Section 9

 ² Bernd Moeller, Reichsstadt und Reformation (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1987), p. 12.

 ³ The evangelical Zurich clergy would have preferred an even more zealous consolidation, but political authorities honoured the legal validity of certain ecclesiastical properties in the countryside which fell to foreign patronage.

 ⁴ Cf. Emil Egli (ed.), Actensammlung zur Geschichte der Zürcher Reformation in den Jahren 1519–1533 (Zurich: Schabelitz, 1879), no. 1391, pp. 600–610 and no. 1414, pp. 618–23.

 ⁵ Cf. esp. the fourth article of the Meilener Verkommnis settled between November 1531 and February 1532 regarding the exclusion of clergy from outright political manoeuvering. For this full text, see Egli, Actensammlung, no. 1797, pp. 768–70. Bullinger himself records a version in his manuscript of Reformation history; see Heinrich Bullingers Reformationsgeschichte, eds Johann Jakob Hottinger and Hans Heinrich Vögeli, vol. 3 (Frauenfeld: Ch. Beyel, 1840), pp. 284–91.

 ⁶ For this text, see Egli, Actensammlung, no. 1899, pp. 825–37. Pamela Biel provides an English translation in Appendix 1 of Doorkeepers at the House of Righteousness: Heinrich Bullinger and the Zurich Clergy 1535–1575 (Berne: Peter Lang, 1991) (Zürcher Beiträge zur Reformationsgeschichte 15), pp. 207–13.

 ⁷ One should also keep in mind – as Bullinger’s synodal tinkering with outlines of episcopal duties indicates – that the rubric ‘doctrine’ was a highly dynamic category not equated simply with propositional orthodoxy.

 ⁸ There are no extant notes from Bullinger’s synod leadership in the years 1532 through 1534. It appears that he only began systematically to record such thoughts in 1535. Nevertheless, there is some possibility that the first three recorded entries in the Sermones Synodales may include earlier portions. The first entry, for example, features some comments that may suggest closer connection to the 1532 controversies regarding the terms of the Second Peace of Kappel (including possible references to Bullinger’s September 1532 opinion about severing ties with the greater Swiss Confederation and/or possible disgust with the Zurich magistracy which, in April 1533, had to rescind its 1532 morals-mandate). Further confusion arises in the entry on page 11. The date of ‘1536 Octob.’ is rubbed out, and ‘1537 Maius’ is added, perhaps long after the fact, inasmuch as the spring synod of 1537 actually convened not in May but on 24 April (in contradiction, for unknown reasons, to the guidelines of the Synodalordnung).

 ⁹ Hans Ulrich Bächtold, Heinrich Bullinger vor dem Rat: Zur Gestaltung und Verwaltung des Zürcher Staatswesens in den Jahren 1531 bis 1575 (Berne: Peter Lang, 1982) (Zürcher Beiträge zur Reformationsgeschichte 12).

¹⁰ The protocols of the Synodalakten, or, Acta Synodi, are located in Zurich Staatsarchiv, E II.1. For analysis of this source, cf. Bruce Gordon, Clerical Discipline and the Rural Reformation: The Synod in Zürich, 1532–1580 (Berne: Peter Lang, 1992) (Zürcher Beiträge zur Reformationsgeschichte 16).

¹¹ This knack for seamless innovation (along with Bullinger’s own self-effacing character) helps explain how so much historiography until recent decades spoke of a monolithic ‘Zwinglian tradition’ with little or no reference to Bullinger. Perhaps the clearest testimony of this now-disproved perspective may be seen in the volume nominally devoted to both Zwingli and Bullinger in the Library of Christian Classics series. The editor offers the blandest of introductions to a reformer noted for dutiful persistence but who was ‘pedestrian’ and ‘in no way outstanding’. See G.W. Bromiley (ed.), Zwingli and Bullinger: Selected Translations with Introductions and Notes (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953) (Library of Christian Classics 24), esp. pp. 45–6.

¹² Cf. Peter Blickle, ‘Die Reformation vor dem Hintergrund von Kommunalisierung und Christianisierung: Eine Skizze’, in Kommunalisierung und Christianisierung: Voraussetzungen und Folgen der Reformation, 1400–1600, eds Peter Blickle and Johannes Kunisch (Berlin: Duncker und Humblot, 1989) (Zeitschrift für historische Forschung, Beiheft 9), pp. 9–28.

¹³ See Egli, Actensammlung, no. 1899, pp. 825–37.

¹⁴ Heinrich Bullinger, Das Amt des Propheten, translated by Daniel Bolliger, in Heinrich Bullinger Schriften, eds Emidio Campi et al., vol. 1 (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2004), pp. 11–47.

¹⁵ Bullinger explicitly equates ‘Christian bishops’ at this point with Old Testament prophets. See Bullinger, Amt des Propheten, p. 12.

¹⁶ In Article 23 of the 67 Articles, Zwingli had explicitly linked the terms ‘preacher’ and ‘bishop’ through reclaiming the latter’s simple etymological significance as ‘overseer’. The thrust for Zwingli in such cases was almost entirely negative, however, serving his goal of popping the bubble of pomposity among Romanist clergy who equated episcopacy with a species of princely rule. Bullinger, conversely, frequently speaks of ‘bishops’ when addressing his ministerial colleagues, and he always emphasizes its positive sense as ‘overseer’. Cf. Huldrych Zwingli, Uùlegen und gründ der schluùreden oder articklen, eds Georg Finsler, Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, vol. 2 (Leipzig: Heinsius, 1908), p. 243.

¹⁷ It is not surprising that Bullinger should have focused on the ordained ministry at gatherings whose very constitution singled out the Zurich clergy. However, it is well to note the inherent significance in Bullinger’s nurturing of the synod per se as an established body. As with many of the new trends toward institutional consolidation of reformed Zurich, Zwingli had hardly left the synod in enduring condition by the time that his brief tenure ended.

¹⁸ This rhetorical strategy is among the most sustained throughout the Sermones Synodales. The first quotation of Malachi 2:1–9 with Bullinger’s own marginalia appears in the entry for 1536, see Heinrich Bullinger, Sermones Synodales, Zurich Zentralbibliothek, Ms. D 220, pp. 8–9.

¹⁹ Bullinger, Sermones Synodales, pp. 8–9 (entry for 1536).

²⁰ Article 18 of the Second Helvetic Confession, for example, bluntly asserts that ‘we do not impart the name of priest to any minister’. Cf. Heinrich Bullinger, Confessio Helvetica Posterior, ed. Emidio Campi, Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften, vol. 2/2 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2009), pp. 268–345, here p. 319, 21–2: ‘… nemini inter ministros sacerdotis vocabulum communicamus’.

²¹ These instances occur fairly evenly across the scope of Sermones Synodales entries: 1536, May 1541, October 1549, October 1553, October 1556, May 1557, October 1557, October 1567, May 1570, May 1572, and May 1575 (which was a repetition of the entry for October 1567). Bullinger also preached two series of Tuesday sermons on Malachi at the Grossmünster: from 29 May 1554 to 14 August 1554 and from 29 September 1573 to 9 February 1574.

²² Bullinger, Sermones Synodales, entries for 20 October 1556 (p. 90) and 19 October 1563 (p. 119). The same quote appears in both entries: ‘Osee 6. Laqueus ruinae populi mali sacerdotes’.

²³ Hosea 9:8 reads: ‘The prophet is a sentinel for my God over Ephraim, yet a fowler’s snare is on all his ways, and hostility in the house of his God’.

²⁴ Bullinger, Sermones Synodales, p. 89 (20 October 1556): ‘Breviter officii admonuit. Imprimis requiritur scientia, eruditio, doctrina. Gentes id viderunt. Sacerdotes Aegÿptiorum. Chaldaei Babyloniorum. Magi Persarum. Gymnosophistae Indorum. Druydae Gallorum. In lege imprimis requiritur scientia et repetitur in prophetis’.

²⁵ Bullinger preached two sermon series on Jeremiah: exegeting Jeremiah 1–13 on Tuesdays from 5 January 1557 to (probably) July 1560; and exegeting Jeremiah 14–30 on weekdays/Fridays from (probably) June/July 1559 to 28 June 1560.

²⁶ Bullinger, Sermones Synodales, p. 102 (9 May 1559). NB esp. verse 11: ‘Etenim tam propheta quam sacerdos hÿpocritae fuerunt’. It is further significant that the Jeremiah passage here prominently includes ‘drunkenness’ in the catalogue of sinful behaviours among the priests/prophets. Drunkenness was probably the most recurrent issue for censure at Zurich synod sessions, and the issue is complex beyond the surface. Physical inebriation was part of a much bigger picture of spiritual condition on the eve of Judgment.

²⁷ My suspicion is that evangelical radicals had similarly appropriated the title of ‘prophet’ to the extent that Bullinger felt compelled to admonish his legitimate peers in Zurich ministry against the uncoordinated and socially fissiparous role of Anabaptist alternatives.

²⁸ Bullinger, Sermones Synodales, p. 120 (19 October 1563) refers to ‘Moses and Aaron’ as representatives of priesthood, without using that term. The entries for 9 May 1564 (p. 121) and 7 May 1566 (p. 127) explicitly pair the terms prophet and priest. The entry for 19 October 1568 (pp. 137–8) includes much the same sketch of salvation history, along with two significant additional points: the ministry of Christ and the apostles is carried on ‘in hunc diem’ by ‘Pastores. Doctores. Episcopi. Presbyteri’; and the legitimate Christian priesthood is perversely mirrored and persecuted by the ‘Sacerdos Baalitas’ in Satan’s sway.

²⁹ Episcopal headings for the entire diagram of doctrina et vita notwithstanding, the term bishop can therefore sometimes have an additional, narrower association with the vita-side of that pair.

³⁰ Bullinger found the years 1567 and 1568 to be particularly redolent with thoughts of world history. It is in this span, for example, that he completed his gigantic manuscript sourcebooks on both the ‘reformation of the church from 1519 to 1532’ and ‘Swiss history from the beginning to 1519’. See Emil Egli (ed.), Heinrich Bullingers Diarium (Annales vitae) der Jahre 1504–1574 (Basel: Basler Buch- und Antiquariatshandlung, 1904), pp. 87 and 91.

³¹ As an aside, one may observe that the magisterial authorities seem to have caught the terminological drift. Already at the synod session of 6 May 1544, Bürgermeister Johannes Hab incidentally refers to the Zurich ministers as a ‘priesthood’ (priesterschafft). Granted, this occurs in the context of reprimand for quasi-illicit gatherings of chapter deans, and so there is some chance that Johannes Hab is still hoping to convey some lingering negative echoes. See ‘Abstellen der Prosynodorum’ in the Acta Synodi, Zurich Staatsarchiv, E.II.1.303–4.

³² Reformational polemic frequently used the word ‘Pharisee’ as a reference not only to the religious opponents of Christ in the New Testament, but also as a code for the Roman Catholic clergy, with their supposed emphasis on cultic fastidiousness at the expense of the gospel message of repentance and faith.

³³ See Irena Backus, ‘The Beast: Interpretations of Daniel 7.2–9 and Apocalypse 13.1–4, 11–12 in Lutheran, Zwinglian and Calvinist Circles in the Late Sixteenth Century’, in Reformation and Renaissance Review 3 (2000), pp. 59–77; Irena Backus, Reformation Readings of the Apocalypse: Geneva, Zurich, and Wittenberg (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) (Oxford Studies in Historical Theology).

³⁴ This is not to say that there were no important religious innovations with social ramifications in Lutheran territories, only that such were not specifically eschatologically motivated. Cf. Robin B. Barnes, ‘Astrology and the Confessions in the Empire, c. 1550–1620’, in Confessionalization in Europe, 1555–1700: Essays in Honor and Memory of Bodo Nischan, eds John M. Headley et al. (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), pp. 131–53.

³⁵ Cf. Backus, ‘The Beast’, pp. 64–7.

³⁶ In his 1581 Commentary on Revelation, Nicolas Colladon alleged to have private knowledge of Calvin’s fondness for the book, despite the latter’s steadfast refusal to treat Revelation in any public way. Colladon’s claim is at best difficult to verify, and it probably reflects an effort to give a luster of orthodoxy to a then new direction among Calvinist writers.

³⁷ Backus, ‘The Beast’, pp. 69–72.

³⁸ Calvin’s close friend and colleague, Theodore Beza, did publish a new Latin edition of the New Testament in 1557 that included annotations defending the canonicity and clarity of Revelation. To some extent, this may reflect the influence of exegetical writings that already had been coming out of Zurich. But Beza was not to wander all that far from Calvin; he utterly rejected any connection to an eschatological millennium in the book of Revelation. Beza’s primary goal was not a constructive eschatology, but the more academic desire to disprove Erasmus’ negative insinuations regarding Revelation’s place in the Christian canon. See Backus, Reformation Readings of the Apocalypse, p. 27.

³⁹ Backus, Reformation Readings of the Apocalypse, pp. 29–30.

⁴⁰ Backus, Reformation Readings of the Apocalypse, p. 99. Here again we see the typical reformational position that the church rightly exists in a dyanamic ministry of proclamation, rather than as a self-referential corps of priests insisting on their own ‘indelible character’.

⁴¹ There is some irony in the fact that Bibliander and Bullinger agreed that the ‘beast had been loosed’ around the year 1100 – a time that actually corresponds with a discernible sea-change in western Christendom. A modern historian might even use similar words – metaphorically, of course – to signify the sudden, emphatic rise of apocalyptic mentality in the wake of visionaries like Joachim.

⁴² Bullinger lectured on Thessalonians as a fresh-faced teacher in Kappel in 1526, and he published a short treatise on Daniel already in 1530. Defense of reformational doctrine appears always to have flourished in a fundamentally eschatological framework in Bullinger’s mind. A sense of the peculiar place and time of humanity informed all details of his vocation.

⁴³ Heinrich Bullinger, A Hundred Sermons upon the Apocalipse (London: John Daye, 1573), fol. B3.

⁴⁴ It strikes me as odd that Backus, Reformation Readings of the Apocalypse treats with such meticulous detail what she dubs ‘The Zurich School’ while denying many eschatological ramifications. Jud, she says, is pastoral and political without significant ‘interest in eschatology’ (p. 88); Bibliander’s antichristology ‘has nothing to do with eschatological hopes; it is motivated primarily by confessional polemics’ (p. 102). Her operative assumption seems to be that politics and eschatology are inherently, mutually exclusive, as seen in her comment about Bullinger, Backus, ‘The Beast’, p. 74: ‘Of the commentators that we have discussed he is the least interested in politics and the most interested in the historical and eschatological implications of the two books’.

⁴⁵ Not only the famous work In Apocalypsim conciones centum (Basel: Johannes Oporin, 1557), but also the treatise Das Jüngste Gericht (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer the Elder, 1555) and the two orations in De fine seculi et iudicio venturo (Basel: Johannes Oporin, 1557) overtly express the eschatological nexus. Bullinger linked Daniel 7 and Revelation with important connecting references through the language of covenant and impending Judgment in Malachi 2, the unfolding identity of the ‘son of perdition’ of 2Thessalonians 2:3–4, and, especially, the apocalyptic prophecies by Christ in Matthew 24–5 (including the highly eschatological parable of the good and bad servants before their master’s return).

⁴⁶ The terms of the Peace of Kappel had emphasized the need to avoid inciting religiously motivated unrest among the states of the Confederation. Treatises in Latin were not given a free pass, of course, but they never aroused as much political suspicion and angst for the simple reason that a Latin treatise would reach a limited audience of scholars and would therefore have little chance to kindle immediate popular reaction. A case in point: Rudolf Gwalther was taken to task for his 1546 German treatise on the Antichrist (Der Endtchrist [Zurich: Christoph Froschauer the Elder, 1546]), even though much of the offending content had already been espoused in Bullinger’s 1536 Latin commentary on Thessalonians (In d[ivi] apostoli Pauli ad Thessalonicenses … Commentarii [Zurich: Christoph Froschauer the Elder, 1536]). Bullinger’s own 1555 treatise on The Last Judgment (Das Jüngste Gericht) was published in German, but deliberately left out most of the strident antichristological component that would be featured in the Latin edition of the Hundred Sermons.

⁴⁷ Aurelio A. Garcia Archilla, The Theology of History and Apologetic Historiography in Heinrich Bullinger: Truth in History (San Francisco: Mellen Research University Press, 1992), pp. 34–6.

⁴⁸ Archilla, The Theology of History, p. 69: ‘This soteriological unity [i.e., justification always by faith whether in OT or NT] puts the church in strict parity with the people of the Old Testament, and makes the Old Testament for the church a primary text of the history of God’s dealings with his people … This conception will open up for Bullinger the Old Testament as a primary locus for interpreting the nature of God’s post-biblical dealings with his people, and an immediate source of ethical and societal ideas, which will be adapted to the understanding of the subsequent course of Church history, with proper accounting for differences of time, place and circumstance’.

⁴⁹ Archilla, The Theology of History, pp. 114–15.

⁵⁰ Foedus appears in the following entries of the Sermones Synodales: 1535 (p. 2); 1536 (pp. 8 and 9); 19 October 1546 (p. 52); 7 May 1549 (p. 62); 24 October 1553 (four instances across pp. 78–9); 19 October 1557 (p. 95); and 19 October 1568 (p. 138).

⁵¹ The four exceptional cases are: 1535 (p. 2), where Bullinger seems to allude to Exodus 23:32 and Deuteronomy 7:2 in suggesting dissatisfaction with the pact of the Swiss Confederation (or possibly the terms of the Peace of Kappel); 19 October 1546 (p. 52), where Bullinger writes ‘the magistracy prohibits it on account of the covenant’ (‘magistratus defendere. Quae causa. Foedus.’), which seems here to refer to the fact that the Zurich magistracy was bound to the Swiss Confederation in such a way as to prohibit entering the fray of the Schmalkaldic War; 7 May 1549 (p. 62), where Bullinger writes ‘nothing is by chance, and yet we are most miserable in this covenant’ (‘nulla fortuna. Sed summa miseria in foedere’), seemingly again voicing frustrations with the Swiss Confederation and its failure to act to help evangelical friends during the Schmalkaldic War; and, lastly, on 19 October 1568 (p. 138), where Bullinger lists the covenant as an element in the increasingly clear development of salvation history.

⁵² Gerhard Oestreich certainly erred when treating institutional religion as meek handmaid to the nascent absolutist states of early modernity, but Bullinger’s special use of ‘covenant’ does suggest innovative appreciation for the role of clergy as a quasi-bureaucracy within the political entity.

⁵³ Mark S. Burrows, ‘“Christus intra nos Vivens”: The Peculiar Genius of Bullinger’s Doctrine of Sanctification’, in Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 98 (1987), pp. 48–69. Cf. Fritz Büsser, Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575): Leben, Werk und Wirkung, vol. 1 (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2004), pp. 277–8.

⁵⁴ Burrows, ‘Christus intra nos Vivens’, p. 54.

⁵⁵ For example, most especially Daniel 7, 8, and 11 and Matthew 24, but also occasionally augmented by selections from 2Timothy 3–4, 2Corinthians 6:2, Luke 17 and 21, Ephesians 5:16, Ezekiel 3, Jeremiah 8 and 23, 1Peter 4:17, and 2Peter 3.

⁵⁶ For example, 19 October 1546 (p. 52). The image of the eschatological ‘faithful servant’ also turns up as a foil to Romanist Council of Trent in Bullinger, Sermones Synodales, p. 71 (20 October 1551).

⁵⁷ Bullinger preached on Daniel on Tuesdays, 27 July 1546 to 19 July 1547 (and again, Tuesdays, 18 May 1563 to 19 June 1565); on Matthew on Sundays, 6 October 1549 to 19 May 1555 (having also preached on Matthew near the outset of his synodal presidency, in 1535); and on Revelation on Tuesdays, 21 August 1554 to 29 December 1556.

⁵⁸ Bullinger uses forms of the verb vigilare (to watch out) at least 30 times throughout the Sermones. Bruce Gordon has rightly noted the consistent, pastoral emphasis upon Wachbarkeit, and thus the eschatological stamp in Bullinger’s doctrine of salvation. What I further seek to show is the systematic relation of such an eschatological soteriology to the upbuilding of the institutions of Zurich society. Gordon leaves a much more individualistic impression in his treatment of the reformer’s soteriology. See: Bruce Gordon, ‘“Welcher nit gloubt der ist schon verdampt”: Heinrich Bullinger and the Spirituality of the Last Judgement’, in Zwingliana 29 (2002), pp. 29–53, esp. p. 33.

⁵⁹ For example, October 1569 (p. 143, = October 1574).

⁶⁰ See the Sermones Synodales entry for 7 May 1549 (p. 62): ‘Meminerimus qualia tempora et quod nostrum officium. Tempora praedicta ab apostolis et prophetis: nullum remedium nisi Verbum … Modeste prudenter agere’. ‘Prudence’ is also a terminus technicus for Bullinger, insofar as it consistently recalls the ‘faithful and prudent servant’ of Matthew 24.

⁶¹ The convened ministers of the Zurich synod were to seek prudence in acting and applying the Word (‘prudentia in agendo, applicando’), as expressed by Bullinger on 4 May 1557 (p. 93). Another clear illustration may be found in the entry for 3 May 1569 = 5 May 1573 (p. 142): ‘Who are the prudent ones? Those who establish all things for the place, time, and persons at hand, so that many may be made rich in Christ … Let us pray diligently for prudence’. (‘Prudentes, qui pro loco tempore et personis omnia instituunt, ut plures Christo lucrifiant … Orandum nobis sedulo pro prudentia’.)

⁶² For example, May 1561 (p. 109); May 1564 (p. 121); May 1574 (p. 164).

⁶³ Cf. Joachim Staedtke, ‘Die Geschichtsauffassung des jungen Bullinger’, in Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–1575: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum 400. Todestag, eds Ulrich Gäbler and Erland Herkenrath, vol. 1 (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 1975) (Zürcher Beiträge zur Reformationsgeschichte 7), p. 73. Cf. also Christian Moser, ‘“Papam esse Antichristum”: Grundzüge von Heinrich Bullingers Antichristkonzeption’, in Zwingliana 30 (2003), pp. 72–3.

⁶⁴ Bruce Gordon, ‘Welcher nit gloubt’.

⁶⁵ Cf. the Predigerordnung in Egli, Actensammlung, no. 1899, pp. 825–6: ‘Demnach der erbfygen unsers heils dasselb ze hinderen nie geruowet, sunder allweg die warheit und den rechten, waren, gottgefälligen gottsdienst, nit allein jetz bi unseren zyten, sunder so dickest die welt je buoss [Buss] / und besserung und sich Gottes willen ze nähern angenommen, mit etwas unmassen und missordnungen ze undergraben und zuo verdunklen understanden; desshalb die gemeldten diener der christenen gemeinden, diewyl etwas mängel und unordnungen yngerissen, uss schuldiger trüw befolhens ampts, in bysyn, ouch mit hilf und gunst unserer darzuo verordneter ratsfründen, sölich, ouch künftig mängel und geprästen damit zuo verbesseren und zuo fürkommen, zuo mererem ufwachs guoter, christenlicher sitten und tugenden, ouch bekerung unseres sündtlichen lebens und versünung göttlichs zorns, in jetzgehaltnem, gemeinem synodo dis nachfolgend erbar, göttlich artikel, restitution und verbesserung, uf wyter unser gfallen uss guotem yfer, mit bystand und grund heiliger, göttlicher gschrift angesehen, geordnet, in gschrift verfasst und uns die zuo verwilligen und zuo bestäten hüt datum für(ge)bracht …’

⁶⁶ Bullinger explicitly cites Matthew 24 and/or refers to ‘the faithful and prudent servant’ in 28 entries throughout the Sermones Synodales. Often there are multiple such references within a single entry. See October 1537 (p. 16); 6 May 1539 (pp. 21–3); 23 October 1543 (p. 40); 4 May 1546 (pp. 49–50); 19 October 1546 (p. 52); 23 October 1548 (p. 59); 7 May 1548 (p. 62); 5 May 1551 (p. 70); 20 October 1551 (p. 71); 22 October 1555 (p. 86); 5 May 1556 (p. 87); 20 October 1556 (p. 91); 4 May 1557 (pp. 93–4); 3 May 1558 (p. 98); 7 May 1560 (p. 106); 20 October 1562 (p. 115); 19 October 1563 (p. 120); 4 May 1568 (pp. 133–5); 19 October 1568 (p. 139); 3 May 1569 = 5 May 1573 (p. 141); 18 October 1569 = 19 October 1574 (p. 144); 8 May 1571 (p. 152); 23 October 1571 (p. 154); 6 May 1572 (p. 155); 20 October 1573 (pp. 160–161); and 4 May 1574 (p. 165).

⁶⁷ This is stated explicitly in the entries for May 1564 und May 1569. In this vein, Mark Burrows seems again to have moved scholarship in a right direction when he noted the ethical emphasis of sanctification in Bullinger’s preaching, not as a system of individual merits or of changed essence but of the very presence of Christ in nobis. See Burrows, ‘Christus intra nos Vivens’, p. 66.

⁶⁸ See, for example, Bullinger, Sermones Synodales, p. 23 (May 1539).

⁶⁹ Bullinger, Sermones Synodales, p. 27 (19 October 1540).

⁷⁰ Here way may again draw attention to the language of ‘vigilance’. This term was eschatologically charged and linked directly to Bullinger’s vision for reformed episcopacy.

⁷¹ Acta Synodi for 19 October 1540, in a section entitled Gemeine klag der lasteren halb (pp. 261–3): ‘Den wyn missbrucht man groblich und volgt daruff ougenschinlich aller unradt wie wir dann sähend, touben, schlahen, Gottslastere, wust redden, unreynigkeit unverschampte frydbruch und ellende todschlag … ist nüt gwüssers dan das uns Got straffen wirt unnd muss mit allerley plagen, kranckheyt, hunger, tuwere, krieg, uffrur, unnd pranndt. Dann wir habend lang sin wort gehört unnd besserend uns nüt’.

⁷² ‘[In Latin:] Certain ones are too hospitable. [In German:] They do not come out of the tavern’. Sermones Synodales for 4 May 1568 (p. 135). This occurs in a lengthy treatment of episcopal hallmarks listed in 1Timothy and Titus. Cf. here esp. 1Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:8.

⁷³ In addition to the very many references to drunkenness via Matthew 24 throughout the Sermones Synodales, other uses of forms of ebrietas occur in the following entries: May 1537 (p. 12), 20 October 1556 (pp. 89–90), 18 October 1558 (p. 99), 9 May 1559 (p. 102), 22 October 1560 (p. 107), 8 May 1565 (p. 125), and 9 May 1570 (p. 149).

⁷⁴ Entry for May 1537 (p. 12). Underlined by Bullinger.

⁷⁵ See entry for 20 October 1556 (p. 90).

⁷⁶ See entry for 4 May 1557 (p. 94).

⁷⁷ See entry for 7 May 1560 (p. 106). Cf. 23 October 1571 (p. 153). Note also the explicit references here to Daniel 11 and Matthew 24, along with the eschatological use of the term ‘times’ (temporibus).

⁷⁸ See entry for 9 May 1559 (p. 102).

⁷⁹ Cf. Bullinger, De fine seculi, pp. 60–61.