as well as biblical. Again, whereas Anabaptists rejected involvement in government, his papal opponents did not, but rather saw Christian governments as subject to the pope.

The Anabaptist Context There are two occasions when Bullinger dedicates a whole work to controversy with Anabaptists and in both he challenges their understanding of government, both the role of government and the relation of Christians to government. In 1531 in Against Anabaptist Teaching, he presents the issues in a dialogue between Simon, as an Anabaptist, and Joiada, as a defender of the truth.27 He begins the third of the four books with the proposition ‘That a Christian may become a ruler’. Simon disputes this from the example of Christ in John 6:15 and his words in Luke 22: 25–26. Joiada rejects this response arguing that it does not follow that Christians may not be bakers, because Christ was not a baker. Moreover, the Lukan reference applies to the apostles, whose office was one of serving, not to temporal princes, whose office was one of ruling. Peter, moreover, confirms that rulers are appointed by God to punish those who do wrong and praise those who do right (1 Peter 2: 13–14). Joiada dismisses Simon’s assertion from Mark 13:37 that what applies to the apostles also applies to all Christians in the light of Matthew 28: 19, which, following Simon, would mean that all Christians must go into all the world and preach, and also in the light of Paul’s teaching that not all Christians are apostles (1 Corinthians 12:29).28 Joiada then supports his statement that a Christian may be a ruler from scripture, first from the Old Testament and then from the New. He begins with Jethro’s instructing Moses to choose as judges men who are honest, brave, and godfearing, and who hate greed, and his telling Moses that in doing so he will be Theologie 64 (2004) 116–126, 121.That may be questioned, however, as the biblical example was of the king causing the death of a subject and the context of the passage in The Accusation is an address to those in authority in relation in effect to one of their number. 27 A vii 12–15. For Against Anabaptist Teaching, see HBBibl 1 no 28. Joiada in effect represents Bullinger. 28 97 v 7–99 v 5.

The Anabaptist and Papal Context

419

fulfilling God’s command (Exodus 18: 21,23). Joiada maintains that no one can exercise such power better than a Christian, quoting Paul’s description of the person exercising power as ‘a servant of God’. He cites rulers and judges such as Abraham, Moses, Samuel, and David as men who were servants of God, to show that Christians are not forbidden to be rulers.29 Simon, as an Anabaptist, questions the relevance of the Old Testament, leading Joiada to present reasons both for its relevance and for the unity of God’s people in the Old and New Testaments.30 He argues, however, from the New Testament as well, citing men who in different senses were rulers, such as Joseph of Arimathea, Sergius Paulus, and Erastus. Joiada allows that there is no evidence that they remained rulers when they became Christians, but maintains that there is also no evidence that they ceased to be. He notes that Paul said that Christians should remain in the vocation in which they were called. Moreover, Joseph is described as righteous (Luke 23:50),31 and without faith a person cannot be righteous; and Erastus is referred to as treasurer, and not as having been treasurer (Romans 16:23). If becoming a Christian drove people out of exercising power, then it would drive Christians from the service of God. Judges, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, however, all show that it is never better for people and government than when rulers are godfearing and believing, and never worse than when they are not. Government, moreover, needs Christians to take part in it.32 The dialogue continues with Simon’s presenting the Anabaptist case and Joiada’s responding point by point, often from the Old Testament, but also from the New. With a range of arguments, Joiada rejects the view that, as Christians do no harm, they do not need government. Christ recognizes a temporal kingdom and not just a spiritual kingdom. We need government because of those who are evil. The command not to resist evil does not apply to government which is God’s servant to punish evil. Government is necessary for the church today, as it was for the church before Christ, because Christians are also still in the flesh and because the church gathers together good and evil.33 Joiada then maintains that even a tyrannical government is to be obeyed, for government is from God. An unbelieving ruler can be an expression of God’s wrath, as Nebuchadnezzar was. Government, however, rules over the body and outward things, not over the soul. In the first it is to be obeyed, but not in the second. Where the government is Christian, then it follows the example of kings of Israel, such as Josiah and

29 30 31 32 33

99 v 5–100 r 11. 100 r11–101 r 3. He is elsewhere described as a disciple of Jesus (Matthew 27:57, John 19:38). 101 r 3-v 19, 102 r 23-v 4. 102 v 8–17, 103 r 6–8, 104 r 7–12, 105 r 11–18.

420

Chapter 16: The State

Hezekiah. It cannot give faith, but can enable people to live peaceful and godfearing lives.34 Underlying Bullinger’s apparent acceptance of unjust government is not only his conviction that God has commanded obedience to all government but also his confidence that God will depose unjust rulers as and when he has determined. Bullinger records biblical attacks on them with Isaiah’s calling the godless government thieves and murderers, Jesus’ calling government the power of darkness, and Paul’s cursing Ananias. He maintains that the injustice of government should be challenged, but he repudiates as rebellious the Anabaptist desire to follow Jehu’s example in cutting the head off the authorities, if they do not respond when challenged. Bullinger asserts that God will not forsake his own. God responds to those who seek his aid, and his action will be neither too late nor too soon. He will enlighten the tyrant to act graciously, as with Pharaoh and others, or he will remove the tyrant from power with such clear signs that no one will doubt God’s will. Bullinger recognizes that in the bible people sometimes had to experience decades of oppression without rebelling, as the Israelites did in Egypt until God sent them Moses. David did not rebel against Saul and kill him, although he could have killed him, but God acted to kill Saul, as he also acted through Gideon, Jehu, and others. Christians, moreover, had to wait a long while until God sent Constantine, as did the Swiss for William Tell.35 Joiada argues against the Anabaptists that if we are not to resist an unbelieving government, how much more are we not to resist a Christian one. He then defines a Christian government in an evangelical way. It is baptized into and trusts in Christ. It allows the preaching of the gospel and does not persecute it. It removes and punishes vices and plants discipline, peace, and respect. He observes that in the bible those who resist government are called children of Belial.36 Besides arguing for the payment of interest and tithes, Joiada presents the case for the use of the sword by government, and therefore its authority to kill and punish and go to war. He agrees that Simon and he may not kill; but that prohibition does not apply to a government. Wrath belongs to God and to rulers whom scripture actually calls gods. Joiada quotes the New Testament (Roman 13:4) to show that rulers do not bear the sword in vain and serve God by killing the guilty. After giving examples of Old Testament rulers from Moses, he states that the believer does not sin, but does God a service, if the person condemned is guilty, though not if he is innocent. Those who do not punish the guilty will be 34 105 v 8–11, 24–26, 106 v 5–15, 20–24, 107 r 5–7. 35 108 r 20–27, v 4–6,15–17, 109 r 21–26, 109 v 3–10 v 6. Bullinger later uses comparable examples in his defence before the council (The Reformation 3.294). 36 111 r 21–27, 112 r 3–5.

The Anabaptist and Papal Context

421

punished.37 Simon raises the killing of Anabaptists who believe in God and call on God as they die. Joiada offers two main reasons for their death, First, it is the duty of Christians to obey government. Government forbids re-baptism and they rebaptize. It commands the oath, obedience, and peace, but they do not swear the oath (and teach others not to) or they swear the oath and then break it. They cause unrest themselves and encourage others not to obey and not to pay interest and tithes. They are condemned to death because they are disobedient and rebellious, disturbing peace and furthering evil. Joiada defends the government’s right to capital punishment for re-baptism and not swearing the oath, as this has been in imperial law for a thousand years since Justinian. He maintains that they are also against God’s will and command. Second, he argues that Anabaptists are like the Jews, whom scripture describes as having zeal, but a zeal that is not from God, although they thought that they pleased God (Romans 9 and 10 and John 16). Joiada applies to Anabaptists the words of Peter not to suffer as ‘murderers or thieves or evildoers or rebels and seekers after the goods of others’ (1 Peter 4:15).38 Joiada agrees with the Anabaptist description of war as a great evil, but with the qualification that it is not evil when it comes from and is led by God. He supports the right of believing rulers to engage in war from scripture with the example of both Old Testament kings and Christian kings from Constantine. He notes that Hezekiah tried everything before fighting, and that Samuel and David protected the fatherland and the worship of God from the assailing heathen. God is not angry with such fighting, as it serves him. Finally, Bullinger cites John the Baptist in Luke 3 in support.39 In his conclusion Bullinger exhorts rulers first to have a true care of their people, then those who receive tithes to consider their original use and to fear God, and finally ordinary people not to seek in the gospel what is fleshly, but to consider order and the right use of temporal goods, rather than disorder and the ruining of everything. Temporal things, including riches, will pass away, and so people should put their trust in God and eternal things, and if they do then they will also pay what they owe.40 The Origin of Anabaptists in 1560 presents a more comprehensive and systematic account of Anabaptist groups and their teaching, but gives somewhat less attention to government.41 In the earlier work it is the subject of the third and indirectly of the fourth of the four books and directly of six and indirectly of three 37 38 39 40 41

136 v 14–15, 136 v 28–137 r 3, v 10–24. 137 v 24–139 v 1. 139 v 1–140 v 14. 177 v 21–178 r 12. For The Origin of Anabaptists, see HBBibl 1 nos. 394–396. References are to the Latin text, no. 396.

422

Chapter 16: The State

of the twenty conclusions which Bullinger presents. In the latter it is the subject of one of the six books. As the work is an exposition rather than a conversation it is more sharply focused. It does not begin as Against Anabaptist Teaching with stating that a Christian may be a ruler, but with stating that government is instituted by God, that God works through it, that it is to be obeyed, that it is necessary in the church of Christ, and that Christians are able to use the help and defence of government without guilt and fault. ‘God himself shares his name with the magistrate, and in the Law and Psalm 82 calls them gods’, adding that they must judge justly, and not accept gifts and not be respecters of persons. God ‘uses magistrates, as it were as means and instruments, to carry out his will and judgements with people’. God uses some rulers as the rod of his anger, from which escape is not through sedition, but through amendment of life.42 Bullinger maintains that the church needs government and that the Anabaptists who reject this imagine a church which has never existed. The example of Paul in Acts 23 shows that Christians may use the help of the magistrate. Moreover, Paul’s statement in 1 Timothy 2:1–3 shows that the church needs the magistrate in order to live in peace. Indeed, he adds that government was ‘instituted by God for the peace and tranquility of the church’.43 Bullinger then rejects the Anabaptist view that Christians cannot be rulers, pointing to the absurdity in Christians’ not being able to be servants of God, so that instead of them it is unbelievers who exercise an office instituted by God. Bullinger quotes Proverbs 29 to establish the case for the rule to be exercised by the righteous. ‘The people rejoice in the multiplication of the righteous; when the godless rule the people groan…. The righteous man knows the rights of the poor, but the godless disregards the knowledge…. When prophecy (or the teaching and preaching of the word of God) is lacking, the people are dissipated.’44 After showing the absurdity of replacing believing rulers with unbelievers who attack true faith, Bullinger examines the arguments used by Anabaptists to support their case. The examples from the words and example of Jesus and Bullinger’s response are similar to those given in 1531.45 At the beginning he draws on the Old Testament, such as the prophecy in Isaiah 49:22–24, to show that rulers will become part of the church and will support it in its life. Not only does he offer a different interpretation of the texts 42 43 44 45

154 r 1–6, 154 v 37–155 r 4, v 16–23. 158 margin, 159 v 22–26. 160 r 1–18, 160 r 27-v 16. There are some variations. For example, the Pauline injunction in 1 Corinthians 7:20 to remain in the state in which one is called is used in the discussion of whether new Christians remained magistrates in 1560 but not in 1531, where it is used in a different context (108 v 17– 19).

The Anabaptist and Papal Context

423

quoted by Anabaptists to show that they do not support the Anabaptist case, but also in some cases he uses them as an argument against them. Thus, the refusal of Jesus to be made king in John 6 is interpreted as a rejection of sedition, as the people did not have the right to replace the legitimate ruler. Bullinger cites the same New Testament examples of Christians who were rulers. He concludes this section, noting ironically that Anabaptists allow men to be shepherds of sheep, but not to be shepherds of people, that is to be rulers.46 Bullinger maintains that government has a role in matters of religion and faith and in protecting the church, and observes that Anabaptists are one with the Roman church in opposing it. Bullinger defends the role of a ruler in the light of the Old Testament. Thus, Jehoshaphat purged the church and restored true religion. He sent Levites throughout the kingdom to institute a true reformation, giving them the law of the Lord which they preached. Likewise Hilkiah, the priest, sent the law of the Lord to Josiah, so that he might institute a reformation in accordance with it.47 Bullinger insists that he does not confuse the role of ministers and rulers. To the former belong teaching and administering the sacraments, and to the latter judging, ruling, and punishing. The ruler has no power over people’s conscience, but has over outward things. He protects sound doctrine, restrains error, and enables the pure word of God to be preached.48 As it is faith or religion which principally maintains the well-being and happiness of the people, the magistrates should have the principal role in the care of faith. Bullinger stated that in Deuteronomy 16–17 and Joshua 1 God gave the book of the law and commanded Joshua to read it and to administer everything from it. ‘On the basis of the mandate godly rulers, judges, and kings have taken charge faithfully of the things which pertain to the faith, promoted and defended true religion and endured and proscribed false religion.’ In support of this, Bullinger cites kings such as David , Solomon, and Hezekiah, who took charge of matters concerning faith and religion. They convoked synods of priests, promulgated laws and edicts on religion, and appointed and removed priests. Eventually the prophecy in Isaiah 49 was fulfilled in the coming of Christian emperors. Constantine, for example, commanded the closing of the temples of idols, convoked a synod of all the principal ministers of the word, and commanded them to explain and confirm controversial statements of doctrine. Eusebius called him the universal bishop of the church.49 After considering the commands not to resist evil and not to kill, Bullinger argues that Christian love does not require that no one kills or punishes. It does 46 47 48 49

161 v 17–30, 163 v 25–164 r 8, 165 v 30–66 r 6. 166 r 11–13, 18–31, 167 r 21–32. 167 v 10–17, 168 v 7–19. 169 r 19-v 26.

424

Chapter 16: The State

not abolish the use of the sword, but rather confirms it. Rulers are appointed by God not only to show love but also to punish those who do evil. Paul’s ‘love does not rejoice in injustice’ is interpreted by reference to Proverbs 13:24, ‘He who spares the rod hates his son; he who loves him is swift to chastise him’. Lawful capital punishment, moreover, is seen as not contrary to love, as it is for the wellbeing not only of one man but also of the whole republic.50 Bullinger sees Peter as punishing Ananias and Sapphira with death not with excommunication, and maintains that God acts in the church now through the ruler. Bullinger recognizes that faith is a gift of God, but to have faith one needs to hear the word of God. This leads him to support laws compelling people to attend church. He also defends the use of compulsion against the view that it leads to hypocrisy both in restraining people from evil and in leading to good, drawing characteristically on Augustine. Bullinger uses the catastrophe of Münster to support the view that it would have been more loving, if they had used punishment at the beginning.51

The Papal Context It is interesting to see two somewhat different papal contexts for Bullinger’s works on the role of government and its relation to the church. There are three notable occasions when he writes to or for reforming sovereigns: Henry VIII, Edward VI, and Elizabeth I. There are also three brief engagements with papal views or defences of Reformed views against papal opponents, beginning with his response to Bishop Faber. The Authority of Scripture in 1538 was dedicated to Henry VIII. It was intended to influence the incipient reformation in England and took account of the situation there. It recognizes the continuing role of bishops and its longer second half is an exposition of the ministry, in particular of bishops. It includes a very brief chapter on the role of kings in reformation. Whereas over a decade later the role of kings was expounded in the dedication to the king, in The Authority of Scripture it comes in the text as well, beginning with an examination of kings in the Old Testament. In the dedicatory letter,52 Bullinger rejects the view that the care of religion or spiritual matters belong to bishops, with just the care of temporal matters and the sword belonging to kings. He maintains that the care of religion is the chief task of 50 176 v 21–31, 177 r 28-v 6. 51 180 v 5–183 r 25, 184 r 17–25. Bullinger examines the arguments used by the Anabaptists about punishing or killing because of religion. After arguing for discrimination and moderation in punishing, Bullinger writes in support of war in defence of one’s subjects and the swearing of oaths. 52 HBTS 4.3–6.

The Papal Context

425

kings, quoting Deuteronomy 17: 18–20, which makes it clear that the king has the care of religion, neither neglecting it nor letting it become superstition. As an example to Henry, he points to Gideon, David, Solomon, and above all Jehoshaphat, ‘that most glorious prince’, who put the care of religion before everything. He removed foreign religion and restored true worship, sending out teachers and princes to restore religion (2 Chronicles 17). After citing Augustine on the promise of kings in the church in Isaiah 49, he quotes pagan sources in support of the responsibility of kings for religion.53 He then refers to Henry as ‘the father of the fatherland’ ‘the soul of the English body’ ‘the eye, the sun, the light of the English church’. He sees him, therefore, as rescuing the church from anti-Christ and restoring true religion.54 In chapter 3 of the second part which concerns the role of bishops against the head of the Roman error and tyranny, Bullinger considers the roles of priest and king. He cites the relation of Joshua and Eleazar in Numbers 27:18–21 as exemplifying the way that kings and ministers are to relate. Eleazar will present the king with what he has learnt from God and the king will command all the people. Both the king and the priest are ministers of God and of the church. ‘The priest did not put himself before the king, and the king did not despise the prophet.’ God has appointed the priest to be an expert in God’s law, not to put himself before the kings and make the king subject to his will and kiss his feet, but rather to consult God and pray for the king.55 Then, citing Deuteronomy 17:18–20, Bullinger describes the king as reading God’s law every day of his life, so that he fears God and carries out what God has commanded. The prophets and priests as ministers of God rebuke the kings for their crimes and their neglect of God’s law. The kings, such as David, who obeyed priests acting in accordance with God’s law were praised in scripture. Those who rebelled, such as Saul, were deservedly censured, ‘For those who despise God’s minister, despise God himself.’56 After reference to the power of kings in the Old Testament to remove even high priests from their office, Bullinger notes the role of government in the care of religion, repressing the avarice of priests, uprooting idolatry and superstition, and in no way allowing the avarice of priests to contaminate the law of God. They have been given the power to maintain the safety of religion and the republic. Bullinger cites the example of Zechariah (2 Chronicles 24:17–22) in support of the role of the priest who would lay down his life in opposing the prince rather than do anything against the law. God wished kings and priests to be united in 53 ‘Proinde non tam divina quam humana lege confirmatum est regum officium primarium esse religiosos esse et religionem accurate et ante omnia curare.’ (HBTS 4.6. 5–7) Compare ‘Nam primum et potissimum, quod ad regum cura pertinet, est religio ac fides.’ (HBTS 4. 3. 20–21) 54 HBTS 4.6.9–14. 55 HBTS 4.113.19–114.4. The pope is subject to the emperor (243. 16–19). 56 HBTS 4. 114. 4–21.

426

Chapter 16: The State

matters concerning religion and the republic, both being subject to his law. Where this happened there was peace. Unrest arose where kings did not listen to the priests or where priests neglected the law of God or looked after their own interests. All this, he says, shows how great is the authority and dignity of the office of priest and prophet.57 In the dedication to Edward VI in 1549, Bullinger was also concerned with the role of the king in reformation, but this time he maintains it against the alternative of a reformation undertaken by a General Council. Bullinger allows that some of the wisest people argue for reformation to depend on a council and that a kingdom may not alter anything in religion which until now has been received and accepted. Bullinger maintains from Jeremiah 8: 8–9 and Luke 9:62 that the prophets and apostles point us to God’s word and not to ‘councils of elders or priests’. When a reformation has begun from God’s word, its completion should not wait for a council, ‘directed not by God’s word but by human affections’.58 He supports his case from the failure of councils for over 500 years to do what councils once did which were called because of corruption in doctrine or teachers or because of the ruin of church discipline. Councils called by the Bishop of Rome led to even more superstition and error in doctrine, corruption in teachers or priests, and the obliteration of discipline. The reasons for this were the unfitness of those presiding, the exclusion of those most fit for the business, the failure to give the authority to God’s word, and their seeking not the glory of God and the safety of the church, but the glory and pleasures of the world.59 Bullinger insists that a council in his day would not be different, as it would have to be called by the Bishop of Rome and those called would swear an oath not to act against him, patristic decrees, or conciliar constitutions. They maintain that ‘the Roman church has the power to judge all people, but that no one is permitted to judge its judgement’. Indeed, they would rather that Christ, the gospel, and the true church perished completely than depart from their decrees, rites, powers, wealth, and pleasures.60 Besides arguing that kings have a pre-eminent duty to reform the church, Bullinger speaks of the church as having a duty of reformation. This is supported by the practice of the early church in the calling of provincial synods without the involvement of Rome. Indeed, he quotes Cyprian’s insistence on the hearing of cases where they happened under the oversight of the local bishops. Bullinger observes that some people were excommunicated for appealing from their churches to Rome. After drawing on the support of the early church, as he does 57 58 59 60

HBTS 4.114. 23–115.19. HBTS 3.557.24–558.7; Decades 3.116. HBTS 3. 558. 7–30; Decades 3.116–117. HBTS 3. 558.30–559. 2, 13–19; Decades 3.117–119.

The Papal Context

427

when challenging the position of the Roman church, Bullinger turns to divine rather than human testimony, with the example of Josiah who assembled princes and priests to make the decisions concerning reformation of the church. Earlier, Bullinger implies a contrast between his and the Roman view of government. Whereas Bullinger sees the duty of rulers as reforming the church, the Roman church enlists them to persecute those who were seeking to reform the church.61 In 1571 Bullinger wrote A Refutation of the Papal Bull in defence of Queen Elizabeth.62 He begins with a brief summary of the thrust of the bull. In it the pope boasted that Christ, the governor of all things, gave fulness of power to Peter and to his successor, the Bishop of Rome, to govern the church, ‘appointing him alone to be the ruler over all peoples and kingdoms’.63 He accused Elizabeth of ‘usurping the place of the supreme head’, replacing Roman bishops with ‘ministers of ungodliness’, abolishing the sacrifice of the mass and other practices, in favour of ordinances appointed by Calvin, compelling people to renounce the authority of and obedience to the Bishop of Rome. He declared that she is a heretic and he not only deprived her of her kingdom but also freed her subjects from all obedience to her laws as well as from any duty of allegiance and any oath they had sworn, threatening them otherwise with the same anathema that he had placed on her.64 In Bullinger’s refutation there are several related elements. He challenges the texts used to support the papal claim, examines the role of Peter, the Bishop of Rome, the understanding of the role of kings, and the calamities suffered since popes have exercised fulness of power. Most fundamentally, as the whole bull depends on this, he rejects the claim that Christ gave fulness of spiritual and temporal power, as there is not one word of Christ which says this.65 Feeding Christ’s sheep is feeding with his word, and shepherds are ministers not lords.66 Christ’s words about Peter’s strengthening his brethren were about his faith as not failing, and Bullinger implies there is no comparison between Peter’s faith and life and the faith and life of the popes. The statement about two swords does 61 HBTS 4. 559. 23–29, 560. 4–36; Decades 3.119–121. 62 For Refutation of the Papal Bull, see HBBibl 1 no. 562. The English translation is no. 563 and the reference to it is given after the abbreviation ET. For Refutation and the situation in England in relation to it, see in particular David Keep ‘Henry Bullinger and the Elizabethan Church. A study of his publication of his “Decades”, his letter on the use vestments and his reply to the bull which excommunicated Elizabeth’ (Ph.D. Dissertation: Sheffield, 1970) and his article ‘Bullinger’s Defence of Queen Elizabeth’ and Robert C. Walton ‘Henry Bullinger’s Answer to John Jewel’s Call for Help: Bullinger’s Exposition of Matth. 16: 18–19 (1571)’ in Gäbler and Herkenrath Henry Bullinger II 231–241, 243–256. 63 Refutation 3r 15–26; ET 1r. 64 Refutation 3v 7–4 r 11; ET 1v–2r. 65 Refutation 4v 12–15, 20–27,231 r 12–16; ET 2v, 20r. Bullinger, like Zwingli was influenced by Marsilius of Padua; see, for example, Refutation 4 v 31–5 r 4; ET 3 r. 66 Refutation 5 v 16–19; ET 3v.

428

Chapter 16: The State

not mean what is claimed. It was moreover not made to Peter alone, but to all the apostles. Indeed, Christ withdraws the use of the sword from Peter and all ministers.67 At greater length Bullinger considers Matthew 16, arguing that the church was not built on Peter or the pope. In scripture the rock refers to God and not to any creature and Peter is called the rock because he is grounded upon God and grafted into Christ the Son of God. The keys do not mean the fulness of power but the preaching of the gospel, while binding and loosing have to do with being released or not from one’s sins through faith in Christ. Although the words were spoken to Peter, they apply to all the apostles, both by the use of synecdoche in scripture and the giving of the keys to all the apostles. This is confirmed by references to Augustine and Cyprian. If one allowed, however, that they were given to Peter, it would still have to be proved that the pope was Peter’s heir and successor.68 Bullinger then seeks in some forty pages to show from scripture and the history of the papacy that in claiming full temporal and spiritual authority the papacy acted contrary to the example and teaching of Christ and to the practice and teaching of the early church and early popes. Although Christ was ordained both king and priest, he did not exercise temporal rule. He refused to judge or accept temporal power, gave to the emperor what belonged to him, and in many situations challenged the disciples in their desire to exercise authority.69 In the church the apostles did not receive sovereignty, but ministry. Indeed, they reverenced kings as next to God on earth. They did not depose kings, even evil kings, nor did they discharge people from allegiance to them. As for Peter, he lifted up Cornelius when he knelt to him, saying that he was himself only a man. He did not send legates, but was content to be sent by the congregation into Samaria. He had no pre-eminence at the Council of Jerusalem, and was not seen by Paul, who reproved him, as above others. Indeed, Paul put James before him.70 After showing that Peter had no supremacy, Bullinger argues that the Bishops of Rome after him did not exercise sovereignty.71 There was a period when there 67 Refutation 7v 5–7, 16–29, 8 r 32-v 6; ET 5v–6v. 68 Refutation 8 v 21–25, 9 v 20–27, 10 r 31, 12r 24-v2; ET 7 r, 8rv, 10v, 14v–15r. Bullinger also examines the Roman use of Jeremiah, maintaining that the passage is about teaching not reigning. Jeremiah is to be a preacher, not a prince. Moreover, although he was in prison, he obeyed and taught the nobility and people to obey the king, even the kings of Babylon. He did not say that people did not owe obedience to a king because the king was evil. (Refutation 21 r 15-v 16, 22r 22–24, v 3–6, 12–15; ET 20 r –21v) In the light of this, Bullinger sees no scripture, that is neither Old nor New Testament, as supporting the Roman case (Refutation 22 r 29–31; ET 21r). 69 Refutation 22 v 21–24, 23r 5–10, 16–28, 23v 2–12, 20–24, 24 r 19–30,25r 16–31; ET 21v–22v, 24r–25r. 70 Refutation 26 v 17–19, 27r 1–7, 11–13, 19, 28 r 5–10, 17–28v1; ET 25v, 26r, 27 rv. 71 Bullinger leaves on one side whether or not Peter came to Rome (Refutation 29 r 10–11; ET 28r).

The Papal Context

429

were heresies in other churches and Rome kept doctrine pure, and for that reason the succession of bishops there was stressed. But when Victor broke the agreement made about the date of Easter, he was reproved by bishops of both East and West. Moreover, Cornelius did not allow appeals to be made to him, not seeing himself as universal bishop. Far from exercising power over emperors, popes were in some cases put to death by them.72 Before Gregory the Great the bishops of Rome did not boast of any fulness of power. For Gregory there was no universal bishop except Christ, and he saw agreeing to the title as renouncing the faith and becoming a fore-runner of antichrist. It was Phocas, a tyrannical and lecherous emperor, who gave Boniface III the title of head of all churches, and popes then claimed to be sovereign and universal shepherd of all churches.73 This was followed by further degeneration in the papacy, which Bullinger illustrates by the speech of the Bishop of Salisbury at the Council of Regensburg in 1240. He refers to Gregory VII, who claimed the right to depose all princes, both temporal and spiritual, Boniface VIII, who claimed that the pope had all power, both spiritual and temporal, and that it is necessary to salvation for people to be subject to the pope, and John XXII who allowed himself to be worshipped and his feet to be kissed, unlike Jesus who washed the feet of his disciples who were just fishermen.74 In the second half of his work, Bullinger examines the accusations and slanders in the papal bull. He argues that ‘the Queen of England may be called supreme head on earth of the kingdom of England’, that is supreme in spiritual and temporal matters. She is not usurping the role of the pope, as is alleged, as he has shown that the pope does not have such power. He maintains both that a queen may reign, supporting this with biblical examples, and that rulers have ‘the care of religion’, supporting this also with biblical examples, as well as examples from the early church. The role of queen in reigning is distinguished from the role that is not open to women in worship. He also distinguishes the role of the ruler in appointing and dismissing bishops and in reforming the church from the liturgical role exercised only by the priest, as the examples of what happened to Uzziah in sacrificing shows. From the beginning God has committed ‘the care of religion’ to rulers.75 72 Refutation 29 r 6–9, 30v 20–28, 31 r 10–18, 31 v 3–14; ET 28r, 30r–31r. 73 Refutation 33v 22–25, 35 v 11–16, 36 r 2–5, 11–18, 24–27; ET 33 r, 35rv. 74 Refutation 36 v 1–4, 37 r 18–25, 37 v 16–23, 38r 17–20, 27–32, 39 r 3–8; ET 36r–38v. He also quotes Marsilius’ rejection of rule by pope, bishops, or priests and his insistence that they are subject to temporal rulers (Refutation 39r 12-v10; ET 39r). The pope is not set over kings and kingdoms by God, but usurps that position contrary to Christ’s example and command (Refutation 63 r 16–19, ET 63 v). It is this usurping that has led to calamities for over four hundred years (Refutation 72 v 11–16; ET 73 r). 75 Refutation 40 v 3–6, 42 v 11–12, 18–20, 43v 23–27, 44r 23-v6, 45r 26-v3; ET 40v, 42v, 43v–45v. Bouvier (Henri Bullinger 81) surprisingly interprets Bullinger as rejecting the legitimacy of

430

Chapter 16: The State

Bullinger has given Old Testament examples, but insists that only perverse Anabaptists think that Christian princes have less authority than Jewish princes. The prophets foretold that there would be kings in the church ‘governing, defending, and advancing church affairs’. He sees them, however, as involved with outward matters not with people’s souls, that is, spiritual matters. The reason Bullinger gives for the magistrates’ care of religion is that they are responsible for ‘the public welfare of the commonwealth and the happiness of their realms’ and ‘the diligent care of faith and religion leads to their increase and preservation’. Constantine exemplifies this. ‘He abolished all heathen sacrifices, called a council … the greatest of all councils … and in it rebuked the bishops sharply and gave them commands and set church affairs in order.’ In the light of this, Eusebius called Constantine a bishop, ordained by God. Moreover, Bullinger observes, it was the emperor not the pope who called a council. With this example and those of later emperors, Bullinger maintains that Elizabeth was right to exercise the care of religion and to depose bishops who preached the pope rather than Christ and the gospel.76 The care of religion includes for Bullinger the compelling of subjects by their ruler. Bullinger draws on Augustine’s scriptural case against the Donatists, as he quotes Solomon’s ‘sparing the rod and spoiling the child’ and also notes people’s gratitude later when they realized that they had been punished for their good. Augustine observes that the people of Hippo were brought from Donatism by fear of imperial laws. He maintains that Christ compelled Paul to faith. At the time of the apostles no kings served God and so there are no New Testament kings who followed the Old Testament kings in using compulsion. Rulers may not only punish, but also put to death ‘those who violate true religion and set themselves against holy laws’. The Old Testament has examples of the killing of false prophets, as the New Testament does with Ananias and Sapphira and Elymas, for killing can be with a word as well as with the sword. Rulers have the power of the sword to punish those who disturb the peace. Moreover, emperors, such as Constantine made laws ‘to punish idolaters, apostates, heretics, and the ungodly’. Bullinger recognizes, however, that there should be measure in punishing. With this, he sees two conclusions as established: that the pope’s fulness of power is

Queen Mary. Bullinger states that God has ordained women to be in subjection and not to rule, but he also allows that the law and customs of a country may allow for a woman to rule. See Bouvier, 456 and Original Letters Vol. 2 746. 76 Refutation 45 v 3–15, 45 v 27–46 r3, 46 r 15–29, 47 r 18–30; ET 45v–47r. Theodosius describes ‘the searching out of religion as the chief care and responsibility of imperial majesty’ (46 v 6–9; ET 46 v).

The Papal Context

431

forged and so his sentence against Elizabeth has no authority and that he has shown every charge against her to be false.77 Besides these three works addressed to sovereigns, encouraging them in the reformation of the church, it is instructive to consider three brief challenges to the Roman view and defences of the Reformed view. First, in 1532 in Reply to Faber, Bullinger defends Zwingli, among other things, against the charge of tyranny. Bullinger accepts that faith is a gift from God and cannot be commanded or forbidden, but also maintains that one cannot tolerate the blaspheming of God and the true faith. Punishing blasphemers is not tyranny. Even the pagan rulers Nebuchadnezzar and Darius issued a mandate against blasphemy, as did Jehoshaphat, Hezekaiah, and Josiah, as well as the Emperors Constantine and Theodosius.78 Rulers are given the sword to punish evil, blasphemy, vice, and injustice, to plant and protect what is good and true, and to help the oppressed. This is how Zwingli preached and if that is tyrannical and rebellious, then so are the greatest servants and prophets of God, such as Moses, Isaiah, and Paul.79 Bullinger applies the charge made by his papal opponents of shedding blood and of causing uproar and rebellion against them, for they persecute believers. It is, he maintains, Ahab who was rebellious, not Elijah, in other words Ahab who, like Zwingli’s opponents, suppressed the truth and not Elijah, whose teaching of the truth was suppressed.80 In the fourth of the five chapters of Evangelical and Papal Teaching 1551, there are references to government as part of the discussion of the church.81 Evangelicals teach that all people are subject to government, and should obey it in everything that is not against the law of God. Christian government has the care of religion and may call and choose ministers, convoke and hold synods, depose and punish those not fit for their office. Government should be zealous in maintaining Christian discipline, removing scandals, and punishing the dis77 Refutation 54 v 25–28, 55r 15–18, 55v 29–56 r2, 56r 30-v 11, 58r 8–10, 18–28, 59r 3–20,30–32, 59v 19–23, 60v 13–23; ET 55rv, 56v, 57v–59v, 61r. After describing some forms of punishment, Bullinger states that there should be measure in punishing (59v 19–23; ET 56r). Refutation ends with over fifty pages concerned largely to show that the pope cannot release people from their oath of obedience and the disastrous effect of the way the popes treated emperors during more than four centuries. 78 In the Second Disputation (26–28 October 1523) Schmid referred to the action of the two pagan kings, Nebuchadnezzar and Darius. When they learned about the true God, they commanded the people to revere him alone, with the destruction of those and their houses who blasphemed him. If pagan rulers could do this, how much more should Christian rulers command that only Christ should be invoked and not images of wood and stone. (Z II 795. 2– 29) 79 For Reply to Faber, see HBBibl 1 no.35-B iiii v 15-v v 12, Schriften 6.116.23–118.5. 80 B v 13-vi v 24; Schriften 6.118. 6–119.32. 81 For Evangelical and Papal Teaching, see HBBibl 1 no.231.

432

Chapter 16: The State

obedient. Christian government should administer church goods through suitable people, as God’s word requires, using the goods for the upkeep of churches, teaching, the poor, and common need, and should give an account annually.82 By contrast, papal teaching is that everyone is subject to government, except the pope, the bishops, and those who are consecrated. Christian government does not have the care of religion; it should not choose ministers, convoke or hold synods, nor lay its hands on those consecrated to the Lord. The pope, the bishops, and the clergy alone have power to exercise discipline; government has no such power, but is simply to punish those whom they direct it to punish. Government has no responsibility for church goods, but must leave them to the clergy to use as directed by the Roman church, and must not require them to give an account of their use.83 The last two of sixty one questions in Questions about Religion in 1559 are: whether one is bound to obey spiritual and temporal authorities, especially in those things which are not against God and whether one is bound to obey temporal authorities when they propose or command something against Christianity, the church, and its statutes.84 Bullinger’s answers are short. His reply to the first question is that spiritual authorities are to be obeyed as servants of Christ, but Christ has forbidden them to rule like temporal lords. There is, moreover, no basis in the word of God for them to act as temporal rulers, and they should refuse if invited to do so. People should not rebel, but equally they should not obey, when a command is against God. People are to obey all temporal authorities in all things which are not against God and love them as their fathers, Likewise bishops and preachers are to obey them, as the apostles did, and they are also to preach the word to them freely. Rebels against the authorities are worse than murderers.85 In response to the second question he distinguishes the church of those who believe in Christ from what is called the church, but which is not. If a government acts against the church which believes in Christ, it is not to be obeyed. Bullinger observes that the early Christians did not obey the emperor. They did not honour images or share in sacrifices, and suffered persecution. Government may, he maintains, act against the false church. Against a church which calls itself catholic, a godly Christian government has power to do away with what is against God and his word. When, with the example of biblical and godly Christian princes, godfearing governments effect Christian reformations and statutes in accordance with God’s word, subjects should obey them and support them. If they do not or if 82 a vii 7 v 20-viii v 17. 83 a viii r19-b i r 18. 84 For Questions about Religion, see HBBibl 1 no. 386. The preface indicates that the concern is to provide simple scriptural answers in defence of their holy evangelical religion (A ii r 28-v 7). 85 Questions 201. 25–205.8.

The Papal Context

433

they rebel against them, they will experience the wrath of God. The pope and prelates of the Roman Church resist a state reformation in order to remain in their error and wealth.86

Government in The Decades The most substantial presentation of government is in The Decades.87 Bullinger dedicates four sermons to it in expounding the sixth commandment, ‘You shall not kill’, besides a section of his exposition of ‘father’ in the previous sermon on honouring one’s father.88 He begins by stating that the commandment does not apply to the magistrate, who is commanded by God to kill, both in putting to death ‘those condemned by the law’ and in defending his people in ‘a just and necessary war’. Government, which defends the good and suppresses evil, is ‘a divine ordinance’, indeed a ‘worship of God’.89 Like Zwingli, Bullinger draws on Aristotle in describing the three forms of government: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy; and what they become, when corrupt: tyranny, oligarchy, and tumult or sedition. He says that it is not for him to express a preference. Nevertheless, Bullinger maintains that there were few good princes in the bible and that, although there are many disadvantages in aristocracy, there are more in democracy. In the end, he sees fewer dangers and disadvantages in aristocracy, which is rule by holy and just men. Most important, however, is that, whatever the form of government, it is to be obeyed.90 For Bullinger, government is necessary, because all people seek their own advantage. The time of greatest disaster to Israel was when after Samson it had no government. That is why from the beginning God ordained magistrates ‘to safeguard the good and to punish the evil’. He recognizes that some rulers are bad, because they are ‘seduced by the devil’. ‘Tyrants are properly servants of the devil, not of God.’ Bullinger can, however, see a bad ruler as of God, as a punishment for human sin and evil (Isaiah 3: 4,8). Christians may not kill tyrants. They have examples in scripture in David’s not killing Saul and in Jeremiah’s praying for Jehoiakim and Zedekiah and his obeying them, except where their 86 Questions 205.10–208.19. His answers end with the warning that they are in the last times and that Christ will judge the living and the dead. 87 Bullinger uses the term magistrate to cover the variety of those who exercise power (HBTS 3.180.35–181.3; Decades 1.309). 88 HBTS 3.165. 30–167.3; Decades 1.279–281. 89 HBTS 3.180. 8–13, 181.6–10; Decades 1.307. 90 HBTS 3.181.11–12, 30–182.5.; Decades 1.309–312. For monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, see HBTS 6.191. 3–23, where it is part of an exposition of Romans 13 on government (HBTS 6.190. 1–199.9).

434

Chapter 16: The State

commands were ungodly. Christians must repent, pray, and keep in mind that ‘God is good, merciful, and omnipotent, and is easily able to deliver us’. (Bullinger recognizes that with the exile deliverance took seventy years.) He rejects the killing of tyrants, except where someone has a call from God, as did some men in Judges and Kings.91 Before discussing the office of the magistrate which has three parts, Bullinger describes the kind of person needed, drawing on Exodus 18:21 and Deuteronomy 1.13. The four characteristics in the first are: courage and strength, meaning the ability to do what he is appointed to do; the fear of God and belief in his word; being true, performing what he promises; and not being covetous or given to bribes. The four characteristics in the second: that he is wise, that is the friend of true religion, experienced, honest, and endowed with authority.92 He sees a twofold task: the care of religion and the preservation of honesty, justice, and peace.93 The first part of the magistrate’s office is the care of religion. Bullinger’s sermon is a rebuttal of the objection primarily of his papal opponents, who held that the care of religion belonged only to the bishops, but also of Anabaptists, who gave no role to government in religion. Characteristically Bullinger argues first biblically. He maintains that kings, such as Melchizedek and Joshua, were also priests. The magistrate is, as it were, ‘ a minister of true religion’ in enabling both the preaching of the word and the true worship of God. It is through this that he is able to accomplish his chief care, which is to keep the republic safe and prosperous. For Bullinger, quotations from Proverbs show that those who hold that religion is not the concern of rulers, bring about the separation of rulers and people and the neglect and oppression of the poor.94 He gives examples of Old Testament kings who examined teaching, ordered worship, and reformed religion. Then to the objection that these examples do not apply to Christians, Bullinger maintains that Joshua, David, and others were Christian. He argues, as he has already done in The Old Faith, that ‘being anointed with the Spirit of Christ, they believe in Christ and participate in Christ in the sacraments’. His position is confirmed by the fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy (49: 22–23) in emperors beginning with Constantine who, calling a general council, established true doctrine, rooting out heresy.95 The second objection to the magistrate’s role in the care of religion builds on Uzziah’s being struck with leprosy when he presumed to burn incense. Bullinger rejects the charge, insisting on the distinction between ‘the offices and duties of 91 92 93 94 95

HBTS 3. 182. 4–10, 183. 8–12, 184. 4,6,22,25–29,33–185.1, 18–21, 186.5–8; Decades 1.312–318. HBTS 3. 186.18–187. 35; Decades 1.319–321. HBTS 3. 188. 33–189. 2; Decades 1.323. HBTS 3.189.4–9, 15–18, 28–31; Decades 1.323–324. HBTS 3.189.31–32, 190.5–8, 33–35, 191.8–20; Decades 1.324–328.

The Papal Context

435

the magistrate and those of the ministers of the church’. ‘The magistrate is not made subject by God to the priests as to lords, but as to ministers of the Lord.’ Both are ‘subject to the Lord himself and his law’. Refusing to listen to such priests is to repulse God himself. The care of religion does not mean that the magistrate preaches or presides at the sacraments. Bullinger offers diverse examples of Christian emperors commanding bishops and regulating religion. He cites them, not as if human examples are canonical scripture, but to show that in fulfilling Isaiah’s prophecy they exercise power given by God.96 The care of religion requires the making of laws, as does the role of the magistrate in ‘establishing honesty, justice, and public peace’. ‘Good laws therefore are beneficial and necessary for the peace and safety of kingdoms and republics.’ Even a non-Christian, such as Demosthenes, refers to them as the gift of God. A prince can be described as ‘the living law’, ‘if his mind obeys the written law and is not in conflict with the law of nature’. Bullinger accepts, however, that a good prince or magistrate has power over the law to apply it according to the exigencies of the situation. Thus, he exercises moderation when, for example, someone kills accidentally and not intentionally. At the same time no ruler is the law or is above the law. Indeed, even good rulers need the law, as covetousness, favour, and fear exist even in the best people and could without the law affect their judgement.97 Bullinger regards the character of the magistrate as of fundamental importance for his role as judge. In describing this he naturally draws on biblical examples and texts to establish what the marks of a magistrate should be as a judge, the second of his roles. First, he must hear everyone, small or great, citizen or stranger, and must listen to them attentively, diligently, and with goodwill. Second, he must judge justly. This means not showing respect of persons and not being influenced by fear. Fear may be fear of losing favour, support, life, or possessions, or it may be expressed in taking a bribe or looking for a reward. The judge must have before him God’s way of judging, as the judgement he gives is God’s. As elsewhere against Anabaptists, Bullinger defends Christians’ use of the law by reference to Paul, who appealed to Caesar from Festus’ unjust judgement.98 The third role of the magistrate is punishment. In bearing the sword, he is the instrument of God’s vengeance and punishment. The sword has two uses: to 96 HBTS 3. 192. 1–3, 5–6, 18–20, 24–25, 194. 6–10; Decades 1.328–333. 97 HBTS 3. 194.22–24, 196. 31–33, 197. 13–15, 18–19, 30–31, 34–198.1, 13–16, 35–199.4,15–16; Decades 1.333–342. Bullinger maintains that many things in mosaic judicial laws were applicable then, but not now (199.20–24; Decades 1.342). 98 HBTS 3.201.36–202.8, 14–15, 26–203.11, 204.25–30; Decades 1.346–351. Bullinger quotes Deuteronomy 1:16–17, 10: 17–19, 16: 18–20, 2 Chronicles 19: 6–7, Exodus 23: 2–3,6–8, Leviticus 19: 15–16, 35–36, Jeremiah 22:3.

436

Chapter 16: The State

punish offenders for injuring people and for various evil deeds, and to repel the violence of foreign enemies or deter rebellious seditious citizens. Bullinger argues that the command to put up his sword applied to Peter who was called to be a preacher, not a judge or a solider. Moreover, he observes that Romans 12, with the command not to revenge oneself but to leave vengeance to God, is followed by Romans 13, with the statement that in bearing the sword the magistrate is God’s minister and avenger of his wrath. When the magistrate punishes, it is God who punishes. If the magistrate fails to punish, offenders become worse, a view he expresses elsewhere to account for the excesses in Münster. The truth, however, must be known before an offender is punished, and in punishing, judges must use measure and discretion.99 Bullinger considers the question whether it was lawful for a magistrate to punish for contempt of religion and the view of the Manichees and Donatists that no one should be compelled in religion, much less be killed, but that people should be left to make their own judgement. Bullinger responds biblically and also draws on Augustine, using his examples and arguments. Bullinger observes that the magistrate was not to spare false prophets, but to kill those rebelling against God, and quotes nine Old Testament texts in support. His quotations from Augustine include the New Testament references to Ananias and Sapphira and Elymas, the sorcerer. God does through the apostles with a word, what he does through magistrates with the sword. The policy of the early Christian emperors is cited in support of this. When Bullinger describes the punishment offenders should receive, he shows both a degree of moderation and discernment, distinguishing people who lead astray from those led astray, who repent, and distinguishing doctrines which tend to overthrow the republic, from those which do not blaspheme God or subvert the church or the republic. Punishment must accordingly vary from warnings or fines to imprisonment or death.100 Faith, Bullinger allows, is a ‘gift of God’, but God uses means to give it, such as fathers, preachers, or the worship of the church. Once more, Augustine supplies Bullinger’s arguments and biblical references, such as Proverbs 13:23 and 22:14. Augustine recalled that he had opposed compulsion, but that he had changed, as his own city, Hippo, had abandoned Donatism and was converted to catholic unity by fear of imperial laws. Bullinger quotes Augustine’s use of ‘compel them to come in’, with his citing the conversion of Paul as an act of compulsion by Christ. To the objection that the apostles did not require kings to support religion against enemies, Augustine quotes Psalm 2, as Bullinger does elsewhere. At the time of the apostles, corresponding with verse 2, there were no Christian emperors to make laws against ungodliness. But with Christian em99 HBTS 3.204.37–38, 205. 9–28, 33–34, 206. 19–22, 207. 20–22; Decades 1.351–356. 100 HBTS 3.208.12–28, 209. 3–9, 12–21, 24–26, 30–32, 36–37, 210.2–4, 9–14; Decades 1.357–363.

The Papal Context

437

perors able to make such laws, verses 10 and 11 are fulfilled, for kings serve God with fear by punishing what is done against God’s commands. As a man a king serves God by living faithfully, but as a king he serves by laws commanding what is just and forbidding the contrary, as we see with Hezekiah, Josiah, and Nebuchadnezzar. It is preferable for people to be drawn to worship God through teaching than to be compelled by fear of punishment. But that does mean neglecting the second, as many have benefitted by being taught after having been compelled.101 The right of the sword entitles the magistrate also to wage a defensive war or to cut down rebellious or seditious citizens. Again Bullinger quotes Augustine, who maintains that the Baptist’s words to the soldiers and Christ’s commending the centurion’s faith and not commanding him to leave the army show that war can be legitimate. For Bullinger, war is legitimate only for ‘just and necessary causes’, but it is still dangerous. It leads to scarcity, with work abandoned, villages burnt down, people ill-treated, and women and girls violated. He sees war as God’s just judgement. The only remedy is for people to repent.102 For Bullinger, defence is the only proper cause of war. It may be defence of religion or defence of one’s country, wife, or children. The defence of religion is based on God’s command in Deuteronomy 13:13–19, supported by examples from the New Testament and the early church. It means that the magistrate may defend the church when there is the danger of the church’s being drawn by a barbarous prince from the true religion to a false religion. A magistrate may defend his country against the unprovoked attack of a barbarous enemy who rejects equal conditions of peace. He may also come to the aid of a confederate against a tyrant, for an agreement may be made in support of the word of God. Both these cases are also supported by Old Testament precedents. A war is unjust if it is not against enemies and those who are most evil and incurable, but also if it is not undertaken by just means or for matters of the greatest importance. War is a remedy, but it is dangerous. It is a last resort, like cutting off a hand for the sake of the whole body.103 Finally, Bullinger considers the role of Christians as magistrates and subjects. Against Anabaptists, who hold that Christians may not go to law, kill, or engage in revenge or warfare, he maintains that Christians may be magistrates. His fundamental point is that the primary concern of Christians is the well-being and safety of people and that magistrates are ordained by God himself for people’s well-being and safety. Justice and peace are the task of magistrates as they are of

101 HBTS 3.211. 26–29, 212.4–7, 18–21, 30–34, 213. 4–24, 214. 4–8; Decades 1.363–368. 102 HBTS 3.214.20–23, 215.26–29, 36–216. 1, 7–16, 217.4–5; Decades 1.370–375. 103 HBTS 3.219.21–25, 218.15–20, 219.10–13, 17–20, 220.7–12, 15–19; Decades 1.375–380.

438

Chapter 16: The State

Christians, Bullinger supports his case with some of his usual biblical arguments and examples.104 From Old and New Testament and from the early church Bullinger presents the four duties of a subject: to honour, pray for, obey, and pay tribute to the magistrate. Magistrates to be honoured as ‘the deputies and ministers of the eternal God’ through whom God effects people’s well-being. There is, however, the duty of the magistrate to live a life deserving of honour Subjects are to pray for magistrates as directed by Paul and Jeremiah and, as a quotation from Tertullian shows us, was the practice of the early church. Subjects are also to obey princes and magistrates, but the obedience to laws is not as to human laws, but ‘as to the laws of the ministers and deputies of God’. Obedience to government, however, is qualified in the New Testament and also by Polycarp, where it is not contrary to true religion, and by Chrysostom, where it is not ‘contrary to God’s commandments’.105 People are to pay tribute and even their life ‘for the safety of their magistrate and country’. Moreover, people should not begrudge or defraud in their payment. Tribute does not simply maintain the magistrates who give themselves to govern the people, but it also helps the poor and those in distress through some calamity, and goes to the care of public buildings, such as bridges, roads, aqueducts, courts, and market places, as well those employed by government for the community. Those declining to pay subvert the republic.106 For their part magistrates and princes must love their people, and by being frugal and abstaining from luxury, they can keep from immoderate demands. Tribute is not personal, but for the whole republic. God curses tyrants who make extortionate demands. Even if it be not rich, a kingdom or republic is stronger ‘if it is upheld by the love and agreement of prince and people’.107

104 HBTS 3.223.5–11, 19–23, 25–32; Decades 1.385–488. 105 In the context of teaching that resistance to the magistrate is resistance to God, Bullinger quotes ‘We are to obey God rather than man’. He maintains that the magistrate’s authority relates to bodily matters such as public peace and equity, not to the soul or religion. If the magistrate errs in this, God is to be obeyed, not the magistrate. The need to disobey does not justify sedition, of which he accuses the Anabaptists. Bullinger affirms the role of Gideon, Samson, and Moses in liberation as pleasing to God, unlike that of Theudas and Judas the Galilean. He stresses that it is necessary ‘eam habere vocationem, tam denique certam functionem a Deo impositam, quam indubitatam ac firmam illorum fuisse videmus’. (HBTS 6.191. 30–32, 192.6–11, 15–24, 194. 28–195.2) 106 HBTS 3. 225. 17–18, 29–30, 23–25, 226. 2,6,9–17, 26–227.16; Decades 1.389–392. 107 HBTS 3.227.19–31; Decades 1.392–393.

The Papal Context

439

The Second Helvetic Confession The brief chapter on government in The Second Helvetic Confession focusses on the main points in Bullinger’s understanding of it.108 It is instituted by God for its chief duty: securing and preserving the peace and tranquility of the human race. This can be done best by a godfearing magistrate. He should have the chief place in the world and can greatly benefit the church if he is a member or friend. The care of religion belongs especially to him: promoting the preaching of the truth, uprooting superstition and idolatry, defending the church, and allowing nothing to be taught contrary to the word of God. He should govern with good laws made in accordance with God’s word. In judging, he must not accept bribes or respect persons, but protect widows, orphans, and the afflicted, and punish criminals. He is to use the sword against evildoers and suppress stubborn heretics, who do not cease blaspheming God and troubling and destroying the church. War may be waged in the name of God for the safety of his people, where it is necessary and all alternatives have been tried. The magistrate serves God when he does these things in faith.109 Bullinger condemns Anabaptists who deny that Christians may be magistrates or render oaths to them, and that a magistrate may justly put to death or wage war. Subjects are to honour, love, and obey the magistrate, where their commands are just, praying for them and paying all their dues. In the name of God they are to do this and even lay down their life for the safety of the public and the magistrate. Bullinger condemns all those who rebel or despise the magistracy.110 In an earlier chapter he maintains that the church’s wealth should be used for teaching in schools and churches, for church worship and buildings, for teachers, students, and ministers, and especially the poor. It is to be administered by godfearing men. There is, however, at most implicit criticism of government in the statement that any misuse is to be corrected.111

108 Koch (Theologie 361) regards the treatment of government at the end of The Second Helvetic Confession as untypical of Bullinger, as in four works it is treated in the exposition of the law or the ten commandments. That, however, may be expected in works which expound the commandments, as The Decades and The Catechism. It also comes at or very close to the end In Evangelical Churches and Firm Foundation, as it does in Questions about Religion. 109 RB 2/2 144.12–145.12; (Cochrane 299–300). 110 RB 2/2 145. 13–25; Cochrane 300–301. 111 RB 2/2 142.10–24; Cochrane 297–298.

440

Chapter 16: The State

The Prophet Fundamental to Bullinger’s understanding of the state is the role of the prophet. Bullinger uses the word prophet as a general term for the minister, but also with a particular focus. It describes the minister as an expositor, but also for the minister in relation to the political, social, and economic life of the community. It is instructive therefore to see how Bullinger exercised and defended the role of the prophet in relation to government and how he expressed it at certain moments in his ministry. One of most significant moments in Bullinger’s ministry occurred on 13 December 1531. Four days before, the council had appointed Bullinger to succeed Zwingli. After announcing this, the mayor read the fourth article of the Meilen Agreement. It required ministers to be committed to peace and quiet, to preach God’s word in a friendly way, and to stay out of worldly affairs, leaving these things to the council. Bullinger and the other city ministers asked for time to reflect on the article.112 On their return on 13 December, Bullinger gave their reply. It contained two key elements in Bullinger’s understanding and practice of Christian ministry: the duty of the minister to apply the word of God to every person and situation without fear or favour and the subjecting of obedience to government to Christians’ ultimate obedience to God. Bullinger’s address to the council accepted the duty to preach the word of God in accordance with the Old and New Testaments, but he understood this differently from the council.113 He points out that in the struggle between good and evil the word of God can lead to discord (unfriden) and not to quiet. (The council had required the 112 The Reformation 3.291–293. See Heinrich Bullingers Reformationsgeschichte Vols. 1–3 edited by J.J. Hottinger and H.H. Voegeli (Frauenfeld: Ch. Beyel, 1838–1840), abbreviated as The Reformation. For details, see HBBibl 1 nos 751–753. The Zurich countryside held that interference by Zwingli and other ministers in worldly affairs led to the catastrophic defeat at Kappel. The fourth article of the Meilen Agreement between it and the city stated that the council should not allow the ministers to engage in worldly affairs, which are its responsibility, that it should not appoint ministers who were not committed to peace and quiet, and that the minsters should preach God’s word in a Christian, virtuous, and friendly way on the basis of the Old and New Testaments, rebuking vices with scripture, and not scolding them in a malevolent and godless way. 3.287. 113 In 1532, only weeks after affirming the prophetic role of the minister, Bullinger published The Prophet. His description of a prophet begins with his role as an expositor of scripture; but he continues with his role as prophet, opposing error and evil and advancing piety and truth, inculcating justice, faith, and mutual love (The Prophet 33 r 2–11). For Bullinger, the first role leads to the second which is the focus of this section. It also reflects about three quarters of what he says about Zwingli, in whom ‘you find whatever you require in a true prophet of God’ (The Prophet 32 r 7–10). For Zwingli as a prophet, see 32 r–35v. Büsser contrasts the understanding of the prophet as an exegete in 1525 and as an exegete and critic in 1532, although he recognizes the prophetic role of the minister in Bullinger’s early works in the 1520s. See, Fritz Büsser ‘De prophetae officio’ 252 and ‘Bullinger als Prophet’.

The Papal Context

441

ministers to be committed to peace and quiet.) He accepted the requirement to rebuke evil from scripture, but noted the robust words used by the prophets and apostles, such as thief, dog, child of the devil, in denouncing people’s vices, whereas the council had required them to preach in a friendly way. As ministers they must speak as God has called them. Bullinger drew a parallel between the ministers and Old Testament prophets, such as Samuel, Micah, and Jeremiah, who rebuked governments from the word of God both for vices and for the way they governed. Underlying Bullinger’s presentation is his conviction that ‘the word of God will not and shall not be bound’. In keeping with the apostles, they must obey God rather than man, and therefore they cannot preach God’s word with conditions.114 He also observed that preaching the word of God from scripture was in accordance with the oath. The oath was in the council’s Reformation mandate. Moreover – and no doubt contrary to the council’s expectations – Bullinger stated that they must engage with worldly affairs in their preaching, although they would not engage in civil government.115 The following year this prophetic role of the minister was challenged when the council summoned the Zurich ministers to a meeting. On 24 June, the Feast of John the Baptist, Jud preached a sermon, in which he criticized the council. He saw himself as following John’s rebuking of King Herod, and recognized that he could suffer for it. He attacked the council in vigorous terms for accepting the terms of the peace agreement, which described the faith professed by the five forest cantons as ‘the true faith’, and for not protecting the godly Christians in the Mandated Territories (Gemeine Herrschaften). The members of the council are shepherds of God’s flock and it is their duty as shepherds to protect the sheep whom God has entrusted to them. Far from giving their lives for the sheep, some of them had abandoned the sheep to the wolves – indeed, even helped the wolves.116 Some councilors were outraged and wanted the seditious ministers to be punished. Others were concerned that would provoke public hostility and give the impression that popery had been restored. The ministers were accused of being responsible for the war which had led to the terms of the peace agreement and were told that their seditious preaching would not be tolerated. Bullinger replied that not only had he not preached in Zurich, but that in Bremgarten he had

114 ‘Dann Gotswort will und soll nitt gebunden sin. Sunder waz man darinn findt es sye waz es welle, oder wen es ioch antraeffe, soll fry geredt werden’ (The Reformation 3.295). 115 The Reformation 3.287 and 294. ‘Das wir unss ouch nit söllind waelltlichs regiments beladenn: wellend wir gern thuen: so ferr daz unss das nit verspeert werde zepredigen, daz vonn walltlichen regiment begruent ist inn heyliger geschrifft.’ (The Reformation 3.294). 116 The Reformation 3.320–322.

442

Chapter 16: The State

preached for peace and against war. In any case the decision to go to war and to enforce an embargo was made by the council, not by the preachers.117 Bullinger also confronted the council’s demand that the ministers speak soft words by quoting the judgement of Isaiah, ‘For they are a rebellious people, lying children, who will not hear the law of the Lord. They say to the prophets, “You should not see” and to the watchmen, “Do not tell us what is right, but tell us smooth things”.’ He maintained, in effect, that it was not the preachers, but their opponents who were rebellious. If the council sought to control their preaching, the ministers would obey God rather than the council and would accept any suffering involved. He hoped that the council would let them preach the New and Old Testament with understanding, but without restriction (mitt aller bescheidenheit und doch unverbunden).118 The council accepted Bullinger’s firmly, but moderately, expressed demand. They agreed that the ministers preach the truth freely in accordance with their oath. When they had matters which concerned the council, they should raise them first with the council. If the council did not act, they could raise them in the pulpit. The council added such qualifications as preaching in accordance with scripture, for the glory of God, for peace and quiet, and for the welfare of men and women. Bullinger stated that the ministers were content and were grateful to God and to the council. In the meeting Bullinger also defended himself against the charge made by the forest cantons concerning a sermon attacking them and the mass. He argued that he had preached nothing contrary to scripture, to his oath, or to the peace agreement. Bullinger spoke with moderation compared with Jud, but at the same time with determination. Against the charge of being seditious (uffrüriger worten) he stated firmly that that was a question for ‘the whole congregation of the Great Minster’ and perhaps by implication to be decided by them, not the council.119 The same determination to preach the word of God freely and openly characterizes the whole of Bullinger’s ministry. The Zurich mandate in 1532, re117 The Reformation 3.322–323. Bullinger emphasized the evil of war throughout his ministry, while indicating the grounds on which a war may be fought. See, for example, the letter to Marx Rosen in 1525 (HBBW 1.63. 16–64.2) and Two Sermons (23v21–24r14) in 1574. For Two Sermons, see HBBibl 1 no. 582. 118 The Reformation 3.326–328. 119 The Reformation 3.327–329. Biel’s statement (Doorkeepers 98) that in effect the minister is a preacher in public and a prophet in private goes too far. If the council was not responsive, then the minister said publicly to the people what he had said privately to the council. It also fails to recognize that church leaders who are in regular contact with government have always to consider the most effective way to persuade government to act. Bullinger is not alone in insisting on the free preaching of the word. Pestalozzi (Heinrich Bullinger 111) quotes Rudolf Thumysen, minister at the Fraumünster, as telling the council ‘whether it concerns the government or the mass, a person should listen to God’s word, obey it and not dare to master it or bend it to please himself.’

The Papal Context

443

affirming the Reformation, was challenged by the five cantons as breaching the earlier articles of peace. To avoid the risk of war Zurich accepted a further five articles at the Rechtstag in April 1533. At the synod the ministers criticized them and Bullinger charged the council with erring in a matter that concerned the faith and the word of God. He stated that in keeping with their oath, they would continue to preach as they had preached without regard to the articles and would speak of the mass and other things in accordance with God’s word.120 In October 1533, when Bullinger and Jud were called to justify their public attacks on public vices in their preaching, Bullinger indicated that rather than concede the free preaching of the word he would lay down his office.121 Insistence on the freedom to preach the word of God without any unscriptural qualification is a persistent element in his response when his preaching or that of his colleagues were challenged. In 1547 Gwalther published sermons identifying the pope as anti-Christ. In May 1547 Gwalther and Bullinger were called again by the council to defend themselves. Gwalther would not, as they had hoped, agree to refer to the unreformed cantons as godly and Christian, despite the challenges Zurich was getting from them in the confederation. Bullinger defended Gwalther in the context of his insistence on the unrestricted freedom to preach the word and of the authority of God’s word over every human word.122 Freedom to preach the word of God was the subject of Bullinger’s address to the council on 12 October 1549, when the ministers were summoned by the council for preaching on the administration of church goods and foreign affairs. Bullinger responded first by stating that the council demanded that the ministers were to preach only the word of God and not to censure the council, their confederates, or indeed anyone, and that in future the council would not warn, but would act robustly against them. He asserted that he could not allow the church or the office of minister to be damaged in this way and that he would make clear what was or was not authorized in God’s word. He added that in their office the ministers (but also the council) had a higher lord to whom they owed more than any human being.123 Bullinger replied in four points, each supported by a 120 See Pestalozzi, Bullinger 117. 121 See Bächtold, Vor dem Rat 38 note 9. 122 See Bächtold, Vor dem Rat 95–103. In 1547 Gwalther published five sermons which maintained that the pope and his followers fulfilled the biblical references to anti-Christ. He maintained that they were part of his exposition of Matthew. Zurich accepted the varied defence made by Bullinger and Gwalther and did not punish them, despite renewed pressure from the five cantons which saw the sermons as breaking article two of the peace agreement. 123 Hans Ulrich Bächtold et al (eds), Heinrich Bullinger Schriften zum Tage (Zug: Achius Verlag, 2006) (abbreviated as Schriften) 121.4–9, 18–122. 9, 10–15, 23–26, 123, 1–4, 11–14, 19–26, 124. 9–16. There is an edition in modern German in Heinrich Bullinger Schriften Vol. 6 (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2006) (abbreviated as Schriften 6) 269–270.

444

Chapter 16: The State

range of biblical precedents. Against the charge that the minsters had censured a variety of activities, he maintained, ‘when one preaches the word of God, one must censure what the word of God censures. If, however, one may not censure, then one cannot preach the word of God.’ They appealed to God’s word on an alliance with France. the use of church goods, and battles,– to the prophets on alliances, to the apostles on the use of church goods and the care of the poor, and to Christ on battles.124 Bullinger concluded by distinguishing the prophets’ role as citizens and their role as ministers. As citizens they obey, but as ministers they preach ‘the holy, eternal word of God from both testaments to build up the church, according to the needs of the church, sparing no one and neglecting no one’, and if they cannot square it with divine truth they would willingly submit to punishment. They will not, however, abandon those entrusted to them by God for fear of punishment.125 The use of church goods or property by the council was an issue on which Bullinger challenged the council to the end of his life. The council had already in 1529 claimed absolute sovereignty in their use, but consistently Bullinger maintained that they should be used for their original purpose: schools and school children, ministers and their families, the upkeep of church buildings, and the poor.126 He did, however, recognize the needs of the council and the costs involved in its support for the reformation of the church. Nevertheless, the council’s wrong use of the church goods would lead people to say that the council had accepted the gospel in order to lay its hands on church goods.127 A striking confrontation with the council arose in 1555–1556. In a sermon on 22 September, Rudolf Hüsli vigorously criticized the council’s treatment of the poor, calling its members knaves and likening their care of the poor to throwing a piece of bread to a howling dog to keep it quiet. The council imprisoned him and resolved to replace him. In addressing the council on 16 December Bullinger allowed that Hüsli could have used more suitable language, but that nevertheless the council had misused church goods. Bullinger’s lengthy address to the council is forthright and comprehensive. He attacks the treatment of Hüsli, which has created more rebellion than twenty sermons, and also the council’s misuse of church goods, describing the proper 124 Schriften 122. 10–15, 23–26, 123. 1–4, 11–14, 19–26, 124. 9–125.6; Schriften 6.270–272. 125 Schriften 124.17–125. 5; Schriften 6.272. 126 Bächtold notes that the Zurich council claimed unambiguously that it had absolute sovereignty including the administration of church goods (Heinrich Bullinger 144). Bullinger would accept that it is not subject to any other civil authority, such as the emperor, but its sovereignty is not absolute in the fullest sense, as it is subject to God and his word in everything it does, including the administration of church goods. At the beginning of his ministry in Zurich, Bullinger discusses the use of church goods for the poor and for schools in The Prophet. 127 See Bächtold, Vor dem Rat 144–145, 164–165.

The Papal Context

445

use both from the Old and New Testaments and from the early church. Misuse developed in the middle ages, but was corrected by the reformation. The use of church goods was entrusted to the council as a Christian government, but church goods were not the possession of the council. The council promised to use them to the glory of God, for the needy, and for teaching the gospel, and not for anything other than their original purpose. Bullinger agreed that the council had done some good things, but added that they had in different ways neglected students, schools, churches, manses, and the poor. The preachers would not need to preach on church goods, as the council wished, if the council did not misuse them. They had to preach on these matters as God had not withdrawn the command he had given. They were obliged to tell both rich and poor their errors, although it would be easier for them, if they did not censure vices. It was moreover not possible, as had been requested, to run to the council every time there was something which was punishable. The ministers were, however, themselves willing to accept punishment if they did not teach or act in accordance with God’s word. Towards the end Bullinger reminds the council that the preachers, like the council, have their office from God, and are no less responsible to God for the Christian community than the council. Moreover, as Ezekiel affirms, the ministers both at their end and at the last day, have to give an account to God for the council and for the whole community. Bullinger advises the council that the right use of church goods will lead to goodwill, but the wrong use to ill will. Ominously he adds that God would not let misuse of church goods go unpunished.128 Hüsli was also strongly defended by Gwalther at a meeting of the synod. The council nevertheless resisted the protests, declared Hüsli seditious, and robustly defended itself and its use of church goods. Ultimately all Bullinger could do was to hold the council responsible and assert that it must give an account to God. The same note was sounded in his final letter to the council on 2 August 1575, and was implied in The Second Helvetic Confession, which began as a personal testament.129 Gordon’s comment that the council brooked no opposition in the synod on either political or theological questions and that ‘criticism from the lower clergy was viewed as sedition’ could be misinterpreted as implying that there was no opposition and no criticism. There was, of course, both opposition and criticism. Thus, at the synod in 1556, which Gordon cites, Gwalther and others defended Hüsli and attacked the council’s imprisoning of him for his preaching.130 128 Schriften 155–173; Schriften 6.315–332. 129 For an outline of the controversy and its later development, see Bächtold, Vor dem Rat 168– 187. 130 Bruce Gordon, Clerical Discipline, 116.

446

Chapter 16: The State

Pestalozzi notes that Gwalther, with the other deans, challenged the view that a preacher might not preach freely on the use and misuse of church goods. They must preach the word of God. Bullinger supported them, maintaining that ‘the government may not demand, nor the synod allow a limitation of the free preaching of the word of God’.131 The addresses which Bullinger made to the council were a significant way in which Bullinger exercised his prophetic ministry. In some, such as the independence of the Great Minster Foundation, he was successful.132 For Bullinger, neither a successful outcome nor public utterance was a necessary part of prophetic ministry, although the former was its aim. A church leader like a preacher has to consider the most effective way to convince his hearers. For the church leader, his prophetic ministry may be more fruitful if exercised in part privately rather than publicly, especially when he is not limited to speaking privately. Moreover, he and others did so preach as the complaints of the council shows. Related to Bullinger’s insistence on the free preaching of the word is his attack on the censorship of Reformed books. In 1553 censorship prevented the publication of the Church of England’s Catechism and Forty Two Articles. In his own name and Gwalther’s and Wolf ’s, Bullinger addressed the Small Council. He was concerned in part because the book would have silenced those who said that what Zurich believes is found nowhere else. It would show that the crown of England confessed exactly the same faith – and England was a mighty kingdom with very many highly learned people, many excellent bishops, and two universities.133 Bullinger saw the printing of books as ‘a wonderful favour and gift of God’ which enables ordinary people to learn the truth and see the deceit of the pope. Therefore, the noble art of printing, through which God has helped and helps the church, ought not to be forbidden or impeded.’ Books can help people to find the truth and blessedness, and they can preach to people, and encourage and strengthen them, not least where no preachers or preaching are allowed.134 As often in his dealings with the council, Bullinger appeals to the minister’s God-given office. Unlike the council, to which God has given the sword, the ministers have been given no sword, except God’s word. Through it, with their preaching and writings, they are to fight against whatever rebels against God and his word. In this they follow the prophets and apostles who preached and wrote and who spread their writings through the whole world. Had they had printing they would undoubtedly have used it. Bullinger ends after asking why if the 131 See the exposition in Pestalozzi, Heinrich Bullinger 335–340. 132 On 11 March 1532, after learning how Bullinger had saved the Great Minster Foundation, Haller wrote to say that Bullinger was ‘more necessary to Zurich than to Bern’ (HBBW 2.68.5–6). 133 Schriften 143.18–25; Schriften 6.289. 134 Schriften 144.8–13, 145. 9–11, 24–31; Schriften 6.290–292.

The Papal Context

447

pope’s followers can spread untruth, a spreading which Bullinger does not reject, Christians should forbid them to spread divine truth. It is not that Bullinger believes that absolutely anything can be printed, but rather only books in keeping with scripture and which are useful and agreed by the censors.135

135 Schriften 146.8–13, 23–29, 147. 11–23; Schriften 6.292–293.

Chapter 17: The Last Things

For Bullinger, the last things concern our end and the end of all things.1 Our end refers to our death.2 Death is certain, although its time is not, and therefore everyone must prepare for it. The end of all things is also certain, and although for Bullinger its time is uncertain, it will be soon. In support Bullinger points to signs which indicate the imminence of the coming of Christ. He will come to judge the living and the dead leading to the resurrection to eternal life for believers and the condemnation of unbelievers. There are many passing references in Bullinger’s works to these things, but also some focused and extended discussions. The Christian Religion offers the simplest comprehensive exposition of Bullinger’s understanding of the last things.

The Christian Religion Given the relatively slight role for the last things in The Decades, its substantial place in The Christian Religion is surprising. The last of the ten articles, one of which expounds the creed, is dedicated to the last things. It concerns our end and the end of all things. As death is certain, but not its date, we should always hold death before our eyes, especially when we are ill, so that being prepared for death we may come to eternal joy and blessedness with God. In the same way all believers should look for the end of all things and the last judgment of Christ. Although the world regards all this as a fable and although the end cannot be known, yet there are clear and certain prophecies and signs of the judgment and 1 Bullinger engages with both of these throughout his ministry, although not at length in the early years, except for Sleep of the Soul. Thus, a sense of this life as preparation for death is present in a letter of Marx Rosen in 1545 (HBBW 1. 65. 1–4). There is similarly a passing reference to Christ’s coming to judge at the end of Comparison in 1526 (Ciii v2–8). 2 See, for example, Bruce Gordon, ‘“In my Father’s house there are many mansions”: Heinrich Bullinger on Death and the Afterlife’’ in Emily Michelson et al (eds), A Linking of Earth and Heaven (Farnham: Ashgate Press, 2012) 159–173.

450

Chapter 17: The Last Things

the end of all things which must be fulfilled. Believers should therefore raise their heads and watch and pray as they wait for the judgment, the end, and Christ’s eternal kingdom. Bullinger offers scriptural evidence in support of this.3 The exposition of the article is some twenty five times longer than the article. It is essentially a presentation of the biblical evidence for the faith the article affirms. Bullinger maintains that scripture distinguishes spiritual and bodily death, and in particular that with bodily death the soul which is immortal separates from the body. This is supported by Christ’s words on the cross to the murderer and to the Father (Luke 23: 43, 46), Stephen’s prayer (Acts 7:60), and Paul’s desire in Philippians (1:23). With such biblical evidence, there is no need for the support of pagan philosophers.4 Eternal death from which humanity has suffered from the Fall has been done away in Christ. ‘No one can escape death.’ Indeed, as with the example of the rich man in Luke 12, ‘the time is much shorter than you think’. God does not want us to know when, ‘so that we do not delay our amendment to our final breath’, but rather do so every day, indeed every moment. Then we have the confidence that we are in the hands of God. Believers console themselves that Christ feared death, but was strengthened and strengthens us. In the words of Christ we are to ‘watch and pray’.5 We should prepare for death by commending ourselves to God’s protection every day when we rise and every night when we lie down and asking that God will grant us a blessed end. We should not think, ‘I am young’, for we might die tomorrow. Moreover, although not all illnesses are fatal it is well to be prepared for death. ‘ At all times the believer should rather have God and his kingdom than have his own body and life, wife, child, friend, and everything in the world.’ Christ commended his mother to John and we should commend ours to God and those we trust and then not be anxious.6 Central to Bullinger’s care of those who are ill is to point them to the mercy of God in Christ. They are not to go to the priest for confession, but to Christ, the high priest. He alone can absolve us from sins, as so many scriptural passages testify, such as 1 John 1: 7–9, Luke 7: 44–48, 18: 9–14, 2: 1–2. In the creed we affirm our faith in the forgiveness of sins and eternal life, and so we should confidently believe that he thas absolved us from guilt and punishment. Like Luther, but in a different way. Bullinger appeals to baptism, reminding the sick that believers have in their body the sign of the divine covenant and cleansing, and also that in sharing in the eucharist they are members of the church which has been redeemed. After counsel which is theological comes counsel which is practical. 3 The Christian Religion 171 v 1–17. It is entitled ‘Von dem saeligen Tod des Menschen und End aller dingen’. 4 The Christian Religion 171 v 20–173 r 14. 5 The Christian Religion 173 r 15–174 v 9. 6 The Christian Religion 174v 10–176 r 5.

The Christian Religion

451

Recognizing that an illness can be overwhelming, Bullinger recommends crying out with a few short words, such as ‘Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on me.’ If your heart is confused and depressed, cry out notwithstanding: ‘Lord be gracious to me, poor sinner’.7 Bullinger holds before the sick examples from the New Testament but also Christ who is both example and saviour. Following James 5, the sick when gravely ill may send for the minister to instruct, strengthen, and console them? But ministers do not now anoint with oil, as anointing was linked with miraculous healing, and such miracles ceased after the time of the apostles. Bullinger’s call is to forgive and not to show ill will or hatred. As we consider the way Christ responded to the way he was treated when arrested, tried, and crucified, we should strive to follow his example and pray for strength to follow his example of prayer, patience, not complaining, but offering his life for our salvation.8 The third chapter maintains that with their death believers come to eternal life, and in doing so rejects the allegedly intervening stage purgatory for them to atone for their sins and become pure. As in the New Testament there is forgiveness of sins and the assurance that God will not remember our sins, there can be no purgatory and no suffering for sins in any purgatory. Bullinger bases what he says about the salvation of their ancestors on Christ’s testament. He expresses the hope that their believing ancestors despite errors and superstitions abandoned them at the end and affirmed true faith and that through their faith expressed in the creed were saved through the mercy of God in Christ. (Bullinger recalls that God assured Elijah that he was not the only believer but that there were many thousands.) Against those arguing that our faith is imperfect, Bullinger maintains that as with our other defects (prästen) we are made whole by the grace of God. God’s word, moreover, is sure and brief: we are saved by God’s grace in Christ and not through our suffering. The believer will have, indeed already has, eternal life, as John 3: 14–18 and 5: 24 testify, and will not come to judgment or punishment.9 After three chapters on death there are two chapters, only a third as long on the end of all things. First, Bullinger rejects the view that the world will last forever, so that what the bible says about judgment and the end of things is a fable. Bullinger simply opposes the words of the psalmist (Psalm 102: 25–27) and Hebrews 1: 10– 12 to the views of unbelieving heathen with reference also to Isaiah 14, 17, and 66, Malachi 4, Jude, and 2 Peter 3. He supports this, however, by noting that Christ spoke of the end of the world in the same place as the fall of Jerusalem, which the Jews thought impossible. He did this so that without any doubt we would believe that the world would end. The fact that Jesus said that no one knows the end, but 7 The Christian Religion 176 r 6–177 v 13. 8 The Christian Religion 177 v 14–178 v 19. 9 The Christian Religion 178 v 20–180 v 30.

452

Chapter 17: The Last Things

only the Father, does not mean that the end of things is uncertain. Jesus indicated various signs which would precede the end, so that when believers saw these things they would know that the end and the deliverance of believers was near.10 The final chapter maintains that the signs which precede the judgment must be fulfilled and so believers must watch. The call to watch and pray is a constant note in Bullinger. The reason for it here is that God had not given such frequent instruction about signs to the church without good cause. He warned about those falsely claiming to be Christ (Matthew 24, 1 John 2 and 4). Peter describes false prophets (2 Peter 2). Paul prophesies that in the last times people would not continue in the gospel truth to which scripture testifies, but fall away to human teaching (2 Timothy 3, 4). He also said that some would abandon the faith and forbid marriage and avoid food which God has given to be enjoyed with thanksgiving (1Timothy 4).11 Paul also writes that Christ will not come to judge before antichrist comes and reigns. Jerome and other early Christian doctors interpreted this of the Roman emperor sitting in the temple and declaring himself to be God. Bullinger develops this in relation to the increasing power of the pope in Rome, sitting in the temple (that is the church), as if God. The popes claim to be ‘vicars of Jesus Christ’, head of the church, high priests, and universal pastors to whom complete power in heaven and on earth, in matters spiritual and temporal has been given. Bullinger sees the fulfilment of Paul’s prophecy and points the reader to Daniel 7, 8, 11, Zachariah 11, and the Revelation of St John.12 Christ also says that before the judgment the world will be corrupt, devoid of faith and love, and full of injustice, scorning all the warnings and teaching of God’s word. It is like it was at the time of Noah and Lot until God’s judgment overtook them. Finally, Bullinger refers briefly to the end of the world and what the end of all things will be. He cites a range of passages about judgment and the destruction of evil (Revelation 19, 1 Thessalonians 5, 2 Thessalonians 1, and 2 Peter 3) and the resurrection of the dead (1 Thessalonians 4, Matthew 25, 1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 20). This leads to the eternal damnation of unbelievers and the eternal joy and blessedness of believers, of which Christ, his prophets and apostles said a lot.13 Before the quotation of Revelation 14: 6–7 and following verses, Bullinger concludes with an exhortation. He calls on the readers and himself to watch and pray ‘so that we may attain such blessedness’, be constant in faith in Christ, and

10 11 12 13

The Christian Religion 181 r 1 – v 22. The Christian Religion 181 v 23–182 v 4. The Christian Religion 182 v 5–183 r 25. The Christian Religion 183 r 26–184 r 2.

The Christian Religion

453

purify ourselves from all bodily and spiritual pollution. ‘Give us grace, Lord Jesus Christ, strengthen and protect us, come and deliver us. Amen.’14 In his exposition of the creed in article 6, Bullinger refers to eternal life in relation to Christ’s death and resurrection. Through them Christ overcame ‘sin… the devil, death and hell’. He has brought us life so that, even if we must die, we do not die an eternal death, but live eternal life. Bullinger links eternal life to the ascension in the next chapter, when he says that Christ ascended and sits at God’s right hand so that we may not doubt our salvation, but know that eternal life has been granted to us by Christ. He has, according to John 14, gone to prepare a place for us, so that we may be where he is.15 In expounding article 7 on Final Judgment, Bullinger maintains that God made Christ redeemer, mediator, and saviour, while the world remains, but that at the end of the world he has appointed him as judge of those still living and those who have died. He will save and reward those who believed in him and damn eternally unbelievers; so that they must experience him as judge who do not wish to recognize him as the sole redeemer and mediator (John 3: 18). This clause demonstrates three things: that Christ is the true lord of heaven, that the world will end, and that he will reward the good and punish the evil.16 The eleventh and twelfth articles affirm the resurrection of the flesh and the life everlasting. Bullinger regards the restoration of the whole person as following sanctification and purification, for the whole person must be saved. Just as God created everything out of nothing, and created man from the dust of the earth, so at the last day he can restore the body which has become ashes or indeed nothing. The body will then live for ever. ‘And this is also our consolation and hope which will never fail us.’ ‘We can believe this confidently’ as Christ rose from thee dead; he showed himself to his disciples that he was not a spirit, but flesh and bone, and stood there in his true body. Bullinger relates our future resurrection to Christ’s on the basis of Paul’s letters to Corinth and Philippi. They maintain that as ‘members of Christ’ we shall be raised from the dead in the same form as Christ our head’ (1 Corinthians 15: 22–23), ‘we are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus will be revealed in our mortal flesh’ (2 Corinthians 14: 11), and that Christ ‘will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body’ (Philippians 3: 20–21). In the resurrection our bodies will be free of weakness and temptation.17

14 The Christian Religion 184 r 2–20. 15 The Christian Religion 94 v 21–95 r 6, 95 r 19- v7, 21–96r 12. Bullinger also refers to 1 Thessalonians 4:17 and Ephesians 2: 4–6. 16 The Christian Religion 96 r 15-v9. Typically, Bullinger refers to a range of supportive biblical testimonies. 17 The Christian Religion 101 v 12–102 v8.

454

Chapter 17: The Last Things

The twelfth article asserts eternal life. Bullinger repeats his belief in the immortality of the soul, as one can see from John 5 and the stories of Lazarus and the murderer on the cross. With the last judgment eternal life is given of the body as well. Eternal life which is all joy and desire cannot be expressed in words. Eternal punishment is mentioned in scripture but not in the creed, but believers are delivered from eternal punishment and damnation and have no dealings with the devil and hell.18

The Sleep of the Soul in the 1520s and 1530s Bullinger was consulted by others on theological issues not only after he had succeeded Zwingli in Zurich, but also when he was teaching in Kappel. In 1526 he wrote to Paul Beck at his request on whether the soul sleeps after death. His letter expounds the assertion that the soul, separated from the body, does not sleep, but lives with Christ in heaven.19 Bullinger begins with the nature of the soul, where he offers a biblical focus for some philosophical comments on the soul by relating them to ‘the living God by whose power ‘we live, move, and are’.20 After the philosophical references in the opening paragraphs, the rest of the letter is strongly biblical, beginning with the reply that Jesus made to those not believing in resurrection: ‘God is not the God of the dead but of the living’. This is followed by more explicit statements about Christ as well as by Christ and his gift of eternal life. ‘This is the will of him who sent me: that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life and I will raise him at the last day…’ Thus, eternal life begins with the death of the body and the raising is the raising of the body which will take place on the day of judgment. This testimony is supported by the word to Matthew, ‘I am the resurrection and the life. All who believe in me, even if they die; will live; and all who live and believe in me have eternal life.’ These passages show that believers do not sleep, but live.21 18 The Christian Religion 102 v 9–103 r 5. 19 HBTS 2 128. 8–12. When he considered the article on purgatory in his Exposition of the Articles in 1523, Zwingli also challenged the view that following physical death both body and soul sleep until the last judgment. He regards references to sleep, as 1 Thessalonians 4:13–15, as applying only to the body. He argues this on the basis of passages which show that salvation begins immediately after death. They include Matthew 22:32, Luke 23: 43, Philippians 1:23, and 2 Corinthians 5:4–6, which are used by Bullinger in 1526. The word to the thief on the cross provides Zwingli with a double testimony – against the sleep of the soul and against purgatory. Unlike Bullinger in this examination of 1 Peter 3:18–20, Zwingli argues that the passage shows not just that those before Christ were alive and not asleep but also how much more is that the case with believers (Z II 414–434). 20 ‘cum ipsissima sit vita sese perpetua movens inspirata spiritu atque flatu dei vivificatoris….’ ‘Anima porro perpetua est entelechia.’ HBTS 2.128 24–129. 1,8. 21 HBTS 2. 129. 9–130.4.

The Christian Religion

455

Bullinger buttresses this statement by reference to passages that affirm that we shall be with Christ (John 12: 26, 17:24, 14:2 and 2 Timothy 1:11–12), but also to the ascension. After death Christ rose and ascended into heaven which since the fall of Adam had been closed. As Paul observed, quoting Psalm 68, when Christ ascended he led captivity captive and gave gifts to humankind, notably the Spirit as a first fruit. Bullinger sees the fruit of Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension, in abundant life and becoming co-heirs of Christ. Bullinger adds to Paul’s statements in 2 Corinthians 5 and Philippians 1:21–23, the example of early Christians such as the thief on the cross and Stephen, quoting Christ’s words to the thief and Stephen’s prayer to God.22 To those opponents who appeal to the story of Lazarus and its references to Abraham’s bosom, Bullinger responds with a reminder of the testament made with Abraham. Abraham’s bosom is not a hall of sleep, but the eternal life which is bestowed on those who through faith by virtue of the statement with faithful Abraham. Moreover, the statement that Lazarus enjoyed consolation shows that the soul was not sleeping and Bullinger observes that Abraham’s bosom is not the same as the Elysian field of the Gentiles.23 Towards the end of 1526 Bullinger wrote to Rudolf Weingartner on Christ’s descent into hell, again in response to an enquiry. On this occasion Bullinger consulted Zwingli and Bullinger’s reply reflects Zwingli’s exposition of the subject.24 The descent was not a literal descent but a way of saying that Christ’s redemption reached those who had died from the beginning of the world and were awaiting the coming of the Messiah.25 Hell in this context is not a place for the punishment of the impious. Again Bullinger discusses Abraham’s bosom, a place for the souls of believers awaiting the coming of Christ. Although by implication this contradicts belief in purgatory, Bullinger does not comment on this or on the sleep of the soul. He is content to affirm that it is eternal life ‘which by virtue of the testament is for those who through faith are in the testament with faithful Abraham’.26 In the first book of Anabaptist Teaching in 1531 Bullinger extends his consideration of the sleep of the soul. The use of dialogue leads to an unfolding of his various arguments, on which Bullinger maintains that the doctrine is a denial of the gospel. Simon, in the role of an Anabaptist argues on the basis of Luke 16 (Lazarus), 1 Thessalonians 4: 13–17, Acts 7: 54–60 (Stephen), 2 Timothy 4:8, Philippians 1:23, and 1 John 3:2. Judgment comes at the end. Bullinger in the role 22 HBTS 2. 130. 5–131.24. 23 HBTS 1. 131. 25–132–20. As elsewhere, Bullinger notes the need to understand tropes for the interpretation of scripture. The word sleep can be used as a trope for death. 24 See Zwingli’s letter to Haller (Z VIII 759–762). 25 HBTS 2. 174 17–23, 177. 1–3, 179. 5–8. 26 HBTS 2. 179. 5–24.

456

Chapter 17: The Last Things

of Joiada replies that if our soul sleeps after death then Christ’s soul sleeps and that nullifies the resurrection. As Christ’s resurrection proves eternal life, such life cannot be eternal if the soul sleeps and eternal life does not begin before the judgment. Then both the gospel and the resurrection are nullified.27 In a detailed dialogue concerning Abraham’s bosom, Bullinger argues in the light of John 14 that the decisive moment is the resurrection when Christ refers to there being many rooms and to Christ’s going to prepare a place for the disciples. He combines this with Christ’s assurance that the disciples will be where he is – and Simon has already agreed that Christ is in heaven. As he also agrees that with his death Christ has opened heaven, Bullinger asks how it can be open if believers do not enter it, especially given Paul’ statement, ‘I desire to die and be with Christ’ and Peter’s words about preaching to the dead. In effect the power of Christ’s death, which is preached in the gospel, has become fruitful for them. Through this their souls were received by God, but their bodies would like those of everyone else be judged at the last day. These arguments persuaded Simon that God had received into heaven those also had been in Abraham’s bosom, and he proceeds to ask about the use of the term ‘sleep’.28 Joiada argues that sleep is used in scripture for dying bodily (and being buried), corresponding with the reference to the resurrection of the body. That the soul does not sleep is shown by Stephen’s commending his soul to God and then dying bodily. There is a comparison with the way that when Christ died the divinity does not die. The statement that a person dies, when in fact only the body and not the soul dies, is explained by the use of synecdoche.29 Simon asks about Paul’s maintaining that on that day God would give him the crown of righteousness. Joiada replies by indicating that the reference can be to the last day, as in 1 Corinthians 3, but also to the last day in a person’s life as in John 6. This is how Paul used the word in 2 Timothy 4: 6–8 when he refers to being offered up, that is dying. The references to the last day in 1 John and Philippians are to the last judgment, but they do not support the sleep of the soul but concern rather the body and its resurrection.30 Bullinger’s final argument is not a response to a point raised by Simon, but concerns the nature of the soul. Simon agrees that the soul is a spirit and not flesh and is not capable of hunger, tiredness, sickness, or death. When the body sleeps, the soul does not sleep, as is evident in the function of breathing, remembering, and understanding, and it clearly does not sleep when the body is awake. Bullinger points to a parallel in fire. When it begins, it cannot cease to burn without 27 Anabaptist Teaching 38r 26–39 r 14. 28 Anabaptist Teaching 39 r 14–40 v 24. In support, Bullinger refers to Lazarus’ being able to feel joy (Luke 16: 19–31) and to Matthew 8: 11–12 (40 r 28 – v 15). 29 Anabaptist Teaching 40 v 24–41 r 22. 30 Anabaptist Teaching 41 r 23–42 r 13.

The Christian Religion

457

dying altogether. Simon responds that he understands, but that he would prefer to have an argument from scripture than from Greek philosophy. Bullinger therefore adduces Jesus’ words in Matthew to show that since the bodies of the patriarchs were dead and buried it is their souls which were not dead. He accuses the Anabaptists of being Sadducees, and like the Manichaeans. Bullinger challenges Simon’s understanding paradise as Abraham’s bosom in which the soul sleeps. If it were, then Christ would be sleeping, since the thief on the cross was going to be with him in paradise. In a final attack on Anabaptist obstinacy, Bullinger cites John 5: 24 that those who hear him and believe in the one who sent him have eternal life. He supports that by reference to John 11, 1 Corinthians 15, and 2 Corinthians 5, and Simon accepts that that the soul does not sleep.31

Antichrist in the 1530s Bullinger entered into a tradition of interpretation which understood the antichrist as the pope or the papacy. The issue engaged him throughout his ministry, especially in the early years in his commentaries on 2 Thessalonians and1 John, and before them in his lectures in Kappel.32 He follows Luther’s identification of the antichrist with the papacy, but also on occasion with Islam. In 1 John in 1532 Bullinger says that in 1 John 2: 18–19, John distinguishes between antichrist and antichrists. Antichrist is that conspicuous enemy of Christ which we see in Islam (Turkish rule) and the papacy. In them the power, glory, and majesty of Christ are blasphemed, scorned, and destroyed beyond measure. Antichrist are those who impose ungodly doctrine on simple people such as Valentinus, Marcion, Arius, and Pelagius.33 There were others such as Simon Magus, Menander, and Basilides, who were regarded by their followers as in the place of God and those who denied either the divinity or humanity of Christ. For John they are those who went from them, and from faith and true religion, and left the church. This happened because in reality they never believed despite having the name of Christians.34 31 Anabaptist Teaching 42 r 15–44 v 12. 32 See the extensive study by Christian Moser ‘“Papam esse Antichristum” Grundzüge von Heinrich Bullingers Antichristkonzeption’ in ZWA XXX (2003) 65–101. For possible contemporary and other influences on him, see especially 69–70, 73–74, 82–83. For the antichrist in Bullinger’s commentaries on Daniel and the Apocalypse, see A. Garcia Archilla ‘Truth in History’, chapter 4 (201–274). 33 Moser notes that in his lectures on Thessalonians in the 1520s Bullinger adds the name of Eck (’Papam’ 71) .In commenting on 2: 22–23 Bullinger defines antichrist as an enemy of God with anti as an adversative particle. They despise or profane the Son. 34 1 John 20 v 7–21 r 23. In commenting on 2: 22–23, Bullinger defines antichrist as an enemy of God with anti as an adversative particle. They despise or profane the Son.

458

Chapter 17: The Last Things

Bullinger’s commentary on Thessalonians in 1536 includes his first detailed published discussion of antichrist, although he had considered it when he lectured on Thessalonians a decade earlier in Kappel.35 In 1536, in the light of Daniel and Paul, he interprets antichrist first as Mohammed in the east and then as the Bishop of Rome in the west. Typically, his exposition is historical as well as theological. He writes briefly on Muhammad but then at much greater length on the Bishops of Rome, their claims, and their growing exercise of power through the middle ages.36 These are expressed, for example, in the claim to primacy37 and in particular the claims of Boniface III and Benedict II.38 Defining antichrist as being opposed to Christ, Bullinger describes the ways in which Muhammad and the papacy are opposed to the nature, life, teaching, and laws of Christ. He contrasts the example of Muhammad’s use of arms, his forbidding of wine and other food, and his practice of circumcision and polygamy, with Christ’s message of peace, his teaching that what goes into people does not pollute them, and his abrogating circumcision and polygamy. Bullinger states, ‘In brief, all the life and teaching, all the laws, institutions, and deeds of Muhammad are opposed to Christ.’39 Bullinger then elaborates the opposition between Christ and the papacy. On the one hand, Christ gave us in the prophets and apostles the perfect teaching which alone is sufficient for our salvation. On the other hand, the pope proclaims a host of traditions of the fathers without which no one is saved, as if the saints who lacked them perished. Bullinger presents a range of issues in which the teaching of the pope and his words and deeds contrast with those of Christ and the apostles. On the one side, we have the adoration and invocation of God alone, Christ as the only priest and sacrifice, who alone forgives sins, the grace of God, justification by faith, the two sacraments, faith, love and humility, and so on. On the other side, we have the intercession and veneration of the saints, daily sacrifices for the living and the dead, auricular confession, indulgence, the power of

35 HBTS 8. 1–105, in particular 2 Thessalonians 2:2. 2 Thessalonians was translated into English in 1538, see HBBibl 1 no. 82. Moser observes ‘Die Eckpfeiler von Bullingers Antichristverstandnis Standen somit schon in seinen Kappeler Lehrjahren fest’, as well as noting dependence on Luther (’Papam’ 73). 36 ‘…hoc est per antichristum non unicum aliquem hominem intellexerit, sed regnum totum et corpus universum,quod contra Christum legibus, institutis, moribus et viribus pugnaturum sit.’ HBTS 8.64.20–22. 37 ‘ … conclusere quidam Romanam sedem omnium ecclesiarum esse primam et Romanum episcopum primarium esse omnium antistitum praesulem. Vides et hic quomodo cornu illud parvulum sese coeperit erigere.’ HBTS 8.66. 25–28, compare 76. 2–4. 38 HBTS 8. 64. 29–66.11, 66. 7–79.10. There are details such as the way the papal tiara is symbolised in the three horns (74. 14–17). 39 HBTS 8. 79. 11–24.

The Christian Religion

459

the keys, the merits of the saints, ceremonies and superstitions, ruling and overruling, the adornment of gold, jewels, a tiara, and so on.40 Bullinger expounds the reference to exalting oneself above all that is called God or that is worshipped in 2 Thessalonians 2: 4 to Mohammed and the papacy. The former scorns the holy trinity, denies the divinity of Christ, and declares his law to be more perfect than the law given by Moses and Christ. Bullinger illustrates the relation of this text to the papacy at greater length. He mentions papal pomp and pride, but emphasizes much more papal claims, such as the claim to be vicar of Christ and head of the church, to have plenary power in heaven and earth an purgatory, to confer plenary remission of sins, to determine the interpretation of the scriptures, and not to be able to err. His laws are to be kept as God’s law; he is the sole judge of all and is himself to be judged by no one. In support of his charge that the pope usurps God’s power and gives himself out to be God, Bullinger cites or refers to the relevant passages in canon law including statements that a council is not able to judge the pope and that the pope is neither God nor man. Bullinger refers also to Mohammed’s usurping of God’s place.41 For Bullinger, antichrist has his day, but in the light of 2 Thessalonians 2: 6–8 is removed and destroyed by the Lord, ‘by the spirit of his mouth’ and ‘by the brightness of his coming’. It does not happen by the force of arms but rather by the power of God, by the word of God. For the word of God is that strong sword, by which the head of Goliath was cut off. ‘Where by God’s goodness the gospel light, that is of the word of the Lord dawns, straightway the clouds of that imposter part.’ Antichrist will not be abolished before the judgment by force of arms, ‘but rather the battle of Christ and antichrist will last till the end’.42

Instruction for the Sick (1535) Bullinger deals at length with sickness and death in 1535. Th occurrence of the plague may have stimulated his writing Instruction for the Sick, which, as its full title states, considers how one should prepare oneself for death.43 In the preface he expounded his concern that Christians should not be so sensitive that they do 40 HBTS 8.79. 24–80.22. 41 HBTS 8.81. 22–84. 16, especially 82. 6–9, 14–25, 83. 25–26, 84. 7–9. Bullinger then relates this to Daniel 7 and 11. Bullinger ends this exposition of this section with a quotation from Jerome (86. 27–87.5). 42 HBTS 8.88. 13–89.21, especially 88. 22–27, 89. 10–12. He cites Daniel 7: 9, 11, 13, Matthew 24:27, and Mark 13:26. 43 Death was more often sudden and unexpected, in the sixteenth century, not least with the plague. In 1535 the plague struck Zurich, including Bullinger’s family. Here again he refers to God as the Lord of death and life. (HBBW 5. 338. 23–26

460

Chapter 17: The Last Things

not want to speak or hear anything about death. He is anxious for them not to delay preparation to the last moment, thinking that there is time. Indeed, ‘the whole life of the Christian should be a consideration of death and a preparation for that life [which follows death]’.44 The instruction begins with the affirmation that ‘nothing happens without the power and will of God’. This includes ‘death and life, sickness and health, joy and sorrow’. Moreover, God knows and understands the needs and concerns of the sick. The bible shows many causes of sickness, for example, in the case of Job it is to show his patience and constancy, but in other cases it is to punish or discipline or indeed to reward someone. The fact that everything is within the will of God does not mean that Christians must be passive and may not visit a doctor and use medicine, for God uses means. He gives the example of Isaiah (Isaiah 38:21 and 2 Kings 20:7) in support.45 The positive attitude to this life is reflected in Bullinger’s referring to its beauty, joy, and pleasure, although he qualifies this by saying that we should not grieve for them as everything is short and inconstant. When sick, people should not be too concerned about wives or children, wealth or poverty. They are, however, to make a will to care for those they leave behind. In this they follow the example of Paul (1 Timothy 5:8), Isaiah (Isaiah 38: 1), and Christ (John 19: 25–27). This can prevent disputes afterwards. The poor should follow the example of Tobit in what they say and do. Bullinger warns against Roman superstition and being persuaded to give money to monks and priests for vigils and images, so depriving their heirs and the needy.46 When the sick have put temporal concerns behind them and entrusted themselves to God, they need to focus on the salvation obtained by Christ. For those who realise that they are sinners and fear rejection by God, the gospel offers forgiveness in Christ. This is the heart of Bullinger’s instruction, and it is contrasted with what people had been taught about indulgences and purgatory. Nothing we do can merit forgiveness, which comes ‘only through the grace of God

44 HBTS 5. 192. 3–4, 192. 19–24. In his article ‘Welchen Tod sterben wir? – Heinrich Bullingers Bericht der Kranken (1535)’ in ZWA 39 (2002) 55–68, Andreas Mühling sets Bullinger’s work in the context of comparable medieval works. He sees their concern as ‘dem Tod aktiv in festen Gemeinschaftsformen zu begegnen, ihn gleichsam als integrativen Bestandteil des Lebens einzubinden’. By contrast, the thread running through Bullinger is the thought that for the believer ‘durch Christus nicht zum Leben, sondern zu seiner Endlichkeit gehört’. ‘Without fellowship with Christ we die an “eternal” death’ (68). Mühling notes that Bullinger dealt with many of the topics dealt with in medieval literature concerned with sickness and death (60–64) but also made his own contribution in its focus on Christ and justification by faith (64–68). 45 HBTS 5. 194. 13–19. 195. 9–25, 198. 2–4, 21–28. It is 2 Kings 20:7 not 10:7. 46 HBTS 5.201. 17–18, 204. 12–13, 2–5. 11–35., 206. 32–35.

The Christian Religion

461

and through true faith in Christ’.47 Sacramental confession which is linked with compulsion and penance is rejected. Confession is to be made to God for God alone through Christ can forgive sins. Moreover, such confession from the heart is necessary for salvation. Christians may, however, consult those who are instructed in God’s word. Similarly the Roman practice of mass for the sick and extreme unction are rejected, as also invoking the prayers of the saints, as lacking a basis in God’s word. Bullinger can however appeal to sharing in the sacrament as a source of forgiveness and eternal life. The dying do it, however, by receiving the sacrament with the congregation which is a body of Christ. They should believe that through the body and blood they are redeemed from death and have become members of the body of Christ which will never be separated from Christ.48 The focus on Christ is not only on his death for our sins but also on his resurrection and ascension, leading to our resurrection and life – and beyond that on his example. Without the resurrection we would not think that there was anything after death. Christ taught that our bodies would rise at the last day and would inherit eternal life. Our souls do not die – those of the godly come to life, those of the godless come to punishment and condemnation. These latter do not cease. Unlike the godly, however, they do not experience life and joy but eternal sorrow and punishment. The sick should constantly keep in mind Christ’s promise of eternal life to those who believe in him (John 11: 25–26).49 From the resurrection of Christ we learn that our bodies and souls do not cease at death, even though our flesh decays. We recognize through his ascension that our souls and bodies attain to the place of eternal joy and blessedness – to be wholly with God (John 17:24). This promise should console the hearts of the sick and inflame in them ‘a deep love of and desire for eternal glory and blessedness’.50 Bullinger has earlier described death ‘as a road from prison to freedom … from death to life’.51 Bullinger holds the example of Christ before the sick as well as his death, resurrection, and ascension. ‘In the dying of Christ we have a perfect example of how we should prepare ourselves for death.’ Beginning with the institution of the Lord’s Supper, Bullinger draws lessons for the Christian. He shows how the variety of problems and difficulties of the sick are experienced by Christ. He knew 47 HBTS 5.208. 3–19, 211. 48 HBTS 5. 221. 1–20, 221.31–222. 10, with the analogy of head and members, Bullinger relates our resurrection and ascension to Christ’s (HBTS 8. 37. 23–32). 49 HBTS 5.215. 24–216. 15, 216.22–32, 218. 13–17. Bullinger offers a range of biblical testimonies from Job (19: 25–27) and Daniel (12:2) and 1 Corinthians 15 and John 11 where the raising of Lazarus shows that our faith in the bodily resurrection is true (218.9–13). 50 HBTS 2. 218. 26–219.2. 51 HBTS 5.201.10–15.

462

Chapter 17: The Last Things

sorrow, anxiety, and distress, and even sweated blood (Matthew 26: 38, Luke 22:44). As Christ took refuge in prayer, we should not be overcome by fear but call on God without ceasing.52 Bullinger draws lessons for the sick from each of the words of Christ on the cross: to forgive one’s enemies and pray for them; to make provision for those entrusted to us; like Christ to pray in agony to God not just the opening words of Psalm 22 but also verses 2, 4, and 5; and finally to commend one’s soul to God through Christ and not to the saints or the angels.53 Bullinger’s pastoral sensitivity is especially evident in a chapter on sudden death and suicide, a chapter which many had asked him to write. In both situations Bullinger identifies two distinct groups: in the first case believers and unbelievers, in the second those who are in possession of their faculties and those who are not. Typically, Bullinger sees believers as those who watch constantly, not knowing at what hour the master will come. (Matthew 24:42). They ‘prepare themselves daily for death’. For unbelievers the words of Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5:3 apply.54 With suicide Bullinger begins with those whose minds are sound, but who, governed by impatience, greed, and weariness of life, do not turn to God but kill themselves in their despair. They are, he says, the most wretched people in the world, having shown that they have no faith or hope in God. By contrast, those who end their own lives through sickness and madness must be protected and be given medical care. We are to pray God to have mercy on them and we are not to condemn them, even when they speak improperly of God. Those who do not care for their own, so that they take their life, are more guilty than those who take their own life, but who do not know what they are doing. God will not hold this against them. At the same time Bullinger urges people while they are of sound mind to put their affairs in order with God, so that if their minds are later disturbed their salvation will not be affected.55 Bullinger’ concern for everyone to prepare for death leads him to dedicate the next and final chapter to criminals facing the death penalty. After insisting that their instruction and consolation must be determined by the person and circumstances. Bullinger puts in the first place persuading the person not to doubt God’s grace. Christ was gracious to the murderer but he also allowed him to hang on the cross because of his crime. God’s purpose is for him to recognize what he has done, accept his punishment, and reflect that God punishes him here in order not to condemn him eternally hereafter. He should be exhorted to be patient, not to be too fearful of death. When the condemned are bound and led to the place of 52 53 54 55

HBTS 5. 228. 11–13, 229.1–14. HBTS 5.230. 16–26, 230. 37–231. 7, 26–30. The verse references in the German text are 2–3, 5–6. HBTS 5.235. 4–25. HBTS 5. 235. 26–236.17.

The Christian Religion

463

execution, they should be reminded that Christ was bound and had to carry his cross to the place of execution. They should confess their sins, trust in Christ, forgive everyone and warn others by their example. At the place of execution they should be urged privately or publicly to confess any other offences for which other people could be punished, showing an approach that is theological as well as pastoral. Bullinger maintains that their instruction should include the articles of the creed and the Lord’s Prayer.56

Matthew (1542) After a brief exposition of Matthew 28, Bullinger writes at some length on the resurrection and ascension of Christ, ‘the resurrection of our bodies, the damnation of the ungodly, the hope and eternal life of the blessed.’57 He later speaks of there being no article on which the apostles were more fervent than the resurrection of the dead.58 What Bullinger has to say about the future life is rooted in the resurrection of Christ. It is, as the marginal note puts it, the fruit of Christ’s resurrection. If Christ had been overcome by death, he could not have delivered us from death. ‘Therefore through death, death is disarmed and through resurrection life is restored.’ Bullinger adds that ‘not only is life restored, but also the immortality of the soul is grounded in the resurrection itself of the Lord’, quoting in support John 11: 25–26.59 Later in a quotation from Augustine, he refers to the death of the soul as apostacy from God, as being destitute of eternal (beata) life, while adding Augustine’s words that it is immortal in that it does not cease to live, however miserable its life is. This coheres with Christ’s maintaining that there is one who destroys body and soul in hell. In Bullinger’s understanding of hell, the soul suffers with the body.60 Bullinger expounds the resurrection of the body or the flesh before refuting those who deny the doctrine. He notes that the bible speaks of the resurrection of the dead, indicating that this must refer to the body and the flesh and not the soul 56 HBTS 5. 236. 18–237.24. 57 Matthew 267 r 9–14. Matthew 28 is expounded in Matthew (264 r- 267 r 8) and is followed by his reflection on it (267 r 9–280r). The latter was translated into English by Myles Coverdale as The Hope of the Faithful and republished by the Parker Society in 1846 (HBBibl 2 no 152). Bullinger’s intention in this excursus is to be understood by everyone and to edify the faithful (267 r 14–16). 58 Matthew 272 v 24–26 59 Matthew 268 r 30–32, 39–40, 46–50. From passages, such as John 14: 2–3, Christ’s death and ascension as well as his resurrection are related to the place of believers with God in heaven (270 r 23–24). 60 Matthew 276 r 45–50, v 21–25, 27–29.

464

Chapter 17: The Last Things

or the spirit. He argues from the fathers that the body is the flesh before citing Paul’s statements, while pointing to the flesh, that this corruptible must put on incorruption.61 This leads Bullinger to quote a range of biblical testimonies to the resurrection of the body, such as Job 19, Isaiah 26, Ezekiel 3, John 5 and 11, and 2 Corinthians 4, followed by John of Damascus.62 Bullinger draws on scripture, especially Matthew 24, 1 Thessalonians 4, and 1 Corinthians 15, in describing the judgment on the last day. Both those who have died and those still alive will meet the Lord and be judged swiftly. They will be called into heaven or thrust into hell.63 When our bodies are raised, they are transformed, as Paul says, to be like Christ’s glorious body (Philippians 3: 20–21). This means that it is a body not a spirit (Luke 24: 37–39). Transfiguration or glorification means not that the body is annihilated, but that it is freed from its weaknesses. These include sickness, hunger, pain, fear, wrath, and finally death. (Bullinger holds that the risen Christ ate and drank not because he needed to, but to prove the true resurrection of the body.) It is clothed with cleanness, purity, joy, rest, and finally the glory of eternal life. Paul refers to it as a spiritual body, meaning that it lives from the Spirit of Christ, and that it is incorruptible, indissoluble, and immortal.64 After affirming the resurrection of the body from scripture and the fathers, Bullinger considers errors related to it. He mentions a dozen groups, cited by the fathers, such as the Manichaeans and the Marcionites – some denying, for example, the resurrection of the body as they deny that Christ came in the flesh, some having a very physical view of the resurrection, some like Origen imagining a body not very different from a spirit.65 Bullinger draws on Jerome’s reply to Origen. He insisted that the risen Christ did indeed walk, eat, and speak, but his vanishing from their sight is ascribed to the power of God not to his having a false or fantasy body. Jerome strongly defends the physical character of the resurrected body of Christ and therefore of the resurrected bodies of Christians. He explains elements which seem to contradict a human body by reference to the power of God as with Christ’s entering and leaving when the doors were shut. Moreover, the fact that the disciples did not recognize Christ, if his body was as it had been before, is explained by scripture itself when it says that their eyes were kept from recognizing him and then were opened so that they did (Luke 24:16,31).66

61 62 63 64 65

Matthew 271 v 12–23. Matthew 271 v 38–272 v 49. Matthew 272 v 51–273 r 9. Matthew 273 r 35–43, r 50- v1, 15–18, 21–26, 37–39, 274 r 1–2. Bullinger describes errors in relation to the doctrine and the replies of Jerome and Augustine (Matthew 274 r 27–275 r 4). 66 Matthew 273 v 31–39.

The Christian Religion

465

Bullinger turns from Jerome to Augustine. When he says that it shall not be flesh and blood but a heavenly body, he means no corruption of the flesh and blood. For him it is a spiritual body, not in the sense that it ceases to be a body, but that ‘they subsist by the Spirit who gives life’.67 Judgment leads to the damnation of unbelievers and the salvation of believers. Bullinger begins with unbelievers, affirming first that the bodies of unbelievers rise. Typically, he cites a range of testimonies from both the Old Testament and the New Testament.68 Even before expounding the eternal death and damnation of the ungodly, he emphasizes that their risen bodies are capable of suffering and pain but are also immortal, so that there is no end to their torment. This is seen as related to divine vengeance.69Although Bullinger argues primarily from scripture, he draws constantly on Augustine. Indeed, there are a score of quotations from Augustine in Bullinger’s exposition of the future life. Bullinger dissents from those who hold that the soul cannot suffer because it is a spirit. He observes that the bible often refers to the death of the soul, which he understands as separation from God and so from eternal life which is the life of the soul. But this death is judgment and torment. Bullinger offers only two biblical examples to support his case. The first is from the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, where the sick man refers to being in torment in the fire, it is for Bullinger his soul, not the dead body, that is tormented, and therefore it is capable of suffering. The second example refers to the one who can destroy body and soul in hell.70 Bullinger does not clearly distinguish the suffering of the soul from the suffering of the body. Indeed, the example of the rich man and Lazarus seems to be an example of the torment of the body (with its reference to cooling the tongue) rather than the soul.71 Bullinger portrays hell, which is the place of torment, as wide and deep – wide enough to hold all those who are damned and deep enough for no one to get out. For Bullinger, no tongue can express the terrible pain and punishment of hell. (He notes that Vergil even said that a hundred tongues could not do so.) Although Bullinger holds that scripture cannot with sufficient words express the pains of hell, it does partly do so with bodily things. Bodily torment is vividly expressed by quotations from the Old and New Testament. There is the fire that is never quenched and the worm that never dies in Mark (9:48) and fire and brimstone in Revelation (14:10). Revelation adds that ‘the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever’ (14:11). Not content with fire and brimstone, Bullinger draws out the 67 Matthew 275 r 25–27, 36–38, 44–45. 68 Matthew 275 v 30–276 r 22. Bullinger quotes from Isaiah 66, Daniel 12, John 5, Matthew 5, 2 Corinthians 5, and Acts 24. 69 Matthew 276 r 28–35. 70 Matthew 276 r 45–47, 52- v 3. 71 Matthew 276 r 47–50.

466

Chapter 17: The Last Things

implications of Isaiah 30:33 with its reference to the breath of the Lord setting the fire ablaze. ‘Accordingly we are not to think that the fire is kept alive by natural causes, for by the power of God it is kindled and sustained.’72 There are, however, some less physical or bodily expressions of torment or pain. There is separation from God, for ‘the ungodly will be cast out from the face of God, in whom is the fullness of all joy, and shut up in a very thick and perpetual darkness. They will experience unutterable sorrow and their thoughts will accuse them (Romans 2: 15). ‘Beside all this the ungodly will enjoy fellowship with the most vile spirits, with whom while alive they delighted to be companions.’73 Bullinger’s final comment on damnation is that it does not end. He recalls that both Jerome and Augustine challenged those ‘who were so merciful that they dared to promise grace, and redemption, and life to those condemned to eternal death’. He simply quotes passages from Isaiah 34 to Revelation 14 which have phrases such as everlasting eternity, and for ever and ever, and a statement such as Christ’s saying ‘whoever does not believe in him will not see life’.74 For Bullinger, the basis for eternal life and eternal death is the nature of God. He argues that without the punishment of sinners God could not be righteous, and equally that ‘If there is no eternal life and salvation (felicitas), there is no God, nor is he true or righteous who promised eternal life to the righteous. ‘As God is such a God, there is eternal life, which God has promised and to which scripture testifies. Bullinger cites testimonies from the psalms (27: 13), the gospels (Matthew 25: 23–23, 34), the epistles of Paul (1 Corinthians 15:19), and Peter (1 Peter 1: 3–5), and the letter to the Hebrews (11: 35; 13:14). From the outset, however, this hope is related not to anything inherent in us, but to Christ’s merit.75 On hell, Bullinger quotes Augustine as saying that it is presumptuous to speak, but that the testimonies of scripture are simple. Of the future life Bullinger says that no human being can speak perfectly and quotes Augustine’s speaking of his ignorance and his citing Paul’s words that the peace of God passes all understanding. Even the prophets could not express spiritual salvation as it is in itself; yet, as far as was possible, they did so with what is outward and bodily. Through what is outward we can come to an understanding of what is spiritual.76 Interestingly Bullinger gives very little attention to what is bodily in what he says about the future life. Beginning with Paul’s ‘The eye has not seen… neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for them that love him.’ Although Bullinger begins with a mixture of texts which express the physical and non-physical character of eternal life, the emphasis is on the 72 73 74 75 76

Matthew 277 r 15–23, r 2–6, v 38–41, 47–50, 277 r 27–30. Matthew 277 r 35–48. Matthew 277 r 52-v 3, 7–41. Matthew 276 v 4–5, 42–277 r 11. Matthew 276 v 30–35, 277 v 47–278 r 11.

The Christian Religion

467

spiritual and personal. The physical largely concern place, such as a heavenly country or heaven as a place which is above us, just as hell is a place below us. Yet the emphasis is on being with Christ, for heaven is where Jesus is, or on seeing God, for to see him we have to be where he is.77 Seeing God is by far the most frequently used description. It is elucidated in a variety of ways. It involves the enjoying of God (in whom is the fullness of all good, and apart from whom nothing can be desired or found that is good or beautiful), having communion with God, and knowing God. Enjoying God and having communion with God are mentioned several times in different references. After expounding ‘God shall be all in all’ in various ways, including ‘all we can desire’, Bullinger quotes Augustine and the supportive scriptural testimonies. ‘God shall be the end of all our desires. He will be seen for ever; he will be loved without tiring; and he will be praised without wearying.’ Bullinger follows this with ‘In your presence is the fullness of joy, and at your right hand is pleasure for ever more’ (Psalm 16:11) and ‘In righteousness I will see your face, when I wake I shall be satisfied with your likeness.’ (Psalm 17:15) and ‘Show us the Father and it will satisfy us’ (John 14:8). He concludes with Revelation, first the vision of praise (5:11–14) and then of a new heaven and a new earth, where eternal life, unlike this life, will be without sorrow (21:1–6).78 In a final section Bullinger considers the state of believers in heaven, first in relation to those in this world and then to each other. A long quotation from Augustine maintains that the souls of the departed do not know what people do on earth, citing in support Isaiah 63:16 of Abraham and 2 Kings 22:19–20. Bullinger does not develop this to reject prayers to the saints. Rather it shows that the souls of the departed do not suffer from sorrow, as they would, if they did know what is happening on earth.79 Part of the joy of heaven is the fellowship believers have with each other as members of Christ. For this to be possible they need to be distinct, identifiable persons. Bullinger asks what would be the use and fruit of the resurrection of the body, if the saints did not know each other in heaven. He offers scriptural support from Daniel 12:3 and the fact that the apostles recognized the risen Lord with his glorified body (John 21: 12). He adds, moreover, that if people do not know each other how will the apostles judge those to whom they preached (Luke 22:30), and notes that in the transfiguration the disciples recognized Moses and Elijah. Unexpectedly, Bullinger adds to scripture ‘the general consensus of all good people’ and then the testimony of Socrates who dreamt of meeting people such as Homer, although Bullinger refers to Socrates’ vain dreams. Bullinger proceeds to 77 Matthew 278 r 29–31, r 11–12, 16–18, 276 v 30–35. 78 Matthew 278 r 52 – v 2, v 12–14, 17–18, 25–36, 41–44, 278 v 52–279 r 13. 79 Matthew 279 r 13–50.

468

Chapter 17: The Last Things

offer his own vision of those whom we see in heaven, stretching from Adam to Paul and then to the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, and faithful. But the fellowship of the departed with each other is at the end set in the context that ‘all their joy will be in the one God, who alone will be all in all.’80

True Confession (1545) Bullinger’s views are expressed succinctly in an exposition of the creed in True Confession (1545), beginning with the resurrection of Christ. Christ rose with the body which had been crucified and buried, that is a true human body, a transfigured body but not a body which had been divinised. Transfiguration does not take anything away from the nature of the human body, but it takes away all the weaknesses or defects (prästen). Bullinger names a score of such weaknesses from fear and fleshly desire to hunger and mortality. Paul calls it an immortal and incorruptible body glorious and spiritual. It is flesh not spirit, not flesh adorned with spiritual gifts. In the resurrection the bodies of believers will be made like Christ’s body, for the resurrection has removed the death which follows from sin, destroying hell and restoring life.81 The ascension of Christ meant that Christ’s body, being human was not everywhere at the same time but in one place. He has opened the way to heaven for believers, so that his servants may be where he is (John 17: 24). Christ is at the right hand of God as high priest and king and the mediator for all believers. Although in one place his power and light are effective in all believers. We are to call on God through Christ without ceasing.82 The coming of Christ to judge is related to the world’s being under antichrist, with scorn of God and his word, and the mocking and persecuting of believers. All people will be gathered before the judgment seat of Christ. As with the ascension of Christ believers will be taken up to Christ, to eternal joy, while unbelievers will be joined to the devil whom they have served and will be punished with inexpressible distress.83 In the exposition of the forgiveness of sins, Bullinger rejects first Roman indulgences, referring to the sale of God’s gift as simony, and then purgatory, 80 Matthew 279 r 50 – v 7, 15–17, 20–37, 42–43. The final paragraph of the excursus and of the commentary focuses on Christ by whose grace and merit as many as believe are justified. ‘Through him, from bodily death, our souls live with God. Through him our bodies are also raised on the day of judgment, so that whole in soul and body we may live with him in the kingdom of God and rejoice for ever. To him be praise and glory for ever.’ (280 r 15–19) 81 True Confession 46 v 23–47 r 30. 82 True Confession 47 v 1–48 r 8, v 21–28. 83 True Confession 48 v 29–49 v 10.

True Confession (1545)

469

insisting that there is no purging apart from the blood of Christ. The souls of believers go straight to heaven and those of unbelievers to hell.84 With the resurrection of the flesh by the power of God the soul is joined to the body for judgment. After this life there is eternal life. God has prepared it in his grace and promised it for those who believe in Christ. Their souls do not come to judgment and they do not sleep. They are separated from the body and by the power of Christ they are brought into everlasting joy. By contrast for the souls of those who are unbelieving and unrepentant and who die in their sins outside Christ, there is damnation and eternal punishment, and with the resurrection of the body they are banished soul and body from the presence of God into eternal punishment.85 As elsewhere, although here implicitly, the conviction that Christ is at the right hand of God is related to eternal life as well as to the Lord’s Supper. The body is human and Christ’s body can be only in one place, so also the risen bodies of believers for he goes to prepare a place for us.86

The Last Judgment (1555) Two sermons on Matthew 25 in 1555 show the pastoral concern that underlies what Bullinger says about the future.87 In the dedication Bullinger exhorts them and all believers to watchfulness, fidelity, love, and truth in these last times.88 He affirms that there are signs of Christ’s coming and judgment for all but the blind to see, indeed that we have already seen the signs of which Christ spoke.89 Christ was concerned that no one should have an excuse and so he expounded the article on the last judgment. His words in Matthew 25 were his final sermon before the Last Supper, which Matthew, moreover, has given word for word.90 Conscious, however, that some doubted Christ’s coming and judgment, as so much time had passed, Bullinger observes that Jesus foretold the Fall of Jerusalem and yet it did not happen until forty years after his death.91 84 True Confession 51 r 16-v 27. 85 True Confession 52 v 1–29. Bullinger’s exposition of the creed is intended to affirm the church in Zurich is catholic and orthodox and so he includes a repudiation of heresies relating to the resurrection of the flesh. (57 v 20–29). 86 True Confession 64 v 5–25, 65 r 16–20. 87 For the text of The Last Judgment see HBBibl 1 no. 281. In Bruce Gordon ‘“Welcher nit gloupt der ist schon verdampt”: ‘Heinrich Bullinger and the Spirituality of the Last Judgement’ in ZWA 29 (2002) 29–53 there is a detailed exposition, which sets the sermons in their context. 88 The Last Judgment A1 v 19–21. Prayer is added to these later (A 4 v 12–15, 6 r 20–27) linked with faith and love (A7 v 6–8). 89 The Last Judgment A3 v 22–26, 4 v 18–21. 90 The Last Judgment A 5 v 13–25. 91 The Last Judgment A 5 r 2–11.

470

Chapter 17: The Last Things

For the reformers Matthew 25 was in some ways a challenge, as it could seem to relate salvation to what we do rather than to what God does, to works rather than faith.92 In these sermons Bullinger nullifies such an interpretation, maintaining that the love which is shown is a sign of faith. By faith Bullinger means faith in Christ, the only true faith, and not Jewish, heathen, or Muslim faith. Indeed, they will be eternally damned unless they turn from their religion to Christ and his gospel. The main article of our faith is that only in Christ’s redemption through faith are people saved. This faith in Christ is the true basis of all good works. Moreover ‘Before faith and without good faith’, ‘there are no good works’. As the marginal note puts it, ‘Faith justifies and effects that we do good works.’ All good in us is a free gift of God.93 Bullinger recognizes that there are evangelical Christians who boast of their religion but who are hypocrites, although they are taken to be good Christians. By contrast, there are others who are much more godly but who are taken for godless and unbelievers.94 The emphasis is on faith leading to works of love, but Bullinger also states that faith effects that we are in Christ and Christ in us. If we believe in Christ, who alone is righteous, he bestows his righteousness on us and counts it as ours. It is for this reason that at the judgment the sins of believers are covered, whereas the evil of unbelievers is made known.95 Although the first sermon is concerned with the sheep, there is a brief contrast between the situation of believers and unbelievers at the judgment. Unbelievers will see as judge the crucified Christ whom they had rejected, while believers will see that the judge is their redeemer. For believers this will lead to inexpressible joy, whereas for unbelievers there will be inexpressible terror when they see as judge the one whom they had scorned and whom they would not receive as saviour.96 Bullinger’s pastoral focus means that he exhorts believers according to their circumstances. They should do much and do it willingly. He says, ‘If you have a lot, do a lot, if you have little, do what you can and do it willingly. If you have nothing, show goodwill to your neighbour. If you cannot help with silver and gold, help with kindness, compassion, intercession, and work as you are able’. 92 In The Institutes (3:18:2) Calvin refers to election and inheritance or adoption. Bucer refers to true works as a sign that the person has been blessed by God and states that they are possible only where God is at work. They are, moreover, not a reward, but an inheritance, and as having been ‘prepared from the foundation of the world’. This is related to our election from the foundation of the world. Good works arise from love of a ‘zeal for God, but they are present only in those who believe in God. See Stephens (Martin Bucer 25, 57–58). There are at best hints of election in Bullinger’s sermons (e. g. C 5 v 15, 28). 93 The Last Judgment C 2 v 19–27, 3 v 9–14, 4 v 21–24, 6 r 2–12. Bullinger contrasts the sacrifices of Cain and Abel. 94 The Last Judgment C 1 v 14–19. 95 The Last Judgment C 6 r 19–24, B 5 v 13–26. 96 The Last Judgment B 2 r 4–15, v 20–22, B 3 r 1–9.

True Confession (1545)

471

Thereby you will prepare for yourself a rich reward. Believers do not claim merit, but recognize God’s grace and glory and give him the glory.97 Concern for the living of the Christian life is fundamental for Bullinger as it had been for Zwingli. At the same time he recognized that a charge brought against evangelical preachers is that faith alone is enough and does not need good works, which are nothing. Towards the end of the first sermon Bullinger meets this charge by appealing to his daily preaching and writings. These opponents turn simple, godly people against them. He warns that the day of the Lord is coming when they must account for this.98 The sermon concludes in effect with an appeal and a prayer. Bullinger reminds them that if the most despised ask for help, they are called the poor and needy brothers of Christ. In them Christ stands before them and desires their help. He prays therefore that God will give to all of them true faith and love so that they may be merciful and at the judgment may receive mercy.99 The second sermon is on the goats who will be damned eternally, but its ultimate concern is not so much to affirm damnation as to use the fear of it to lead to repentance and faith. Although as in the parable there is a physical picture of hell, the emphasis is on the spiritual reality of hell. Christ is the only, eternal, inexpressible good, in whom alone is life and delight, and apart from whom there is no life or consolation or joy. To be deprived of this is the greatest sorrow, hurt, and pain which can be thought. Besides separation there is a sinking into eternal suffering, sorrow, fear, misery, and destruction.100 To have fellowship with God is the highest good, to have no fellowship is the greatest evil. This fellowship or the lack of it is not related by Bullinger to God’s predestination but rather to the choices people make in this life. Those who are punished are those who did not wish in this life to have fellowship through true faith, but rather set themselves against God and his ways.101 As good deeds are the expression and signs of faith, so unmerciful, deeds, such as not feeding the hungry or visiting those in prison express and are signs of lack of faith. Those who are damned are cursed because they had no true faith in Christ. The faith which is lacking is not believing that through the death of Christ we are cleansed from sins and united with Christ as a branch in the vine. Bullinger’s concern is for everyone, as indeed the parable is, but then he moves to specific and indeed identifiable groups and individuals.102

97 98 99 100 101 102

The Last Judgment C 8 v 25- D 1 r 3, 7–17. The Last Judgment D 4 r 5–18, 21–29. The Last Judgment D 4 v 15–21, 27–30. The Last Judgment D 6 r 26- v 6. The Last Judgment D6 v 6–13. There is also fellowship with the saints (D 7 v 1–4). The Last Judgment E3 r 20–26, D7r 16–12, E3v 3–10.

472

Chapter 17: The Last Things

Bullinger begins with property and possessions, first with those who have them and those who do not have them or have very little. God’s judgment is first on those who use them for themselves alone without any mercy. We are bound to help our neighbours who are created in the image of God as far as our lives and goods reach. If we do not, we have a judge.103 The word to those with little is gentle, but firm. People are not to give at the cost of their family, so that they have to beg. But if something is left over, they must show mercy; but if there is nothing left over, then they must show good will. In a word, according to their means they are to show compassion. If they have a lot, they are to give richly. If they have little, they are to give that little, also willingly.104 The rest of the sermon is as much prophetic as pastoral. Bullinger challenges explicitly and implicitly those exercising power – financial, social, political, and religious – such as usurers, magistrates, and ministers. The first sin of usurers, even before greed, is being unmerciful, pursuing people for payment, even to their starvation and imprisonment and the seizing of their houses and possessions.105 The judgment of the rich, described in James 5: 1–6, is what awaits the rich who exploited others for their own benefit.106 A further group is those in authority, in particular the magistrates who are responsible for the ministry of word and sacrament, hospitals, and schools.107 Not to give the food of God’s word is a greater sin than to take bread from hungry children. At the same time Bullinger maintains that Christ is fed when the hungry are fed and suffers when the poor are despised and abandoned in their need. They will have to give an account to the Judge and those who are guilty will face the fierce wrath of God.108 Although the magistrate is responsible for using church goods for their proper purpose, yet there is also a duty and obligation on all Christians where all this does not happen. Almost in an aside, Bullinger says it is best to warn people while there is the opportunity to be saved than to wait for the judgment and to hear the words, ‘Depart from me….’.109 Another group is those who enrich themselves with unjust wars. Bullinger attacks war, as he has done throughout his ministry, as dangerous and the source of all kinds of misery, although not all wars are unjust. The Judge demands fidelity, friendliness, and love, and the practical care of Matthew 25, but war is always contrary all these.110 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110

The Last Judgment E 4 r 5–8, v 6–9. The Last Judgment E 4 v 25–30, 5 r 1–6, 23–26. The Last Judgment E6 v 24–7 r 15. The Last Judgment E 7 r 15-v 15. The Last Judgment F1 r 23 – v 22. The Last Judgment F 2 r 16 – v 12, 2 v 29 – r 12. The Last Judgment F 3 r 13–22, v 14–22. The Last Judgment F 3 v23–4 r 1, v 2–7.

True Confession (1545)

473

Bullinger challenges those who flee from the sick and ill treat those in prison. Government must act with prisoners in accordance with God’s ordinance and justice. Equally all people should have compassion for prisoners and where the government has not met the needs of prisoners, people should feed and clothe them and not be ashamed of them, even if they are deservedly imprisoned. They should visit and comfort them and show friendliness, even to those deservedly condemned to death. ‘For our Lord Christ was not ashamed of the murderer on the cross, consoled him, and brought him into fellowship with him.’111 Bullinger quotes the example of the Good Samaritan who cared for the injured man, although he could have used various possible reasons to pass by. But he did what he could.112 Christ, moreover, did not flee from the sick and the poor, and we would not want him to flee from us in sickness and need. This leads Bullinger characteristically to encourage (’I was hungry and you fed me’), rather than threaten (’I was hungry and you did not feed me’).113 The final group are the preachers and the authorities or magistrates. It is striking that again alongside love the emphasis is on friendliness and mercy and the punishment of usury, oppression of the poor, and warfare.114 Bullinger states that he could give more examples of sin, but his concern is to help people to repent and amend their lives, and so he appeals to them, as godly believers, for the Lord is coming to judge. He contrasts those who do not recognize any defect or sin in themselves and think they have done more than they have done with those who are humble and have no sense of deserving.115 Unbelievers give little heed to God’s commands. They do not regard the poor and needy as highly as God, even less than what one does to the poor one does to Christ. They think that in the pomp of outward religion God is served more than in works of mercy shown to one’s neighbour. But the words of Christ the judge in Matthew 25 are plain, simple, and easy to understand.116 Bullinger exposes some of the excuses people make. There are those who would be Christians who do not do works of mercy. To excuses such as ‘I cannot help everyone’, Bullinger replies, ‘Do what you can.’ He warns and appeals to the ric1 h who ignore the poor, ‘We stand before God and his judgment; he sees into our hearts and knows our thoughts’, adding that the end of all things is near. After it will come either damnation, which lasts not just a thousand years, but for

111 112 113 114 115 116

The Last Judgment F 5 r 3–25. The Last Judgment F 5 r 26 – v 16. The Last Judgment E 5v 16–6 r 21. The Last Judgment F 6 r 22 – v 8. The Last Judgment F 6 v 9–7 r 13 (especially 6 v 19–25, 7 r 2–5), 7 r 14- v 11. The Last Judgment F 7 v 12–14, 23–27, 8 r 11–16, 24–27.

474

Chapter 17: The Last Things

ever, or eternal life.117 Bullinger ends with a prayer that they will live lives pleasing to God and become sharers in eternal blessedness through Jesus Christ.118

Sermons on the Apocalypse (1557) In the preface to his Sermons on the Apocalypse Bullinger makes clear his purpose in preaching on the Apocalypse. His concern is to console and encourage those who are suffering persecution. The sermons are dedicated ‘to all the exiles for the name of Christ’ and ‘to the all faithful everywhere looking for the coming of Christ the Lord and judge’. Bullinger expresses his concern in various ways: that people will doubt God’s goodwill towards them and fall again into idolatry, that they will be discouraged by the evils that afflict them and think that God’s promises about the final end of good and evil and the deliverance of the faithful by the last judgment are vain.119 Bullinger describes the way the followers of the pope seek to suppress the gospel and drive simple people to abandon it. He maintains that it was for such hard times as this that Christ revealed the apocalypse to John.120 Bullinger expresses the relevance of the Apocalypse in a variety of ways. He describes it as a history of the church from the time of Christ to the end of the world. With the book of Daniel it is a prophecy of what will happen. Bullinger assures his readers that if they read the Apocalypse they will find everything that happens to them has been prophesied in it, as well as words of comfort and consolation.121 In his account of chapters 10 to 14, Bullinger gives examples of this consolation. The Lord confirms by an oath the end of these things. He will reward the godly and punish the evil. He will send teachers of truth and salvation. They will rebuke evil and those who are evil and will preach Christ sincerely and arraign antichrist. Antichrist will strive in vain to suppress the preaching of the gospel with the sword and fire. Many will revolt against the kingdom of antichrist,122 and with the coming of Christ antichrist will be destroyed. This is described in 117 The Last Judgment F 8 v 27–29, G 1 v 9–25, G 1 v 29–2 r 19. 118 The Last Judgment G 3 r 5–10. 119 Sermons on the Apocalypse Preface a 2 r 1–8, a 4 r 8–12, a 3 r 16–22; ET Preface A 5 r 1–9, 7 v 16–24, 6 r 48 – v 4. The last of these he ascribes to John in writing it. 120 Apocalypse Preface B 3 r 38–45; ET Preface B 6 r 41-v 3. 121 Apocalypse 302.50; 8, 12–13, Preface B3 v 37–41: ET 675. 38–39; 17. 18–20, Preface B 7 r 8–14. 122 A letter of Francis Hotman in 1572 shows the impact of Bullinger’s works on Revelation and Daniel. He said that the former had freed more French people from antichrist than the books of the Sorbonne theologians had turned from the gospel, and that he and his family had been greatly consoled by Chronology which Bullinger added to the latter. See Bouvier (Henri Bullinger 377–78).

True Confession (1545)

475

chapters 19 and 20. The picture of the woman clothed with the sun and that of the dragon express the victory of Christ and the church. John’s use of Daniel makes it clear that with the antichrist he is referring to the Roman empire and the papacy.123 In the preface Bullinger lists those from whose works he has benefitted: from Aretas and Augustine through Valla and Savonarola to Lambert and Luther and especially his colleague Bibliander.124 He adds that he has loved the Apocalypse from his earliest years and that in this work he has been motivated not by hatred for anyone but by a concern to expound an excellent and profitable book. In his defence he observes that he is not saying anything new in his attack on the Roman church, as it has been said by others, going back to the fathers of the church. He maintains that the whole world says that there will be no other antichrist than the bishops of Rome. They will be slain by God’s sword in the hearts of the faithful, and will soon be abolished by the coming of Christ to judgment. The term ‘antichrist’ in Apocalypse is used only of the bishops of Rome, although Muhammad and Islam are frequently associated with the papacy as the enemy of the church. For example, Bullinger refers to those ‘deceived by the craft of heretics, the power of Muhammad and the hypocrisy of the pope’, to showing in the fifth and sixth trumpet that antichrist are strong’, and Christ’s coming ‘as it were to be cast out of antichrist and Muhammad and the rest of God’s enemies’.125 In the sermons Bullinger refers to those who think that Revelation teaches little about Christ and our redemption as being false in their judgment, as he has made clear in the preface.126 The preface begins with a dedication to the faithful ‘who are looking for the coming of Christ’ and ends with the aim of the work that, fleeing antichrist, people should cling to Christ, fixing all their trust in him alone.127 At the end of the first sermon Bullinger refers to the Apocalypse as having ‘a very full description’ of Christ and then immediately to its having a very full description of antichrist.128 This points in a way to what is fundamental for him: that antichrist replaces or displaces Christ. In the sermons which follow, Bullinger presents Christ as Son of God and Saviour. The emphasis is on the second, with frequent references to Christ as king and priest. As a consequence

123 124 125 126 127 128

Apocalypse Preface A 4 r 8 – v 4; ET Preface A 6 v 16–7 r 23. Apocalypse Preface B 1 r 18–3 r 25; ET Preface B 3 v – 6 r. Apocalypse 94. 18–19, 126. 29–31, 128. 2–3; ET210, 284, 286. Apocalypse 74. 39–41, 52–75. 2; ET 166. Apocalypse Preface a 2 r 4–6, b 4 r 23–25; ET Preface a 2 r b vii v. Apocalypse 6. 7–11; ET12.

476

Chapter 17: The Last Things

antichrist is represented as usurping for himself the kingdom and priesthood of Christ.129 In the vision of Christ in chapter 1 there are three elements which point to the opposition between Christ and antichrist. The first image shows Christ is in the midst of the church, represented by the seven candlesticks (1:13). This means that Christ has no need of a vicar ‘for a vicar is in place of someone who is absent… but Christ is present, not absent’.130 The second image is of Christ’s head and hair as white (1:14), showing him in the light of Daniel 7:9 to be God. As God, he is head of the church, giving life and every heavenly gift to the body (Ephesians 5). The pope cannot give life, so what sort of head would he be?131 The third image is of Christ as holding the keys of death and hell (1:18). ‘He did not give his power to the Bishop of Rome, but has it himself and will keep it for ever.’ ‘Therefore, the pope is antichrist who claims for himself full power and authority in heaven and earth.’ The beast in Daniel usurps the two horns of the Lamb, that is the power of the king and high priest (regiam et pontificiam, potestatem) represented by the papal tiara’s keys.132 In Revelation 3: 7 Christ is described as the holy one and the holiness of the saints, but ‘antichrist the pope has taken the title for himself, as he allows himself to be called “his papal holiness”’. In expounding Revelation 5, Bullinger observes that if the saints in glory, the twenty four elders, were not worthy to open the book, unlike Christ, the Lamb, how much madder is it therefore to attribute the administration of things in the church to a most corrupt man, the pope. The lamb, by contrast, is the one to whom all power is given, our deliverer and eternal salvation. He is given to us as ‘our redeemer, king, high priest, and only salvation? 133 Similar contrasts between Christ and the pope as antichrist are drawn in other sermons.134 The dominant emphasis in the opposition Christ and antichrist is between Christ as saviour and the pope as usurping that saving role. Thus, there is in Revelation 17 the example of the papal rulers who ‘will fight not against Christ 129 Apocalypse Preface a 2 r 45 – v 4; Preface a 5 v. Bullinger refers to Roman teaching as taking from Christ, withdrawing from the gospel, and destroying souls (Apocalypse 201. 41–44; ET454). 130 Apocalypse 16. 5–11; ET 35. 131 Apocalypse 16. 37–43, ET 36. 132 Apocalypse 20.3–6, 11–24; ET 43–44. 133 Apocalypse 71. 18–19, 28–30, 73. 47–50, 74. 39–41; ET 158, 164, 166. 134 See, for example, Stephens ‘Bullinger’s Sermons’ (276) In the exposition of 9:3–4, the smoke which darkens the sun and air is papal dogma which darkens Christ and the gospels. ‘Christ is the universal pastor, the only high priest (pontifex summus), the head and salvation of the faithful who freely remits sins. This doctrine becomes worthless when the pope is admitted as head of the Church with plenary power to grant indulgences for all sins.’ (Apocalypse 113. 24–33; ET 253).

True Confession (1545)

477

himself, for they wish to be Christians, but against the Lamb, that is the sanctification, justification, and satisfaction of Christ.’ ‘If anyone confesses that justification is in the Son of God alone and that people are justified by faith alone and not also by our works and merits’, he is imprisoned or put to death, and ‘the confession of the Lamb of God does not benefit him’. Bullinger offers comfort to the saints whom the rulers seem to overcome by burning and killing them, because the Lamb will overcome those rulers. ‘All kings are under Christ’ and ‘he will come shortly in the clouds of heaven to judge the living and the dead’.135 Bullinger states that Hildebrand (Gregory VII) laid the foundations of the empire of antichrist. The bishops of Babylon, that is Rome, began to rule alone, making the emperor submit. They sat in the temple of God and were exalted above all that is worshipped as if they were God, not able to err. This led to many over the years calling the pope antichrist.136 In his exposition of Revelation 13 Bullinger, following Jerome, interprets the beast, the instrument of the dragon, as the old Roman empire. He charges the Romans with attributing to the Roman empire what is owed only to God. Unlike the first beast, the second beast comes from the earth and is unlike Christ’s kingdom, which comes from heaven. Again, according to Jerome, it is the papacy. The papacy is not from Christ. He forbade government to the apostles, and did not make Peter the lord of the apostles, much less the prince of the city and empire of Rome. The title of universal bishop was described by Gregory I as a precursor of antichrist, but Boniface III sought the title from Emperor Phocas, a patricide. The pope begins to take both temporal and spiritual power, expressed in the carrying of two swords carried before him and the two keys in their coat of arms. The pope was the beast with the two horns. As bishops have mitres with two horns we can see who is antichrist for Christ does not resign his office as king and priest at God’s right hand that he needs no vicar.137 Bullinger adds that as the devil in paradise called in question God’s word and replaced it with his own, so through the papacy the devil brings the truth of scripture into doubt, calling it imperfect and obscure and needing tradition. He replaces God’s commands with his own. Even the devil dared not do to Christ as the pope, in offering his foot to be kissed. At the end of his fifth sermon on antichrist in Revelation 13, Bullinger prays for God to deliver them from antichrist, adding that those who have the mark of the beast will drink of God’s wrath and those who have despised the papacy will drink with Christ the cup of God’s 135 Apocalypse 232. 42–44, 49–51, 233. 8–10, 18–21; ET 521–523. 136 Apocalypse Preface B 2 r 36-v 1; ET Preface B 5 r. 137 Apocalypse 164. 45–165.2, 168.17, 172.35–173.8, 173. 15–33, 173.42–174.4; ET 368, 376, 386– 389. The two horns no longer represent the papacy and Muhammad (or Muslims) yet these two are frequently grouped together (for example 125 47–126.12, 29–32, 45–47, 127. 10–13, 150. 19–24, ET 282–284, 286, 336).

478

Chapter 17: The Last Things

life and grace The number 666 is interpreted by adding that number to 97 the year Revelation was written to make 763 during the papacy of Paul I. Bullinger notes a range of significant developments leading up to his pontificate, such as the pope’s putting the Emperor and the King of Lombardy out of Italy, his becoming King of Old Rome and Italy, and exercising power over kings, churches, and souls.138 In Daniel there are twelve signs of antichrist, such as the supremacy of the pope, mass, transubstantiation , and the crusades. Bullinger consistently rejects millenarian views and the expectation of a golden age before the judgment. He follows the fathers who interpret the thousand years in terms of the church. In sermons on Revelation 20 he considers at greater length the heresy of the millenarians or chiliasts. For him the thousand years begin from the time of Christ or soon after. In sermon 86 the angel, who has in his hands the key and the chain, is seen as preaching the gospel so that hell was closed to the faithful and Satan bound, so that he could not harm the godly as much as he wished and seduce them. Bullinger is familiar with differing views of the thousand years, but regards refuting them as unprofitable and prefers to present his own. For him it is the thousand years from the time of Christ to that last (extremum) corruption of evangelical preaching and the church of Christ.139 In dating the thousand years from ‘the open preaching of the gospel’ and its being received by the Gentiles, Bullinger as three possible dates: the ascension of Christ in AD 34, Paul’s preaching in Rome in AD 60, or the destruction of Jerusalem when great numbers of Gentiles entered in place of the Jews who had been rejected in AD 73. These dates lead to AD 1034, 1060, and 1073. In 1034 the pope was Benedict IX who came to the chair by unlawful means, practised magic, and sold the papacy to Gregory VI. In 1060 the pope was Nicholas II, under whom the truth was corrupted and Gregory VII troubled the world with his crafts. In 1073 the pope was Gregory VII, a time when many said the devil reigned.140 Bullinger presents and replies to arguments which call in question his interpreting the thousand years as beginning after the time of Christ. The doctrine of 138 Apocalypse 174. 13–50, 177. 7. 6–7, 190. 11–16, 193. 51–194. 5; ET 390–91, 396, 426, 434. This comes in the last of seven sermons on Revelation 13 which consider antichrist. 139 Apocalypse 99. 24–100.5, 264. 14–18, 265. 19–30; ET 221–222, 590, 593. Irena Backus sees spiritualist as well as millenarian elements in Bullinger’s commentary on Revelation 20. She holds that one could say that Bullinger, like Beza, ‘laisse la porte ouvert au millénarisme’, although she recognizes that Bullinger explicitly condemns ‘les chiliastes’ (363v). She maintains that in their enthusiasm for the early fathers ‘volentes nolentes, ils frȏlaient le millénarisme’. Les Sept Visions et la Fin des Temps Cahiers de la Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie (Geneva, 1997) 61,75. 140 Apocalypse 265.31–266. 11; ET 593–594. Bullinger draws not only on the fathers, but also on Gregory I to make his case against the papacy. Gregory maintained that someone calling himself universal bishop would be the precursor of antichrist. (Apocalypse) Preface B 2 r 1-, ET Preface B 4 v).

True Confession (1545)

479

merit and of justification by works began as early as after the time of the apostles. The intercession of the saints and the cult of relics were defended by Jerome. In 630 Muhammad seduced a great part of the world. How then can one say that the devil was bound a thousand years. Bullinger’s defence is indirect by recalling that Christ said that the prince of this world had been cast out, but he was not so cast out that he did not have great power in the world. The devil can still tempt and pluck back the redeemed, though he is cast out of the church and the faithful. He does not have full rule, for Christ lives and rules in the church and the Holy Spirit had not been poured out upon all flesh before the glorification of Christ.141 Bullinger acknowledges that Satan spread his poison on many during the thousand years, but holds that that was nothing in comparison with what has happened since and will happen until the end of the world. Moreover, against his opponents Bullinger observes that Paul refuted justification by works, while Augustine and Bede defended the doctrine of grace and redemption by Christ. Furthermore, when the thousand years ended, the situation became much worse. The doctrine of satisfaction and merit prevailed and totally obscured the doctrine of Christ, with the remission of sins and the imputing of righteousness. The Bishop of Rome wished to be called head and universal pastor of the catholic church. Muhammad, moreover, has seduced many and war in the Holy Land has greatly hurt religion. Idolatry flourished as never before.142 Compared with the present those thousand years are a golden or silver age and the five hundred years since then an age of brass. Bullinger insists that in all ages there have risen up holy and learned men like Enoch and Elijah, who have resisted the ungodly and maintained the true religion. Immediately after the thousand years Waldo arose, and besides some kings, preachers, such as Wycliffe, Hus, and Jerome of Prague. In the last thirty years, people everywhere can testify, what has been done against superstition, idolatry, and the pope and his clergy.143

Bullinger’s ‘Firm Foundation’ (1563) and Later Works At the end of part one of Firm Foundation in 1563, Bullinger considers the dispute in the church about those who have died. He gives reasons for rejecting Roman teaching and practice. It follows an examination of the mass as a sacrifice for the living and dead, which he rejects on the grounds that the Lord’s Supper is a memorial of the one eternal sacrifice and not the sacrifice itself.144 The example of 141 142 143 144

Apocalypse 266. 12–40; ET 594–596. Apocalypse 267. 7–19, 27–35; ET 597–598. Apocalypse 267. 50–52, 268. 15–17, 20–30; ET 599–600. Firm Foundation 38 r 28 – v 7.

480

Chapter 17: The Last Things

Stephen’s death shows that we should commit ourselves to God through Christ and not to Michael, Mary, or one of the saints.145 The words of Christ in John about those believing in him as having eternal life contradicts the belief that we must be purged in the fires of purgatory before we are saved. This is confirmed by Christ’s words in John 5: 24 about believers not coming to judgment, but as having passed from death to life. If people do not come to judgment, there is no punishment, and so no purgatory. In response to the words in the creed, ‘I believe in the forgiveness of sins and eternal life’, some say that guilt is forgiven, but not the punishment. In the light of John 13:10, Bullinger states that Christ takes away all our imperfection so that we are clean in him.146 Bullinger expresses hope for their forbears, maintaining that all who died in true faith enjoy eternal blessedness. He rejects prayers for the dead, for if people died in unbelief there is nothing we can do to help them. Prayers for the dead may be ancient, but more ancient is the statement that unbelievers are damned.147 The 1567 in The Turk and in 1574 in The Seven Articles, Bullinger describes and criticizes the Muslim view of heaven.148 In The Turk he relates that Muslims who live according to the Qur’an will have honour and riches in this life and bodily joy and a life of bliss in Paradise. They imagine bodily joy and desire in eating and drinking and delight in beautiful women. He sees their unspiritual view of heaven as like the fables of pagans.149 Bullinger allows that Muslims believe in God as creator, but they do not believe Jesus is the Son of God. They believe in the resurrection of the flesh and eternal life, but also understand heaven in a fleshly way. Besides criticizing this, Bullinger repudiates Islam because Muslims reject as blasphemy that the true power of the resurrection and our life is Christ, Son of God and Mary, was crucified and buried for our sins and for our righteousness was raised and ascended into heaven.150 In The Seven Articles Bullinger is defending Zwingli and the Zurich church against the charge that they do not hold any more about Christ than Muhammad and Muslims in the Qur’an. The reason given is that they do not ascribe to the human Christ all power in heaven and on earth. Bullinger maintains that Christ is almighty according to his divine, not his human nature, adding that they preach the whole Christ to whom they ascribe omnipotence, not a half Christ. Where does Muhammad say that Christ is true God and man.151 145 146 147 148 149 150 151

Firm Foundation 38 v 13–39 r 2. Firm Foundation 39 r 3 – v 9. Firm Foundation 39 v 10–40 r 24. For The Turk and The Seven Articles, see HBBibl 1 nos 557 and 586. The Turk a 7 r 14–32. The Turk a 7 v19–8 r 21. The Seven Articles 32 r 3–10, 34 r 18-v 16, 34 v 15–22.

True Confession (1545)

481

The sixth article concerns the bodily ascension of Christ and a Muslim or Turkish heaven. Bullinger defends himself against having a Muslim view of heaven by describing the Qur’an’s view of heaven. God gives his servants pure women, beautiful virgins with beautiful eyes… the best food with pomegranates and the noblest drinks, which they drink from beautiful vessels and precious silver vessels and dressed in gold and silk and wearing gold chains… ‘ Bullinger challenges his opponents to show where he or others have written such fables of heaven and eternal bliss.152

152 The Seven Articles 42 v 5–23, 46 v 17–22, 47 r 6–25.

Select Bibliography

The bibliography below is a selection of volumes of secondary literature helpful for the further study of Bullinger’s theology. Primary works have already been listed in the ‘Abbreviations’ above. The entire bibliography of works cited by Professor Stephens is included in the copious footnotes in the appropriate sections of the volume. Hans Ulrich Bächthold, Heinrich Bullinger vor dem Rat (Bern: P. Lang, 1982). J. Wayne Baker, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition (Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1980). Pamela Biel, Doorkeepers at the House of Righteousness: Heinrich Bullinger and the Zurich Clergy 1535–1575 (Bern: P. Lang, 1991). Fritz Büsser, Heinrich Bullinger: Leben, Werk und Wirkung I (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag 2005). E. Busch et al (eds), Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften (Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2002). Emidio Campi and Peter Opitz (eds), Heinrich Bullinger. Life – Thought – Influence. Zurich, Aug. 25–29, 2004, International Congress Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575) (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2007). Emidio Campi and Ruedi Reich (eds), Consensus Tigurinus. Heinrich Bullinger und Johannes Calvin über das Abendmahl (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009). A.C. Cochrane (ed.), Reformed Confessions of the 16th Century (London: SCM Press, 1966). Heinold Fast, Heinrich Bullinger und die Täufer, (Weierhof, Pfalz: Mennonitischer Geschichtsverein, 1959). Ulrich Gäbler and Endre Zsindely (eds.), Bullinger Tagung 1975. Vorträge, gehalten aus Anlass von Heinrich Bullingers 400. Todestag (Zurich: Institut für Schweizerische Reformationsgeschichte, 1977). Bruce Gordon, Clerical Discipline and the Rural Reformation: The Synod in Zürich, 1532– 1580 (Bern: P. Lang, 1992). Bruce Gordon and Emidio Campi (eds), Architect of Reformation: An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–1575 (Grand Rapids, Mi: Baker Academic, 2004). M. Haas und R. Hauswirth (eds.), Festgabe Leonhard von Muralt zum siebzigsten Geburtstag 17. Mai 1970 überreicht von Freunden und Schülern (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1970).

484

Select Bibliography

Susi Hausammann, Römerbriefauslegung zwischen Humanismus und Reformation: Eine Studie zu Heinrich Bullingers Römerbriefauslegung von 1525 (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1970). Ernst Koch, Die Theologie der Confessio Helvetica Posterior (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968). Heiko A. Oberman et al (eds), Reformiertes Erbe. Festschrift für Gottfried W. Locher zu seinem 80. Geburtstag (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag 1992). Peter Opitz, Heinrich Bullinger als Theologe: Eine Studie zu den Dekaden (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2004). Paul E. Rorem, Calvin and Bullinger on the Lord’s Supper (Bramcote, Nottingham: Grove Books, 1989). Magne Saebø (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. The History of Its Interpretation Vol II From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008). Alfred Schindler and Hans Stickelberger (eds), Die Zürcher Reformation: Ausstrahlungen und Rückwirkungen (Bern: Peter Lang, 2001). Joachim Staedtke (ed.), Glauben und Bekennen. Vierhundert Jahre Confessio Helvetica Posterior. Beiträge zu ihrer Geschichte und Theologie (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1966). Joachim Staedtke, Die Theologie des jungen Bullinger (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1962). Stephen Strehle, The Catholic Roots of the Protestant Gospel. Encounter between the Middle Ages and the Reformation (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995). Cornelis P. Venema, Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination: Author of ‘the Other Reformed Tradition’? (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002). Peter Walser, Die Prädestination bei Heinrich Bullinger, (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1957).