GENERAL INTRODUCTION . : - : ; ate Lo
General Introduction
1. THE LIFE OF ZWINGLI
Huldrych (or Ulrich) Zwingli was born in 1484, the same year as Luther. His birthplace was Wildhaus in the Toggenburg, some 40 miles from Zurich and over 3,000 feet above sea-level.
He came of peasant stock, but his father was a man of means and ability, and both he and his father before him acted as chief magistrate for the district. The home in which the young Zwingli was nurtured was characterized by those qualities which marked Swiss life at its best, a sturdy independence, a strong patriotism, a zeal for religion and a real interest in scholarship. The later life and character of Zwingli bear ample evidence of the debt which he owed to this early environment. !
Zwingli's first teacher was his uncle Bartholomew,? who himself had formerly been priest of Wildhaus but was now dean of Weesen. Bartholomew Zwingli was a man of wide intellectual interests and he was able to give to his young nephew an early acquaintance with the New Learning and an appreciation of the value of academic studies. From the very first Zwingli's sympathies were with that movement of Renaissance which was to contribute so much to the loosening of the mediaeval structure.
In view of the promise which he showed, Zwingli was sent to the high school at Basel in the autumn term 1494. His teacher there was Gregor Biinzli, who came from Weesen district and had formerly been assisted by Bartholomew.3 Zwingli's studies
1See O. Farner, Huldrych Zwingli, I, pp. 1-138, for interesting material on Zwingli's early background.
2 Farner, op. cit., pp. 152 f., suggests that Zwingli probably attended a regular school in Weesen, but there is no doubt that his uncle took charge of his education.
3 Op. cit., p. 162.
ZWINGLI AND BULLINGER
at Basel included Latin, dialectic and music, and it was there that he first began to develop that talent and passion for music which was to remain with him throughout his life.4 From Basel he came to Berne, probably in 1496 or 1497, and in Berne he came under the formative influence of Heinrich W6lflin, or Lupulus, a famous teacher and thorough-going exponent of the ideas and methods of the Renaissance.5 While in Berne,
Zwingli seems almost to have become a Dominican, apparently being attracted by the opportunity for serious musical training.
He did in fact enter the Dominican house,® but his relatives intervened, and probably in 14987 he was removed to the University of Vienna.
With a possible short break® Zwingli continued in Vienna until 1502, but in the spring of that year he matriculated at the University of Basel, where he was finally to complete his student days. He enrolled for the Arts course, which included a certain amount of theology and enabled him to gain a firsthand acquaintance with scholastic method. He helped to support himself by taking a teaching post at the St. Martin's school. He graduated B.A. in 1504, but perhaps the crucial year was 1506, when he had already taken his M.A. and he attended a course of lectures given by Thomas Wyttenbach on the Sentences of Peter Lombard. For it was under the influence of Wyttenbach that Zwingli was set on the path which was to lead to the two cardinal doctrines of the supremacy of Holy Scripture and justification by grace and faith.19 The effect of Wyttenbach's teaching must not be exaggerated, for neither on the one side nor the other was there any question at that time of a break with the mediaeval system. But the seeds of evangelical teaching were undoubtedly sown, for not only did Wyttenbach himself later suffer great hardships for his doctrine, but Leo Jud, Capito and Pellican were all conscious of an indebtedness to him as well as Zwingli.
It was in the same year 1506 that Zwingli received a call to the parish of Glarus where he was to remain for the next ten years. His ordination probably took place at Constance, and 4 Ibid., p. 168 f.
5 Farner, op. cit., p. 164.
6 C.R., III, p. 486. This seems to be the implication.
7The date usually given is 1500, but Farner argues convincingly for 1498, op. cit., pp. 176 f.
8 Ibid., pp. 184 f. Farner thinks that he may have been temporarily expelled, probably for political reasons.
9 Ibid., pp. 226 f.
10 Cf. Zwingli's famous statement, C.R., V, p. 718.
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
I5 he celebrated his first Mass at Wildhaus. The parish of Glarus was a large and busy one, for it included three neighbouring villages in addition to the small town, but in spite of his many pastoral duties, which he seems to have fulfilled conscientiously enough, Zwingli was able to continue his humanistic and theological studies. !!
During the period at Glarus Zwingli first became interested in that question of mercenary service which was to play a considerable part in the later work of reform.!? By reason of their known hardihood and proved military prowess the Swiss were in great demand at this time as mercenary soldiers, and both the Confederacy as a whole and the individual recruit could command high prices from the various European Courts, not excluding the papacy. But the whole system of mercenary service and the riches which it brought were a source of serious moral deterioration in Switzerland, and as early as 1503 the Confederate Diet had made a futile effort to prohibit all foreign payments.
Both as patriot and pastor Zwingli deplored the inherent and consequent evils of the system, and his first two literary productions were both aimed against it. But at first Zwingli made an exemption in the case of service on behalf of the papacy, and in 1512 he himself acted as chaplain to the Glarus contingent fighting with the papal armies. For his services in that year and again in 1513 and 1515 he earned the commendation of the papacy and a papal pension, and he was also made papal agent for the Glarus district. In point of fact the final period had disillusioned him even in respect of papal service, 14 but the favour which he enjoyed was to stand him in good stead in the early years at Zurich, for even as late as 1523 Adrian VI could write him in flattering terms,15 and the first reforms were carried through without serious ecclesiastical intervention. A further indirect result of the mercenary service was that Zwingli had opportunity to survey something of the Church's life and activity in Italy. Not only was he not impressed by what he saw, but when he compared the modern Mass with that found in ancient Mass-books (especially at Milan)!* he was led to question the authenticity of contemporary forms of 11 For an account of the years at Glarus see Farner, of. cit., II, pp. 7 f.
12 Jbid., pp. 88 f.
13 D.C. 153.
14 Cf. the poem Das Labyrinth, C.R., I, pp. 39 f.
15 D.C.R. 187.
16 Ibid., 161.
ZWINGLI AND BULLINGER
Christianity and also, of course, the authority upon which they were grounded.
More important than the military service was Zwingli's continued interest in classical and theological learning. He seems to have used the papal pension for the purchase of books, and with this assistance he was able to acquire a considerable library, keeping abreast of all the latest productions.!7 His sympathies were still for the most part with the Renaissance scholars, and he started a highly prized correspondence with Erasmus.!8 The classes which he held for promising youngsters helped to keep him actively engaged in academic work, and in 1513 he planned to teach himself Greek, a language which he had not had any occasion to acquire during his days at school or university. It is no little credit to his industry and ability that in spite of the poverty of available text-books he gradually attained a considerable mastery of the language. As a good humanist Zwingli used his knowledge of Greek to make firsthand acquaintance with the ancient classics, but there can be no doubt that the primary purpose of the study was to enable him to read the New Testament in the original. For although
Zwingli maintained his wider humanistic interest, it was the religious problem which emerged finally as his principal concern.
From the point of view of his inward development the final year at Glarus (1516) was probably the crucial one.!9 Zwingli himself constantly referred back to this period as the time when he won through to an evangelical understanding of Holy
Scripture, ?° and at the same time the influence of Erasmus had been helping to undermine whatever confidence he still had in the traditional system. Zwingli himself was not unconscious of his indebtedness to Erasmus and he later acknowledged the debt in generous terms.?! But the revolution was not entirely intellectual, for Farner has shown that the moral problem of sensuality was much exercising him at this time, and that he found relief and a new power against it in the evangelical faith. 22
In the meantime Zwingli had continued his pastoral work at Glarus, and had acquired quite a reputation as an interesting and effective preacher. However, his increasing hostility to the whole mercenary system provoked the opposition of other
17 Cf. Farner, op. cit., II, pp. 107 f.
18 Jbid., p. 153.
19 Jbid., pp. 234 f.
20 Cf, CUR. Tl pers:
21 D.C.R. 160.
22 Farner, op. cit., II, pp. 140 f.
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
I7 pensionaries in Glarus, and although he still had a strong and sympathetic following, in 1516 he found it more congenial to accept a new appointment as people's priest at Einsiedeln.
It is worth noting that the people of Glarus would not allow him officially to relinquish his office there, and for some time
Zwingli was a pluralist, paying a "'vicar'' to fulfil his duties in the former parish.
The work at Einsiedeln was very different from that at Glarus and it gave him ample opportunity for exploiting his gifts both as a preacher and as a scholar. Einsiedeln was only a small place, some 20 miles south-east of Zurich, but as the site of a famous shrine to the Virgin (with an alleged angelic dedication and a plenary indulgence) it attracted pilgrims from all parts of Switzerland. A sermon was preached every Sunday and Feast
Day, and a fair audience could always be expected. In addition a special festival was held to mark the angelic dedication, and when the day (September 14) fell on a Sunday, a major celebration took place with services and sermons spread over a fortnight. There was a major celebration in the year of Zwingli's appointment, and the new priest took a prominent part in the proceedings. These wider opportunities not only helped to develop Zwingli's talents as a preacher, but also gave him much more than a local reputation and influence, thus preparing the way for the spread of evangelical teaching in other cantons.
But Einsiedeln had other advantages. Zwingli had rather more leisure than at Glarus, and he was able to pursue his patristic and New Testament studies. There was a reasonably good library at the local monastery where both abbot and administrator were kindly disposed to the New Learning.?4
In addition Zwingli's friends in larger centres kept him well posted with the latest publications.25 The period of comparative withdrawal enabled him to work out his newly won apprehension of evangelical truth, and in his sermons he replaced the usual theological or topical discussions by expositions of the Gospels of the day, his main commentary being simply the Bible itself. 26
At this time, of course, Zwingli had no thought of separation from the Church. Indeed, he was on the friendliest terms not only with the Bishop and his Vicar-General but also with the 23 Cf. Opera, VII, p. 30, where in a letter dated Oct. 30, 1517, he styles himself Pastor of Glarus.
24 Opera, VII, p. 59.
25 Farner, op. cit., II, p. 257.
26 C.R., II, p. 145.
Z.B.—2
ZWINGLI AND BULLINGER
Papal Legate, who to some extent sympathized with him and were conscious of the need for reform. A minor indulgence crisis arose in 1518 with the coming of the Franciscan preacher
Samson, but Zwingli's superiors encouraged him in his rather amused castigation of the abuse.
27 In his attitude to this scandal Zwingli certainly displayed more of the spirit of Erasmus than of Luther, but the situation was not so serious as at Wittenberg, for there were no vested interests in Samson's work.
Certainly, Zwingli's attitude did not cost him anything in ecclesiastical favour, for in the same year 1518 he was made acolyte chaplain to the Pope and released from certain censures which he had incurred.28 In 1519 Leo X admonished Samson and gave the Diet liberty to dismiss him from the country.?°
Zwingli made good use of his time at Einsiedeln, but it was obviously not a post which could satisfy him for long. In 1518 he almost accepted an invitation to Winterthur, but the people of Glarus would not release him. At the end of the same year, through the good offices of his friend Myconius, and in spite of considerable opposition, he was finally called to the office of people's priest at the Great Minster at Zurich.3° The objections were on the score of his love of music and worldly pleasures and his unchaste life, of which there was still concrete evidence in spite of the great reform which he had effected.31 He was succeeded at Einsiedeln by his one-time fellow-student Leo
Jud, and one of his former pupils, Tschudi, was elected to the parish of Glarus.
The post which Zwingli accepted at the Great Minster was not a well paid one, and in the early period when he had no voice on the City Council he had only a restricted influence upon the conduct of affairs. But the office was important, for Zwingli had the opportunity to preach regularly in the Great
Minster. From the very outset he began a course of direct biblical expositions32 which helped to spread a knowledge of Scripture amongst the townspeople, thus preparing the ground for the eventual work of reform. By means of market-day sermons he was also able to reach the country people who came in from the surrounding districts. The attempted intervention of Samson led only to his virtual dismissal from the Confederacy, and the Papal Legate protected Zwingli from the attack of a 27 Cf. the reply of Beatus Rhenanus, D.C.R. 163.
28 C.R., VII, pp. 95 f. The honour was of course an empty one.
29D.C.R. 164.
30 For a full account see Farner, of. cit., II, pp. 285 f.
31 Ibid., pp. 298-301.
32 Cf. Farner, op. cit., II, p. 293.
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
hostile monk by prohibiting the publication of his work.33
Unfortunately Zurich suffered badly from the plague in the autumn of 1519. Zwingli stayed faithfully at his post, but he himself caught the infection, and after a period of severe sickness he made only a slow recovery to normal health. The fact that he was spared when so many perished seems to have made a deep impression upon Zwingli, for he interpreted it as a divine seal set upon his reforming mission to the city.34 The more serious turn given to his thinking was strengthened when his brother Andrew died in November, 1520.
During the period which followed Zwingli's main energies were devoted to the reforming work which will call for consideration in the next section. In the present context we may review certain more personal or external matters. In 1522
Zwingli entered into correspondence with Oecolampadius of Basel, who was to continue his warm friend and supporter in the dispute with the Lutherans.35 This new friendship compensated to some extent for the loss of that with Erasmus in the summer of 1523.36 Erasmus enjoyed the role of satirist and critic, but he had no taste for the actual work of reform, and he viewed with alarm the events now taking place at Zurich.
Matters came to a head when Zwingli gave protection to Ulrich of Hutten, who had had the temerity to write against Erasmus and whose expulsion Erasmus requested from the City
Council of Zurich. From the safety of Zurich Hutten unwisely made a fresh attack on Erasmus (August 15), but died a few days later (on the 31st). Erasmus made a reply which he dedicated to Zwingli, but he never wrote Zwingli again. Zwingli much regretted the turn which events had taken, for he had a warm regard not only for Erasmus but also for the Swiss humanist Glareanus whose friendship he also lost. But the break was perhaps inevitable in view of the decisive differences in policy and outlook, and it is fortunate that it did not involve the same dogmatic bitterness as the rift between Erasmus and Luther.
An important new step which Zwingli took in 1524 was to enter into an official marriage with Anna Reinhard, the widow of Hans Meyer, and mother of the Gerold to whom Zwingli had addressed his Education of Christian Youth. There is strong evidence to suggest that Zwingli had been "'clerically'' married
33 Opera, VII, p. 96.
34 Farner, op. cit., I, pp. 347 f.
33 Opera, VII, pp. 251-252, 261.
36 [bid., p. 251, 302, 307-311.
ZWINGLI AND BULLINGER
to Anna at any rate since 1522,37 but on April 2, 1524, the position was regularized, and the Council gave their formal recognition on July 26.
It was during this period that Zwingli began his extensive literary labours in defence of the Swiss Reformation. The Archeteles and the sermons on the Word of God and the Virgin had appeared in 1522, together with the Exposition of the Articles and the sermon on Divine and Human Righteousness. In 1523 Zwingli composed the tract The Education of Youth which was followed in 1524 by his sermon on the Pastor and various Addresses, Epistles and Replies. The Commentarius and the treatises on Baptism and the Lord's Supper appeared in 1525, initiating a lengthy series of controversial writings directed mainly against the Anabaptists and the Lutherans.
To the final period (1530-1531) belonged The Refutation of the Tricks of the Catabaptists, the Fide: Ratio, and The Exposition of the Christian Faith.
Ofalmost all these writings it must be said that they were controversial in design and far too hasty in composition.
Zwingli himself seems to have been quite aware of the latter fault, but he was unable to remedy it. For one thing, he was far too occupied with practical matters to devote himself to more studied theological writing. For another he lacked the necessary patience. Once he had started on a work his whole aim was to see it in print at the earliest possible moment. The result is that while his writings do not lack acuteness or profundity, they lack that unity and balance which characterize the greater works of theology and in the German works especially the style is distinctive by reason of its forcefulness rather than its grace or compactness.
But the defects in Zwingli's work are not entirely the reflection of corresponding defects in his character. It is true that his reasoning is often more acute than convincing, and to that extent his work testifies faithfully to his more rational understanding of evangelical truth. But if sometimes his polemical writings suggest an almost supercilious sense of intellectual superiority, the impression is not at all borne out by his personal relationships.
In fact, Zwingli seems to have been of a warmhearted and friendly disposition, and much of his success was due to the appeal of his open and generous nature. He was roused to scorn only when it appeared that his opponents were wilfully refusing to accept what he himself saw as plain and self-evident truth, sheltering themselves either in the 37 Opera, VII, pp. 210, 226, 253.
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
invincible obstinacy of ignorance, or in all too evident evasions and falsehoods.
By the year 1524 the reforming movement was not only firmly under way in Zurich but it had begun to have its effect in other cities and cantons. The result was that Zwingli was increasingly caught up in a mesh of wider activities in the defence and propagation of evangelical teaching. For the opponents of reform were also busy. Alarmed by the trend of events, the Catholic cantons accepted an offer made by Dr. Eck to maintain against Zwingli and his supporters the "scriptural nature of old true
Christian beliefs and practices" (October, 1524).38 Zwingli himself declined the invitation, but it was taken up by Oecolampadius of Basel and Berchthold Haller of Berne. For the moment the traditionalists maintained the day, but first in Berne and then in Basel the upper hand was gained by the party of reform.39 A number of other cantons declared themselves for the evangelical cause, including Appenzell, Glarus and Schaffhausen and such allied or subject territories as the Toggenburg, St. Gall and Thurgau.
4° Zwingli himself did not play a direct part in the extension of reform to these districts, but in a real sense Zurich was the centre or spearhead of the movement and Zwingli its recognized ecclesiastical and theological leader. Accordingly, although
Zwingli did not make any attempt to force a unified order or liturgy upon the loosely interrelated communions, he did feel a sense of responsibility for their maintenance and welfare, especially in view of their dangerous isolation from the Lutheran states as a result of the bitter eucharistic controversy.
In the final years of his life his main concentration was upon the securing of the ground already won by a system of doctrinal and political alliances. Naturally, he continued his incessant activities as a theologian and pastor, but more and more he had to concern himself with the less congruous affairs of the statesman and diplomat.
The political activity of Zwingli was directed into three main channels. First, he aimed to create a common evangelical front within Switzerland itself, and it was in pursuit of this aim that the Christian Civic Alliance was founded and extended.?!
The Alliance was modelled on the treaty by which the city of Basel had been received into the Confederacy, except that confessional agreement was made one of the necessary 38 Opera, II, 2, pp. 399 f.
39 D.G.R. 459.
40 Loc. cit.
41 D.C.R. 220.
ZWINGLI AND BULLINGER
preconditions. *? The Alliance quickly gained strength, butit had the inevitable result of provoking the Catholic cantons to form a rival organization.43 The existence of these powerful and hostile groups made a collision almost inevitable, but when it did come in June, 1529, it was the Reformed side which had the initiative.44 The Catholic cantons were taken by surprise, and the war ended in an easy victory for the evangelical cause, with advantageous although hotly disputed terms at the First
Peace of Cappel.45 To that extent the Civic Alliance seemed to have justified itself as a safeguard against internal aggression.
In 1529, however, the more serious threat was from outside, for the Diet of Speier had proscribed all evangelical teaching and called for the extirpation of sacramentarian groups. The menace of the situation compelled Zwingli to consider the possibilities of some wider union with the Lutheran states, and he welcomed the invitation of Philip of Hesse to participate in preparatory theological discussions with the Lutheran leaders.4® It is likely enough that Zwingli would have been content with a bare recognition of his teaching, and upon the basis of toleration a working agreement might well have been attained, for there was virtual unanimity in the majority of subjects discussed. But Luther went to Marburg with another mind. For one thing he felt that a doctrine of the real presence was demanded by the Word of God: hence there could be no possible toleration for those who denied it. For another, Luther had no real trust in alliances or military action, and he regarded it as quite wrong to barter theological principle for political advantage. The inflexibility of Luther destroyed from the outset all possibility of real union, although Zwingli himself felt that enough had been done at any rate to give the Emperor pause in his aggressive designs.*7:The evil results of the failure were seen at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, when the Protestant groups were forced to present three separate confessions of faith, the Augustana, the Tetrapolitan and the Fidei Ratio, in place of the one united confession which might have made some impact upon the forces arrayed against them. The position was particularly difficult for the Civic Alliance, for on February
27, 1531, the four cities entered into the Schmalkaldic League, accepting a mediating eucharistic doctrine which Zwingli himself could not possibly approve.
42 Ibid.
43 Bullinger, Reformationsgeschichte, II, p. 264.
44 Ibid., pp. 297-298.
45 Ibid., p. 314. Cf. Opera, VIII, p. 296.
46 Opera, VIII, p. 287.
47 Ibid., p. 370.
48 Ibid., p. 579.
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
It was in face of the growing threat of isolation that even after Marburg Zwingli had had recourse to the third and final policy of alliances with anti-imperial but not necessarily evangelical powers. His first ally in 1529 was of course Philip of Hesse,49 and in the same year an approach was also made to Venice5° and in 1530 to France.5! Zwingli himself possibly believed that by means of these alliances the way might ultimately open up for a wider propagation and triumph of the Reformed faith. Certainly he had some such hopes in the case of France, but quite naturally they had no real foundation and were destined never to be realized. Negotiations with the French were tardy and in the long run futile, and in the meantime events supervened which led not merely to Zwingli's own death but to the halting of the reforming movement which he had initiated.
The loss of the four cities in February, 1531, deprived Zwingli of his most important allies both doctrinally and geographically.
At the same time the hostility of the Lutherans and the suspicion of the French exposed Zurich and its immediate supporters to the perils of complete isolation. Zwingli himself evidently had fears of an overwhelming invasion by the Emperor 52 and it was in these circumstances that he pressed for a fresh effort to reduce the Five Forest cantons.53 But Berne would not consent to this extreme step, preferring to weaken the cantons by economic sanctions.54 As Zwingli foresaw, this policy not merely provoked the resentment of their opponents, but actually transferred to them the military initiative. The climax came in October, 1531, when the Foresters could stand the strain no longer and invaded the cantonal territory of Zurich. The Zurichers naturally rallied to defend themselves, but they were ill-prepared and _ halfhearted in the venture, and their ill-concerted efforts came to a tragic end on the fatal field of Cappel (October 11). Zwingli himself seems to have had a premonition of disaster,5>5 but he accompanied the troops as field-chaplain, and was killed in the action. The death of Zwingli and the terms of the Second Peace of Cappel 5* combined to put a decisive stop to the progress of reform in the German-speaking cantons.
49 Ibid., p. 665.
50 Loc. cit.
51 Ibid., p. 397
52 Ibid., p. 593.
$3 Ibid., p. 586.
54 Bullinger, op. cit., II, p. 377.
An embargo was placed upon sales to the Cantons of wheat, wine, salt, iron and steel.
558. M. Jackson, Ulrich Cwingli, p. 352.
56 D.C.R. 227.
24.
ZWINGLI AND BULLINGER
2. THE WORK OF ZWINGLI
The wider schemes of Zwingli were destined never to be realized, but his work was not destroyed, for Zurich itself remained loyal to the reforms which he had initiated. Indeed, it is in the scope and effectiveness of these reforms that the main historical importance of Zwingli is to be found, for although only on a small scale he presented the first example and pattern of a church thoroughly reorganized according to the evangelical understanding of the New Testament.
The first and perhaps the decisive impact which Zwingli made on Zurich was as an evangelist and preacher. In this respect his aim and method did not materially differ from that of Luther, who believed that the true key to the situation was not ecclesiastical action but the proclamation of the Word of God. In his earlier days at Zurich Zwingli had no seat either on the Council or on the Chapter, but as people's priest he had the ear of the congregation, which on Friday included many people from the surrounding districts. His primary aim was to expound continuously successive books of the Bible, but he was not afraid to make a practical or topical application, attacking unbelief and moral abuses and taking up the cudgels against indulgences. His position in the city was strengthened by his loyal and devoted service during the plague, and his classes both at his own house and at the Minster school gave him an opportunity to influence the future leaders of the community.
The bold evangelical preaching of Zwingli naturally aroused opposition, especially from the monastic orders,57 but as early as 1520 it was evident that he was carrying the day, for in spite of complaints the Council issued a mandate allowing freedom to preach 'the holy Gospels and Epistles of the Apostles conformably with the word of God, and the true divine Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments'.5% Zwingli's attacks upon the mercenary system were also having their effect, especially after he freed his hands by renouncing his own pension from the Papacy in 1520.59 It is significant that when Francis I was seeking mercenaries in May, 1521, he could make agreement only with the other twelve cantons.®° Zurich and its Communes repudiated the whole mercenary system.
57 D.C.R. 165.
58 Ibid., 166.
59 Opera, I, p. 365.
60 Oechsli, I, 116.
61 [bid., II, 160.
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
By this time, however, the way had opened up for Zwingli to play a wider part in affairs, for with his appointment to the Chapter on April 29, 1521, he automatically became a member of the Council.6? Yet Zwingli never forgot that the true secret of reform is the preparation of the people by instruction. In all the activity which followed he never attempted to force his way upon the church by legislative enactment, but was content to wait the right moment when the demand for action came spontaneously from the congregation. It was because the future reforms were all carefully prepared by preaching and instruction that they were carried through with the minimum of opposition and on a solid and durable basis.
There were two fundamental principles underlying the whole reforming programme, first, that all doctrinal and ecclesiastical questions must be settled in accordance with the teaching or example of Scripture, and second, that a Christian government has both the right and the duty to see that the rulings of Scripture are observed. 3
The first issues which arose were in relation to three practices all sanctioned and enforced only by the Church: fasting, the celibacy of the clergy, and the intercession of the saints; and all three were settled quite irrespective of either traditional usage or episcopal order. The question of fasting came up abruptly in 1522 when certain individuals independently violated the Lenten fast.6¢ Zwingli defended their action in his sermon on the right use of meats.
A commission was sent down by the Bishop, but in spite of appeals and admonitions the Council would not do more than require the observance of the fast until the matter was elucidated.®5 In relation to celibacy Zwingli himself felt the absurdity of the existing position, and in July, 1522, joined with other clergy in a direct petition to the Bishop and the Diet requesting permission for the clergy to marry.°® The issue was not immediately debated by the Council, but during the months which followed celibacy was fairly generally abandoned in Zurich with at any rate the connivance of the authorities. The intercession of the saints was the subject of an early disputation in the summer of 1521, when Zwingli took the evangelical side and the traditional view was stated by a visiting Franciscan, Francis Lambert.®7
The result was a victory for Zwingli, for after a further disputation with the local friars the Burgomaster issued an order that 62 Egli, Analecta Reformatoria, I, 22 f.
63 Cf. Opera, III, p. 339.
64 Egli, A.S., 233.
65 Ibid., 296.
66 D.C.R, 178.
67 Ibid., 180.
ZWINGLI AND BULLINGER
preaching should be "from Holy Scripture, to the exclusion of Scotus and Thomas and suchlike.''58 A notable success was when the Chapter accepted the same principle in a resolution of August 19,69 and the Council followed up their decision by opening the Oetenbach convent to the preaching of the secular clergy.7° The authority of the Council was further emphasized on November 12 when Zwingli deliberately resigned his office as people's priest and accepted a new authorization to preach, not this time from the Bishop but from the City
Council.7! The implications of this action were not necessarily Erastian, for Zwingli accepted the authority of the Council in ecclesiastical matters only on the understanding that the Council itself was subject to the Word of God.
The year 1522 had seen the acceptance of Zwingli's fundamental contention, but the application had been in respect of only comparatively trivial matters which the papacy was prepared to overlook in view of Zwingli's past services and possible usefulness. The feebleness of the opposition and the obvious support of the majority of the people encouraged the reformer to undertake a rather more ambitious programme in the following year, and in January he published his Sixty-Seven Articles in preparation for the First Disputation which opened on the 29th.72 Once again the Council gave judgment in Zwingli's favour and the tempo of reform now increased. Celibacy was being abandoned by many clergy and monks; 73 the Articles were enforced; 74 a first translation of the baptismal office was prepared; 75 the canon of the Mass came in for criticism;76 and a plan was drawn up for the reform of the Great Minster.77
Swift and drastic as many of these changes were, Zwingli took good care not to outstrip public sympathy, and the constant propaganda of the pulpit prepared the people for every step. Indeed, in the autumn of 1522, certain sections of the population took the law into their own hands and began the destruction of images.78 The Council punished the offenders, but conceded a Second Disputation on the subject of images and the Mass.79 The Bishop made a futile attempt to have the matter deferred until the Diet, but this intervention
68 Bullinger, op. cit., I, p. 78.
69 Egli, A.S., 490.
70 D.C.R. 389.
71 Egli, A.S., 290.
72 Opera, I, pp. 141-148.
73 Bullinger, op. cit., I, p. 63.
74 Ibid., p. 60.
75 Opera, II, 2, p. 224.
76 Ibid., III, p. 83 f.
77 Egli, A.S., 426.
78 Ibid., 421.
79 Opera, VII, p. 311 f.
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
was ignored, and the disputation took place in October before the Council. Instructed by Zwingli and Leo Jud the Council decided against both images and the Mass, and in defiance of the authority of the Bishop they issued a mandate for the abolition of both.8° The break with diocesan authority was now complete, and the Council recognized it by proposing to appoint their own preachers to take the evangelical message to the country districts, 8!
The decision to replace the Mass by a communion met with a good deal of opposition in the Chapter, and its enforcement had to be delayed for several months. Further disputations in December, 1523, and January, 1524, resulted in a confirmation of the previous judgment, but protests from the other cantons again prevented its immediate execution. 82 However, the work of reform still continued, for the Whitsuntide procession to Einsiedeln was prohibited on May 14,83 organs and relics were suppressed in June, *4 images were officially removed in July, ®> and the religious houses were dissolved in December, their revenues being redirected to religious and charitable objects.' In the meantime the Mass temporarily remained, but in the first quarter of 1525 a new and concentrated attack was made upon it, first of all in writing, in Zwingli's Commentarius, and then in fresh representations to the City Council. The attack was successful, for on April 12 the Council finally decreed its abolition. 8? The last Mass was said in Zurich on the Wednesday of Holy Week, its place being taken by the new Communion Service on the days which followed.8* A purified Baptismal Office was introduced in the same year,
®9 so that it remained only to replace the Choir Office by Bible Readings or Prophesyings®® and the liturgical reconstruction was more or less complete. In the reform of the Church
Calendar which took place in 1527 only the major festivals like Christmas Day, Easter and All Saints' Day were retained, all work being prohibited on these days and Sundays except for the essential work of harvesting. 9! At the end of 1527 the disused organ in the Great Minster was broken up and the costly ornaments which had previously adorned the city churches were either sold or destroyed.
80 Egli, A.S., 436.
81 Loc. cit.
82 Bullinger, op. cit., I, p. 85.
83 Egli, A.S., 527.
84 Ibid., 547.
85 [bid., 552.
86 Ibid., 598.
87 Ibid., 684.
88 Loc. cit.
89 Opera, II, 2, p. 230.
90 Bullinger, op. cit., I, p. 160.
91 Jackson, op. cit., pp. 291-292.
ZWINGLI AND BULLINGER
The decisive break which came with the Mandate of 1523 had committed Zwingli and his party to the task both of ecclesiastical reorganization and also of the recruitment of an evangelical ministry. The latter task was the more immediately urgent, and it was tackled at once by instituting a theological seminary as part of the reform of the school attached to the Great Minster.9? Lectures were provided in both Greek and Hebrew for the instruction of future pastors, and Leo Jud was responsible for German courses on the various Biblical books, courses which were attended by the city clergy and even by some of the laity. From the very first high standards were set, for from his own experience Zwingli appreciated the value of scholarship, and he saw that if the reformation was to take deep root in the parishes it must be on a sound intellectual as well as spiritual foundation.
The question of ecclesiastical organization emerged only with the wider spread of evangelical teaching. The breakdown of episcopal authority naturally involved the withdrawal of immediate spiritual oversight, and the rise of Anabaptism carried with it the danger of a lawless individualism both in teaching and practice. It was, no doubt, because of this danger that the Anabaptists were ruthlessly suppressed both by Zwingli himself and also by the city authorities.93 Within the cantonal territories the pastors were of course officially responsible to the City Council, but apart from the ordinary processes of the law there was no real machinery to exercise spiritual or moral discipline. The need was met not by the creation of a new hierarchy but by the establishment of ecclesiastical synods charged with the task of enforcing a basic conformity in doctrine and reasonable standards of moral and pastoral life.°4 With the accession of other cantons and districts to the Reformed faith more general synods were convened, but the wider organization was of the Confederate type to which the Swiss were politically accustomed.
A common confessional outlook was the main bond of union. In liturgical and ecclesiastical questions the individual cities or cantons retained the individual right to order their own affairs. 95
The most striking feature of the reforming work actually accomplished by Zwingli is perhaps the thoroughness and consistency with which it was carried through. In this respect a comparison with Luther is particularly illuminating. Luther
92 Ibid., p. 293.
93 Egli, A.S., 622, 624.
94 Jackson, op. cit., p. 286.
95 Ibid., p. 294.
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
aimed to purify the Church by the proclamation of the Word of God, but he had little or no programme of practical reform, and his liturgical and ecclesiastical rearrangements were more in the nature of a concession to circumstances than the fulfilment of a consistent plan. Now Zwingli had the same basic aim as Luther, but for him the purification of the Church by the proclamation of the Word of God involved necessarily not merely the revivification of its faith and reconstruction of its doctrine, but the overhauling of every department of ecclesiastical life and practice. For Zwingli there were, strictly speaking, no adiaphora. Practice as well as doctrine must be tested at every point by the Word of God, and there could be no question of retaining traditional forms or ceremonies simply on the ground that they were not actually forbidden by Scripture. It would be far too much to say that Zwingli came to Zurich with a fully worked out programme of reform. But he certainly came with the principle which involved his whole programme of reform: the principle that the Word of God must be the supreme court of appeal not merely in matters of faith and ethics but in all the co-related questions of ecclesiastical practice. It was the inflexible application of that principle which gave to Zwingli's work its consistency and thoroughness.
Yet Zwingli was not primarily an ecclesiastical statesman but a preacher of evangelical truth. That is why fundamentally the reformation in Zurich was a doctrinal and spiritual matter rather than a political. It is true, of course, that Zwingli did exploit the instinctive desire of the Council to achieve autonomy in ecclesiastical affairs. It is also true that he made use of his influence on the Council to put the various reforms into practical effect. But it is no less true that the real secret of Zwingli's success was his ability to direct the religious thought of the city from the Minster pulpit. Zwingli himself had no doubts concerning the true basis of his work. Reform was possible only as the Word of God was taught and proclaimed.
That is why Zwingli was so insistent that there should be an instructed and zealous clergy, for only as the people were taught from Holy Scripture could they see for themselves the falsity of traditional belief and practice and demand and maintain a faith and order conformable with that of the New Testament. Outwardly the reforming work at Zurich was severely practical, but at bottom the practical measures were simply an outworking of the inward revolution accomplished by the preaching of the divine Word.
ZWINGLI AND BULLINGER
The emphasis upon preaching involved ultimately an educated laity which could play a full part in the counsels of the Church. In this respect Zwingli built better perhaps than he himself knew, but he certainly must have realized some of the implications of his teaching. As we have already noticed, in many cases he allowed the demand for reform to well up spontaneously from the people. In addition, he expected the Council to be able to give judgment on disputed theological questions, and he conceded to it the right of government in ecclesiastical matters. For the most part, of course, this concession was the general concession to lawfully established authority which Zwingli shared with Luther and indeed all the Reformers. Yet he could make it with a good conscience, because the Council as he envisaged it would consist of Christians who all had a solid grounding in evangelical truth and were thus qualified to exercise their responsibilities in ecclesiastical questions. In this respect Zwingli always maintained an ultimate superiority of the true pastorate, for the magistracy had no authority either to break or to exceed the divine Word which it was the task of the pastorate to expound and proclaim.
The final authority in Zurich was not to be the City Council, but Holy Scripture.
It was the stress upon Holy Scripture and its authority which determined the character of the liturgical reconstruction carried through at Zurich. It did so in two ways: first, the worship of the Church was to conform at all points to scriptural patterns; and second, it was to serve the over-riding end ot instruction in scriptural truth. In practice, the two ways were one and the same, for naturally it was the forms which were most agreeable to Scripture which best served the final end of instruction in Scripture. Thus Zwingli insisted that all the services should be in the, vernacular. This was obviously a return to the normal practice of the New Testament but it was also an indispensable aid to the task of teaching. Again, extraneous and distracting ornaments and ceremonies were ruthlessly suppressed and all the liturgical forms which remained were plain and simple, conforming to the basic structure of New Testament worship and giving ample scope for the active propagation of the evangelical faith.
Perhaps the greatest testimony to the solidity of Zwingli's work is the fact that the radical changes which he made in so short a period not only survived the shock of his own death but also exercised a wider influence in and through the ever-extend-
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
ing Reformed communities of the later part of the century.
In a sense, of course, we must admit that the work which he did was limited, and to that extent incomplete. His programme was radical and thorough, but he was able to carry it through only on a comparatively small scale. His direct influence was restricted to Zurich and the neighbouring cities and cantons of the Swiss Confederacy. Had he lived, events might possibly have given him that wider range and opportunity which was reserved for his true successor in the leadership of the Reformed churches, John Calvin. As it was, Zwingli was never able to complete his ambitious designs. Yet what he did do, he did thoroughly and well. The church of Zurich never attained to the world-wide prominence and authority of Geneva, but it had good reason for pride and not a little importance as the first example of a church wholly reformed according to the Word of God. And it was to the pioneer of the Reformed tradition that it owed both the fact and the form of that reformation.
g. THE THEOLOGY OF ZWINGLI
In the strict sense it is wrong to separate the theology of Zwingli from his work. The two belong together, for the ecclesiastical activity was simply the practical application of his theological principles. Behind all the activity there stood the two great doctrines on which his whole thought finally centred: the supremacy of the divine revelation in Holy Scripture, and the sovereignty of God in his election and grace. Which of the two doctrines has the priority it is perhaps futile to ask and certainly impossible to decide. On the one hand the perception of the biblical revelation is dependent upon the inward operation of grace, and to that extent the knowledge of Holy
Scripture is secondary to the divine sovereignty. But on the other hand the doctrines of grace are themselves revealed and known through Holy Scripture, and to that extent Holy
Scripture emerges as the true source of religious life and thought. From the purely historical standpoint, it is likely enough that Zwingli moved towards an apprehension of the absolute sovereignty of God by way of his philosophical and general theological reading. But at the same time he was engaged on a systematic investigation of the Scriptures, and it was when the content of the scriptural revelation inwardly met and confirmed his earlier teaching that the theology of Zwingli took on its distinctive character.
ZWINGLI AND BULLINGER
At any rate, it is noticeable that in his dogmatic expositions Zwingli always gives pride of place to the doctrine of God rather than to that of Holy Scripture or of the fall and wretchedness of man. In this respect he conforms to the traditional order of the Creeds, 9° which more or less took the Bible for granted as the source and norm of truth. And he set an example which was followed by the majority of the Reformed
Confessions. In faithful reflection of his own experience he usually prefaces his statement of Christian doctrine by a philosophical introduction in which he asserts on rational grounds the unity and uniqueness of God as the source and norm of all things.97.In the Commentarius he begins with a more general discussion on the nature of religion, which he defines as a relationship between God and man, thus opening up the way for a consideration first of the being and nature of God. 98
He then follows his usual order, arguing that philosophy gives us the basic facts of God's existence and providence and thus demonstrates the rationality of faith. 99
It must be noted, however, that although in these discussions reason plays roughly the same part as it does in the classical scholastic formulation, the doctrine of God advanced by Zwingli is to all intents and purposes strictly biblical. The starting-point and the external form are both rational, but the office and power of reason are closely delimited. Reason cannot even give to us a clearly monotheistic picture of God.
It certainly cannot disclose anything consistent concerning the divine nature and attributes. And it is completely powerless to establish an inward relationship with God as opposed to the merely external apprehension of his existence. For a perception of who and what God is, and for an inward apprehension o1 his person, it is necessary to turn to the divine self-revelation attested in the Old and New Testament Scriptures.
From the Bible Zwingli learned three main facts concerning God: his self-existence, his goodness, and his perfection. As the self-existent One God is unique and sole-sufficient. He is not in any way dependent upon any other creature nor is he limited by any other creature. He is eternal and infinite, and he is alone in his infinity and eternity. But the transcendent
God is also the God of goodness. And the goodness of God is not a static attribute, but an active goodness which expresses
96 Zwingli, Hauptschriften, XI, pp. 302 f.
97 As, for example, in the Exposition of the Faith.
98 Ibid., IX, pp. 18 f.
99 Ibid., pp. 20 f.
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
itself outwards in the divine works of creation, providence and redemption. It comprises within itself all the divine attributes.
And God is also a God of perfection, for all the excellencies reflected in man are seen in him in the highest possible form, as omniscience, omnipotence and love. The grace of God is the necessary concomitant of his goodness and perfection, for by the logic of their own nature the righteousness and love of God express themselves ad extra in works of gratuitous benevolence. !
It will be seen that Zwingli asserted strongly both the sole sovereignty of God and also his perfection as the sum of wisdom, power and goodness. But this twofold assertion posed in an acute form the problem of God's providential disposing of things in relation to the existence of evil and more particularly to the fall. Zwingli naturally perceived the problem, and he discussed it in detail and with considerable acumen in his
Treatise on Providence..On the one hand he argued that the providence of God is absolute. God is the direct cause of every action or event. It was for that reason that Zwingli could attribute even the goodness of pagans to the causality of the same sovereign Spirit. But on the other hand, Zwingli tried to deny that God is in any sense morally responsible for the sinful acts of men. He had to admit that God is the direct cause of those acts. But he denied any moral responsibility: formally, because God himself is above the law imposed upon man, and substantially, because he always has higher and valid reasons for causing men to commit acts which from their standpoint are contrary to his moral will. Thus although God is the cause of sinful acts, the sin in those acts derives from man and not from God..And that means that the guilt attaches to man because he does them in direct contravention of the divine will. There is therefore no contradiction in God meting out eternal retribution upon acts of which he is in a very real sense the direct cause.
The sole causality of God necessarily involved for Zwingli a rigorous doctrine of the divine predestination and election, for all that is good in man derives from God, and faith itself is possible only where God himself has sovereignly decreed to give it. Zwingli could not possibly explain predestination as a mere foreknowledge of belief or unbelief: on the contrary, it is a free determination of the divine will concerning those who are to be saved. This determination is the true source of all the 1 Ibid., IX, pp 20f.; XI, pp. 302.
Z.B—3
ZWINGLI AND BULLINGER
redemptive activity of God, for in fulfilment of it God provides everything which is necessary for the salvation of his elect. On the one hand, he makes atonement for the sin of men by means of the incarnation and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
And on the other he provokes to faith and good works by the secret operation of the Holy Spirit.?
It was because of this tremendous stress upon the divine initiative and sovereignty that Zwingli was compelled to protest violently against the existing theory and practice of Christianity. It was not merely that the mediaeval system was contrary to the New Testament norm, although that in itself was a valid point and one which Zwingli consistently made.
But at a deeper level the mediaeval system rested upon semiPelagian presuppositions which were in direct contrast with the evangelical doctrine of Holy Scripture. Zwingli could test all the details of the system by the specific teaching of Scripture, but in the last analysis it was because the basic doctrine was unscriptural that the details were weighed and found wanting.
For if salvation is by election and grace, if even faith itself is a direct work of God by the Holy Spirit, then there can be no place for schemes of religious life or thought which allow either for the merit of human works or for the ex opere operato efficacy of sacramental observances.
Again in accordance with his basic teaching, Zwingli was impelled as Luther was to a new and evangelical understanding of the doctrine of justification.3 Justification became the sovereign and creative declaration of God by which those who are elected to faith in Jesus Christ are accepted as righteous on account of the merits of Christ. The true ground of justification is not the human act of faith, but the life and death of Jesus Christ in which the justice and mercy of God are conjoined in a single act of divine goodness. As Zwingli put it in The Exposition of the Faith, goodness as justice required the sacrifice and goodness as mercy provided it.4 The means by which justification is applied to the individual is saving faith, that faith which is not merely rational assent, but a movement of the whole nature by the direct action of the Holy
Spirit. Good works still retained an honourable place in this view of the matter, for it was stressed that they are the necessary but spontaneous fruits of a true faith.5 But of themselves good works could have no power to justify, for it is God who reckons
2 Ibid., XI, pp. 266-268.
3 Ibid., IX, pp. 102 f.; XI, pp. 337 f.
+ Ibid., XI, pp. 307-308.
5 Ibid., pp. 339 f.
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
righteous and it is God who himself produces the acceptable fruits of righteousness. Again, the emphasis upon free justification by faith did not mean the negation of the Law, for as a permanent expression of the divine will for man the Law continues both as a guide to the believer and as a warning and restraint to the evil-doer.6 What Zwingli did negate was legalism, and especially that mediaeval form of legalism which had given rise to such corrupt and fictional notions as purgatory, indulgences, the power of the keys, the treasury of merit, prayers for the dead and the merit of works of supererogation. 7
It was the same doctrine of the divine sovereignty in election and grace which determined Zwingli's understanding of the Church. 8 The true Church which the New Testament describes as the body or bride of Christ is not at all co-terminous with that visible organization or complex of organizations which is its outward expression in the world. In its strictest and most proper sense the Church is the whole company of the elect or redeemed as called out from every age and country. And it is to this
Church that the traditional notes apply. It is one by virtue of its union in faith with Jesus Christ. It is holy by virtue of the justification which it has in Christ. It is catholic in that it is not restricted to any particular epoch or locality. It is apostolic in that it is in the true succession of the faith and practice of the apostles. To this inward Church of the elect Zwingli applied the term "'invisible."' By this he did not mean that the Church finds no external expression in the world, but that membership of it cannot be known merely by the external tests which can be applied by man. The election of God remains always the secret of God and of those who know the inward work of the Spirit. In point of fact, the invisible Church always does express itself in external organization, for the people of God all belong to visible communities consisting of all those who make outward profession of the Christian faith. In so far as true believers belong both to the invisible Church and the visible, there is a real identity between the two, but in so far as the visible Church includes professors who are not true believers, there is a distinctness. The notes of the visible Church are the three external ones; the preaching of the Word of God, the due administration of the two dominical sacraments, and church discipline.
6 Ibid., p. 345; IX, pp. 127-129.
7 Ibid., XI, p. 288, pp. 314-315.
8 Ibid., pp. 267-270; IX, pp. 184 f.
ZWINGLI AND BULLINGER
It is interesting that Zwingli developed his ecclesiology in strict accordance with his doctrine of the incarnation. The Church of God had both its divine-human side and also its human. And there was a certain fundamental unity, although not a complete identity, between the two aspects. If this fact is true in relation to his doctrine of the Church, it is even more true, and perhaps more consciously so, in relation to that of the Word and sacraments, which are the means by which the Holy Spirit applies the divine gifts of grace to the elect.°
About both Word and sacraments there is the same duality as that which characterizes the Church. On the one hand there is the external form, which has its own meaning and value on the purely human level. And on the other hand there is the inward content, that divine message which is life and salvation to the soul as it comes in the power of the Holy Ghost.
And here again there is a fundamental unity between the divinehuman and human aspects, for it is the external word of the Bible which is also the internal Word of God when it comes with the enlightenment of the divine Spirit. But the identity is not absolute in the sense that everyone who receives the external
Word or rite receives also the internal Word or grace. The external Word and rite are always "'of God" or "'divine"' in the sense that they are appointed by God and are the sphere and the means of the divine calling or rejection. But they are not always "of God" in the sense that they infallibly bring conviction and faith to all who receive them. In this respect the decisive thing is that inward operation of the Holy Spirit which is the true source of individual repentance and assurance. It is in the heart of each believer or unbeliever that it is decided whether at this or that point the external Church is coextensive with the internal, the letter of Scripture is also the living Word of God, the sign is conjoined with the thing signified. But to say that is once again to suspend everything upon that divine sovereignty which is not controlled by the human choice, but ordains and directs it.
Of a piece with the rejection of any absolute identity between sign and thing signified was Zwingli's vehement denial of a literal presence of the body and blood of Christ either in place of or in, with and under the substances of the bread and wine.!° The arguments which he used to support
9 On this point see especially the sermon On the Clarity and Certainty of the Word, C.R., I, pp. 338 f.
10 Zwingli, Hauptschriften, X1, pp. 275 f.
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
this denial were threefold: The assertion of a literal presence is contrary to the evidence of the New Testament, it destroys the true nature of the sacrament, and it is inconsistent with the historical doctrine of the incarnation. It is important to remember that what Zwingli was denying was not the spiritual presence of Christ to true believers, but a literal physical presence to all recipients. Certainly a conjunction of sign and thing signified could be expected where there was the internal operation of the Spirit. But there was no necessary conjunction by virtue of a magical change in the elements themselves.
The fact that all these doctrines were based upon the same simple pre-suppositions, the supremacy of Holy Scripture and the absolute divine sovereignty, certainly gave to Zwingli's theology a clarity and consistency which are not always apparent in the more diffuse if more profound writings of Luther.
Indeed, the common impression made by Zwingli's dogmatic works is that he has brought to the task a more powerful intellectual understanding than spiritual inwardness and insight. In spite of his obvious stylistic weaknesses, he always presses home his arguments with great acuteness and dialectical skill, yet with all the logic of his presentation he often fails to carry complete conviction because even his constant appeals to Scripture suggest a lack of perception of the deeper bearing of the passages cited. It is not that Zwingli does not penetrate to the ultimate themes of Scripture. Nor is it that he is without a genuinely personal apprehension. But in his handling of individual passages he relies far too much upon logical subtlety rather than a basic spiritual appreciation. In fact, such power as his exposition has derives from the combination of that intellectual acuteness with the almost severe consistency of his essential message.
/The unifying factor in Zwingli's theology was the overwhelming emphasis upon the divine sovereignty. It was undoubtedly his secure grasp of this basal truth which enabled him to reconstruct the mediaeval faith after a strictly evangelical form.
But the same emphasis also exposed Zwingli's schemes to its greatest difficulties, for like Calvin after him he found it necessary both to include the fall of man in the providential ordering of the universe and also to assert a rigid predestination both to life and perdition. The devices by which Zwingli tried to harmonize the direct divine causality with a purely human responsibility for sin can hardly be described as successful, and the rigorous doctrine of election necessarily
ZWINGLI AND BULLINGER
destroyed any real freedom of man even to choose his own eternal destiny.
Yet in defence of Zwingli two things must be said. First, he had a fine sense of the fact that God's providence must in some way include all events within the sphere of its operation. In the last analysis, if God is God, it is true enough that no man can either sin or believe without God. The error of Zwingli was perhaps that he asserted the direct or sole causality of God, not that he asserted his supreme or over-ruling causality. And second, Zwingli did not apply his doctrine with the harshness which has marred so many doctrines of the divine sovereignty. His Augustinian theology was tempered always by his humanistic training and impulses. In this connection it is significant that Zwingli had no very pronounced doctrine of original sin, or at any rate original guilt. And he certainly did not restrict the electing grace of God to sacramental agencies. Indeed, his sense of the divine causality above all things enabled him quite easily to discern the divine working even in pagan thought and life.!1! The body of the elect as Zwingli envisaged it was not a small and exclusive company but a wide assemblage from every age and race and culture, probably including all children who died in infancy.!2 The very sovereignty which pre-supposes election involves also the divine independence in respect of the divine operation of grace.
And the fact that the election is known only to God forbids any anticipation or attempted restriction of it according to external human standards.
It was very likely the same consciousness of the divine operation in all things which enabled Zwingli to appropriate the arguments of pagan philosophers in defence of his primary assertions. Naturally, he could see clearly the limitations of even the best of classical thought. He knew that Holy Scripture alone can give that clear knowledge of God and his work which cannot possibly be attained by reason. But Zwingli also believed that that which is true in philosophy is eternally true because it derives from the one Spirit of truth. He did not regard all rational effort as so perverted by the fall that it not only cannot reveal God but necessarily obscures him. In the relation between Scripture and philosophy as he saw it,
Scripture plays so overwhelmingly the greater part that philosophy is of little account by comparison. Yet what it can and does tell us may serve as a useful introduction to the fuller
11 [bid., p. 349.
12 [bid., pp. 265-266.
GENERAL INTRODUETION
knowledge imparted by the divine Word. It is, in fact, an important point of departure.
A valuable feature of Zwingli's teaching is that by his sharp repudiation of all forms of belief in a literal presence of Christ in the Supper he prepared the ground for a far more satisfying doctrine of the sacramental presence and efficacy. His contribution in this respect was largely negative: his denials were more prominent than his assertions. But the mediaeval insistence upon one extreme almost inevitably demanded a more persistent emphasis upon the other, and it was left to Zwingli's successors to draw out more fully the positive implications of his teaching. Zwingli did not deny either the true presence of Christ after his deity, or the possible conjunction of sign and thing signified by the sovereign working of the Spirit. What he did deny was a corporal presence of Christ after his humanity and a necessary conjunction of sign and thing signified by virtue of the valid administration of the rite. And it was necessary that these denials should be made if superstitious notions were to be cleared away and a more scriptural doctrine constructed.
A further valuable feature is the presentation of the doctrine of the atonement. The forms of expression were sometimes unfortunate, but Zwingli did retain a firm conception of the unity of the divine action. This emerges clearly at two decisive points: first, he derived both judgment and redemption from that single goodness of God which comprises both justice and mercy; and second, he related the incarnation of Christ, as well as his death and resurrection, to the accomplishment of man's salvation.!3 On the one side, as we have seen already, it is the same goodness of God which both demands and provides the sacrifice. And on the other, it is Christ's identification with man which enables him both to enter into our death and also to take us up into his own resurrection. In this way Zwingli not only avoids any false separation between the divine Persons or attributes, but he can also relate every aspect of Christ and his work to the one redemptive mission.
The theology of Zwingli was a magnificent first attempt to restate Christian doctrine in a consistent evangelical and scriptural form. By virtue of its bold and radical character it must always lay claim to admiration even where it cannot command assent. Yet as a first attempt it was almost necessarily provisional and incomplete. On the one hand, it gave rise to questions to which it did not return any very adequate answer.
13 Cf. Zwingli, Hauptschriften XI, pp. 311-313.
ZWINGLI AND BULLINGER
And on the other, it left undeveloped many insights and lines of thought along which essential constructive work was demanded. The truth is, of course, that Zwingli himself had neither the opportunity nor perhaps the temperament or talent to engage in the larger task of comprehensive systematic construction. In his theology as in his practical work it was given to Zwingli to prepare and initiate rather than to expand and complete. Taken by itself, Zwingli's theology must always leave the impression of disjointedness and disproportion, but in the light of what it became its permanent value and importance most certainly cannot be denied.
4. HEINRICH BULLINGER
The twofold tragedy of the defeat at Cappel and the death of Zwingli threatened immediate catastrophe to the evangelical cause in Zurich. The Church had been deprived of its outstanding ecclesiastical leader and theological spokesman.
The Romanist opponents of Zurich took advantage of the situation to overturn the work of reform in the immediate environs of the city. All hopes of a future propagation of evangelical teaching in the Catholic cantons were decisively frustrated.
And on every hand the military disaster at Cappel was being hailed as a divine judgment upon the heretical movement and its most prominent champion, The hour of danger called for high qualities of steadfastness and moderation if collapse was to be averted, and it was fortunate for Zurich that a leader was available who had the very qualities demanded.
When Heinrich Bullinger was appointed to the post of people's priest previously occupied by Zwingli, he could not bring to that office the same genius or far-reaching vision as his predecessor, but he could and did bring the talents which enabled him if not to extend at any rate to continue and consolidate the more local work which Zwingli had so brilliantly and effectively initiated.
Bullinger was born some twenty years later than Zwingli, on July 18, 1504. His father, also Heinrich Bullinger, was parish priest and dean of the small town of Bremgarten, about 10 miles west of Zurich. The young Heinrich was the fifth child of a clerical marriage which his father had contracted with one Anna Widerkehr, a marriage which was not regularized until 1529. From a very early period Bullinger displayed a marked aptitude for scholarship, and after learning his first
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
4) letters at Bremgarten!4 he was sent away to Emmerich-on-Rhine for more advanced instruction, especially in Latin.!5 His father was not without means, but Bullinger records in his diary that he made him only the most meagre of allowances in order to teach him the virtues of moderation and sympathy with the poor and needy. If this was at all a common method of instruction it may perhaps shed some light upon the well-known episode from Luther's student-days. In this case, at any rate, the treatment was effective, for Bullinger was attracted for a while to the monastic life. 16
From Emmerich Bullinger proceeded to Cologne where he took up the study of theology at the college of Bursa Montis.
Already his mind seems to have been moving in the direction of reform, for after completing his preliminary course he pressed back through Lombard and Gratian to the earlier fathers, especially Chrysostom, Ambrose, Origen and Augustine. He also commenced a direct study of the New
Testament itself, a book which he describes as completely unknown to the majority of his fellow students.
Events at home perhaps contributed to this questioning of accepted thought and practice, for in 1519, the very year that he moved to Cologne, his father took the initiative in opposing the indulgence-monger, Samson. The witness of Luther also had its effect, for Bullinger read carefully the earlier tracts of Luther, and he also consulted the Loci communes of Melanchthon as soon as it appeared.
Having graduated Bachelor of Arts in 1520 and Master in 1522, Bullinger returned temporarily to Bremgarten, where he continued his biblical and patristic studies. In the following year he received an invitation to give lectures to the monks and other students at the neighbouring Cistercian monastery of Cappel.18 The abbot there, Wolfgang Joner, was a man who saw clearly the need for spiritual and doctrinal reform, and he made the way easy for Bullinger both by supporting him against opponents and also by accepting his services without laying any constraint upon him to take the monastic vows.
For the most part the next years were spent in regular reading and lecturing, with a little early writing, but in 1527 Bullinger was granted leave of absence to pay a visit of some months to 14 Cf. K. Pestalozzi, Heinrich Bullinger, p. 9.
15 He probably went to Emmerich because his brother John was also there.
Cf. Blanke, Der junge Bullinger, p. 24.
16 [bid., pp. 26 f.
17 [bid., pp. 50-52.
18 Diarium 7.
ZWINGLI AND BULLINGER
Zurich, where he attended the lectures given by Zwingli and also took the opportunity to improve his knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. The visit was an important one, for it brought
Bullinger into closer and more intimate contact with Zwingli and Leo Jud,!9 and it gave to him a better understanding and appreciation of Zwingli's eucharistic teaching. But Bullinger's obvious learning and ability must also have made their mark, for later in the year 1527 he was appointed to accompany
Zwingli to the disputation which opened at Berne on January 7, 1528. prcettesiiy in 1528, Bullinger was persuaded to undertake the office of pastor,2° and he preached his first sermon at Hausen, near Cappel, on June 21. The following year his father publicly announced his adherence to the evangelical teaching.
He was forced to resign his office, but at the request of the people of Bremgarten and the persuasions of Joner and his relatives Bullinger himself returned to the town as its first pastor according to the reformed pattern.?! This year was also the year of his marriage with Anne Adlischweiler, a former nun of the Oetenbach convent, with whom he had become engaged during his visit to Zurich.
The two years which followed were busy years in which Bullinger helped towards the spread of the reformed teaching both by an extensive preaching ministry and also by his literary work. It was at this period that he began his long series of commentaries on the books of the New Testament. But the events of 1531 brought a sudden end to this Bremgarten ministry and made necessary an unexpected return to Zurich.
The defeat at neighbouring Cappel, in which Joner too was killed, exposed Bremgarten to the enemies of the reforming movement, and since the Five Cantons refused to include
Bullinger in the armistice proposals the people forced him to take refuge in Zurich.2? Perhaps it is worth noting that Bullinger himself had openly opposed the aggressive policy which culminated in the catastrophe. Once in Zurich Bullinger quickly received invitations to more responsible pastoral work.
The Senate of Basel approached him as a possible successor 19 Bullinger had already made their acquaintance during a shorter visit at the end of 1523. Diarium 8.
20 Diarium 12.
21 So important was his work at this juncture that he declined an invitation to accompany Zwingli to the Colloquy of Marburg. Diarium 18.
22 Diarium 20. Bullinger would only go when actually ordered to do so.
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
to Oecolampadius and Berne too was anxious to secure his services. However, the Council of Zurich had other plans, and it was the office of people's priest at Zurich which Bullinger eventually accepted.?3
The task as Bullinger saw it in 1531 was threefold: to maintain the work which had already been begun in Zurich; to give to the people a clearer and fuller understanding of their new faith, more particularly upon the basis of Holy Scripture; and to tighten the bonds of fellowship which already existed between Zurich and other like-minded communions. At the fulfilment of this threefold task Bullinger laboured steadily and faithfully for the remaining years of his life. As compared with the crowded and eventful period of Zwingli's pastorate these were not spectacular years, for Bullinger had little to add to Zwingli's work in the way of either practical or indeed theological reforms. Nor had he the same ambitions of an immediate extension of the reformation first to the neighbouring cantons and ultimately to the whole of Europe. But for all that they were years of hard and not unproductive work: the almost daily ministration of the Word of God; the steady composition of treatises and defences and commentaries; 24 the conducting of a fair-sized correspondence; the entertainment of refugees, especially from England and Italy; 25 and the establishment of a common evangelical front with all churches which accepted the Reformed position. The outstanding episodes were almost all on the ecumenical side. In 1536 Bullinger took a prominent part in the conference which resulted in the First Helvetic Confession. An even more important step was the negotiation of the Consensus Tigurinus with Calvin and Farel in 1549. And by his hospitable treatment of many of the Marian exiles Bullinger was able to establish the most cordial relationships with the future leaders of the Elizabethan church. He also contributed largely to the defence of the distinctive Reformed teaching against the renewed attacks of Westphalus and Brentius. The closing years of Bullinger were clouded by the deaths of his wife and three daughters in successive outbreaks of the plague in 1564 and 23 Simler and Lavater in their biographies state that Bullinger had been nominated by Zwingli himself. See E. Egli, Zwingliana, 1904, 2, pp. 443444, also Blanke, of. cit., p. 152.
24 Bullinger himself collected the chief of these into ten volumes, but his complete works would be much larger.
25 Cf. Pilkington's description of Bullinger as "that common father of the afflicted," Lurich Letters, I, p. 135.
ZWINGLI AND BULLINGER
1565. Bullinger himself was severely ill during the second outbreak, and his health remained poor until the last and fatal illness in the autumn of 1574-1575.
The comparative stability of Bullinger's long ministry is perhaps the best testimony to its success. In marked contrast to that of Zwingli, the ecclesiastical leadership of Bullinger was a period of steady and peaceful development. Certainly, the decisive changes prior to 1531 could never have been attained without the dynamic inspiration of Zwingli. Yet the Zurich of those years was being launched upon a career of evangelical conquest for which the city had not the resources nor Zwingli himself perhaps the necessary qualities of statesmanship. When the crash came with the Second War of Cappel,
Bullinger brought to the situation the less brilliant but steadying qualities of moderation and conciliatoriness not unmixed with unwavering conviction and a quiet and effective persistence.
The result was that church life in Zurich settled down again to a steady routine, and the changes effected so rapidly in the previous decade were able to establish themselves as the norm of Christian faith and piety.
Under Bullinger Zurich did undoubtedly lose that wider leadership of the Reformed cause which in some sense it had held under Zwingli. The reason for this was twofold. On the one hand, although Zurich was still revered and visited as an early centre of the tradition, although Bullinger himself maintained a high standard both of scholarship and also of ministerial life, yet Zurich ceased to be in any way an outstanding centre as compared with other cities like Berne or Basel.
And on the other hand, the rise of Calvin, and the growing impact both of his theology and his practical work, contributed inevitably to a shifting of attention away from the older com-. munion in German-speaking Switzerland to its counterpart in the French-speaking part of the country. Calvin's ministry at Geneva was roughly contemporary with that of Bullinger at Zurich, although some years shorter. And at the end of that ministry it was primarily to Geneva and not to Zurich that the more active propagators of the Reformed tradition made their appeal. Bullinger succeeded Zwingli in the local leadership at Zurich, but it was Calvin who succeeded him in the everwidening leadership of the Reformed fellowship of churches.
But to say that is again to emphasize the value of the peculiar contribution which Bullinger made. For it was Bullinger who by his charitable and conciliatory spirit enabled the transition
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
to be made without controversy or bitterness. Not only did he prepare the way by the creation of a common confessional bond between the earlier communions, but when the time came he did not hesitate to take that decisive step which meant a recognition of basic kinship with Geneva, and the emergence of Calvin as a virtual leader of the whole evangelical cause. We must not exaggerate, of course, for at the time it could hardly be recognized how decisive was the change in initiative which was taking place, or how far-reaching its consequences. Yet had Zwingli himself lived, it is difficult to believe that unity between Zurich and Geneva would have been achieved or maintained so peacefully, or the advantages of it exploited so swiftly and profitably. From the wider standpoint of ecclesiastical history in general, Bullinger's acceptance of that agreement may not inaccurately be described as the most momentous and indeed the culminating act of his career.
To a large extent the writings of Bullinger reveal the same qualities as those which marked his public ministry. The writings extend over the whole period from 1526 to his death in 1575. Amongst the most interesting we may note the following: the commentaries on the various books of the New Testament; the doctrinal treatises on the Eucharist, the primitive faith, the authority and certainty of Scripture, matrimony and the sacraments; the sermons on the true Christian sacrifice, the Lord's Supper and the Last Judgment: the five books of the Decades, which are series of sermons on the main points of Christian doctrine; the controversial works against the Anabaptists and Lutherans; and the history of the Reformation, which was completed but never published in Bullinger's lifetime. Nowhere in these extensive writings do we find any great originality of thought, or in fact the desire for it. But everywhere we see clear evidence of a judicious and scholarly mind which is able to give lucid and balanced expression to doctrines already commonly received and taught.
Superficially, the doctrinal discussions of Bullinger are more impressive than those of Zwingli. For one thing they are much better arranged, and the thought moves with a logic which is lacking in the more hurried compositions of Zwingli. Again, with the better arrangement there is also a fuller and more proportionate discussion. Where Zwingli had seized upon this or that point, Bullinger looks upon the whole, and he is able to treat of his theme not merely as controversial needs demand, but comprehensively and in all its various aspects. Again,
ZWINGLI AND BULLINGER
Bullinger brings to bear perhaps a greater weight of scholarship, for not only was he well-versed in the Fathers (the same could be said of Zwingli), but he was able to deploy his resources with more telling effect. Indeed, Bullinger's arguments as a whole present a much more solid appearance than the acute but not always convincing reasonings of Zwingli.
Yet when all that is said, the works of Bullinger are undoubtedly pedestrian as compared with the bold but hasty flights of his predecessor. They lack that freshness, that vitality of thought and expression which means genius and not mere scholarship. They reflect everywhere the able defender and expositor of an existing teaching, but not the original and creative thinker who initiates or wins through to that teaching. In a sense they are more closely akin to the writings of Calvin than to those of Zwingli, for they have the qualities of order and precision and high scholarship which are so conspicuous in the Commentaries and Institutes.
But here again, they lack that impress of a masterful and constructive spirit which made Calvin and not Bullinger the true successor of Zwingli no less in the sphere of theology than in that of ecclesiastical organization. For a clear and effective but in no way outstanding statement of the evangelical position we can hardly do better than turn to Bullinger. But for a challenging and vital reconstruction of the Christian faith it is to Zwingli and Calvin that we must look as the true representatives of the Reformed tradition.
rps As ] zi { / :
He) . i aT, .
F x '
| | os MOP LE) AIWS if ay if Pet ais >