The Zurich Origins of Reformed Covenant Theology (Oxford Studies in Historical Theology) 0197607578, 9780197607572

Table of contents :
Cover
Series
The Zurich Origins of Reformed Covenant Theology
Copyright
Contents
Acknowledgments
Abbreviations
Introduction: Zurich, Birthplace of the Reformed Tradition
PART I ZWINGLI AS INITIATOR
1. Testamental Discontinuity, 1519–​1525
2. Zwingli’s Covenantal Turn of 1525
PART II HEINRICH BULLINGER AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF A TRADITION
3. Mutual Influence, to 1534
4. The Centrality of the Covenant, 1534–​1551
5. Consolidation, 1551–​1575
PART III RECEPTIONS
6. Calvin
7. Heidelberg
Epilogue: Where to Now?
Appendix: Bullinger’s Archive Material
Bibliography
Scripture Index
Subject Index

Citation preview

The Zurich Origins of Reformed Covenant Theology

OX F O R D S T U D I E S I N H I S T O R IC A L T H E O L O G Y Series Editor Richard A. Muller, Calvin Theological Seminary Founding Editor David C. Steinmetz† Editorial Board Robert C. Gregg, Stanford University George M. Marsden, University of Notre Dame Wayne A. Meeks, Yale University Gerhard Sauter, Rheinische Friedrich-​Wilhelms-​Universität Bonn Susan E. Schreiner, University of Chicago John Van Engen, University of Notre Dame Robert L. Wilken, University of Virginia THE REGENSBURG ARTICLE 5 ON JUSTIFICATION Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine? Anthony N. S. Lane AUGUSTINE ON THE WILL A Theological Account Han-​luen Kantzer Komline THE SYNOD OF PISTORIA AND VATICAN II Jansenism and the Struggle for Catholic Reform Shaun Blanchard CATHOLICITY AND THE COVENANT OF WORKS James Ussher and the Reformed Tradition Harrison Perkins THE COVENANT OF WORKS The Origins, Development, and Reception of the Doctrine J. V. Fesko RINGLEADERS OF REDEMPTION How Medieval Dance Became Sacred Kathryn Dickason REFUSING TO KISS THE SLIPPER Opposition to Calvinism in the Francophone Reformation Michael W. Bruening FONT OF PARDON AND NEW LIFE John Calvin and the Efficacy of Baptism Lyle D. Bierma THE FLESH OF THE WORD The extra Calvinisticum from Zwingli to Early Orthodoxy K. J. Drake JOHN DAVENANT’S HYPOTHETICAL UNIVERSALISM A Defense of Catholic and Reformed Orthodoxy Michael J. Lynch RHETORICAL ECONOMY IN AUGUSTINE’S THEOLOGY Brian Gronewoller GRACE AND CONFORMITY The Reformed Conformist Tradition and the Early Stuart Church of England Stephen Hampton

MAKING ITALY ANGLICAN Why the Book of Common Prayer Was Translated into Italian Stefano Villani AUGUSTINE ON MEMORY Kevin G. Grove UNITY AND CATHOLICITY IN CHRIST The Ecclesiology of Francisco Suarez, S.J. Eric J. DeMeuse CALVINIST CONFORMITY IN POST-​ REFORMATION ENGLAND The Theology and Career of Daniel Featley Gregory A. Salazar RETAINING THE OLD EPISCOPAL DIVINITY John Edwards of Cambridge and Reformed Orthodoxy in the Later Stuart Church Jake Griesel BEARDS, AZYMES, AND PURGATORY The Other Issues that Divided East and West A. Edward Siecienski BISSCHOP’S BENCH Contours of Arminian Conformity in the Church of England, c. 1674–​1742 Samuel Fornecker JOHN LOCKE’S THEOLOGY An Ecumenical, Irenic, and Controversial Project Jonathan S. Marko THEOLOGY AND HISTORY IN THE METHODOLOGY OF HERMAN BAVINCK Revelation, Confession, and Christian Consciousness Cameron D. Clausing CHRIST, THE SPIRIT, AND HUMAN TRANSFORMATION IN GREGORY OF NYSSA’S IN CANTICUM CANTICORUM Alexander L. Abecina THE ZURICH ORIGINS OF REFORMED COVENANT THEOLOGY Pierrick Hildebrand

The Zurich Origins of Reformed Covenant Theology P I E R R IC K H I L D E B R A N D

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries. Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America. © Oxford University Press 2024 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above. You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer. CIP data is on file at the Library of Congress ISBN 978–​0–​19–​760757–​2 DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197607572.001.0001 Printed by Integrated Books International, United States of America

A Isaac, mon fils bien-​aimé.

Contents Acknowledgments  Abbreviations 

ix xi

Introduction: Zurich, Birthplace of the Reformed Tradition 

1

PA RT I :   Z W I N G L I A S I N I T IAT O R 1. Testamental Discontinuity, 1519–​1525 

17

2. Zwingli’s Covenantal Turn of 1525 

52

PA RT I I :   H E I N R IC H BU L L I N G E R A N D T H E D EV E L O P M E N T O F A T R A D I T IO N 3. Mutual Influence, to 1534 

111

4. The Centrality of the Covenant, 1534–​1551 

165

5. Consolidation, 1551–​1575 

203

PA RT I I I :   R E C E P T IO N S 6. Calvin 

241

7. Heidelberg 

276

Epilogue: Where to Now? 

291

Appendix: Bullinger’s Archive Material  Bibliography  Scripture Index  Subject Index 

293 397 417 421

Als nun Abram neün und neüntzig jar alt wz, erschein im der HERR und sprach zuo im: Ich bin der Gott Schadai, das ist, ein vollmaechtiger und ein überflüssige gnuogsame und voelle alles guoten. Wandel vor mir und bis steyff und getreüw an mir, und ich wil meinen pundt zwüschend mir und dir machen, und wil dich seer vast meeren. Do fiel Abram auff sein angesicht. Und Gott redt weyter mit im und sprach: Sihe, ich bins und hab meinen pundt mit dir, und du solt ein vatter viler voelckern werden, darumb solt du nit mer Abram heissen sonder Abraham sol dein namm sein, dann ich hab dich gemachet viler voelckern vatter, und wil dich vast seer fruchtbar machen, und wil von dir voelcker machen, unnd soellend auch künig von dir kommen. Und ich wil aufrichten meinen pundt zwüschend mir unnd dir, und deinen somen nach dir, bei iren nachkomnen, das es ein ewiger pundt sey, also, das ich dein Gott sey, unnd deines somens nach dir. Zurich Bible of 1531, Genesis 17:1–​7

Acknowledgments The reading, thinking, and writing that must necessarily be invested in a historical-​theological project can make for many solitary hours. All the more prized, then, were the opportunities for exchange—​not just scholarly but also sociable—​with the many people I would like to thank here. I start deliberately with Peter Opitz, my Doktorvater and the recently retired head of the Institut für Schweizerische Reformationsgeschichte in Zurich. Prof. Opitz embraced the initial idea of my exploring this subject and both encouraged and trusted me throughout the process; I thank him also for the financial assistance that supported the preparation of the manuscript for publication. At the Institute I am also indebted to colleagues and friends, especially Luca Baschera and Christian Moser, who warmly integrated me into the team and were so patient with my questions and wise with their answers. Thanks are also due to my gracious “neighbors” in the Bullinger Correspondence editorial project, especially Reinhard Bodenmann and Judith Steiniger, whose archival and paleographical support proved vital. I also thank the Peer-​Mentoring Group “Kirchengeschichte” for their engagement at the final stage of my dissertation, especially Ariane Albisser, Judith Engeler, and Gergely Csukás. Early in the process I decided to write my dissertation in English. I am immensely grateful to Bruce Gordon at Yale University, who spontaneously offered to read my work and so generously invested his time and knowledge in that task. I am also very appreciative of the willingness of Mary Wells and Jim West to read parts of my dissertation in an early phase of the project. Rona Johnston assiduously and meticulously edited the complete English-​ language text to ensure its linguistic merits. Richard Muller graciously accepted my thesis into the Oxford Studies in Historical Theology, and the editorial team at OUP fully lived up to their professional reputation. This project provided me with the opportunity for personal contact with other scholars in the field, and I greatly enjoyed and benefited from many rich discussions. Some of these conversation partners have already been mentioned above, but I wish also to thank Lyle Bierma, Erik de Boer, Peter

x Acknowledgments Lillback, Karin Maag, Joe Mock, Richard Muller, William Stephens, and Daniël Timmermans. Last but far from least, I want to thank my family. My mother, Christiane Hildebrand, provided me with a workspace for this project and encouraged me always, particularly with wonderful meals. My beloved wife, Rosemonde, and my four children, Isaac, Eva, Anna, and Paul, have constantly reminded me that there are things far more valuable in life than scholarship. I dedicate this work to my son Isaac, who was born just as I set out on my dissertation. And finally, I join Bullinger in his doxology at the end of the Decades: Domino deo nostro, omnium bonorum fonti inexhausto, sit laus et gloria per Iesum Christum dominum nostrum.

Abbreviations Anglican & Episcopal History Zwingli and Bullinger: Selected Translations with Introductions and Notes, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Library of Christian Classics 24 (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953). BS Heinrich Bullinger Schriften, 7 vols., ed. Emidio Campi et al. (Zurich: TVZ, 2004–​2007). CCSL Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina (Turnhout: Brepols 1953–​?). CD Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, 14 vols., ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley et al. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1936–​1968). CO Ioannus Calvini Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia, Corpus Reformatorum 29–​87, ed. Guilielmus Baum et al. (Braunschweig: C. A. Schwetschke and Sons, 1864–​1900). CSEL Corpus Scripturorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum (Wien, 1866–​?) CTJ Calvin Theological Journal CTS Calvin Translation Society EAk Actensammlung zur Geschichte der Zürcher Reformation in den Jahren 1519–​1533, ed. Emil Egli (Zurich: Schabelitz Druckerei, 1879). fol. folio HBBibl I Heinrich Bullinger Werke. Erste Abteilung: Bibliographie, vol. 1: Beschreibendes Verzeichnis der gedruckten Werke von Heinrich Bullinger, ed. Joachim Staedtke (Zurich: TVZ, 1972). HBBW Heinrich Bullinger Werke. Zweite Abteilung: Briefwechsel, ed. Zwingliverein Zürich (Zurich: TVZ, 1973ff.). HBTS Heinrich Bullinger Werke. Dritte Abteilung: Theologische Schriften, ed. Zwingliverein Zürich et al. (Zurich: TVZ, 1983ff.). HBW Sbd. Heinrich Bullinger Werke. Sonderband, ed. Zwingliverein Zürich (Zurich: TVZ, 1987). f., ff. and the following fn. footnote HZW Huldrych Zwingli Writings. In Search of True Religion: Reformation, Pastoral and Eucharistic Writings, 2 vols., ed. Edward J. Furcha (Allison Park, PA: Pickwick, 1984). KD Karl Barth, Kirchliche Dogmatik, 14 vols. (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1932–​1967). LCL Loeb Classical Library AEH Bromiley

xii Abbreviations The Latin Works [and Correspondence] of Huldreich Zwingli, 3 vols., ed. Samuel M. Jackson and William J. Hinke (New York: Putnams/​ Philadelphia PA: Heidelberg Press/​Durham, NC: Labyrinth Press, 1912/​1929/​1981). MAJT Mid-​America Journal of Theology marg. marginal note no. number p., pp. page, pages R & RR Reformation and Renaissance Review RB Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften, ed. Heiner Faulenbach et al. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002–​?) RR Reformed Review (1955–​2009) RTR Reformed Theological Review SCJ The Sixteenth Century Journal Staedtke 1962 Joachim Staedtke, Die Theologie des jungen Bullingers (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1962). SWZ The Selected Works of Huldrych Zwingli, ed. Samuel M. Jackson (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1901). UNIOCC Unio cum Christo. International Journal of Reformed Theology and Life vol. volume WA D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar edition), 73 vols., (Weimar: Hermann Böhlau [Nachfolger], 1883–​2009). Z Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, 21 vols., Corpus Reformatorum 88–​108, ed. by Emil Egli et al. (Berlin et al.: C. A. Schwetschke und Sohn et al., 1905–​2012). ZS Huldrych Zwingli Schriften, 4 vols., ed. Thomas Brunnschweiler et al. (Zurich: TVZ, 1995). Zwa Zwingliana LWZ

Introduction Zurich, Birthplace of the Reformed Tradition

At the beginning of Reformed covenantal thought was Zurich. Before the emergence of “Calvinism,” the Reformed tradition owed much of its doctrinal character to theological developments in that Swiss city-​state under Heinrich Bullinger and his predecessor, Huldrych Zwingli. This influence was broadly acknowledged by John Calvin and other Reformed theologians, but it has fallen from view for those who today claim the Reformed inheritance. There are certainly historical and historiographical reasons for the focus on Geneva at the end of the sixteenth century, but this book will explore how the covenant theology that had earlier emerged in Reformation Zurich left an indelible imprint on the Reformed world. The last few decades have seen a renewed interest in covenant theology from both historical and systematic perspectives, especially in North American Presbyterian and Reformed circles. So strongly has this renewal emphasized the covenant as an interpretative framework for Reformed theology that in 1983 John Hesselink could propose “Reformed theology is covenant theology.”1 While this claim is overstated from a historical-​theological point of view,2 it is certainly true that covenant theology is part of the DNA of the Reformed tradition. There have been many attempts to define what covenant theology actually is, and scholars have drawn up criteria for labeling a specific figure a “covenant theologian.”3 Yet none of these characterizations has been successfully established as normative. I propose an ad hoc definition of covenant theology that will be consistently used throughout this study: covenant 1 I. John Hesselink, On Being Reformed: Distinctive Characteristics and Common Misunderstandings (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1983), 57. 2 It can be argued that some Reformed theologians, dating right back to the Reformation, have not emphasized the covenant at all in their theology. 3 Lillback gives a summary of the definitions that have been proposed in Peter A. Lillback, The Binding of God: Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant Theology, Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-​Reformation Thought (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 26–​28.

The Zurich Origins of Reformed Covenant Theology. Pierrick Hildebrand, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2024. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197607572.003.0001

2 Introduction theology postulates a basic continuity, rather than a discontinuity, between the old and new testaments.4 The overarching thesis of my book proposes that the covenant theology initiated by Huldreich Zwingli (1484–​1531) and substantially shaped by Heinrich Bullinger (1504–​1575) has influenced later developments in Reformed covenant theology more fundamentally than previously assumed. While it is generally recognized that Zwingli and Bullinger laid the cornerstone of Reformed covenant theology, scholarship has emphasized that the early orthodox formulations developed in Heidelberg by Zacharias Ursinus (1534–​1583) and Caspar Olevian (1536–​1587) did not build squarely on these foundations. The latter’s introduction of a prelapsarian covenant is often singled out as evidence of a turning away from those Zurich origins toward other sources, such as Philipp Melanchthon (1497–​1560) or John Calvin (1509–​1564). In line with a trend in historical-​theological research that emphasizes the continuity between the Reformation and Reformed Orthodoxy—​proposed in particular for Calvin and the Reformed tradition by historical theologian Richard Muller5—​my book argues for two elements of continuity running from Zwingli and Bullinger to Ursinus and Olevian. First, I show that the concept of a prelapsarian covenant, usually used as an argument for discontinuity between Zurich and Heidelberg, was already present in Zwingli and Bullinger. Second, I demonstrate that Bullinger’s covenantal terminology, which seeks to combine the historical-​legal with the organic-​mystical aspects of salvation through covenant theology, was adopted by the Heidelberg theologians. I speak of the “historical-​legal” aspect of the covenant when the focus is on the historical stage within redemptive history, which is intimately tied to legal questions concerning, for example, when the covenant was entered into, ratified, implemented, or fulfilled—​for example, did this stage come before or after Christ’s atonement? The “organic-​mystical” aspect, by contrast, focuses on the relational and spiritual quality of the bond between God and his people within the covenant. We shall see that these two aspects are indissociable and do not exist independently of each other. Some terms are, however, more or less associated with the one or other aspect. Bullinger made union with Christ the ultimate 4 I speak of the old and new testaments (lowercase) when referring to the historical-​redemptive character of God’s relating to humankind. When referring to the canonical testaments, I use Old and New Testament (uppercase). 5 See, e.g., Richard A. Muller, Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012).

Introduction  3 realization of the covenant. Or, in other words, he incorporated redemptive history (historia salutis as ultimately historia Christi) and union with Christ (unio cum Christo) by way of the covenant. Bullinger’s covenant theology was original insofar as it integrated soteriology with ecclesiology. It was the Reformer’s achievement to have resisted both the medieval tendency to collapse the church with Christ and the more radical forms of Protestantism that tended to divide salvation from the church. My differentiation between the organic-​mystical and the historical-​legal makes possible a reading of Bullinger’s covenantal theology that challenges previous scholarship in two decisive ways. First, it overcomes the compartmentalization or categorization of Bullinger’s covenant theology found in opposing concepts such as bilaterality and unilaterality, or conditionality and decretalism. That reading of Bullinger’s covenant theology, as well as of other Reformed theologians, has led to a historical-​theological reconstruction, and even a splitting of the Reformed tradition, that is hardly supported by the sources. Second, the reading proposed by my study offers a fresh interpretation of some of Bullinger’s key writings that according to earlier research lack the anticipated covenantal terminology. Hence, it challenges recent attempts to relativize the importance or role of the covenant in Bullinger’s theology. Regarding methodology and hermeneutics, I accept the authors’ own terms as key to formulating aspects of their writings. Instead of imposing a priori concepts and definitions on terms such as bilaterality or unilaterality, I seek to let the terms speak for themselves, exploring the context in which the original authors intended them to be understood. Intellectual historian Quentin Skinner called for precisely such a methodological commitment to understand someone’s thought as it would have been understood in its own context: The nerve of my argument is that, if we want a history of philosophy written in a genuinely historical spirit, we need to make it one of our principal tasks to situate the texts we study within such intellectual contexts as enable us to make sense of what their authors were doing in writing them. My aspiration is not of course to enter into the thought-​processes of long-​dead thinkers; it is simply to use the ordinary techniques of historical enquiry to grasp their concepts, to follow their distinctions, to appreciate their beliefs and, so far as possible, to see things their way.6 6 Quentin Skinner, Visions of Politics: Regarding Method, vol. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 3.

4 Introduction In his epochal essay “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas” (1969),7 Skinner offered a devastating critique of much of modern intellectual historiography, which, he claimed, projected modern categories and concepts into the past, leading to ideological anachronisms. Skinner’s methodology was developed in the field of political thought, but it can be easily transferred to theological research. Richard Muller’s approach to the Reformed tradition shares much of Skinner’s concern about modern historical-​theological narratives.8 In an attempt to “see things their way,” as Skinner put it, I deploy a close and innertextual reading of individual sources, as well as an intertextual approach within the broader corpus. I thus extend the textual evidence, drawing from a wide spectrum of genres. With respect to Bullinger, my study not only relies on modern printed editions of his principal writings but also makes considerable use of manuscripts and older printed works that are less well-​known or have not been much consulted. Particular attention is given to exegetical texts such as sermon notes and commentaries. As Zwingli, Bullinger, and the Heidelberg theologians all look to Scripture, that single frame of reference and common textual context enables telling comparisons. I also take into consideration paratextual elements such as marginalia, titles, and chapter headings.9 The underlying premise for this approach is the need to acknowledge “the intransigence and irreducibility of the historical text.”10 My study relies on the original texts in Latin or early modern German or the best critical editions of them. For the sake of the English-​speaking reader, I provide translations in the text with the original in the footnotes. Whenever there is an existing modern English translation, I have usually made use of it, with silent revisions for style only. Unless otherwise indicated, translations are my own. The evidence gleaned from the primary sources has then been located within a wider historical context and within a Rezeptionsgeschichte.

7 Quentin Skinner, “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas,” History and Theory 8, no. 1 (1969): 3–​53. For a critical assessment of Skinner’s view, see Quentin Skinner and James Tully, Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and His Critics (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1988). 8 See Richard A. Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition, Oxford Studies in Historical Theology (New York: Oxford University, 2000), viii: “The positive, promising shift in Calvin historiography is a movement, evidenced among historians of ideas as well as among social and political historians, away from the dogmatically motivated study of Calvin’s theology and from the related assumption that the primary purpose of an exposition of Calvin’s doctrine is to provide a significant point of departure for contemporary theologizing.” 9 On paratexts as authorial interpretative advice, see Marie Maclean, “Pretexts and Paratexts: The Art of the Peripheral,” New Literary History 22 (1991): 273–​279. 10 Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, viii.

Introduction  5 That contextualization within the history of theological thought necessarily raises issues of chronology and periodization familiar to all historians. Historiographical concerns, which are addressed on a theoretical level, have immediate relevance for the practical questions of this book. Where, for example, to start? History is a quasi-​borderless flow of events, or, in our case, thoughts. Let me put the matter in concrete terms. Our study of covenant theology starts with Zwingli in the early 1520s. But covenant theology did not begin with the Reformation. As Michael Horton points out, “the Reformed tradition hardly has a patent on this widely attested biblical motif.”11 We might therefore wonder about Zwingli’s reliance on late medieval concepts, and, indeed, there has been interest in exploring the influence of scholasticism on the Reformation with specific regard to the covenant.12 However, we would simply be shifting the problem: covenant theology did not begin with the medieval period either. Every historian must acknowledge historiographical arbitrariness, or prejudice, when it comes to the chronological delimitation of their study. The chronological borders of my historical-​ theological examination of covenant theology are marked by Zwingli at one end and Ursinus and Olevian at the other. And one final comment on historical contextualization for this study: biographical references are generally deliberately concise, given only when required by the sources. Readers not yet familiar with the Swiss Reformation or with Calvin and the events of the later Reformation will learn much from recent biographies of Zwingli, Bullinger, and Calvin.13 To avoid the impression that Zwingli is presented here as the absolute beginning of covenant theology, I have added the attribute “Reformed.” It is my contention that Zwingli initiated the covenant-​theological tradition within the Reformed setting. Framing the period is, however, as much a synchronic concern as it is a diachronic issue, for we might also legitimately ask about Zwingli’s contemporaries beyond Zurich who might have had a direct or

11 Michael Scott Horton, People and Place: A Covenant Ecclesiology (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008), ix. 12 See Berndt Hamm, Promissio, pactum, ordinatio: Freiheit und Selbstbindung Gottes in der scholastischen Gnadenlehre, Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 54 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1977); Martin Greschat, “Der Bundesgedanke in der Theologie des späten Mittelalters,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte no. 81 (1970): 44–​63; Heiko A. Oberman, “Wir sein pettler. Hoc est verum: Bund und Gnade in der Theologie des Mittelalters und der Reformation,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte no. 78 (1967): 232–​252. 13 See Bruce Gordon, Zwingli: God’s Armed Prophet (New Haven/​London: Yale University Press, 2021); Fritz Büsser, Heinrich Bullinger (1504–​1575): Leben, Werk und Wirkung, 2 vols. (Zurich: TVZ, 2004–​2005); Bruce Gordon, Calvin (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009).

6 Introduction indirect impact on the Heidelberg theologians. Earlier research has indeed pointed out that other reformers such as Johannes Oecolampadius (1482–​ 1531),14 Martin Bucer (1491–​ 1551),15 and Wolfgang Musculus (1497–​ 16 1563) also held theologies of the covenant. However, for their covenant theology these theologians were largely dependent on Zwingli, rather than independently contributing to the major developments for the subject.17 It was Bullinger who brought Zwingli’s thought to the next level and cemented the Zurich origins of covenant theology. I propose that a chain of reception flowed from Bullinger to Ursinus and Olevian. It is possible, however, that Zwingli’s thought was transmitted to the Heidelberg theologians through different channels, perhaps, for example, via John Calvin, who may well have been influenced by Bucer. These considerations lead us to the structure of this book, which comprises seven chapters. In the first two, I trace the origins of covenantal theology in Zurich back to Zwingli and to what I term his covenantal turn. The sources testify to a paradigm shift in Zwingli’s understanding of the covenant from mid-​1525, for before that date he thought in terms of a fundamental testamental discontinuity, of the old and new testaments as discrete, whereas after that date he proposed a covenantal continuity. Chapters 3 to 5 are dedicated to Bullinger and the manner in which he appropriated Zwingli’s discovery and developed it with respect to the historical-​legal and the organic-​mystical. Although in the course of my research I uncovered a source that predates what has been taken as Bullinger’s earliest engagement with the covenant, that discovery, as we shall see, does not unpick the chronology that gives Zwingli priority over Bullinger. As recent scholarship has often overemphasized Calvin’s contribution to the early orthodox covenantal developments at the expense of Bullinger’s, in c­ hapter 6 I address the ways Bullinger’s covenantal theology was received by Calvin. Finally, the reception of the covenant theology developed in Zurich by the Heidelberg theologians Ursinus and Olevian is set out in ­chapter 7. Through a close reading of the 14 See Diane Poythress, Johannes Oecolampadius’ Exposition of Isaiah, Chapters 36–​37 (Doctoral Thesis, Westminster Theological Seminary, 1992). 15 See August Lang, Der Evangelienkommentar Martin Butzers und die Grundzüge seiner Theologie, Studien zur Geschichte der Theologie und der Kirche, vol. 2/​2 (Leipzig: Dieterich’sche Verlags-​ Buchhandlung, 1900). 16 See Jordan J. Ballor, Covenant, Casuality and Law: A Study in the Theology of Wolfgang Musculus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012). 17 See Jack W. Cottrell, Covenant and Baptism in the Theology of Huldreich Zwingli (Doctoral Thesis, Princeton, 1971), 326–​374. See further, J. Wayne Baker, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1980), 181–​191.

Introduction  7 sources, I challenge the overstated case for Melanchthonian influence on the Heidelberg theologians. The book closes with a short epilogue that sketches a possible trajectory for future research. Eight manuscripts from Bullinger’s hand that are central to my study are given in the appendix, in transcriptions that make them easily searchable. Because some of this material is difficult to read, it has been rarely or even never treated in earlier scholarship. It is my hope that Reformation scholars interested in the early Reformed tradition and its heritage will make use of these sources, which are a mere sample of the enormous amount of handwritten material from Bullinger waiting study in the archives of the Zentralbibliothek and the Staatsarchiv of Zurich. The Reformed covenantal tradition has received a good deal of scholarly attention. Theological-​historical research on early Reformed covenant theology developed substantially in the twentieth and twenty-​first centuries. I do not address the entirety of the extensive literature on the covenantal thought of many of the sixteenth-​century theologians discussed in this work, although a more exhaustive bibliography does close this study. Here my concern is with the principal and most influential historical-​theological studies, most of which are from the last two centuries.18 Much of the nineteenth-​ century literature concentrated on the Dutch theologian Johannes Cocceius (1603–​1669) and made little effort to reconstruct the Zurich origins of the covenantal tradition from which he drew. There were attempts to examine Cocceius’s predecessors, such as Heinrich Heppe’s Geschichte des Pietismus und der Mystik in der reformirten Kirche, namentlich der Niederlande (1879).19 While Heppe mentioned Bullinger, he held that Bullinger’s covenant theology did not have lasting influence on German developments and proposed that Melanchthonian students, especially Pierre Boquin (1518–​1582), were the major influences on Ursinus and Olevian. Notably, with regard to an ecclesial, or what I term an organic-​mystical, orientation of covenant theology, Heppe’s master narrative has been very influential. He constructed a history of Reformed covenant theology as a kind of reaction to Calvinist 18 For a more detailed historiographical account of past research, see Andrew A. Woolsey, Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought: A Study in the Reformed Tradition to the Westminster Assembly, Reformed Historical-​Theological Studies (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012), 80–​158; J. Mark Beach, Christ and the Covenant: Francis Turretin’s Federal Theology as a Defense of the Doctrine of Grace, Reformed Historical Theology 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 23–​47. 19 Heinrich Heppe, Geschichte des Pietismus und der Mystik in der reformirten Kirche, namentlich der Niederlande (Leiden: Brill, 1879).

8 Introduction predestinarianism. Emanuel von Korff, in his published dissertation Die Anfänge der Foederaltheologie und ihre erste Ausgestaltung in Zürich und Holland (1908), did recognize Zwingli as standing at the very beginnings of Reformed covenant theology.20 He considered Bullinger to be, however, “the first actual covenantal theologian.”21 Von Korff did not pursue in Germany the tradition initiated by Zwingli and developed by Bullinger. Three Dutch authors of the nineteenth century certainly merit mention here. Willem Vanden Bergh22 and Maurits A. Gooszen23 both made significant contributions to our understanding of the relationship between Bullinger and Calvin with regard to covenant theology. While the former offered an extensive study of the continuities of Calvin’s covenant theology from Bullinger, the latter focused on Bullinger’s covenant theology in opposition to Calvin and Calvinist predestinarianism. Gooszen emphasized Olevian’s continuity with Bullinger and not with Calvin. In his article “The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology” (1891),24 Geerhardus Vos not only located the origins of Reformed covenant theology in Zurich with Zwingli and Bullinger but also attributed Ursinus’s and Olevian’s covenant theology to their connections to Zurich, not to ties with Calvin’s Geneva. Vos’s succinct argument is similar to my own thesis. After von Korff ’s dissertation, the next influential work of the twentieth century on the origins of Reformed covenant theology was Gottlob Schrenk’s Gottesreich und Bund im älteren Protestantismus (1923).25 Schrenk traced the emergence of Reformed covenant theology to Zwingli’s controversy with the Anabaptists. Bullinger is referred to as Zwingli’s student and Calvin as Bullinger’s, but Schrenk hesitated to connect Ursinus and Olevian to Zurich. Like Heppe, he attributed the subsequent development of Reformed covenant theology in Heidelberg to Melanchthon and Melanchthonian students,

20 Emanuel von Korff, Die Anfänge der Foederaltheologie und ihre erste Ausgestaltung in Zürich und Holland (Licentiat: Friedrich-​Wilhelms-​Universität, 1908), 10: “Suchen wir nun nach den Anfängen der Foederaltheologie, so ist zurückzugehen bis auf Zwingli.” 21 Von Korff, Anfänge, 15: “der erste eigentliche Foederaltheologe.” 22 Willem van den Bergh, Calvijn over het genadeverbond (Gravenhage: W. A. Beschoor, 1879). 23 Maurits A. Gooszen, “Bijdrage tot de kennis van het gereformeerd Protestantisme,” Geloof en Vrijheid 21 (1887): 505–​554. 24 Geerhardus Vos, “The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology,” in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, ed. Richard B. Graffin (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 2001), 234–​ 267; original title: De verbondsleer in de Gereformeerde theologie. 25 Gottlob Schrenk, Gottesreich und Bund im älteren Protestantismus, vornehmlich bei Johannes Coccejus: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Pietismus und der heilsgeschichtl. Theologie, Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie 5 (Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1923).

Introduction  9 for example to Boquin, and he did so not only with regard to the prelapsarian covenant but also with respect to the organic-​mystical aspect of the covenant, which he named “persönliche Heilserfahrung.”26 The enduring thesis that the pedobaptismal controversy was the primordial soup from which Reformed covenant theology emerged was first formulated by Schrenk. In 1951 Leonard J. Trinterud published an article entitled “The Origins of Puritanism,”27 in which he argued that Oecolampadius held a view of covenantal continuity prior to Zwingli. Trinterud claimed, moreover, a position similar to Gooszen’s, namely that the covenant theology developed in Zurich and the Rhineland was bilateral and conditional, as opposed to the unilateral and decretal testament theology of Calvin’s Geneva. Joachim Staedtke’s published dissertation on the theology of Bullinger’s early years, Die Theologie des jungen Bullinger (1962),28 was important in illuminating the origins of Reformed covenant theology, in particular by uncovering sources testifying to Bullinger’s early covenantal thinking. Staedtke was among the first to consider that Bullinger might have influenced Zwingli and not vice versa.29 The first extensive—​ and still unsurpassed—​ study of Zwingli’s covenant theology was Jack W. Cottrell’s dissertation Covenant and Baptism in the Theology of Huldreich Zwingli (1971).30 Cottrell offered a historical-​ chronological account of its development based on primary sources. His focus on the relationship between covenant and baptism had a heuristic purpose in eventually arguing against Schrenk’s legacy. He dated Zwingli’s shift to covenantal continuity to mid-​1525. In addition to reconstructing Zwingli’s development, he also argued convincingly for the Reformer’s primacy over contemporary theologians such as Oecolampadius, Bullinger, and the Anabaptists. Moreover, for Cottrell the conditions in Zwingli’s covenant theology are to be understood as the result of an unequivocally gracious covenant. A more recent but not unsatisfactory attempt to argue for the development of covenant theology in response to Anabaptism is found in an

26 Schrenk, Gottesreich und Bund, 57. 27 Leonard J. Trinterud, “The Origins of Puritanism,” Church History 20 (1951): 37–​57. 28 Staedtke 1962. 29 See Staedtke 1962, 65, fn. 28–​29. 30 Cottrell, Covenant and Baptism. See also a revised excerpt: Jack W. Cottrell, “Is Bullinger the Source for Zwingli’s Doctrine of the Covenant?,” in Heinrich Bullinger 1504–​1575: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum 400. Todestag, ed. Ulrich Gäbler and Erland Herkenrath, 2 vols., Zürcher Beiträge zur Reformationsgeschichte 7 (Zurich: TVZ, 1975), 45–​83.

10 Introduction article by Scott A. Gillies, “Zwingli and the Origin of the Reformed Covenant 1524–​7.”31 In his dissertation, The Origins and Early Developments of the Reformed Idea of the Covenant (1979),32 Douglas Stoute undertook a historical-​ theological account of Reformed covenant theology that started with the patristic and medieval legacy, moved through Zwingli’s early thought, Oecolampadius’s and Bucer’s reception, Bullinger’s development, and arrived at Calvin’s later theology of the covenant. His study tended not to directly challenge Cottrell’s conclusions but sought instead to nuance them. The most abrupt shift is found in Stoute’s view that covenantal continuity can be detected in Zwingli in the early 1520s, so before that 1525 turn. My reading of the sources has found Cottrell more convincing. Stoute’s assessment of Calvin’s covenant theology and its relation to Bullinger is ambivalent. On the one hand, Stoute argued against the exaggeration and misrepresentation of the kind of thesis given by Trinterud. On the other hand, he argued that Calvin provided the solution to Bullinger’s “problem” of the tension between a gracious covenant and conditions. However, the sources show that Bullinger was well aware of these tensions and that Calvin’s alleged solution was in fact similar to Bullinger’s. J. Wayne Baker’s work Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition (1980) has been indisputably the most influential and most controversial study on the origins of Reformed covenant theology in recent decades. It is also the only monograph to have addressed Bullinger’s covenant theology. Baker’s thesis was an extended and radicalized version of Gooszen’s and Trinterud’s. Zwingli was recognized as preceding Bullinger in using the covenant idea, but Bullinger was the first, according to Baker, to have held a genuine theology of a bilateral covenant. Bullinger’s covenant theology, being exclusively understood in mutual and conditional terms, was constructed as the alternative or “other Reformed tradition” against the Calvinist theology of a unilateral and decretal testament. In Baker’s master narrative, Ursinus and especially Olevian belonged to the Calvinist line and therefore did not represent a continuity from Bullinger. Although his thesis was not radically new, Baker became an indispensable discussion partner for

31 Scott A. Gillies, “Zwingli and the Origin of the Reformed Covenant 1524–​7,” Scottish Journal of Theology 54, no. 1 (2001): 21–​50. 32 D. A. Stoute, The Origins and Early Development of the Reformed Idea of the Covenant (Doctoral Thesis, University of Cambridge, 1979).

Introduction  11 subsequent works on the origins of Reformed covenant theology, including this book. Andrew A. Woolsey’s impressive dissertation of 1988, published 2012 as Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought, offered a history of covenant theology from the Church Fathers to post-​Reformation developments in Heidelberg, England, and Scotland. Woolsey followed Stoute contra Cottrell in arguing that Zwingli already had a sense of covenantal continuity in the early 1520s. Against Baker, Woolsey stressed Bullinger’s dependence on Zwingli with regard to covenantal continuity and bilaterality. He also argued that Bullinger’s doctrine of election was not in opposition to Calvin’s. Woolsey dedicated a whole section to “Genevan influence,” foremost to Calvin, who, according to Woolsey, not only learned the arguments of Bullinger and others but also “applied them in considerably more detail than his predecessors had ever done.”33 The concept of a prelapsarian covenant was highlighted in particular by Woolsey to argue for the Heidelberg theologians Ursinus’s and Olevian’s continuity with the Genevan tradition, even, indeed, to place them exclusively under Genevan influence. Bullinger was nowhere to be found in the “Heidelberg Story” as Woolsey called it. Such historical blinkers are unfortunate. Woolsey did, however, make a good case against the overstatement of Melanchthonian influence on Ursinus, arguing that Ursinus’s stimulus might well have been Calvinian. In 1990, David A. Weir published his doctoral thesis as The Origins of the Federal Theology in Sixteenth-​Century Reformation Thought.34 He argued for the controversy over Calvin’s teaching on predestination and original sin as the historical-​theological background for the appearance of a prelapsarian covenant, which in Weir’s definition marked the beginning of covenant theology. Ursinus, Weir indicated, was the one who introduced this solution into the Reformed tradition. We note that here too Ursinus and Olevian are interpreted against a Calvinist background. In 1997 Lyle D. Bierma published the first monograph on Olevian’s covenant theology, German Calvinism in the Confessional Age: The Covenant Theology of Caspar Olevianus.35 This helpful study filled a research gap by offering a detailed and nuanced account based on Olevian’s main writings on 33 Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 337 34 David A. Weir, The Origins of the Federal Theology in Sixteenth-​Century Reformation Thought (Oxford/​New York: Clarendon Press/​Oxford University Press, 1990). 35 Lyle D. Bierma, German Calvinism in the Confessional Age: The Covenant Theology of Caspar Olevianus (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996).

12 Introduction the covenant. In exploring Olevian’s background, Bierma argued for a basic continuity between Zwingli, Bullinger, and Calvin. Bierma also recognized Bullinger’s influence on Ursinus, together with Calvin’s and Melanchthon’s. But for Bierma, as for Heppe before him, one of Ursinus’s new emphases, alongside the appearance of a prelapsarian covenant, was his interpretation of the covenant with God as being “first and foremost in union with Christ.”36 However, as the title of Bierma’s study reveals, Olevian was interpreted along Calvinist lines, and the immediate influence of the Zurich origins was wholly downplayed. R. Scott Clark’s more recent Caspar Olevian and the Substance of the Covenant: The Double Benefit of Christ (2005)37 basically followed Bierma’s exclusively Calvinist interpretation of Olevian’s covenant theology. Peter A. Lillback launched twenty-​first-​century research on the history of Reformed covenant theology with the publication of his excellent dissertation on Calvin’s theology of the covenant, The Binding of God: Calvin’s Role in the Developments of Covenant Theology (2001). He offered a convincing interpretation of the essential role of the covenant in Calvin’s theology and contextualized it within the Reformed covenantal tradition. Zwingli and Bullinger were given a prominent part in the developments preceding Calvin, against Baker’s thesis. Lillback follows Stoute and Woolsey pace Cottrell in seeing in Zwingli a notion of covenantal continuity that dates from the early 1520s. Lillback traces the development from Calvin to Ursinus, suggesting, essentially, that the supposedly Melanchthonian elements in Ursinus’s covenant theology could as well have come from Calvin. Lillback makes a good case, but Bullinger seems to have been lost along the way. I will argue here that these elements could equally have been transmitted by Bullinger. The 500th anniversary of Bullinger’s birth, in 2004, was an opportunity to relaunch research on Zwingli’s successor. That year Peter Opitz published his impressive monograph on Bullinger’s theology as exemplified in the Decades, the reformer’s main work: Heinrich Bullinger als Theologe: Eine Studie zu den Dekaden.38 This study is significant here in that Opitz addressed Bullinger’s theology of the covenant and argued against Baker’s thesis. But he also queried the perspective that subsumed Bullinger’s theology to the covenant. Instead, he attempted to approach Bullinger’s theology through another concept, that of Gemeinschaft, that is fellowship or communion. Edward 36 Bierma, German Calvinism, 60. 37 R. Scott Clark, Caspar Olevian and the Substance of the Covenant: The Double Benefit of Christ (Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 2005). 38 Peter Opitz, Heinrich Bullinger als Theologe: Eine Studie zu den ‘Dekaden’ (Zurich: TVZ, 2004).

Introduction  13 Dowey’s and Willem Van’t Spijker’s smaller contributions published in the anniversary year shared Opitz’s concern and downplayed the importance of the covenant in Bullinger’s theology.39 My interpretation of Bullinger’s covenant theology by way of the historical-​legal and organic-​mystical brings Opitz’s concept of Gemeinschaft very close to the concept of the covenant. Two last monographs merit mention. First is William Peter Stephens’s comprehensive work entitled The Theology of Heinrich Bullinger, published posthumously in 2019. Stephens’s project was to provide an encyclopaedical account of Bullinger’s theology, much as he had done for Bullinger’s predecessor in The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli (1986). Sadly, Stephens died before he could complete his text, but the manuscript was edited and published by Jim West and Joe Mock. Stephen’s work can function as a handbook and includes a chapter on the covenant. While he addresses the question of the centrality of the covenant and whether it is bilateral or unilateral, he does so essentially through an evaluation of existing literature, without adding fundamentally new insights. He confesses, “Without a comprehensive work wholly dedicated to the covenant, it will not be possible to evaluate more satisfactorily the role of the covenant in Bullinger’s many works.”40 This present work responds to this desiratum. Most importantly, Stephens agrees with the criticism of Baker’s thesis. The second monograph, and the final work to be addressed in this literature review, is the published version of Robert J. D. Wainwright’s dissertation, which appeared in 2020 as Early Reformation Covenant Theology: English Reception of Swiss Reformed Thought, 1520–​1555. As its title makes clear, his work focuses not on the origins of covenant theology but on the reception by the English world of the covenant theology developed in Switzerland. My study follows a different trajectory in terms of reception, looking at Reformed Germany and not England. Interestingly, in his short assessment of Swiss covenant theology, Wainwright addresses Zurich and Geneva (although the latter was technically not yet a member of the Confederation), so Zwingli, Bullinger, and Calvin, almost as a monolithic theological block. He concludes, “Calvin’s concept of covenant developed in the late 1530s in line 39 Willem v.‘t. Spijker, “Bullinger als Bundestheologe,” in Heinrich Bullinger: Life—​Thought—​ Influence, ed. Emidio Campi and Peter Opitz, Zürcher Beiträge, 2 vols., zur Reformationsgeschichte 24 (Zurich: TVZ, 2007), 573–​592; Edward Dowey, “Heinrich Bullinger as Theologian: Thematic, Comprehensive, and Schematic,” in Architect of Reformation: An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–​1575, ed. Bruce Gordon et al. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004), 35–​65. 40 William Peter Stephens, The Theology of Heinrich Bullinger (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2019), 219.

14 Introduction with the Zürichers, apparently drawing on their ideas.”41 Calvin’s reception of Zurich’s theology is confirmed in our study with greater historical and theological insight. Wainwright is also wrong to trace Zwingli’s covenant theology back into the early 1520s, for he overlooks the major and productive turn in Zwingli’s thinking on the covenant in mid-​1525. This brief overview of the origins of Reformed formulations of covenantal theology, as well as Zurich’s role in particular, reveals that consensus on a number of disputed questions has proved elusive. Two issues at the root of the conflict must be addressed by any historical-​theological study on Reformed covenant: first, the relationship between covenant and election; second, the prelapsarian covenant. My study does not resolve the scholarly debate; indeed, I challenge most past research on one or other of these issues. Rather, I bring an additional and novel interpretation to the discussion by arguing for the relationship between covenant and union with Christ.

41 Robert J.D. Wainwright, Early Reformation Covenant Theology: English Reception of Swiss Reformed Thought, 1520–​1555 (Philipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2020), 145.

PART I

ZW INGL I AS IN I T IATOR The first part of this study, composed of the next two chapters, explores the development of Zwingli’s theological thinking on the covenant from the beginning of his pastoral ministry onward. This development was shaped by the highly polemical context of the Reformation, the rejection of the Roman Catholic Mass, and the attempt to retrieve a view on the sacraments rooted in Scripture. The Zurich Reformer’s covenantal perspective on the Eucharist and Baptism was soon confronted with rival views within the evangelical camp, in particular from Martin Luther and the Anabaptists. This difference of opinion formed the catalyst for Zwingli’s covenantal turn. Far from being linear, Zwingli’s thought on the covenant was marked by a paradigm shift in mid-​1525, which is related here to his exegetical work on the book of Genesis at the biblical-​theological seminary newly founded in Zurich.

1 Testamental Discontinuity, 1519–​1525 As noted in the introduction, my methodology relies on a close reading of the available sources. And when we read Zwingli’s writings with a special focus on covenantal terms and how the Reformer used and understood them, we are led to conclude that Zwingli attributed a genuine covenantal-​theological understanding to these terms only from mid-​1525. I call this moment, treated in the second chapter, Zwingli’s “covenantal turn.” Previously Zwingli had stressed the fundamental discontinuity between the old and the new testaments. The headings—​ “Testamental Discontinuity 1519–​ 1525” and “Covenantal Continuity 1525–​1531”—​have been chosen for the sake of the clarity of the argument. They should not be read as suggesting the complete absence of any continuity between the old and new testaments in Zwingli’s thought prior to his covenantal turn, and, similarly, they do not propose that Zwingli abandoned all sense of discontinuity in his view of the relationship between the two testaments after his covenantal turn. What they do indicate, however, is a paradigmatic change with respect to emphasis or priority. Every periodization is an epistemic construct intended to contain the complexity of historical processes with fluid boundaries. While I have not opted for a strict historical-​chronological approach by taking the relevant writings one by one in chronological order, Zwingli’s thought on the covenant can usefully be divided across the historical moments or periods mentioned above. When I turn to each, I first provide a summary of the historical context for the relevant writings. This structure allows for an emphasis on individual aspects of this development and their relationship. Many Reformation scholars propose that the beginnings of Reformed covenant theology go back to Bullinger but with Huldrych Zwingli having provided the decisive impetus. This work essentially adheres to this established consensus, with the rare attempts to reverse this order by attributing the spark to Bullinger evidently historically implausible. Zwingli’s foundational contribution to the development of covenant theology was largely ignored in the modern era until the twentieth century. The first scholar to have significantly recognized Zwingli as standing at the very beginnings of Reformed The Zurich Origins of Reformed Covenant Theology. Pierrick Hildebrand, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2024. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197607572.003.0002

18  Zwingli as Initiator covenant theology was von Korff, in 1908, but his research contribution was brief and focused on only a few writings.1 Zwingli’s name then recurred in general histories of Reformed covenant theology, including Schrenk’s influential work, which traced the emergence of the covenant concept to Anabaptist circles and noted its appropriation by Zwingli in his polemics against infant baptism.2 Cottrell seriously challenged Schrenk’s thesis on the Anabaptist origins of Zwingli’s covenant theology (as source or cause), proposing that the sources attest to Zwingli’s commitment to covenant continuity from the summer of 1525.3 By contrast, recent studies have pushed it back even before the emergence of Anabaptism. The current study serves, as we shall see, Cottrell’s rehabilitation. The early period is characterized by Zurich’s break with the Roman Catholic Church, represented by the Bishop of Constance, and the enforcement of the Reformed program in the city-​state, culminating in mid-​1525 with the abolition of the mass and the first evangelical celebration of the Lord’s Supper. A long battle had preceded the defeat of this last bastion of Roman Catholic practice. Criticism of the mass was not merely one issue among many, standing alongside, for example, the attack on priestly celibacy or objections to religious images. The rejection of the Catholic mass went to the core of the evangelical view of the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement. This battle provided the principal context for Zwingli’s early thinking on the testament or covenant. A second front arose in 1524 with the Lutheran condemnation of Zwingli’s understanding of the Supper. The conflict with the Anabaptists regarding the secular magistracy’s role in the Reformation of the church ultimately played out on the field of baptism. This third front began as a skirmish in the second half of 1523 and grew only more intense, requiring much of Zwingli’s attention once the main battle for the Supper had been won. And Zwingli’s eucharistic views did not go unchallenged even after that victory, with such opposition and resistance helping shape and refine his theology. The polemics around the right understanding of the sacraments, both the Supper and baptism, formed the immediate setting for Zwingli’s development of a theology of the covenant. In 1519, on accepting the call to Zurich as Leutpriester, or people’s priest, Zwingli immediately applied a program of reform based on solus Christus and backed by sola Scriptura. On the first Sunday after his arrival in the city, 1 Von Korff, Anfänge, 10–​15. 2 Schrenk, Gottesreich und Bund, 36–​40. 3 Cottrell, Covenant and Baptism.

Testamental Discontinuity, 1519–1525  19 Zwingli began to preach from the Gospel of Matthew according to the lectio continua method, abandoning the Roman Catholic lectionary. His theology, for which the term “Reformed” would be coined, still needed to mature and gain systematic clarity. When and how and, in particular, under whose influence Zwingli became a Reformer as such has been a controversial matter in Reformation historiography.4 This question does not immediately pertain to our study,5 but we must note that the great humanist and church Reformist Erasmus of Rotterdam was indisputably Zwingli’s spiritual father. Although from 1516, on his way to becoming a Reformer, Zwingli would emancipate himself from Erasmus on major theological issues, he never stopped feeling greatly indebted to the Dutch humanist, who had led him to the New Testament. While Zwingli’s appreciation of Martin Luther’s early Reformation writings from 1519 on undoubtedly had an impact on his theology, the Zurich Reformer always emphasized his independence from the Wittenberg professor with respect to his conversion to the gospel, which was essentially a product of his reading of Paul and John. And indeed, Zwingli developed an independent theological voice, echoing neither Erasmus nor Luther.6 For many scholars,7 Zwingli’s first Reformation writing in a narrow sense was Von Erkiesen und Freiheit der Speisen (1522).8 It is also usually the earliest writing referred to in more recent studies on Zwingli’s covenant theology.9 The historical background to this text was the famous “sausage eating” incident, which occurred in the house of the printer Christoph Froschauer (1490–​1564) during the Lenten fasting of 1522. Simply the presence of Zwingli, who assisted at the meal but declined to eat the meat, came to be seen as a legitimation of the fast-​breaking. His companions stated that

4 For a selection of the main literature on this subject, see Gordon, Zwingli, 164, fn. 65. 5 For a well-​ arranged overview of Zwingli’s steps on his way to become a Reformer, see Gottfried W. Locher, Die Zwinglische Reformation im Rahmen der europäischen Kirchengeschichte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), 117–​122. 6 See Pierrick Hildebrand, “Geist und Buchstabe bei Zwingli: Auslegung eines paulinischen Grundgegensatzes,” in Reformatorische Paulusauslegungen, ed. Stefan Krauter and Manuel Nägele (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2023), 271–​286. 7 See Gottfried W. Locher, Grundzüge der Theologie Huldrych Zwinglis im Vergleich mit derjenigen Martin Luthers und Johannes Calvins, in Huldrych Zwingli in neuer Sicht: Zehn Beiträge zur Theologie der Zürcher Reformation (Zurich: Zwingli-​ Verlag, 1969), 173–​ 274; Locher, Die Zwinglische Reformation, 89; Berndt Hamm, Zwinglis Reformation der Freiheit (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988), 5. 8 Huldreich Zwingli, Von Erkiesen und Freiheit der Speisen, in Z 1, 88–​136. For a modern English translation, see Huldreich Zwingli, Concerning Choice and Liberty Respecting Food, in LWZ 1, 70–​112. 9 See, e.g., Robert Clifford Walton, Zwingli’s Theocracy (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967), 79; Cottrell, Covenant and Baptism, 17–​18.

20  Zwingli as Initiator they acted in the name of Christian liberty with regard to matters not explicitly legislated by Scripture, which Zwingli had been preaching since 1519.10 His sermons manifestly had had an impact on the people of Zurich. A scandal erupted, and many people in Zurich appealed to the authorities, who eventually summoned the fast-​breakers. Zwingli publicly announced his position on the matter in a sermon given on 23 March 1522, in which he defended the accused. Revised and published on 16 April 1522, this sermon provided that first Reformed text noted above. The appendix Ob ieman die spysen gwalt hab ze verbieten11 was likely, it has been proposed, an addition to the sermon specifically addressed to the church authorities.12 On learning of the scandal, the Bishop of Constance, Hugo of Hohenlandenberg (1457–​ 1532), immediately sent a delegation to Zurich to clear up the situation. The delegates interviewed the Stiftskapitel, formed by the Augustinian canons of the Grossmünster, as well as both chambers of the city council, but in the end Zwingli’s position was strengthened by the latter.13 The definitive break with the Bishop of Constance was now just a question of time. Two subsequent petitions, the Supplicatio (2 July 1522)14 and the Freundliche Bitte (13 July 1522),15 are to be interpreted in light of this controversy. The former was addressed to Bishop Hugo, the latter to the Swiss Confederates. Extremely unhappy about the support for Zwingli and his colleagues, the Bishop of Constance had sent two episcopal letters to Zurich, one to the council and the other to the Stiftskapitel, exhorting the addressees to remain faithful to the church and warning against the new teaching.16 The concerns of the ecclesiastical authority were echoed by other political authorities, in particular the other Confederates. The Diet of the Swiss Confederation that took place on 27 May 1522 had condemned 10 According to his own testimony, Zwingli started his evangelical preaching in 1519, see Zwingli, Von Erkiesen, 88–​89: “Nachdem ir, allerliebsten in gott, ietz im vierden jar das euangelium unnd der heyligen botten leer so durstig gehört, die der allmächtig gott durch mich kleinfuegen sich begnadet hat üch zu offnen”. (Italics mine) 11 See Zwingli, Von Erkiesen, 134–​136. 12 It is considered by Egli to be not part of the original sermon but a supplement directed to the ecclesial authority represented by the Bishop of Constance; see Emil Egli, “Einleitung zu Von Erkiesen und Freiheit der Speisen,” in Z 1, 74–​80. 13 See Emil Egli, “Einleitung Acta Tiguri 7. 8. 9. diebus aprilis 1522,” in Z 1, 137–​139. 14 Huldreich Zwingli, Supplicatio ad Hugonem episcopum Constantiensem, in Z 1, 197–​209. For a modern English translation, see Huldreich Zwingli, Petition of Certain Preachers of Switzerland to the Most Reverend Lord Hugo, Bishop of Constance, in LWZ 1, 150–​165. 15 Huldreich Zwingli, Freundliche Bitte, in Z 1, 214–​248. For a modern English translation, see Huldreich Zwingli, A Friendly Request and Exhortation of Some Priests of the Confederates, in LWZ 1, 166–​196. 16 For the writing to the council, see EAk, 85, no. 251. The text was also printed in Huldreich Zwingli, Apologeticus Architeles, in Z 1, 263–​70.

Testamental Discontinuity, 1519–1525  21 evangelical preachers, and although Zwingli was not mentioned explicitly, he was at the epicenter of what was termed the “dissension and error in the Christian faith.” The Diet decreed that the competent authorities—​namely the Zurich government—​should dissuade the preachers, that is, Zwingli and his followers, from stirring up trouble with “such preaching.”17 The two petitions, authored by Zwingli, were a defense of the evangelical doctrine and a plea for the abolition of priestly celibacy. Their genre was more that of an open letter, intended not so much to convince the bishop as to make a public statement. And indeed, these writings were immediately printed and accessible in the public square. Zwingli’s Apolegeticus Archeteles (22/​23 August 1522),18 written less than two months later, was the de facto break with the Bishop of Constance. In a longer captatio benevolentiae, he sought to lay the blame for the conflict on the bishop’s counselor, rather than on Bishop Hugo himself. The substantive Archeteles was an ironic expression of Zwingli’s unrealistic hope that this last writing “might truly be the beginning and end of the entire quarrel.”19 It formed Zwingli’s response to the episcopal letter of 24 May addressed to the Stiftskapitel—​while Hugo had not explicitly mentioned Zwingli in his letter, the Reformer was doubtless his target. In Apologeticus Architeles Zwingli subdivided this letter into 69 theses, which he then answered point by point. The Zurich council became increasingly worried about the growing revolt around Zwingli. Following Zwingli’s advice, on 3 January 1523 the magistrates invited “all priests, lay priests, pastors and preachers under their rule”20 to a disputation at the city hall, to be held at the end of the month. The diocese was informed “so that they could be present, if they wanted to.”21 Reformation scholars term this event, held on 29 January 1523, the “First Disputation.” The subject of discussion was to be the scriptural foundations of the teaching of Zwingli and his followers, who were “supposed to have preached the gospel faithfully and completely.”22 And the goal was to put an

17 Die Eidgenössischen Abschiede aus dem Zeitraum von 1521 bis 1528, ed. Johannes Strickler, vol. 4:1a (Brugg: Fisch und Wild, 1873), 194. 18 Zwingli, Apologeticus Architeles, 256–​327. For a modern English translation see Huldreich Zwingli, Defence Called Archeteles, in LWZ 1, 197–​292. 19 Zwingli, Defence Called Archeteles, 199; Zwingli, Apologeticus Architeles, 257: “vere principium et finis universae simultatis.” 20 Aktenstücke zur ersten Zürcher Disputation: II. Das Ausschreiben der Disputation, in Z 1, 466: “alle pfarrherr, leütpriester, seelsorger und predicaten irer herrschaft.” 21 Ausschreiben der Disputation, 467: “ob sy wöllent, ouch darby sin mögend.” 22 Ausschreiben der Disputation, 466: “vermeinend, das euangelium trüwlich unnd gantz gepredigett haben.”

22  Zwingli as Initiator end to the turbulence, at least among the Zurich clergy. A delegation under the leadership of the vicar-​general of Constance, Johann Faber (1478–​1541), arrived in Zurich on the day of the disputation. Zwingli’s recently composed 67 articles, or theses, were used as the basis for discussion. As “nobody was able overcome him with the true divine Scriptures,”23 the city council decided that same afternoon that “Zwingli can continue to proclaim the holy gospel and the true divine Scripture as hitherto, unless someone can prove him wrong.”24 The articles received an official legitimation that was rejected by the episcopal delegation.25 Zwingli expected further resistance and assiduously worked on a detailed exposition of the 67 articles that eventually became his most extensive work, published on 14 July 1523, as Auslegen und Gründe der Schlussreden.26 With the decision of the First Disputation having bolstered the evangelicals in Zurich, popular impatience with the mass and with images increased, leading to stormy iconoclastic scenes. Overwhelmed, the council invited the clergy to what would become known as the “Second Disputation,” which took place over three days, from 26 to 29 October 1523. While the First Disputation had produced a formal decision on the Schriftprinzip with no immediate consequences for the religious life of the city, the Second Disputation would have direct and practical implications, for it addressed not evangelical preaching per se, but rather its consequences for liturgy and piety, i.e., the mass and images. The provisional decision of the council was to retain the status quo “for the time being.”27 The negotiations had revealed that many clerics were not sufficiently trained in the Scriptures, and Zwingli was commissioned to write a handbook for the preaching office. His Christliche Einleitung28 was published three weeks later, on 17 November 1523. This short “introduction” was something of a compendium

23 Aktenstücke zur ersten Zürcher Disputation: III. Der Abschied der Disputation, in Z 1, 470: “niemans wider in erhept oder mit der gerechten göttlichen geschrifft in unnderstanden zu überwinden.” 24 Abschied der Disputation, 471: “Ulrich Tzwinly fürfaren unnd hinfür wie bißhar das heilig euangelion unnd die recht göttlich gschrifft verkünde so lang unnd vil, biß er eins besseren bericht werde.” 25 For the record of the meeting see Huldreich Zwingli, Handlung der Versammlung in der Stadt Zürich auf den 29. Januar 1523 (Erste Zürcher Disputation), in Z 1, 479–​569. 26 Huldreich Zwingli, Auslegen und Gründe der Schlussreden, in Z 2, 14–​457. For a modern English translation see Huldrych Zwingli, Exposition and Basis of the Conclusions or Articles, in HZW 1, 1–​374. 27 EAk, 174, no. 437: “bis uf witern bescheid”. 28 Huldreich Zwingli, Eine kurze christliche Einleitung, in Z 2, 630–​663. For a modern English translation see Huldrych Zwingli, Short Christian Instruction, in HZW 2, 48–​76.

Testamental Discontinuity, 1519–1525  23 of evangelical doctrine, with particular emphasis on the principal issues concerning the mass and images. The decision of 29 October 1523 did not satisfy those aspiring to a thorough-​going Reformation of the church, especially the more radical among them. The Second Disputation marked a break within the evangelical camp between, on one hand, Zwingli and his followers and, on the other hand, those who later would be known as Anabaptists, who became more and more suspicious of a magisterial Reformation. The general discontent around the mass and images did not decrease. In December 1523 the Zurich council sent Zwingli’s Christliche Einleitung to the “Swiss” bishops, the Confederates, and the University of Basel for assessment. The councilors wanted “this issue to be addressed anew and settled by Pentecost, so as to be pleasing to God according to his Holy Word.”29 Despite the prospect of a decision on the matter in the spring, the Roman Catholic party in Zurich forced the council to stage another disputation, in January 1524. The status quo was again retained. Looking ahead to the disputation at Pentecost, in May 1524 Zwingli30 wrote the Vorschlag.31 Bishop Hugo’s negative evaluation of Zwingli’s Christliche Einleitung arrived late that June. The council, which on 15 June 1524 had already decided that the mass would be retained but images removed, asked Zwingli to compose an appropriate response for Constance in the name of the Zurich authorities. This became his Christliche Antwort, of 18 August 1524.32 The year 1524 also marked the beginning of Lutheran polemics against Zwingli, who responded in kind. In the fictitious Ad Matthaeum Alberum (16 November 1524), at first circulated in manuscript,33 Zwingli declared himself not only against the Roman Catholic mass but also, and above all, against Luther’s view on the Eucharist.34 But polemics was also a local concern. In

29 EAk, 187, no. 486: “dass bis Pfingsten der handel wider werde an die hand gnommen und beschlossen, das Gott gefällig und sinem heligen wort erstattlich sin mag”. 30 Strictly speaking, it is not just Zwingli’s proposition but a “Fürschlag der dryen: abbtes von Cappel, propstes von Embrach, commentürs von Küsnach, und der dryen lütpriesteren”; see Huldreich Zwingli, Vorschlag wegen der Bilder und der Messe, in Z 3, 120. 31 Zwingli, Vorschlag, 120–​145. 32 Huldreich Zwingli, Christliche Antwort Zürichs an Bischof Hugo, in Z 3, 153–​229. 33 Huldreich Zwingli, Ad Matthaeum Alberum de coena dominica epistola, in Z 3, 335–​354. For a modern English translation see Huldrych Zwingli, Letter to Matthew Alber Concerning the Lord’s Supper, in HZW 2, 131–​144. 34 See Walther Köhler, “Einleitung Ad Matthaeum Alberum de coena dominica epistola,” in Z 3, 328: “unbefangen betrachtet ist Zwinglis Sendschreiben an Alber ein erstes Heraustreten aus seiner Reserve in der Abendmahlsfrage Luther gegenüber, veranlasst durch Karlstadts Auftreten, in vorsichtigster Form.”

24  Zwingli as Initiator his Ursache (7 resp. 28 December 1524)35 Zwingli recorded, “I wrote this little book because many people revile us in Zurich for things that highly differ from the truth, just to make the gospel distasteful.”36 Zwingli counted objectors to pedobaptism amongst those who “make the gospel distasteful,” deeming them “more inflated by the knowledge of the gospel than inflamed by love.”37 This was Zwingli’s first text to mention the growing controversy with the Anabaptists, although they appeared as only one grouping amongst four, and baptism was addressed only in relation to biblical hermeneutics.38 In March 1525 Zwingli published his Commentarius39 as the first Reformed dogmatics. While some scholars consider it his principal work,40 it would be inaccurate to regard the Commentarius as his definitive theological statement. In the same month, in a tactical move, Zwingli made public the first evangelical liturgy of the Supper.41 With opposition to the mass vociferous and still growing, he was aware that the council would surely soon have to resolve that it no longer be celebrated. And indeed, on 12 April 1525 the council decided to abolish the mass and to introduce this Zwinglian liturgy. The last Reformed agendum was now established. Zwingli had composed the Commentarius between December 1524 and March 1525 in the context of this narrow victory, stating in the introduction that he was fulfilling a promise in writing on the Christian faith for “many learned and pious men on the other side of the Alps.”42 However, the text was more than scholarly exchange. Its dedication to the French king, Francis I, was indicative of an underlying religious-​political purpose. Now fighting on three theological fronts, Zwingli was looking for political allies to help defend his Reformation achievements.43 It was at the same time an apologetic project in 35 Huldreich Zwingli, Wer Ursache gebe zur Aufruhr, in Z 3, 374–​469: “Diß buechlin hab ich uß der ursach muessen schryben, daß etlich uns zuo Zürich vil anderst zuoredend, weder aber an der sach sye, allein, daß sy das euangelium verhaßt machind.” 36 Zwingli, Ursache, 378. 37 Zwingli, Ursache, 403: “me mit kunst dess euangelii ufgeblasen, weder mit liebe angezündt sind.” 38 Zwingli, Ursache, 409–​413. 39 Huldreich Zwingli, De vera et falsa religione commentarius, in Z 3, 628–​911. For a modern English translation see Huldrych Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion, in LWZ 3. 40 See Locher, Die Zwinglische Reformation, 163; Andreas Beriger et al., “Einleitung Kommentar über die wahre und falsche Religion,” in ZS 3, 33. 41 See Huldreich Zwingli, Aktion oder Brauch des Nachtmahls, in Z 4, 13–​24. 42 Zwingli, Commentary, 54; Zwingli, Commentarius, 637: “multis trans alpes doctis piisque hominibus.” 43 See Martin Sallmann, Zwischen Gott und Mensch: Huldrych Zwinglis theologischer Denkweg im De vera et falsa religione commentarius (1525), Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 108 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 18: “Der Widmungsbrief an Franz I. widerspiegelt Zwinglis religionspolitische Einschätzung Frankreichs. Einmal waren die protestantischen Fürsten im Reich für König Franz I. durch den andauernden Krieg mit Kaiser Karl V. naheliegende Verbündete. Zudem

Testamental Discontinuity, 1519–1525  25 response to the growing attacks from the Lutherans and the Anabaptists. The later Subsidium, which played a major role in Zwingli’s covenantal turn, was understood by the Reformer as complementary to the Commentarius. The last relevant text in the period preceding Zwingli’s covenantal turn was Von der Taufe (27 May 1525),44 the first occasion on which Zwingli exclusively addressed in print the controversy over infant baptism; he had already announced in the Commentarius that he was about to write on the subject.45 Previously, on 17 January 1525, the city council had staged a public disputation for the warring parties, as a result of which it decreed that children were to be baptized as hitherto within eight days of their birth. On 21 January, a second decree banned among others assembly of opponents to infant baptism. The same day, the very first “rebaptisms” were carried out. Magisterial persecution of those involved in adult baptisms was now unavoidable. Zwingli’s Von der Taufe was his reaction to these events on a theological-​polemical level.

The Everlasting Testament Several writings mentioned in the previous section, in the context of the main events that led to the Reformation in Zurich, share a language later associated with Zwingli’s covenant theology, in terms such as “testament” and “covenant.” To heuristic ends, I here consider the precise theological meaning(s) given by the Reformer to these different terms. In this earlier stage of Zwingli’s thought, it will become evident, a theology of the covenant that assumes a basic continuity between the old and new testaments is not yet evident. However, as we shall see, Zwingli’s exegetical wrestling with those scriptural terms, provoked by theological controversy and especially with regards to the sacraments, prepared the ground for what we might term his covenantal breakthrough. The earliest evidence of terminology relevant to this study of Reformed covenant theology that can be found in Zwingli’s written corpus is in a letter liessen Zwinglis Kontakte nach Frankreich hoffen, dass der französische Hof die reformatorische Bewegung im Königreich protegieren werde. Schliesslich war Zwingli innenpolitisch isoliert, so dass er nach geeigneten Verbündeten Ausschau hielt.” 44 Huldreich Zwingli, Von der Taufe, von der Wiedertaufe und von der Kindertaufe, in Z 4, 206–​ 337. For a modern but partial English translation see Huldrych Zwingli, Of Baptism, in Bromiley, 129–​175. 45 Zwingli, Commentarius, 773.

26  Zwingli as Initiator to his friend Oswald Myconius (1488–​1552) dated as early as 1520. The letter has been largely overlooked by previous research on Reformed covenant theology,46 yet is formative for Zwingli’s early theological thinking on the covenant. On 4 January, he wrote to the schoolmaster in Lucerne that Luther would never adhere to the priestly supremacy of the pope and argued: For Christ died once for our sins and cannot die again. Thus, if he cannot die, he cannot be born as a human nor will he live bodily, that is visibly, with us [again], so as to sanctify new laws. Christ would not have existed otherwise. He said, namely, this is the new everlasting testament to come.47 (Italics mine)

The “everlasting testament” (testamentum aeternum) is said to be “new.” The meaning is therefore not that the testament has always been in force, but that once implemented the testament would last forever. And this eternal validity is precisely what qualifies this testament as new. This new testament must have replaced an older one, which, in contrast, was not meant to last forever. The turning point, from the old testament to the new testament, is Christ’s death “for our sins,” which put the new testament into effect. His resurrection precludes any recurrence of the event. That makes the new testament everlasting. Zwingli’s implicit argument is that the pontifex universalis is the risen himself and not a mortal pope who might add new laws to Christ’s testament. The eternal validity of the new testament rules out that possibility. A latent criticism of the mass is also present in this argument. Significantly, the new “everlasting” testament is not immediately given by the words of institution either in Matthew 26:28 or in the synoptic parallels, or by Paul. This addition points to Zwingli’s biblical-​theological reflection on the covenant(s) even at this early point, in which, as we shall see, the Epistle to the Hebrews plays a major role. Zwingli argued in a similar way against ecclesial fasting provisions in Von Erkiesen und Freiheit der Speisen two years later. As I noted, this

46 Only Cottrell made mention of it, and even then in parenthesis and without discussing it; see Cottrell, Covenant and Baptism, 23. 47 Huldreich Zwingli, Brief an Myconius (04.01.1520), in Z 7, 250: “Nam Christus semel pro peccatis nostris mortuus, iam amplius non moritur; quod si non moritur, non nascetur humanitus, neque corporaliter, hoc est visibiliter, habitabit nobiscum, ut novas leges sanciat: alioqui nec Christus fuerit. Dixit enim, novum hoc testamentum ęternum futurum.” (Italics mine) For a summary of the letter, see Oswald Myconius, Briefwechsel 1515–​1552: Regesten, vol. 1, ed. Rainer Henrich (Zurich: TVZ, 2017), no. 36.

Testamental Discontinuity, 1519–1525  27 sermon adaptation is considered by many scholars to be his first writing as a Reformer. Zwingli’s addendum, in summary form, addresses “whether anyone has power to forbid foods”48 and enumerates several theses. Referring to God’s proscription on adding to or removing anything from what he commanded (Deut. 4:2, 13:1), Zwingli inferred: III. If one could not and should not add to the old testament, then much less to the new. IV. For the Old Testament has passed away and was not otherwise given except that it should pass away in its time; but the new is everlasting and can never be done away with. V. This is shown by the sanctification of both testaments. The old is sprinkled and sanctified by the blood of animals, but the new with the blood of the everlasting God, for Christ thus spake: “This is the cup of my blood of a new and everlasting testament,” etc. VI. If now it is a testament, and Paul, Galatians iii., 15, says it is: “Though it be but a man’s covenant [testament oder gmächt], yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto,” VII. How dare a man add to the testament, to the covenant of God, as though he would better it?49 (Italics mine)

Here the discontinuity between the old and new testaments is more explicit. Zwingli used an analogical argument from the lesser to the greater to make his point, which basically runs as follows: if it was already forbidden to revise the temporary old testament, so much more is it forbidden to revise the everlasting new testament. Eternity qualifies the new testament and makes it greater. A subsequent law, for example on fasting and abstinence, would be

48 Ob ieman die spysen gwalt hab ze verbieten.

49 Zwingli, Concerning Choice, 111; Zwingli, Von Erkiesen, 134:

III. Hat man zuo dem alten testament nüt mögen noch söllen hinzuothuon, vil minder zuo dem nüwen. IV. Denn das alt ist abgangen und nie anderst geben, dann daß es sölte zuo siner zyt abgon; aber das nüw ist ewig, das nimmer mer mag abthon werden. V. Das zeigt ouch an das helgen beder testamenten. Das alt ist mit vihischem bluot besprengt und geheliget, aber das nüw mit dem bluot des ewigen gottes; denn Christus sprach also [Matt. 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20]: Das ist der kelch mines bluots, eins nüwen und ewigen testaments etc. VI. So es nun ein testament ist und Paulus zuo den Galaten also seit 3. cap. [Gal. 3:15]: Eins menschen testament oder gmächt, so es bestät ist, überordnet niemans noch verachtet, VII. wie gdar denn ein mensch zuo dem testament gottes hinzuothuon, glich als ob ers beßren welle? (Italics mine)

28  Zwingli as Initiator nonsense because it would question the new testament itself. The new testament by its nature grants freedom in this matter of eating. Zwingli’s argument for the eternity of the new testament provides more insight into his treatment of both testaments. The transition from the old to the new was the death of Christ. Zwingli wrote (thesis V) that it is the “blood of the everlasting God” that sanctified the new testament, so it is essentially the divine nature of Christ that gives everlasting character to the new testament. Thus, the new testament stands in contrast to the old or Mosaic testament, which was sanctified by the blood of cattle (see Exod. 24:8). Zwingli’s biblical warrant was again the words of institution, but he added the epithet “everlasting.” It is important to note that Zwingli was speaking not about the testaments as canonical entities of the Bible but about the way God relates to humankind. So how did Zwingli understand testament in this passage? It is only here in the text that the word was combined with the appositive gmächt (legacy or testamentary contract), at thesis VI. Zwingli compared the new testament to a legal testamentary contract—​once a testament is confirmed by the testator’s death, it cannot be revised. It is with this understanding of the eternal covenant that the following passage from the Supplicatio must be heard: Since therefore, as we have said, God, as of old he used to warn Israel time and again by the mouth of his prophets, now deigns in our day to illumine us with his gospel in order to renew his covenant [testamentum suum] which cannot be annulled, we have thought that this opportunity ought by no means to be neglected, nay, that we ought to strive with unremitting effort that as many as possible may share in the glory of this salvation.50 (Italics mine)

To say that God’s testament “cannot be annulled,” or abolished, is to use the negative to say that it is everlasting. Zwingli’s comparison with ancient Israel is striking. Just as God used to admonish Israel through his prophets, God renewed (instauraret) his testament “in our days” through the preaching of 50 Zwingli, Petition, 154; Zwingli, Supplicatio, 200: “Hinc quandoquidem, ut pręfati sumus, deus, velut olim per prophetas suos aliis atque aliis temporibus Israel admonere solitus est, nostra nos tempestate euangelio suo illustrare dignatur, ut testamentum suum, quod aboleri non potest, instauraret, occasionem hanc duximus minime negligendam esse, quin perpetuo conatu laborandum potius, ut quam plurimi salutis huius et splendoris participes fiant”. (Italics mine)

Testamental Discontinuity, 1519–1525  29 the gospel by Zwingli and the other Reformers. So was Zwingli saying that the everlasting testament was already the one referred to by the old testament prophets, thereby equating the new testament with the old one? Not at all. The comparison must be understood analogically and not univocally. Zwingli considered that he and other Reformers shared with regard to the new and eternal testament the mission of the prophets with regard to the old and temporary testament. This renewal is to be set in the context of the Reformation and its historical self-​understanding of gospel re-​discovery or restoration. It looked back to the medieval church, which had perverted the gospel. The verb instaurare occurred earlier in the Supplicatio making precisely this point: The matter itself, to come to it at last, is this: Your Most Reverend Fatherhood knows how for a long time the heavenly teachings which God, the Creator of all things, willed to have made plain unto the poor race of men by one no way inferior to himself, by his Son, in all things his equal, have, not without the utmost loss to the cause of salvation, been lying hidden through the ignorance, not to say evil intentions, of certain persons, and how rudely, when he had determined to recall and renew [instaurare] those teachings in our day by a sort of second revelation, certain persons attack or defend them.51 (Italics mine)

What had “been lying hidden” by men for a long time and what God had “in our day” appointed to “renew” or restore (instaurare) were the “heavenly teachings,” which Zwingli related to the revelation of the Son, the gospel itself. The revelation was clearly a reference to the new testament and its unveiling by the Reformers. The matter is less evident in the second petition, the Freundliche Bitte of 13 July 1522, which was addressed to the Swiss Confederates. Zwingli traced the gospel back to the beginnings of the world or more precisely to the Jews, and therefore back to the Old Testament. He wrote: “Now the gospel is, as Paul writes to the Romans, I., 16, nothing but the power of God for the good or welfare of each who believes, be he Jew or heathen, although from the beginning 51 Zwingli, Supplicatio, 197–​198: “Res autem, ut tandem ad eam descendamus, ea est: Novit paternitas tua reverendissima, quam non sine summo salutis dispendio, longo tempore, coelestis illa doctrina, quam creator omnium deus per neminem sese inferiorem, sed per omnia parem sibi filium, patefieri voluit misero mortalium generi, quorundam inscicia latuerit, ne dicamus malicia; cunque eam nostra tempestate veluti postliminio revocatam instaurare statuerit, quam inciviliter quidam illam vel oppugnent vel defendant”. (Italics mine)

30  Zwingli as Initiator of the world it was first revealed to the Jews.”52 (Italics mine) However, Zwingli employed a very broad definition of the gospel, as the “power of God for good,” which God revealed “that we might not come in error or despair in our wondering desire for the life to come after this life.”53 The definition is sufficiently broad that there is no explicit mention of Christ at all. Zwingli developed his point by recalling redemptive history.54 He looked back to Adam as the first person to whom God revealed his grace, then followed by Enoch, Noah, the Patriarchs, Moses, and David. Needless to say, the fallen Adam was very much in view as the first of the “poor human beings.” Still, the Reformer was elusive about the Christological foundation of the gospel generally defined as God’s self-​revelation or “gracious manifestation of Himself for the good” of humanity. Is there any notion of covenantal continuity here? Not according to our definition, which postulates a basic continuity from the old testament to the new testament in terms of redemptive-​historical categories. The critical question is whether the old testament as redemptive-​historical category, that is, as the way God related to mankind, can be subsumed under the same covenant as the testament of the gospel. Luther and Melanchthon could say that people in the Old Testament such as Adam, Moses, or David were already saved by the gospel by Christ in a promissory or anticipatory way,55 but that did not prevent them from

52 Zwingli, A Friendly Request, 167; Zwingli, Freundliche Bitte, 215: “Nun ist das euangelium, als Paulus schribt Rö. 1, nüt anders denn die krafft gottes, zuo guotem oder heyl eim iedem, der gloubt, er sye uß den Juden oder Heyden, wiewol den Juden von ye welten har zum ersten geoffnet.” 53 Zwingli, A Friendly Request, 168; Zwingli, Freundliche Bitte, 215: “das wir in der begird und wunder des künfftigen zyts nach disem leben nit irrig oder verzwyflet wurdind.” 54 Zwingli, A Friendly Request, 168: “Adam He treated graciously according to the character of the matter, Abel the righteous He avenged, Enoch He translated, Noah He warned of the flood and protected, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, and others innumerable He so plainly led and loved that their names and memory even to this day show that it is all nothing but a gracious manifestation of Himself for the good of us poor human beings, and that which is called the gospel is the same as ‘Good news’ in German.” Zwingli, Freundliche Bitte, 215–​216: “Er hat mit Adamen gnädiklich gehandlet nach gstalt der sach, Abel den grechten gerochen, Enoch uß disem zyt verwandlet, Noe vor dem sündfluß gwarnet und verhuetet, Abraham, Isac, Jacob, Moysen, David und ander unzalbarlich so offenlich gewisen und lieb gehebt, das ir nam und gedächtniß noch hüt by tag das anzeiget; das alles nüt anders ist, dann ein gnädig offenbaren sin selbs uns armen menschen zuo guotem, und das wirt genennet das euangelium, ist als vil als ein guote botschafft in tütscher sprach”. 55 See, e.g., Martin Luther, De captivitate Babylonica ecclesiae praeludium, in WA 6, 514–​515: “Sic Adae post lapsum erigendo dedit hanc promissionem, dicens ad serpentem ‘Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem, inter semen tuum et semen illius, Ipsa conteret caput tuum, et tu insidiaberis calcaneo illius’. In hoc promissionis verbo Adam cum suis tanquam in gremio dei portatus est et fide illius servatus, expectans longanimiter mulierem, quae conteret caput serpentis, sicut deus promisit. Et in hac fide et expectatione etiam mortuus est, ignarus, quando et qualis esset futura, futuram tamen non diffidens. Nam talis promissio, cum sit veritas dei, etiam in inferno servat credentes et expectantes eam. Post hanc secuta est promissio alia, facta Noe, usque ad Abraham, dato pro signo foederis arcu nubium, cuius fide ipse et posteri eius deus propitium deum invenerunt. Post hunc Abrahae promisit

Testamental Discontinuity, 1519–1525  31 emphasizing in the strongest terms testamental discontinuity from the old to the new redemptive-​historically. The bare fact that Zwingli referred to the gospel in Old Testament times was not per se evidence for covenantal continuity. If Zwingli already had here a notion of covenantal continuity, how are we to explain why subsequent writings emphasized testamental discontinuity? Apologeticus Architeles of August 1522 was Zwingli’s answer to the letter of Bishop Hugo dated 24 May 1522 and addressed to the Stiftskapitel. Zwingli reprinted the episcopal letter at the front of his Apolegeticus Architeles and subdivided it into 69 theses, which he then refuted one by one. When he reached the 36th thesis, where the bishop argued that there can be no gospel without church unity, the Reformer assumed that the bishop was alluding to the famous Augustinian dictum that he rendered as, “I would not believe the gospel unless the church would approve the gospel.”56 Zwingli relativized: “For suppose Augustine had never lived: there would still have been a gospel, as the glad tidings of God’s grace, there would still have been the covenant [commercium] that God in his grace had entered into with the miserable race of man, and the same would have been true if, after he was born, Augustine had never believed it.”57 (Italics mine) The gospel of God’s graceful dealing with the bereaved human race is here described as commercium, quasi as appositive to the gospel, which he was otherwise used to referring to as testament. The term commercium occurs rarely in the entire Zwinglian corpus and should therefore not be given too much weight. Nevertheless, its use indicates that Zwingli was getting closer to the term “covenant” and its bilateral aspect. Zwingli’s Auslegen und Gründe der Schlussreden (14 July 1523), published after the First Disputation, is a key writing also with respect to his covenantal thinking. The wide terminology used here merits special consideration, but benedictionem omnium gentium in semine eius. Et hic est sinus Abrahae, in quem recepti sunt posteri eius. Deinde Mosi et filiis Israel, praecipue David, apertissimam de Christo promissionem dedit, quo revelavit tandem, quae fuerit priscis facta promissio.” See further, Philipp Melanchthon, Loci communes, 1521: Lateinisch-​ deutsch, ed. Horst G. Pöhlmann (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn, 1993), 162–​166. 56 Zwingli, Apologeticus Architeles, 293: “Euangelio non crederem, nisi ecclesia adprobasset euangelium.” Compare Aurelius Augustinus, Contra epistulam Manichaei, quam vocant fundamenti, in CSEL 25:1, 197: “ego uero euangelio non crederem, nisi me catholicae ecclesiae commoueret auctoritas.” 57 Zwingli, Defence Called Archeteles, 249; Zwingli, Apologeticus Architeles, 293: “Augustinum nunquam natum esse; adhuc tamen erat euangelium bonum gratię dei nuncium, adhuc erat commercium, quod deus gratia sua cum deplorato hominum genere inierat idemque futurum erat, si posteaquam natus est, nunquam credidisset”. (Italics mine)

32  Zwingli as Initiator we will first look at this text in light of the eternal nature (and newness) of the testament. Zwingli’s position on the Supper in the 18th article was similar to his stance on fasting provisions written more than a year earlier.58 As Christ’s testament was to “last unto all eternity,” he shed his own blood, which “flowed from him who is eternal God.” Zwingli argued from Christ’s sacrifice to create a contrast with the old, or Mosaic, testament, which was put into effect by the blood of cattle. Implicitly Zwingli was proposing that the animal nature of this sacrifice meant this testament could not be everlasting. Only Christ’s blood in the hypostatic union (in Chalcedonian language) of divine and human natures could give everlasting character. Consequently, Zwingli still emphasized the discontinuity between the testaments. We have not so far asked where Zwingli got his notion of the eternal testament from. His Roman Catholic detractors had indeed already raised this question, as he himself testified: I hear, too, that a certain nobly born chap has stuck out his ears like the lion of Cuma by saying that nowhere in Scripture can the word of the eternal testament be found as it is used in the words of consecration. I would ask that same fellow to put his spectacles on his nose and then check out Isaiah 55:3. He will find there that God promises to enter an eternal covenant with us, the sure and faithful heirs of David. Earlier everyone understood this covenant to have been made and grounded in the blood of Christ who is an eternal God; hence, the covenant, too, is eternal, Heb. 9:15. But I am sure this does not satisfy him; I hear he is very argumentative. Let him take the words of Paul then, Heb. 13:20, “The God of peace who has brought again from the dead the great shepherd of the sheep, the Lord Jesus Christ, by the blood of the eternal covenant, etc.” Do you note in this text the term, “eternal testament”?59 (Italics mine) 58 Zwingli, Exposition, 106–​ 107; Zwingli, Auslegen, 131–​ 132: “Denn nachdem got mit den kinderen Israels und iren nachkummen einn pundt gemacht und ein erbgemächt, das ist: ein testament, do ist ouch tod und bluotvergiessen, doch nun der unvernünfftigen tieren, darzuo gebrucht, wie vor gemeldet. Do aber Christus sin testament, das ist: sin verpüntnus und erbgemächt, das in die ewigheit wären würdt, mit den menschen gemacht, hat er nit vihischen tod ufgeopfret, sunder sich selbs; uns nit mit vihischembluot bsprengt, sunder mit sinem eignen bluot, das er uns zuo einem zeychen eines ewigen testamentes—​dann es uß dem geflossen ist, der ewiger got ist—​nit an die überthür hat gheissen strychen und nit unser hut mit besprengt, sunder gheissen trincken und unser seelen inwendig damit gereiniget”. (Italics mine) 59 Zwingli, Exposition, 124; Zwingli, Auslegen, 156–​157: “Ich hör ouch, wie ein gar gebluempter sine oren harfür gereckt habe glych wie der löw ze Cuma, indem, das er sag: es stande nienen in der heiligen gschrifft das wort des ewigen testaments, wie in den gebruchten worten der heiligung stat. Den ich ouch bitten wil, das er den spiegel uff die nasen legge und über Esaiam gang am 55. cap.

Testamental Discontinuity, 1519–1525  33 As I noted above, the words of institution found in the New Testament do not include the epithets “eternal” or “everlasting.” But Zwingli read those words in light of the Isaianic Prophecy (later also Jer. 31:33) and above all in light of the Epistle to the Hebrews.60 This New Testament epistle, which he took for Pauline, and especially c­ hapter 9, was Zwingli’s principal source for the foundational arguments for his interpretation of Christ’s atonement and for his criticism of the mass. And we know Zwingli studied the letter intensively in 1522, for he preached on it throughout that year.61 There are also evident points of contact with some of Luther’s writings of 1520, in which the Epistle of Hebrews also was prominent.62 In his Sermon von dem neuen Testament, the German Reformer referred in particular to the Eucharist as an “eternal testament.”63 While Zwingli did not simply adopt the concept of testament from Luther, as some scholars have argued,64 he was certainly acquainted with Luther’s writings, as he freely admitted.65 At that point, Zwingli thought himself to be in agreement with the German Reformer in equating the concept of widergedächtnus (remembrance) with Luther’s testament. He was soon disillusioned. For Luther, testament was first of all a sacramental category. The Supper is the testament.66 For Zwingli, it was first of all a historical-​ redemptive category. The Supper signifies the testament. [Isa. 55:3], so findt er, das got verheißt, er werde einen ewigen pundt mit uns treffen, die gwüssen und getrüwen erbärmbden Davids. Disen pund hat alle menschen davor wol verstanden gemacht unnd gevestet sin mit dem bluot Christi, der ein ewiger gott ist; so ist ouch das testament ewig Hebr. 9 [Heb. 9:15]. Doch wirdt im das nit gnuog tuon; ich hör, er sye kybig. So nemme die wort Pauli Hebr. 13. [Heb. 13:20]: Aber got des frydens, der den herren Jesum Christum, den grossen hirten der schaffen, durch das bluot des ewigen testaments vom tod gefuert hat etc. Hörstu hie das ‘ewig testament.’ ” (Italics mine) 60 The Vulgate translation has in Heb. 13:20 the expression testament[um] aeter[num]. In Zwingli’s commentary on Hebrews, however, which was produced from December 1526 to early 1527 (and first published 1528), i.e., after his covenantal turn, the expression “eternal testament” is not even mentioned let alone discussed in his exposition of Heb. 9:15 or 13:20. See Huldreich Zwingli, Erklärungen zum Brief an die Hebräer: In epistolam Beati Pauli ad Hebraeos expositio brevis, in Z 21, 339, 355. 61 See Oskar Farner, Huldrych Zwingli: Seine Verkündigung und Ihre Ersten Früchte, 1520–​1525 (Zurich: Zwingli-​Verlag, 1954), 42. 62 Luther held lectures on the Epistle to the Hebrews in 1517–​18. For his understanding of testamentum in those lectures, see Kenneth Hagen, A Theology of Testament in the Young Luther: The Lectures on Hebrews (Leiden: Brill, 1974). 63 See Martin Luther, Ein Sermon von dem neuen Testament, das ist von der heiligen Messe, in WA 6, 357–​358. See further Luther, De captivitate Babylonica, in WA 6, 513–​514. 64 See Locher, Grundzüge, 256, fn. 340: “Bei der Auslegung der Abendmahlsworte hat Zwingli, wie er selbst mitteilt, die Betonung des ‘testamentum’ von Luther übernommen.” 65 Zwingli, Auslegen, 137: “Deßhalb ich ‘dise spyß niessen’ etliche jar har genempt hab ein widergedächtnus des lydens Christi und nit ein opffer. Aber nach etlicher zyt hat Martinus Luter dise spyß ein testament genennet, des namen ich gern wychen wil.” See further Zwingli, Auslegen, 244. 66 For an assessment of the constrasting use of testament by Luther and Zwingli, see Pierrick Hildebrand, “Der Testamentsbegriff bei Zwingli und Luther—​ oder warum Luther kein

34  Zwingli as Initiator Moreover, Zwingli extended the meaning of testament to that of covenant. Until the publication of his 67 Schlussreden of July 1523, Zwingli consistently used the term testament to describe God’s relationship with humankind. There were only two exceptions, as we have seen: in Von Erkiesen und Freiheit der Speisen he appositively used gmächt, and in Apologeticus Archeteles he spoke of a commercium. In Zwingli’s exposition of the articles, however, his terminology significantly expanded. In the 18th article, mentioned above, Zwingli referred to the Matthean rendering of the words of institution, especially of the expression “das bluot des nüwen testamentes”67 (see Matt. 26:28): Testamentum, pactum and foedus are often used interchangeably in Scripture. But testamentum is used most often. We therefore refer to it here. It means “legacy” [erbgmächt], but it is also used to mean “agreement” [verstand] or “covenant” [pundt], the latter of which one usually makes between two people for the sake of peace. In this sense, one speaks of the old or the new testament, i.e. the covenant, agreement and commitment [der pundt, verstand und pflicht] which God has entered into with the patriarchs and which in Christ he entered into with the whole world.68 (Italics mine)

For the first time Zwingli used the terms pactum (agreement) and foedus (covenant) as appositives to testament or its Latin equivalent, testamentum. The corresponding early modern German word for pactum is verstand (agreement) and for foedus it is pundt (covenant).69 Why did Zwingli use these terms as appositives, and how did he interpret them? His starting point was the inner biblical testimony. Zwingli explained that testament is the word “used most often” in the Bible and that it primarily means erbgmächt (testamentary contract or legacy).70 The Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 9) must Bundestheologe wurde,” Zwa no. 48 (2021): 1–​13. See further Eberhard Grötzinger, Luther und Zwingli: Die Kritik an der mittelalterlichen Lehre von der Messe als Wurzel des Abendmahlsstreites, Ökumenische Theologie 5 (Zurich: Benzinger, 1980), 22–​31. 67 Zwingli, Auslegen, 130. 68 Zwingli, Exposition, 106; Zwingli, Auslegen, 131: “Testamentum, pactum und foedus wirdt in der geschrifft offt für einandren gebrucht, doch würt testamentum aller meist gebruchet, der maß es uns hie dienet, und heißt ein erbgmächt; wirt aber ouch gebrucht für ein pundt oder verstand, so man pfligt mit einandren ze machen umb frydens willen. Der gstalt man spricht: das alt oder das nüw testament, das ist: der pundt, verstand und pflicht, die got mit den alten vätteren getroffen hat oder mit der gantzen welt durch Christum”. (Italics mine) 69 See also the quasi-​identic variants pündtnus in Zwingli, Auslegen, 132; or verpüntnus in Zwingli, Auslegen, 120–​131. 70 See also the variants gmächt in Zwingli, Auslegen, 98, 120, 132, 138, 150, 450; erbgemächt in Zwingli, Auslegen, 131; eegmächt in Zwingli, Auslegen, 138; oder gemächt in Zwingli, Auslegen, 450.

Testamental Discontinuity, 1519–1525  35 have been Zwingli’s interpretative reference. However, the Reformer did not reduce testament to this first sense. He extended its meaning such that the term could also mean covenant or an agreement made “for the sake of peace.” Given these semantic considerations, it is likely not accidental that Zwingli did not use erbgmächt when referring to “the old or the new testament” in what followed. Instead, he interpreted the biblical testaments as pundt, verstand und pflicht (covenant, agreement and bond) and emphasized a covenantal orientation. Nevertheless, Zwingli could also refer to the Mosaic covenant at Sinai as a testament or a testamentary contract.71 The Reformer very evidently wanted to keep the whole range of meanings close together and not omit any of them. Zwingli provided more terminological clarity four months later. The Christliche Einleitung (17 November 1523) was intended for poorly educated ministers as a kind of evangelical handbook on the mass and the worship of images. In discussing the Pauline rendering of the words of institution (1 Cor. 11), Zwingli interpreted the new testament simultaneously as pundt (covenant) and gmecht (testamentary contract or legacy).72 It is a covenant insofar as it is a peace agreement through Christ with God the Father. It is at the same time a testament because this peace agreement is effected through Christ’s death. Zwingli also referred to the ewigen pundt, or everlasting covenant, through Christ’s blood that no human (therefore only God) can institute. Note here that Zwingli expressed the same concept of the everlasting testament but used pundt instead of testament. Almost a year later Zwingli reiterated this basic reasoning in his Christliche Antwort (18 August 1524), in response to the Bishop Hugo’s disapproval of his Christliche Einleitung. The Reformer was asked to respond to the Bishop of Constance in the name of the Zurich mayor and the council. In repudiating the sacrifice of the mass, Zwingli argued from the everlastingness of the new testament consisting of Christ’s sacrifice.73 The nüw testament is everlasting 71 See Zwingli, Auslegen, 131: “Denn nachdem got mit den kinderen Israels und iren nachkummen einn pundt gemacht und ein erbgemächt”. (Italics mine) 72 Zwingli, christliche Einleitung, 662: “Darnach nempt er das tranck ‘das nüw testament,’ das ist: den nüwen pundt und gmecht. Denn Christus hatt uns, wie obstat, mit sinem bluotvergiessen widrumb mit sinem himelischen vatter gefridet, und ein ewigen pundt gemacht, durch inn zuo got ze kumen. Und so wir die eigenschafft des testaments besehend, so ist ein gmäch erst denn ufgericht, wenn der gstirbt, der es geordnet hat. Also ist das testament Christi erst am crütz in sinem tod uffgericht. Als wenig nun ein mentsch sölch testament mag ufrichten, als Christus hat ufgericht, als wenig mag er ufopfren; aber wol mag er widergedencken, was Christus geton hat”. (Italics mine) 73 Zwingli, Christliche Antwort, 214: “Denn das nüw testament, das in dem opfer sines lydens stat, ist ewig; dann es nimmer me mag abgethon werden wie das alt, das schon hingenommen ist Hebr. 8., Hiere. 31. [Heb. 8:6–​12, Jer. 31:31–​34]. . . . Es volgt ouch, das es nit gewidret werden mag, oder aber,

36  Zwingli as Initiator because it will never be abrogated, unlike the old one, which was supplanted by the new testament. The testament made by way of Christ’s sacrifice could not be reiterated. A recurrence of his sacrifice would be a contradiction in terms of the everlasting testament. The institution of the testament is again connected with the divine quality of Christ’s blood by virtue of the incarnation. What is here implicit becomes explicit in the summary: “The new testament, which is everlasting, must be made through the everlasting blood of Christ.”74 The blood of the everlasting God-​man, that is, Christ, is the warrant for the everlasting nüw testament. Zwingli also referred in his Commentarius to Christ’s sanctification of the aeternum testamentum by his own blood, which was again linked to eternity.75 Christ is even epitomized as the new testament itself.76 Accordingly, God covenanted himself with us through the propitiatory mediation of Christ, “who is himself the testament,” the pactum nostrum, or realization of the covenant. Zwingli’s brief chapter on the non-​sacramental character of matrimony in his Commentarius is also relevant to this analysis. Following Ephesians 5, Zwingli compared matrimony as a covenant of life (foedus vitae) with the union between Christ and his church (Christi et ecclesiae coniunctio).77 This comparison testifies to Zwingli’s early covenantal interpretation of the new testament. Moreover, Zwingli partially anticipated the organic-​mystical aspect of the covenant, which would be of tremendous importance for Bullinger. As we have seen, however, Zwingli discussed the concept of the everlasting testament mainly in connection with the words of institution of the Supper. We shall now look more closely at the relationship das testament wäre nit ewig, das er einist mit sinem bluot ufgericht hat Hebr. 9. [Heb. 9:12]”. (Italics mine) “For the new testament, which consists of the sacrifice of [Christ’s] suffering, is everlasting. It can never ever be abolished like the old [testament], that is, taken away according to Heb. 8[:6–​12] and Jer. 31[:31–​34]. Therefore it cannot be repeated, or the testament, which he made through his blood, would not be everlasting according to Heb. 9[:12].” (Italics mine) 74 Zwingli, Christliche Antwort, 217: “Das nüw testament, das ewig ist, muoß mit dem ewigen bluet Christi gemacht und ufgericht werden.” 75 Zwingli, commentarius, 803: “Christo, qui proprio sanguine aeternum testamentum consecravit, initiamur aquae perfusione, quo videamus hostiarum incendia Christi sanguine extincta esse”. (Italics mine) 76 Zwingli, Commentary, 72; Zwingli, commentarius, 652: “Novi testamenti, quae alia testimonia proferemus, quam eum ipsum, qui testamentum est, Iesum Christum, dei virginisque filium? Cum enim natura essemus filii irae Ephes. 2. [Eph. 2:1–​7], restituit nos in gratiam deus, ille misericordiae ditissimus fons, per Christum filium suum. Hunc etiam propitiatorem constituit, Rom. 3. [Rom. 3:25], ut, qui sanguine ipsius fidant, sancti et immaculati apud patrem censeantur. Ipse igitur propiciatio nostra est; ergo et pactum nostrum testamentumque, quod deus nobiscum pepigit, est”. (Italics mine) 77 Zwingli, commentarius, 793.

Testamental Discontinuity, 1519–1525  37 of the covenant and the sacrament of Eucharist, which needed further clarifications.

Eucharist and Testament In the early 1520s, Zwingli discussed the testament primarily in the context of his polemics against the Roman Catholic mass. His main argument was based on the manner in which he related the concept of the eternal testament borrowed from the Epistle of Hebrews to the words of institution. Although he departed from Luther’s sacramental interpretation of the testament, as we saw in his Auslegen und Gründe der Schlussreden, Zwingli brought the terms “testament” and “sacrament” close together. In expectation of a positive evolution of the council’s position concerning the abolition of images and the mass after the Second Disputation, Zwingli published his Vorschlag in late May 1524. Here he proposed “that this sacrament [of the Eucharist] is a testament or a testamentary contract [gmecht].”78 (Italics mine). He added, however, that the sacrament is only a “sign and assurance of the testament,” which consisted in fact of the remission of sins. How are we to understand this apparent contradiction? According to Zwingli, the clue lay in the legal practice of a testament. The testament is completed, that is, the terms of the testamentary contract are defined, during the lifetime of the testator. But the contract is put into effect only at the death of the testator. In a similar way, Christ “made the testament” when he instituted the Supper and announced his atoning death. However, he “effected” or accomplished it only at his death. In Zwingli’s understanding, the Lord’s Supper acts as a kind of testamentary record. The sacrament of the Eucharist is a testament, and thus the terms of the testamentary contract defined by Christ on Holy Thursday by the words and signs in the institution of the Supper are remembered by or re-​read before his heirs, which is the church. In legal practice, a public reading of the testament is given when 78 Zwingli, Vorschlag, 126: “Zum fünften, das dis sacrament ein testament oder gmecht ist. Nun wirt ghein testament volendet, bis das der gstirbt, der es gemacht hatt. Also hat Christus das testament am nachtmal gemacht, aber die erlösung ist erst gevolget, do er morndes am krütz gstarb. Darus zum ersten volget, das dis sacrament ein zeichen und versichrung des testaments ist. Und aber das testament ist ablas der sünden, die Christus Jesus mit sinem tod am krütz volwürckt, dero wir teilhafft werdend, so wir das vestenklich gloubend. Und so es der hunger der sel und ernüwrung der christlichen bruoderschafft erfordret, nemend wir ouch das zeichen und versichrung des testaments. Zum andren volgt aber, das gheiner anderst denn Christus dis testament festen und machen mag.” (Italics mine)

38  Zwingli as Initiator the testament or testamentary contract has been put into effect by the death of the testator. Similarly, the Eucharist assumes Christ’s death, which has put the testament into effect. In the case of Christ’s testament, however, the matter is complicated by the immediate correlation between the remission of sins, which is the content of the testament, and the testator’s death. Here is more than simply a legal contingency proper to every testament. It is precisely Christ’s death that effects remission of sins. Hence, the sacrament as remembrance or reading of Christ’s testament does not have effective power to remit sins. Zwingli argued in a similar manner about the Eucharist in November 1524, in a text composed as a letter to the Lutheran theologian Matthäus Alber (1495–​1570). Concerning the Lucan rendering of the words of institution (Luke 22:20), he wrote, “The new testament has its force and basis in the blood of Christ shed for us, and this cup is the cup of the new testament. It is apparent, therefore, that the cup is not the blood but the testament, that is, the commemoration of that making alive by the shedding of Christ’s blood.”79 According to Zwingli, Christ’s blood is the foundation for the new testament, from which it draws its power. The cup cannot therefore be identified with Christ’s blood. The cup is the testament insofar as the terms of the testament were defined on Holy Thursday, but the testament was put into effect only through Christ’s death. The re-​reading of the testament in the celebration of the Eucharist becomes a commemoration of the once-​shed blood of Christ. The difficulty in understanding Zwingli’s point arises in the use of the same word, testament or testamentum, to express the thing signified, that is, the death of Christ or remission of sins, and the sign itself, that is, the Supper. I have sought here to understand his use of the term in light of the legal practice of testamentary contracts. Zwingli evidently became aware that his terminology could generate confusion. In his Commentarius of 1525 he introduced the concept of the instrumentum80—​a legal document or record of the contract regulating a legacy—​to refine understanding of what he had formerly asserted as testamentum. Following Luke’s rendering of the words

79 Zwingli, Letter to Matthew Alber, 139; Zwingli, Ad Matthaeum Alberum, 346: “Novum testamentum vim et fundamentum habet in sanguine Christi pro nobis fuso; et potius iste novi testamenti poculum est. Constat ergo non esse sanguinem poculum, sed testamentum, hoc est: commemorationem vivificae effusionis sanguinis Christi.” 80 Interestingly, Erasmus called his first printed edition of the Greek New Testament, which stands at the beginning of the path that Zwingli followed to become a Reformer, “Novum Instrumentum omne.” Subsequent editions bore the title “Novum Testamentum omne.” See Desiderius Erasmus, Novum Instrumentum omne (Basel: Johannes Froben, 1516).

Testamental Discontinuity, 1519–1525  39 of institution, Zwingli first asked whether the cup is the new testament, and answered, “Certainly it is. Truth says so. But this new testament has its force nowhere but in the death and blood of Christ; nay the death and blood are the testament itself.”81 The cup can be called testament insofar as it points to its strength, i.e., to Christ’s blood shed at his death, which is itself the testament. To avoid any confusion, he added: “Testament,” then, is used here in an unusual sense for the “sign” or “symbol of the testament,” just as a document is said to bear witness, though it does not breathe or speak, but it is the sign of something said or done by somebody who did once breathe. Another even clearer illustration: The document is sometimes spoken of as the testament, as is often the case in Cicero: “The testament was opened, read, etc.”; yet not the writing but the goods bequeathed were the testament. For what would it have profited to have had the writing bequeathed? But the writing merely contained what legacy should be given to each heir. So also in this passage the testament is the death and blood of Christ and the document, in which are contained the subject and description of the testament, is the sacrament in question.82 (Italics mine)

Through “unusual” or improper use of language, the cup can be called a testament. But properly speaking, it should be taken only “for the ‘sign’ or ‘symbol of the testament.’ ” The testament, then, is Christ’s death and blood effecting remission of sins. At this point, Zwingli introduced the terminological distinction between testamentum and instrumentum, the latter being a documentary record or testimony of the content of the former that includes the clauses of the contract. Properly speaking, the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is associated here with the instrumentum not with the testamentum.

81 Zwingli, Commentary, in LWZ 3, 229; Zwingli, commentarius, in Z 3, 799–​800: “Certe est. Veritas sic habet; at testamentum hoc novum vim alibi non habet, quam in morte et sanguine Christi, imo mors et sanguis testamentum ipsum sunt.” 82 Zwingli, Commentary, in LWZ 3,229; Zwingli, commentarius, in Z 3, 800: “Accipitur ergo hic ‘testamentum’ abusive pro ‘signo,’ aut ‘symbolo testamenti,’ quemadmodum instrumenta dicuntur testimonia; qum tamen nec spirent nec loquantur, sed signa sunt dictorum et factorum eorum, qui aliquando spirabant. Aliud exemplum et clarius: Accipiuntur nonnunquam ‘instrumenta’ pro testamentis, ut apud Ciceronem saepenumero: ‘Apertum est testamentum lectum’ etc., at literae non erant testamentum, sed bona legata. Quid enim profuisset literas legatas esse? Sed in literis continebatur, quid cuique legatum distribui oporteret. Sic et hoc loci testamentum est mors et sanguis Christi; instrumentum autem, quo continetur ordo et summa testamenti, est hoc sacramentum”. (Italics mine)

40  Zwingli as Initiator However, there was, according to Zwingli, a further way of understanding the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper as a testament. This meaning, which would grow in importance, is unequivocally covenantal. In the Vorschlag, Zwingli had already mentioned that the partaking of “the sign and assurance of the testament” served “the renewal of Christian brotherhood.”83 What Zwingli meant is illuminated by the following statement from his Christliche Antwort of August 1524: Concerning the sacrament or testament of Christ’s suffering. God did not institute it as a sacrifice, as [Christ] was only sacrificed when he died, but this sacrament was appointed at the supper before his death. [God] instituted it instead as an everlasting testament, so that all who believe that Christ suffered death on the cross for them consider themselves as brothers and a body of Christ, who is himself the head thereof. For the recognition of such a communion, they should pledge to one another with this sacrament, testament or assurance [sichrung].84 (Italics mine)

The sacrament of the Eucharist is also defined here as an “everlasting testament” but with an additional meaning not present in the examples discussed above. The consecutive clause beginning “so that” signals that Zwingli did have in mind here the eternity of Christ’s testament after the fashion of the Epistle to the Hebrews but meant for the Lord’s Supper to be everlastingly celebrated as a testament. The Lord’s Supper is defined as a means to secure or ascertain the “communion” of the brothers in the confession of their same faith in Christ’s death. The assurance pertaining to the Christian brotherhood was developed further. Zwingli wrote, “For the assurance of such a communion between Christians, [Christ] instituted before his death a testamentary contract [gmächt] or sacrament, so that we, Christians, would eternally bind [pflichtind] ourselves to one another, as Christ bound [verpflicht] us to God.”85 (Italics mine) Why has Christ instituted the “testamentary contract or 83 Zwingli, Vorschlag, in Z 3, 126. 84 Zwingli, Christliche Antwort, 226: “Also ouch von dem sacrament oder testament des lydens Christi. Das hat gott nit für ein opfer yngesetzt—​denn er ist erst do geopfret, do er starb, und ist aber diß sacrament am nachtmal vor sinem tod ufgesetzt—​, sunder für ein ewig testament, daß alle, die gloubtind, daß Christus Jesus für sy den tod am crütz erlitten hette, sich under einander für brueder hieltind und für ein lychnam Christi, des houpt er selbs ist; und zuo erkantnuß sölcher einigheit sich ouch mit eim sacrament, testament oder sichrung mit einandren vereinbartind.” (Italics mine) 85 Zwingli, Christliche Antwort, 227–​228: “Und sölche einigheit under den Christglöubigen zuo bestäten, hat er ee und er in ‘n tod gieng ein gmächt oder sacrament ufgericht, damit wir Christen uns ewigklich zesamen pflichtind gegen einandren, glych wie uns Christus mit gott verpflicht hat, das alle die, so sich erkantend mit dem lychnam und tod Christi erlößt sin, und mit sinem bluot

Testamental Discontinuity, 1519–1525  41 sacrament”? That believers might eternally bind to one another as members of Christ’s body. Zwingli correlated this horizontal bond with the vertical bond between God and the believers effected by Christ. In his personal union of the two natures, Christ assumes a kind of a pivotal function. The sacrament of the Eucharist is as much a mutual bonding as it is a commemoration of Christ’s testament. The Zurich Reformer will particularly focus on the former in his covenantal understanding of baptism, to which we come now.

Baptism and Covenant In December 1524 the growing conflict with the Anabaptists forced Zwingli to express his concerns about their claims for the first time in writing. The opuscule Ursache was a new step in this ultimately inextinguishable confrontation, in which earlier research has frequently identified the origins of Reformed covenant theology. It would be historically more accurate to speak of the baptismal controversy as the catalyst for theological reflection about the covenant that began in connection with the Eucharist, so predating the conflict with the Anabaptists. Given the endurance of this earlier interpretation, however, a closer look at Zwingli’s polemical writings against the Anabaptists is necessary. Ursache provides clear evidence that Zwingli was thinking in terms of testamental discontinuity before his covenantal turn. Zwingli argued for the authority of the Old Testament (as a canonical category) on faith issues on which the New Testament remains silent, as was the case with infant baptism.86 Nevertheless, he recognized a fundamental discontinuity between the old and new testaments (as redemptive-​historical category), as we find in the following statement: As circumcision in the old testament was given to the children, and as baptism came to replace circumcision, it follows that we should baptize the children of Christians. In short, all who shall be educated in the same abgeweschen, sich zuo urkund sölcher tat und widergedächtnus, ouch zuo einer pflicht, das sy ein lychnam und gemeine bruoderschafft sin wellind, in disem sacrament mit einandren vereinbarind, daß, wie Christus sich für uns geben hat, sich ouch ein yeder für sinen bruoder, als für sin glid an einem lychnam, hingeb, fürstande, erlöse.” (Italics mine) 86 See Zwingli, Ursache, 409: “Als sich offt begibt, das in ewig wärenden usserlichen dingen im nüwen testament nüts hälls noch clars erfunden wirt, wo hierinn span entspringt, söllend wir nach der leer Christi über Mosen und propheten sitzen.”

42  Zwingli as Initiator faith need to have a common token no less than Abraham’s offspring.87 (Italics mine)

Fundamentally, Zwingli interpreted circumcision as the Old Testament counterpart to baptism, as had Augustine in countering the Pelagians. The Reformer was no innovator in this respect, for he had renewed a part of the Christian tradition for his own use against a new heresy. At this early date, however, the Reformer juxtaposed circumcision and baptism by way of analogy: just as the children of Abraham’s posterity were circumcised, so should the children of Christians be baptized. Circumcision (and baptism) is defined as a token (Verzeychung) of the faith applicable indiscriminately to both parents and children. The proposition “no less than Abraham’s offspring” is critical. That said, here Zwingli did not yet assume an identification of the Christian faith with the one shared by Abraham’s descendants. In his Commentarius of March 1525, Zwingli addressed infant baptism but did not refer to the Old Testament at all. It is only in his more extensive writing Von der Taufe, from May 1525, that the basic analogy between circumcision and baptism, expressed for the first time in Ursache, was more explicitly developed and placed within a covenantal framework. Zwingli’s favorite term is “pledge” (pflicht), with 14 occurrences.88 And the associated concept of the “pledging sign” (Pflichtzeichen) occurs 26 times.89 The word “covenant” (pundt) appears nine times and “sign of the covenant” (Pundtszeichen) only once. Pact is used once and gmächt is not used at all. Zwingli began his work by introducing the “two external things or signs” left by Christ, which are “baptism and thanksgiving (or remembrance).”90 He was referring to the two sacraments, which he more generally defined as pflichtzeichen.91 Accordingly, “baptism is a sign that pledges [verpflicht] us to the Lord Jesus Christ.”92 (Italics mine) Zwingli sought the evidence for this assertion in the Old Testament, namely, in “the 87 Zwingli, Ursache, 410: “Daruß demnach volget, das, so die bschnydung im alten testament den kinden ggeben ist, und der touff anstatt der bschnydung kommen ist, man ouch der Christen kinder touffen söll. Dann kurtz so habend alle, die zuo einander in einem glouben erzogen söllend werden, not, etwas gemeiner verzeychung nüt weniger weder der som Abrahams.” (Italics mine) 88 Included are the synonyms verfplichtung and pflichtung. 89 Included are Pflichtzeichen (12x), pflichtszeichen (4x), pflichtend zeichen (3x), pflichtig zeichen (5x), and pflichtlich zeichen (2x). 90 Zwingli, Of Baptism, 131; Zwingli, Von der Taufe, 217: “Noch hat er uns, sinen mitglideren, zwo cerimonien, das ist: zwey usserliche ding oder zeichen, hinder im gelassen: den touff und die dancksagung oder widergedächtnus”. 91 Zwingli, Von der Taufe, 218: “ ‘Sacramentum’, so vil hiehar dienet, heisst ein pflichtszeichen.” 92 Zwingli, Of Baptism, 131; Zwingli, Von der Taufe, 218: “Also ist der touff ein zeichen, das in den herren Jhesum Christum verpflicht.”

Testamental Discontinuity, 1519–1525  43 pledge of circumcision and thanksgiving of the paschal lamb.”93 (Italics mine) Referring to Hebrews 9, Zwingli interpreted those bloody tokens of the Old Testament as types of the blood shed by Christ, who put an end to all shedding of blood and transformed the bloody tokens into “most friendly” ones. But what is the precise relationship between baptism and circumcision? These most friendly elements and signs, water and wine and bread, have been given to us in order that by the outward signs we may [now confess the taming and discipline] of the new testament, that we are no longer under the law—​the shedding of blood has therefore been abrogated by the blood of Christ—​but under grace.94 (Italics mine)

The transformation of the tokens marks a transition from one testament to another. The old testament economy is one “under the law” and opposed to the economy of the new testament as one “under grace.” Zwingli assumed a law-​grace antithesis and was therefore still thinking in terms of testamental discontinuity. This antithesis, however, should not be interpreted as an absolute opposition on the model of the Lutheran or Melanchthonian law-​gospel antithesis that pervades the Old and New Testaments. The law here was the Mosaic law under the old dispensation. Under the new dispensation of grace, Zwingli, then, meant by zäme und zucht a new morality or discipline, which is another way to speak of a new testament law that is part of the gospel. Zwingli’s law-​grace antithesis was therefore ultimately redemptive-​historical and not absolute. Foundational for Zwingli’s parallel between baptism and circumcision was his interpretation of Genesis 17 (as was the interpretation of Exod. 12 for the parallel between the Eucharist and Passover). God’s covenanting with Abraham in Genesis 17 would become a key reference in the development of Zurich covenant theology and is given here for the very first time by Zwingli in relation to the covenant: And in Genesis 17 God himself makes it quite clear that circumcision is not a sign for the confirmation of faith but a covenant sign [pflichtzeichen]: “This

93 Zwingli, Of Baptism, 131; Zwingli, Von der Taufe, 218: “pflichtung der bschnydung und dancksagung des osterlambs”. (Italics mine) 94 Zwingli, Of Baptism, 132; Zwingli, Von der Taufe, 219: “Damit wir ouch an den usserlichen zeichen die zäme und zucht des nüwen testaments bekennind, das wir nit under dem gsatzt sind -​ darumb ist alles bluot mit dem bluot Christi gestellet—​, sunder under der gnad—​darumb habend wir die aller früntlichsten element unnd zeichen: wasser, win und brot—​. Ro. 6. [Rom. 6:14].”

44  Zwingli as Initiator is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; every man child among you shall be circumcised.” Note that God calls it a contract or covenant [pact oder pflicht]. Similarly, the feast of the paschal lamb was a covenant [pflicht], as we read in Exodus 12: “And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever.”95 (Italics mine)

Interestingly, Zwingli translated here ‫[ ְּב ִרית‬berith] as pact oder pflicht as it referred to circumcision. To the question “What does baptism pledge to?” Zwingli answered, “Baptism is a covenant sign [pflichtig zeichen] which indicates that all those who receive it are willing to amend their lives and to follow Christ. In short, it is an initiation to new life. Baptism is therefore an initiatory sign, ceremonii, or in Greek teleta.”96 Zwingli emphasized the pledging aspect of the covenant as a condition on the human side, i.e., a person’s pledge to live a sanctified life. Baptism is a pflichtig zeichen insofar as the one being baptized basically testifies to their intention to leave their older life and live a new life as Christ’s follower. God’s initiative or God’s own pledging is not mentioned, but it is contained in the sign of baptism, as the following statement makes clear: The whole of Christian life and salvation consists in this, that in Jesus Christ God has provided us with the remission of sins and everything else, and that we are to show forth and imitate Jesus Christ in our lives. For that reason the disciples baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Hence our name Christians, that is, we are initiated [anghebt] into Christ and dedicated [verzeichnet] to Christ.97 (Italics mine)

95 Zwingli, Of Baptism, 138; Zwingli, Von der Taufe, 227: “Das aber die bschnydung ein pflichtzeichen sye und nit ein zeichen, das den glouben veste, wirt mit dem selbs mund gottes offembar Genn. 17. [Gen. 17:10]: ‘Das ist die pflicht, die ir halten werdend zwüschend mir und üch und dinem samen nach dir. Es söllen alle knäble under üch beschnitten werden etc.’ Sich, er nempt es ein pact oder pflicht. Also ist ouch die hochzyt des osterlambs ein pflicht gewesen, wie Exod. 12. [Exod. 12:23–​27] stat: ‘Halt diß ding oder wort stätt, du und dine kind ewigklich’ ”. (Italics mine) 96 Zwingli, Of Baptism, 141; Zwingli, Von der Taufe, 231: “Für das erst ist der touff ein pflichtig zeichen, das den, der inn nimpt, anzeigt, das er sin leben beßren und Christo nachvolgen welle. Kurtz, es ist ein anhab eines nüwen lebens, und ist also ein anheblich zeichen, ceremonii oder teleta [τελετά] uff griechisch.” 97 Zwingli, Of Baptism, 145; Zwingli, Von der Taufe, 237: “Und sidtmal das gantz christenlich wesen und säligheit darinn stat, das wir uns nachlassung der sünd und aller dingen by got durch Jesum Christum versehind, und mit unserem leben inn ußtruckind und äfrind, so haben sy in den namen Jesu Christi getoufft. Dannenhar wir ouch Christen genent werdend, das ist: in Christum anghebt und verzeichnet”. (Italics mine)

Testamental Discontinuity, 1519–1525  45 In the sign of baptism, “the remission of sins” through identification with Christ is also expressed. Nevertheless, Zwingli left the general impression in Von der taufe that the pledging role of the sacraments relies less on God’s initiative than on human response. After these general considerations on baptism, Zwingli took on the issue of infant baptism proper, developing his argument from Genesis 17 in fuller scope: So that [God] gave circumcision to Abraham as a pledging token [pflichtszeichen], not in order to strengthen his faith, as he already believed according to Gen 15[:6]: “Abraham trusted God, and this was imputed to him as righteousness.” [Abraham] believed before circumcision, as Paul presented him as an example for his faith in Gal 3[:7] asserting: “The ones who believe are sons of Abraham.” Instead, [God] gave him circumcision as a pledging token or covenant sign [pflicht-​oder pundtszeichen] for his offspring according to Gen 17[:7.9–​11]: “I will establish my covenant [pundt] between me and you, and your offspring after you through all generations, as an everlasting covenant. I will be your God and the one of your offspring after you, etc. Therefore, you and your offspring after you will keep the pledge [pflicht]. This is the pledge [pflicht], that you should keep between me and you and your offspring after you. All boys among you shall be circumcised as a sign of the covenant [pundt] between you and me.”98 (Italics mine)

Abraham was circumcised as a pledging or covenanting token for the sake of his offspring. According to Zwingli, the very intention of circumcision was oriented toward his offspring. Note that in the following passage from Genesis 17, Zwingli translated ‫ ְּב ִרית‬as pundt (covenant) except in two cases, 98 Zwingli, Von der Taufe, 292–​293: “Also hatt er ouch die bschnydung Abrahamen zuo eim pflichtszeichen ggeben, nit, das er imm den glouben damit vestete; denn er vormals so glöubig was, daß Genn. 15. [Gen. 15:6] stat: ‘Abraham hatt gott vertruwt, und das ist imm zuo einer unschuld gerechnet.’ Er ist ouch so glöubig vor der bschnydung gewesen, das inn Paulus uns fürstelt zuo eim byspil des gloubens Galat. 3. [Gal. 3:7] und spricht: ‘Die, so uß dem glouben sind, die sind sün Abrahams’. Sunder er hat imm die bschnidung zuo eim pflicht-​oder pundtszeichen ggeben umb siner nachkomen willen, als Genesis am 17. [Gen. 17: 7, 9–​11] stat: ‘Ich wird minen pundt stellen zwüschend mir und dir und dinem samen nach dir durch ire gschlecht hin mit eim ewigen pundt, daß ich din gott sye und dines samens nach dir etc. Und darumb so wirstu min pflicht halten, ouch din som nach dir in iren gschlechten. Und ist das die pflicht, die ir halten werdend zwüschend mir unnd üch und dinem somen nach dir. Es söllend under üch alle knäble beschnitten werden, und ir werdend das fleisch üwer vorhut beschnyden, daß es ein zeichen des pundts sye, der zwüschend üch und mir ist’ ”. (Italics mine)

46  Zwingli as Initiator where he preferred the term pflicht (pledge). Unsurprisingly, in these two cases the biblical passage specifically refers to circumcision. Zwingli obviously wished to emphasize the pledging character of the token. What is the covenant about, or phrased differently, to what does it pledge? Zwingli essentially stated that God wanted to pledge himself to Abraham and his children so that they should have him as God.99 Even God’s pledge seems to be turned into a condition to be fulfilled by man. However, Zwingli immediately added: How can it be? Is it our pledge, that we shall have him as God or not? No! This does not depend on our pledge. It is not a matter of our choosing or begging, but of God being gracious and drawing us to trust in him (John 6[:44]; Rom. 9[:16]). The pledge refers only to the external teaching, impact and practice. Abraham, and all his offspring after him, shall circumcise their children, so as to show them no other god than the one in whom Abraham now trusts beyond doubt.100

“Our pledge” to have God as God is, according to Zwingli, the result of our election by God. The relationship between covenant and election is alluded to here only hesitantly. In Zwingli’s later writings, however, it would be emphasized. Election refers here to an inner realm that cannot be strictly or absolutely considered the pflicht that is what circumcision is about. Hence, the pledge signified by circumcision belongs only to an outer realm. This outer realm essentially comprises catechizing one’s children and is thus a condition to be fulfilled by man. Circumcision is intimately connected to faith, not to the faith of the circumcised, but to the faith of the circumcising parents. This pledge is equated with the covenant itself, as Zwingli wrote: “For the pledge of Abraham and his offspring is alone a covenant, that they shall not draw their children to another god by their teaching.”101 (Italics mine) The covenant appears again to be ultimately a human pledge.

99 Zwingli, Von der Taufe, 293: “Gott wil sich in Abrahamen mit sinen kinden und nachkomen pflichten, das sy inn zuo irem gott söllind haben.” 100 Zwingli, Von der Taufe, 293: “Wie? Ligt es an unserem pflicht, das wir inn damit mögend zuo eim gott haben oder nit? Nein. Es ligt nit am pflicht; dann es ist nit des erwellenden oder ylenden, sunder des begnadenden und ziechenden gottes, wenn wir in inn vertruwend Jo. 6. [John 6:44], Ro. 9. [Rom. 9:16]. So muoß diß pflicht gottes allein das usser leeren, tringen und ueben antreffen, also, das Abraham und alle sine nachkomen ire kinder darumb beschniden söllind, das sy inen keinen andren gott fürgeben wellind noch anzeigen weder den, in den Abraham yetz ungezwyflet vertruwt.” 101 Zwingli, Von der Taufe, 294: “So ist das pflicht gegen Abrahamen und sinen nachkomen allein ein pundt, das sy mit irer leer ire kind und nachkomen zuo gheinem andren gott fueren wellind”. (Italics mine)

Testamental Discontinuity, 1519–1525  47 From circumcision Zwingli finally moved to infant baptism, at which the whole argument was directed: We see precisely from the origin of circumcision that infant baptism serves the same end as circumcision. Namely, that the ones who trust in the true God shall educate their children in the knowledge of the same God. The pledging token [pflichtend zeichen] shall precede the teaching, just as in the old testament, where circumcision preceded faith.102 (Italics mine)

The purpose of circumcision, which Zwingli had just argued from his exegesis of Genesis 17, is similar to the purpose served by infant baptism. The pledging token must precede the teaching to which the token pledges. What exactly does Zwingli mean by the idea of serving “the same end”? If he was still assuming testamental discontinuity, as we concluded from his introduction, there must be something that essentially differentiates the old testament from the new. We find a very explicit statement close to the end of the text: Concerning the other proposition, that baptism replaces circumcision, we should realize, even if we do not have clear testimony, that the token of the people of God is the same regarding its character as a token, whether one is circumcised or baptized. However, each [token] does not pledge [to God] in the same way. Circumcision, then, pledges to God, but under bondage to the law. Baptism, however, pledges to God, but under Christ, who is grace.103 (Italics mine)

Again, a distinct law-​grace antithesis as defined above underlies Zwingli’s covenantal thinking here. Each token is similar in that it pledges. But what each pledges to is nit glych (is not the same). Yes, circumcision as well as

102 Zwingli, Von der Taufe, 295: “Uß dem ursprung der beschnydung sehend wir eigenlich, das der kindertouff glych dahin dient, dahin ouch die beschnydung dienet hatt, namlich, daß die, so in den waren gott vertruwend, ouch ire kinder zuo erkantnus und anhangen desselbigen gottes ziehen söllend; in welchem nütz weniger das pflichtend zeichen vorgon mag und die ler harnach volgen, weder imm alten testament die bschnydung vor dem glouben ggeben ist. Davon hernach stercker kumen wirt”. (Italics mine) 103 Zwingli, Von der Taufe, 327: “Die ander red, das der touff anstat der bschnydung sye, ist also klar, daß, ob wir glych ghein ofne kundschafft hettind, wir doch eigenlich an dem verzeichnen des volcks gottes sehen söltind, daß es der verzeichnung halb ein ding ist, beschnitten unnd getoufft werden. Aber deßhalb, das hernach volgt, das ist: woryn yetweders pflichte, das ist nit glych; dann die bschnydung pflichtet zuo got, doch under dem band des gsatztes; der touff pflichtet ouch zuo gott, aber under Christo; der ist die gnad”. (Italics mine)

48  Zwingli as Initiator baptism do pledge to God. However, the economy of the covenantal relationship in which one pledges to God is different. In the old testament one stands “under the bondage of the law.” In the new testament, one stands under the grace of Christ. Testamental discontinuity is clearly affirmed. Hence, the juxtaposed parallel between circumcision and baptism is one of analogy, not identity. It was acutely even an argument a fortiori from the lesser to the greater, grounded in a law-​grace antithesis that definitely precluded any identification. The argument ran as follow: if in the old testament of the law children shared in the covenant and its sign, so much more do they share in the covenant and its sign in the new testament of grace.104 In Spring 1525 Zwingli was still wrestling with an appropriate definition of the sacraments in the midst of his controversies over the Supper with his Roman Catholic and Lutheran opponents and over baptism with the Anabaptists. This context certainly stimulated Zwingli’s exegetical and theological reflection on the concept of testament as well as of covenant. This reflection led to his covenantal turn. Before we look at this paradigm shift, the semantic relationship between both terms, between testament and covenant, needs to be addressed.

From Testament to Covenant? In 1972 Kenneth Hagen published the article “From Testament to Covenant in the Early Sixteenth Century,” in which he defended the thesis that the unilateral testament theology of Luther shifted to a bilateral covenant theology in the 1520s.105 Zwingli is credited with having played a major role in that development by subjecting the term testamentum to a semantic change. This transformation in meaning was, Hagen argued, from Zwingli’s use of the term gemächde, which Hagen interpreted against the background of Germanic law tradition. Unlike the unilateral and unconditional testamentum in Roman law tradition, he proposed, the gemächde was a bilateral contract contingent on the fulfillment of certain conditions that needed to be brought before a 104 Zwingli, Von der Taufe, 326: “Denn gait von Abrahamen, Isaacken und Jacoben lyplich geborn sin so vil, das die kinder in der kintheit den vatteren nachgiengend; vil me imm nüwen gschlecht, das under der gnad lebt, nit under dem gsatzt, sollend die kinder mit den vatteren under gottes volck gezellt werden, und nütz weniger mit inenn under einem pflichtszeichen wandlen weder yene”. (Italics mine) 105 Kenneth Hagen, “From Testament to Covenant in the Early Sixteenth Century,” SCJ no. 3:1 (1972): 1–​24.

Testamental Discontinuity, 1519–1525  49 judicial authority. Hagen’s thesis provided later scholarship with a distinct categorization coupled with an unambiguous terminology for asserting “new” models of interpretation of the development of Reformed covenant theology (i.e., the Baker thesis). As noted in the introduction, earlier research generated much discussion concerning conditionality and bilaterality versus unconditionality and unilaterality in Reformed covenant theology. With this study challenging this interpretative grid and overcoming these categorical and exclusive options, a fresh evaluation of Hagen’s thesis in light of legal sources and our close reading of Zwingli is appropriate. As we have seen, Zwingli used the terms gmächt or gmecht as appositive to testament. But what exactly is the legal function of gemächde, on which Hagen’s thesis ultimately rests? A detailed account would go beyond the scope of our study, but here we can selectively reproduce the broad lines of the legal history of this term. Historically, the concepts of the Roman testamentum and the Germanic gemächde arose from different contextual backgrounds regarding property. Germanic people did not hold to the concept of individual property. There was therefore no need for a testament. Succession was regulated collectively within the family clan. By contrast, early on the Roman testator could freely dispose of his legacy. The testamentum was basically a unilateral legal act by which the testator regulated his succession. The presence of the successor was not necessary, but the testamentum was put into effect only by the death of the testator. The gemächde was a first step toward an individual regulation of succession in the Germanic law tradition. However, it was a legal act before a judicial instance (i.e., the king).106 The gemächde could be best compared to an assignment-​of-​property contract, by which the “testator” submitted to the judgment of a law court the appointment of his successor, i.e., the future owner of his goods. The successor’s presence and his approbation were required. On these rested the formal conditionality of the contract. As a legal act between two living persons, the gemächde was therefore a bilateral contract. Technically, the contract was immediately in force, as the “testator” could not unilaterally modify or recant the gemächde, unlike a testamentum.107 To 106 See Gregor Joos, Testamentsformen in der Schweiz und in den USA, Zürcher Studien zum Privatrecht 170 (Zurich: Schulthess, 2001), 69. 107 See Eugen Huber, System und Geschichte des Schweizerischen Privatrechtes, vol. 4 (Basel: C. Detloff ’s Buchhandlung, 1893), 609: “Das Geschäft war aber immer in dem Sinne sofort wirksam, dass die Zuwendung vom Vergabenden nicht mehr einseitig entzogen werden konnte. Wollte der letztere die Befugnis zu späterer Abänderung seiner Zuwendung behalten, so bedurfte es bei der Verfügung selbst eines bezüglichen Vorbehalts, woraus deutlich zu entnehmen, dass die Zuwendung

50  Zwingli as Initiator secure the succession rights of the successor after the death of the “testator,” the judicial authority handed over a record of the contract to the future beneficiary but, significantly, not to the “testator.”108 These considerations refer to the original function of the gemächde. However, through the Romanization of Germanic culture in the medieval period, especially through the preservation of the Roman law tradition in canonical law, Roman elements were increasingly adopted in German law. At the time of the Reformation, the empire had basically adopted the Roman testament. In the Swiss Confederation, however, especially in the German-​ speaking part, this adoption was not fully embraced.109 There existed a kind of hybrid form that retained Germanic formal elements such as its public character before a judicial instance. However, the gemächde had evolved from a bilateral to a unilateral legal act similar to a testament.110 It is striking that sources referred to by Hagen in his article mention that significant transformation. Johann C. Bluntschli in his work on the legal history of the city-​ state and land of Zurich, which was Zwingli’s immediate context, wrote, “The ‘Gemächde’ are as last wills similar to the testaments in Roman law, as they essentially rest on the unilateral will of the testator.”111 durch eine bindende Verabredung zu Stande kam und nicht, wie beim Testament, eine freie einseitige Verordnung darstellte.” 108 Huber, System und Geschichte, 611: “Damit war das Gemächte fertig, und es wurde dem Bedachten eine Urkunde ausgestellt, die nicht der Erblasser, sondern was den Akt besonders charakterisiert, der Bedachte zur Sicherung seines Rechtes in die Hand erhielt.” 109 See Joos, Testamentsformen, 73: “Für das deutsche Recht hingegen bleibt die Rezeption der römischen Testamentsformen zentral. In der Schweiz findet sich im Westen schon früh das gemeinrechtliche Testament während sich in der Deutschschweiz das Gemächte langsam dem gemeinrechtlichen Testament angeglichen hat.” 110 See Joos, Testamentsformen, 71: “In einer Vermischung römischrechtlicher Elemente mit dem Gedinge germanischer Prägung entwickelten sich die ursprünglich zweiseitigen Rechtsgeschäfte der Germanen zu einseitigen, d.h. zu Testamenten nach heutigem Rechtsverständnis.” 111 Johann Caspar Bluntschli, Staats-​und Rechtsgeschichte der Stadt und Landschaft Zürich, 2nd ed. (Zurich: Orell-​Füssli, 1856), 310: “Die Gemächde sind darin den Testamenten des römischen Rechts ähnlich, dasz sie eine wesentlich auf dem einseitigen Willen des Erblassers beruhende letzte Willensverordnung sind.” (Italics mine) See further Johann Jakob Blumer, Staats-​ und Rechtsgeschichte der schweizerischen Demokratien oder der Kantone Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden, Glarus, Zug und Appenzell, vol. 1: Das Mittelalter (St. Gallen: Scheitlin und Zollikofer, 1850), 523–​ 524: “Zu unterscheiden davon ist das neuere, unter dem Einflusse des römischen Rechtes enstandene Institut des Gemächde’s, duch welches der Bedachte bei Lebzeiten des Erblassers kein Recht erhielt, sondern dieser nur auf seinen Tod hin über gewisse Vermögensgegenstände, bewegliche oder unbewegliche, in Abweichung der gesetzlichen Erbfolge verfügte. Wenn dasselbe in dieser Hinsicht von dem Geiste des alten deutschen Rechtes sich entfernte, so bewährte es hinwieder einen echt germanischen Charakter darin, dass im Gegensatze zum römischen Rechte, das Vermächtnis immer vor Gericht bestellt und von diesem genehmigt werden musste, und dass für die Rechtsgültigkeit dieser Handlung einerseits ein gewisses Mass von physischer Kraft und Gesundheit des Vermachenden (Testator’s), andererseits die Anwesenheit seiner rechten Erben erfordert wurde, welche ihren Widerspruch gegen seine Verfügung erheben konnten.”

Testamental Discontinuity, 1519–1525  51 The way we have interpreted Zwingli’s sources to this point basically confirms Bluntschli’s statement. It appeared that Zwingli’s understanding of gmecht/​gmächt was that of a unilateral testament. However, Zwingli’s starting point was not legal tradition, whether Germanic or Roman, but the biblical testimony. He did not read in Scriptures a contingent legal state of affairs. As we have seen, the Epistle to the Hebrews, especially c­ hapter 9, provided both Zwingli and Luther in the early 1520s with a major scriptural reference for their interpretation of testamentum. Accordingly, Zwingli used the concept of gmecht/​gmächt as an adequate “illustration” of the unilateral testament found in the Epistle, which was akin to the Roman tradition. Even if, formally, the gmecht/​gmächt kept some Germanic elements, it illustrated well the point he wanted to make. Moreover, the humanistic background to Zwingli’s intellectual and spiritual journey held classical sources in the highest esteem. It is therefore very likely that Zwingli was well aware of the Roman sources behind the term testamentum. The repristination of classical humanities, starting with language, was foundational to the humanistic method and program. As we will see, Bullinger, who experienced similar humanistic influences, exclusively quoted authors and sources from the Roman tradition when defining that term. Hagen’s seemingly simple “solution,” which finds little support in the sources, has skewed the scholarly discussion.112 His categorization should be abandoned altogether, for it has become a blinker that leaves the complexity of the issue out of sight. Instead of Hagen’s exclusive option, that is unilaterality versus bilaterality, I propose an integration of these two aspects. That said, there is certainly a Zwinglian emphasis on the bilateral aspect of the covenantal God-​man relationship, but it includes the aspect of a unilateral testament. Depending on the context, testament can also be taken as synonymous with bilateral covenant, which certainly adds a layer of complexity. But this possibility has nothing to do with the change of semantics introduced by Zwingli through testament’s assimilation to gmächt. Significantly, from Von der Taufe on, Zwingli stopped using gmächt except in his exegetical writings. That move has to do with a new biblical emphasis. While Zwingli kept Hebrews 9 as an important textual warrant, Genesis 17 would emerge as the foundational reference for his covenant theology. 112 Moreover, even Latin Augustine could join conditions to testamentum or equate the term with pactum; see Lillback, Binding, 38–​41.

2 Zwingli’s Covenantal Turn of 1525 Gottlob Schrenk recognized Zwingli as the initiator of Reformed covenant theology and in 1923 he recorded that “the conflict with the Anabaptists and the will for a state church are the moving forces which lie behind these thoughts.”1 He went so far to postulate the emergence of the covenant concept in Anabaptist circles, with Zwingli opportunely adopting it when polemicizing against infant baptism. Schrenk based his thesis on just three writings by the Reformer, all dated later than 1525.2 His thesis that Zwingli developed his theology of the covenant for the pragmatic purpose of justifying pedobaptism against the sectarianism of the Anabaptists was widely asserted in the scholarly research of the last century.3 It has an explanatory scope that merits consideration. Zwingli’s denial of any ontological-​transformative value to the sacraments ex opere operato left him compelled to find another rationale for baptism, especially for infant baptism. Since Augustine (354–​430) at the latest, baptism has been doctrinally established in Western theology as undoing original sin.4 Interestingly, the Church Father had exegetically argued from circumcision to defend his doctrine of sin against the Pelagians and, therefore, the need for infants to be baptized.5 So too did he defend infant baptism against 1 See Schrenk, Gottesreich und Bund, 36: “Der Kampf gegen die Täufer und der Wille zur Volkskirche sind die treibenden Kräfte, die hinter diesen Gedanken stehen.” See further Schrenk, Gottesreich und Bund, 36–​40. 2 The writings considered by Schrenk are De peccato originali declaratio of 1526, In catabaptistarum strophas elenchus of 1527, and Fidei ratio of 1530, see Schrenk, Gottesreich und Bund, 37, fn. 4. 3 Tellingly, even Gottfried W. Locher, probably the most influential Zwingli scholar of the twentieth century, discussed covenant unity in a chapter entitled “Die Taufer,” under the heading “7. Aus Zwinglis Entgegegnungen”; see Locher, Die Zwinglische Reformation, 261–​263. See also, more recently, Charles S. MacCoy and Joseph W. Baker, Fountainhead of Federalism: Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenantal Tradition (Louisville, KY: Westminster/​John Knox Press, 1991), 21: “for Zwingli, the covenant motif remained essentially a basis for his reply to the Anabaptist teachings on baptism.” 4 The notion of original sin as well as the praxis of infant baptism did, however, precede Augustine historically, see Pier Franco Beatrice, The Transmission of Sin: Augustine and the Pre-​Augustinian Sources, trans. Adam Kamesar (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). 5 See, e.g., Aurelius Augustinus, De peccatorum meritis et remissione et de baptismo parvulorum ad Marcellinum libri tres, in CSEL 60, 1–​152, esp. 111–​112 (II 25,40): “qui hoc dicit, ne diu disputem, circumcisionem respiciat, quae semel fiebat et tamen in singulis singulatim fiebat. sicut ergo tempore illius sacramenti de circumciso qui nasceretur circumcidendus fuit, sic nunc de baptizato qui natus

The Zurich Origins of Reformed Covenant Theology. Pierrick Hildebrand, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2024. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197607572.003.0003

Zwingli’s Covenantal Turn of 1525  53 the Donatists. The parallelism of circumcision and baptism was not by any means an innovation by Zwingli, who for this basic scriptural association very likely drew on one of his favorite patristic references: Augustine. Starting with the first Anabaptist controversies in 1523, the sources reveal the continuous and fraught development of Zwingli’s theological thinking on baptism.6 Zwingli’s ecclesiology, rooted in the late medieval concept of the respublica christiana, encompassed a magisterial Reformation, while the separatism of the Anabaptists obtained precisely through rejection of infant baptism. However, the Reformer’s defense of infant baptism still required a sound theology of baptism rooted in Scripture and not in received tradition. We should bear in mind that the correct scriptural interpretation of the Supper remained a battlefield as well. While Zwingli used the biblical notion of covenant as the key theological concept in arguing for pedobaptism, his covenant theology was not necessarily developed for this particular purpose. In fact, the sources attest to Zwingli’s covenantal turn over the disputed term “testament” in the words of institution of the Supper. As we have already seen, early reflections on covenantal terminology are found in writings addressing both sacraments, the Eucharist and baptism.

Subsidium—​The Subsidiary (August 1525) My challenge to Schrenk’s widely accepted view rests upon a less well-​known source, namely the Subsidium of August 1525.7 In this polemical writing on the proper interpretation of the Lord’s Supper, Zwingli confronted Roman Catholics by arguing for the first time from covenantal continuity. In so doing, he laid the groundwork for the subsequent development of covenant theology in the Reformed tradition.8 fuerit baptizandus est.” (Italics mine) See further Aurelius Augustinus, De gratia Christi et de peccato originali libri duo, in CSEL 42, 123–​206, esp. 194–​196 (II 30,35–​32,37); Aurelius Augustinus, De baptismo libri septem, in CSEL 51, 143–​376, esp. 259–​260 (IV 24,31). 6 For a short overview on the development of Zwingli’s thinking on baptism, see William P. Stephens, The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli (Oxford/​New York: Clarendon Press/​Oxford University Press, 1986), 194–​217. 7 Huldreich Zwingli, Subsidium sive coronis de eucharistia, in Z 4, 458–​504. For a modern English translation, see Huldrych Zwingli, Subsidiary Essay on the Eucharist, in HWZ 2, 191–​231. Material presented in this section was published in Pierrick Hildebrand, “Zwingli’s Covenantal Turn,” in From Zwingli to Amyraut: Exploring the Growth of European Reformed Traditions, ed. Jon Balserak and James West, Reformed Historical Theology 43 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017), 23–​35. 8 Against Hagen and Baker, who considered Zwingli’s Antwort über Balthasar Hubmaiers Taufbüchlein of 5 November to be the first source testifying to covenantal continuity, see Hagen,

54  Zwingli as Initiator As the title of the Subsidium suggests, this writing was meant as a further support, in this instance for Zwingli’s own view in the controversy over the Lord’s Supper. He had most recently given his opinion on the subject in written form in his Commentarius, published in March 1525. A month later he had been able to push through (with a thin majority) the definitive abolition of the mass in Zurich by the council of the city-​state against the will of his Roman Catholic opponents. The first Eucharist using Zwingli’s new liturgy was celebrated at Easter 1525. The leading voice among his opponents was Joachim Am Grüt, to whom the Subsidium was supposedly a response. In spite of his victory, Zwingli evidently still felt the need to reinforce his arguments for his position on the Lord’s Supper.9 It cannot be stressed enough that Zwingli was addressing here the views of the “old believers,” as the Roman Catholics named themselves; his conflict with the Anabaptists was growing, but they are nowhere in sight in the Subsidium. Zwingli explicitly wrote that it was not his intention to repeat what he had already said in the Commentarius.10 The main part of this text therefore dealt first with points with which he had not engaged in that earlier work. He then treated issues that had occurred to him subsequently. Finally, he answered objections he had likely faced before the council.11 It is this third part, where Zwingli addressed eight points of criticism from his opponents, that will be our focus here—​in his answer to the final objection, Zwingli used an argument from covenantal continuity for the very first time. This last objection addressed a concern raised by his opponents from the Pauline rendering of the words of institution in 1 Corinthians 11, where the cup is called “the new testament in my blood.” The basic contention ran that in being the new testament itself, the cup must therefore contain the corporeal blood of Christ.12 Zwingli began his refutation with an explanation of the biblical use of the word testamentum: “The testament, as far as the present case is concerned, is nothing other than an agreement promised by

“From Testament to Covenant,” 18–​19: “Later in the year there is a noticeable shift in Zwingli’s evaluation of the Old Testament and the New Testament’s relationship to it (‘Antwort über Balthasar Hubmaiers Taufbüchlein,’ 5 Nov. 1525).”; Baker, Bullinger and the Covenant, 181: “The Zurich covenant notion founds its earliest notion configuration in Zwingli’s ‘Reply to Hubmaier’ of November 5, 1525.”

9 See Walther Köhler, Einleitung zu ‘Subsidium sive coronis de eucharistia,’ in Z 4, 443.

10 See Zwingli, Subsidium, 466–​467. 11 See Zwingli, Subsidium, 467. 12 Zwingli, Subsidium, 499.

Zwingli’s Covenantal Turn of 1525  55 God, as when the Lord struck a compact or covenant [foedus] with Abraham in Genesis 17.”13 Zwingli then quoted the relevant verses from Genesis 1714 to point out the covenant terms: “But there are added to covenants signs, which though also called by the name of covenants yet are not covenants, as is plainly shown in the same passage.”15 Zwingli alluded here to circumcision which is first, in verse 10, called “covenant” and then, in the subsequent verse, “sign of the covenant.” This argument from the covenant that he developed in the Subsidium from Genesis 17 recurred in subsequent writings. In a response dated 23 October 1525 to the Lutheran theologian Johannes Bugenhagen (1485–​ 1558), Zwingli explicitly mentioned his Subsidium three times, two times with specific reference to his argument from the covenant.16 Four months later he referred to the German translation of the Subsidium, the Nachhuot, in his Unterrichtung.17 New in Zwingli’s argumentation is the additional reference to the covenant-​making at Sinai in Exodus 24. Terminologically speaking, Zwingli spoke of testament in reference to Exodus 24 and of pundt with respect to Genesis 17. Evidently, no substantial difference in meaning was intended. The simple fact that Zwingli repeatedly went back to his Subsidium demonstrates that he considered this text and especially the argument from the covenant to be foundational for his understanding of the Eucharist.

13 Zwingli, Subsidiary, 223; Zwingli, Subsidium, 499: “Testamentum, quod ad praesens ad tin et, nihil aliud est quam conditio a deo promissa. Ut quum dominus cum Abraham ferit pactum sive foedus. Gen. 17.” 14 Gen. 17:1, 7–​8, 10–​11. 15 Zwingli, Subsidiary, 223; Zwingli, Subsidium, 499: “Sed adduntur foederibus signa, quae, tametsi foederum quoque nominibus vocentur, non tamen foedera sunt, ut eodem loco manifeste patet.” 16 Huldreich Zwingli, Responsio ad epistolam Ioannis Bugenhagii, in Z 4, 567: “Potum enim et panem videres corpus et sanguinem adpellari, quae symbola modo sunt harum rerum, sicut Gen. 17. [cf. Gen. 17:10–​11] testamentum vel pactum adpellatur circumcisio, quae foederis modo signum fuit, quemadmodum in ‘Subsidio nostro’ videre potes.” (Italics mine) Zwingli, Responsio, 572–​ 573: “Illud de testamento, nempe quod hoc sit remissio peccatorum gratuita, recte dicis. . . . Sed mox a via decidis, cum calicem testamentum facis, cum nec sanguis Christi testamentum sit, sed sanguis testamenti, id est: sanguis, quo testamentum confirmatum est. Tropus igitur est, cum vel sanguis Christi vel calix gratiarum actionistestamentum adpellatur; de qua re plura in ‘Subsidio’ nostro [1 Cor. 11:25].” 17 Huldreich Zwingli, Eine klare Unterrichtung vom Nachtmahl Christi, in Z 4, 850–​851: “Glycher wyß ward im alten testament das bluot, damit das volck sampt dem buoch des gsatzts besprengt ward, das bluot des testaments genennet, aber nit das testament, Exodi 24. [Exod. 24:8]; denn das testament was das inen vorgelesen ward. Also findend wir ouch gar nienen, daß das bluot Christi ein testament werde genennet, aber wol das bluot des testaments. So nun hie das tranck ‘das nüw testament’ genennt wirt, muessend wir ye sehen, das es ein red ist, wie Genn. 17. [Gen. 17:13] die bschnydung der pundt genempt wirt, und was aber nun ein zeichen des pundts. Also hie wirt das tranck in der dancksagung ‘das testament’ genennt drumb, das es ein zeichen des bluots Christi ist, mit welchem er das nüwe testament erobret, wie ghört ist. Wer wyter davon begerteze lesen, besehe unsere ‘Nachhuot.’ ” (Italics mine)

56  Zwingli as Initiator Before the publication of the Subsidium, Zwingli had argued from Genesis 17 with respect to the Abrahamic covenant only on one occasion in his entire work.18 As we have seen, this reference occurred in his pamphlet against the Anabaptists entitled Von der Taufe, written at the end of May 1525, so not long before the Subsidium. We have already looked at this text, in the first chapter, but it is helpful to recall here what Zwingli had said in Von der Taufe. His basic thesis was that circumcision in the old testament was similar to baptism in the new, a similarity, we noted, that was to be understood analogically. It was even an argument a fortiori, from the lesser to the greater (if . . . , much more . . . ), grounded in a law-​grace antithesis that precluded any identification. This antithesis is no longer discernible in the Subsidium. Having shown from Genesis 17 that the covenant sign that is circumcision can be called the covenant without being the covenant itself, Zwingli brought new support to this point with his interpretation of the meaning of baptism: baptism is just as much the symbol of the Christian people that has received from God the covenant that his son should be ours, as circumcision was once the symbol of that covenant that the Lord should be their God and they should be his people.19

Up until this point Zwingli had seemed to argue from analogy (note the change of addressee from “ours” to “their”).20 But then he continued: I want now to pass over from the covenant or testament of Abraham to the testament of Christ. The covenant that was struck with Abraham is so strong and valid that unless you keep it always you will not be faithful. For unless the Lord is your God and you are a worshipper of him only (for “you shall worship the Lord your God, and serve him only” [Deut. 6:13]), you have no reason to boast that you are faithful. But he whom you worship and adore thus is your God, that is, the supreme good, because he gives himself freely to you and casts himself into death for you by which he might reconcile you to himself.21 18 That single allusion appears in Zwingli, commentarius, 823. 19 Zwingli, Subsidiary, 224; Zwingli, Subsidium, 500: “est baptismus Christiani populi, qui foedus hoc a deo accepit, ut filius eius noster sit, aeque symbolum, atque olim circumcisio huius foederis erat symbolum, quod dominus esset eorum deus, et ipsi essent eius populus.” 20 However, the promise is actually the same: God’s promise to be the God of the covenanted. 21 Zwingli, Subsidiary, 224; Zwingli, Subsidium, 500: “Volumus iam a foedere vel testamento Abrahae ad Christi testamentum transire. Est foedus, quod cum Abraham percussum est, sic

Zwingli’s Covenantal Turn of 1525  57 Admittedly, Zwingli spoke of a transition from one testament to another, but what follows makes evident that this transition related not to some basic change of substance but to a sequence in time. Interestingly, there was a change of addressee, that is, the Abrahamic covenant has been made not only with “them” but also with “us.” Abraham’s covenant is “so strong and valid” that it has not been abrogated but instead fulfilled in Christ, or as Christ’s testament. When we look more closely, we see that the framework of the testament of Christ is given through the terms of the testament of Abraham found in Genesis 17:1, which Zwingli earlier paraphrased as, “I will be your God. You will walk before me most uprightly.”22 God’s promise to be Abraham’s God is ultimately interpreted as God’s gift of himself in the death of Christ for reconciliation. The Abrahamic covenant of Genesis 17 is substantially equated with the new testament. There is no longer any hint of a law-​grace antithesis as it had been expressed in Von der Taufe. A shift from analogy to identity or univocity has taken place in Zwingli’s thinking on the biblical covenant motif. I term this transition his covenantal turn because it marks a paradigm shift. We have, in effect, been present at the birth of Reformed covenant theology. In the sentence following the last quotation, Zwingli added, “This grace had been promised by him who has given it long ago, when our first parent transgressed his law, and he constantly renewed this promise to our fathers.”23 The Abrahamic covenant, which I conclude to be the retrojected or anticipated new testament of Christ, is actually only a renewal of an agreement that God had already promised even earlier, just after the transgression of God’s commandment by Adam and Eve. Zwingli was going further back, to the fall and to the so-​called protoevangelion, that is, to God’s cursing the serpent in Genesis 3:15, which the Reformer interpreted as a promise

firmum ac minime abrogatum, ut ni perpetuo serves, non sis fidelis futurus; nisi enim dominus sit deus tuus, et tu eius unius cultor sis (dominum enim deum tuum adorabis, ac illi soli servies [cf. Deut. 6:13]), non est, ut te fidelem iactes. At ille, quem sic colis et adoras, sic est deus tuus, hoc est: summum bonum, quod se tibi gratuito impertit, ut pro te in mortem sese abiecerit, quo te sibi reconciliaret.” 22 Zwingli, Subsidiary, 223; Zwingli, Subsidium, 499: “Ego ero deus tuus. Tu ambulabis coram me integerrime.” See also Zwingli’s literal translation of Gen 17:1: “Ego deus omnipotens, . . . ambula coram me et sis integer!” 23 Zwingli, Subsidiary, 224; Zwingli, Subsidium, 500: “Promiserat hanc gratiam ipse, qui praestitit, iam olim, cum parens noster legem eius praevaricaretur; ac deinde eam promissionem patribus semper refricuit.”

58  Zwingli as Initiator pointing to Christ. In so doing, he was following others before him, since the time of the ancient church. While he had only alluded to a single covenant running since the biblical beginning, now he was explicit: And the reason why he made the promise was none other than because blessedness could not come to us, however much we toiled and sweated, while the fall of the first parent had not been atoned for. But when Christ, slain for us, appeased the divine justice and became the only approach to God, God entered a new covenant with the human race, not new in the sense that he had only just discovered this remedy, but because he applied it at the right moment, having prepared it long before.24

Zwingli was arguing here heilsgeschichtlich in a preparation-​application pattern, or, in other words, in a promise-​fulfillment pattern, imbedded in one unique covenant. The distinction between the Abrahamic covenant and the new covenant does not pertain to a different substance, such as law or grace. It pertains instead to perspective, dependent on one’s position on the timeline, that is, whether one has a prospective or retrospective view on the one historical Christ-​event. We can already speak here, as will the later Reformed tradition, of the foedus gratiae, or covenant of grace, which historically began just after the fall in Genesis 3:15 and extends to eternity. If after the fall Adam was put by God under the terms of the covenant of grace, under what terms did Adam stand coram Deo before the fall? What was the nature of the prelapsarian relationship between God and the Adamic couple? Zwingli was admittedly not at all interested in developing this question. After all, to do so would not add further arguments to his differentiating between covenant and covenant sign. The protological question asked here is motivated by the development of covenant theology, which later cultivated this issue at length, arriving eventually at the concept of a so-​called covenant of works, in contrast to the postlapsarian covenant of grace. But Zwingli had to assume some

24 Zwingli, Subsidiary, 224; Zwingli, Subsidium, 500: “Causa vero, cur promiserit, alia non fuit, quam quod beatitudo nobis contingere nequibat, quantumvis conantibus et sudantibus, cum lapsus primi parentis expiatus non esset. Cum autem Christus iam pro nobis mactatus divinam iustitiam placavit ita, ut per ipsum solum accedatur ad deum, iam novum foedus iniit deus cum humano genere, non sic novum, ut hanc medelam vix tandem invenerit, sed quod olim paratam, quum tempestivum esset, adhibuerit.”

Zwingli’s Covenantal Turn of 1525  59 sort of prelapsarian state, to which Christ, as remedy to the fall, restores. Even if Zwingli was far more interested in Christology and its intrinsic implications for ecclesial practice (e.g., sacraments) than in protology, the Subsidium gives a hint to his own view of the God-​man relationship before the fall. Zwingli defined the fall as the transgression of “his law,” which is God’s law. The logical inference from this statement is that the prelapsarian God-​man relationship was essentially conditioned by the divine law. With this interpretation, Zwingli, as we will see in the epilogue, stood in some continuity with the later Heidelberg theologians Olevian and Ursinus. In his covenant theology, Ursinus held to the covenant of grace first granted in Genesis 3:15 and renewed with Abraham in Genesis 17. He defined the covenant of grace as Christ’s fulfilling of the foedus naturale, or covenant of creation, in accomplishing precisely what the Adamic couple failed to do, namely God’s law, but taking the condemnation upon himself for the failure. In light of this evidence, Schrenk’s influential and enduring thesis that Zwingli developed his theology in reaction to the Anabaptists in a quasi-​ monocausal fashion needs to be re-​evaluated. I have already pointed out one weakness of his thesis, namely that it rested on Zwingli’s writings from 1526 onward. Our investigation of Zwingli’s Subsidium has led us to a more differentiated position. First, I have shown in the Subsidium what I call a covenantal turn by Zwingli, that is, a hermeneutical move from an analogical to a univocal view of the relation between the Abrahamic covenant and Christ’s new testament. Christ’s new testament was thereby considered proleptically anticipated in the old testament in Zwingli’s thinking for the very first time. This covenantal turn must have taken place somewhere between Von der Taufe of May 1525 and the Subsidium of August 1525. Second, the Subsidium, an anti-​Roman-​Catholic writing on the Eucharist and the first source testifying to Zwingli’s covenantal turn with datable certainty, was connected to the eucharistic controversy in Zurich, not to the baptismal debate. While it cannot be denied that the Anabaptist controversy contributed to Zwingli’s theological development on the covenant, the source evidence leads us to consider the Anabaptist issue to be neither the sole factor nor even the principal factor. If the Anabaptist controversy had been the impetus, would we not expect the first writing testifying to covenantal thinking to be an anti-​Anabaptist text? Schrenk’s thesis and all its manifold reassertions are too reductionistic to explain Zwingli’s covenantal turn.

60  Zwingli as Initiator

The Genesis Commentary, 1525/​1527 How is Zwingli’s covenantal turn in mid-​ 1525 to be explained? The Anabaptist controversy certainly played a role, but not a decisive part. Neither, I propose, did the battle over the Supper ultimately form the crucial moment. I do not deny that baptism and the Supper loomed large. Following Cottrell, however, I will defend the thesis that Zwingli’s intensive exegetical work on the book of Genesis lay at the heart of his covenantal turn. We must not forget that Zwingli understood himself as a theologian committed to sola (et tota!) scriptura and this attitude needs be taken into account in any serious historical-​theological survey. Mid-​1525 coincided with the transformation of the Grossmünsterstift, the canonry at the minister, into what would later be called the Prophezei by Reformation scholars, in effect something of a biblical-​theological seminary for the Zurich pastorate, although also open to laymen. This was the fulfillment of a project already planned with the city council in September 1523 at the latest, so before the Second Disputation and the conflict with the Anabaptists.25 Zwingli, as we have heard, had started to preach the Scriptures according to the lectio continua method in Zurich in 1519, and so too were the books of the Bible methodically interpreted by the different biblical scholars at the new institution. The teaching program started on the morning of 19 June 1525. It basically followed a four-​step pattern.26 First, a student read the biblical text from the Vulgate. Second, the same text was read in Hebrew by the competent lector—​initially Jacob Ceporinus (1499–​1525) and subsequently, from 1526, Conrad Pellican (1478–​1556) —​who added some linguistic and factual comments in Latin. Third, Zwingli presented the Greek lectio from the Septuagint and closed with an interpretation of the text in Latin. Fourth and finally, Zwingli’s interpretation was translated into German by a pastor—​usually Leo Jud (1482–​1542) or Caspar Megander (1495–​1545), sometimes even Zwingli himself. They began with the very first book of Scripture, although as the practice of the Prophezei later confirmed, the lectio continua method did not require the canonical order of the biblical books be followed. This choice might have been at least in part pragmatic. By mid-​1525 Zwingli had preached in Zurich 25 See EAk, 169, no. 426. See further Locher, Die Zwinglische Reformation, 151. 26 See Heinrich Bullinger, Heinrich Bullingers Reformationsgeschichte, ed. Johann J. Hottinger and Hans H. Vögeli, vol. 1 (Frauenfeld: Ch. Beyel, 1838), 289ff. See further Locher, Die Zwinglische Reformation, 161–​162.

Zwingli’s Covenantal Turn of 1525  61 on almost the whole of the New Testament.27 The Old Testament was next in line. In April he had begun to preach on the Psalms. The book of Genesis was expounded at the Prophezei from June 19—​that is before the Subsidium—​to 5 November. The published commentary In Genesim goes back to Zwingli’s work at the Prophezei. This source should potentially inform us of Zwingli’s covenantal thinking in the middle of 1525, but we face a twofold problem, both chronological and transmission-​related. The work was not immediately published after the lectures on the book of Genesis at the Prophezei, appearing only two years later, in March 1527. And as the original title of the published commentary attests, it was written not by Zwingli’s pen, but by those of Jud and Megander, who worked up their own notes from the master’s lectures. They did, however, publish the work with the approbation of Zwingli, who also wrote the foreword. Künzli, like Farner before him, thought it probable “that some comments from Zwingli’s corresponding sermons were subsequently worked into it.”28 After all, the exegetical work of the Prophezei was intended to serve the preaching ministry. After his series on the Psalms, Zwingli had preached on the whole book of Genesis between 8 July 1526 and 2 March 1527,29 right before the publication of the Genesis commentary. Daniel Bolliger has recently spoken of “an elementary consensus” in scholarship that all the comments are an edited product relying on two sources, namely the lecture notes and Zwingli’s related sermons, which cannot be reconstructed a posteriori. Bolliger argues for “in principle a threefold dating chronology with the sequence Annotations/​lections—​Sermons—​Final editing/​printing.”30 In Genesim is then not unconditionally reliable for dating Zwingli’s covenantal turn, so that our earliest dependable source for determining the terminus ante quem remains the Subsidium. Nevertheless we must recognize, in Cottrell’s words, “the possibility if not the probability that it does represent Zwingli’s thinking at this time [the period of his lectures].”31

27 Farner, Huldrych Zwingli: Seine Verkündigung, 36–​43. 28 Edwin Künzli, Zwingli als Ausleger des Alten Testamentes, in Z 14, 879: “dass nachträglich auch einzelne Äusserungen aus den entsprechenden Predigten Zwinglis mit hineinverarbeit worden sind.” See also Edwin Künzli, Zwingli als Ausleger von Genesis und Exodus (Zurich: Berichthaus, 1950), 19; Farner, Huldrych Zwingli: Seine Verkündigung, 84–​89; Oskar Farner, Nachwort zu den Erläuterungen zur Genesis, in Z 13, 290. 29 Daniel Bolliger, Nachwort, in Z 21, 528. See further Künzli, Zwingli als Ausleger des Alten Testamentes, in Z 14, 872 against Farner, Nachwort, 290. Farner includes in this period of 20 weeks not only the Genesis sermons but also all of the sermons on the Pentateuch. 30 Bolliger, Nachwort, 526: “eine im Prinzip dreiteilige Datierungschronologie mit der Abfolge Annotationen/​Vorlesungen—​Predigten—​Endredaktion/​Drucklegung.” 31 Cottrell, Covenant and Baptism, 180.

62  Zwingli as Initiator In the following sections, I explore passages from chapters relating to the covenant(s) found in the book of Genesis, principally from the first 17 chapters. We have good reason to think that Zwingli would have lectured on this material in the very first weeks of the Prophezei, that is up until mid-​ July, still before the writing of the Subsidium.32 Striking similarities with our observations on the Subsidium will become evident.

The Noahitic Covenant As one might expect, the Noahitic covenant provided fascinating material for a covenant-​oriented expositor like Zwingli. In relation to the ninth chapter of the book of Genesis, Zwingli explicitly referred to the covenant for the first time in his Genesis commentary. However, the matter is complex. Two different covenants are mentioned in the commentary on the chapter, one with Adam and one with Noah. On Genesis 9:2, where there was no explicit mention of a covenant in the original, only of God’s blessing in the fear put upon the animals with respect to Noah and his sons, Zwingli wrote, “[God] renews the covenant [foedus] made with Adam, when [Adam] was [made] lord over all living beings”33 (Italics mine). This quotation marks the first time Zwingli alluded to a prelapsarian covenant, an occurrence not noted by earlier research.34 Zwingli thus alluded to a covenant with Adam, now renewed with Noah’s family, to whom dominion is granted over all other creatures. When did God make this covenant with Adam? Only Genesis 1:26 might provide an answer, where God creates man to rule over every kind of living creature. The word “covenant” does not appear in either the biblical text or Zwingli’s commentary on the passage. However, in Genesis 9:2 Zwingli spoke a 32 The book of Genesis has 50 chapters and the period of lecturing between the 19.06 –​05.11.1525 counts 89 days (excl. Sundays). This makes an average rate of less than two days per chapter. Even with a rate of one per two days, the 17 first chapters of the book of Genesis must have been gone through until July 27. 33 Huldreich Zwingli, Farrago annotationum in Genesim: ex ore Hulryci Zuinglii per Leonem Iudae et Casparem Megandrum exceptarum, in Z 13, 57: “Renovat foedus cum Adamo ictum. Nam ille dominus omnium animantium fuit.” (Italics mine) 34 Fesko’s references to Zwingli are taken from In catabaptistarum strophas elenchus published in July 1527 after In Genesim. See J. V. Fesko, The Covenant of Works: The Origins, Development, and Reception of the Doctrine (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), 20–​21. Even if Zwingli did not explicitly refer to the prelapsarian covenant until ­chapter 9, Weir’s argument that “none of the sixteenth century commentaries on Genesis 1-​3 mention the prelapsarian covenant until after 1590” cannot be sustained, see Weir, Origins of the Federal Theology, 158.

Zwingli’s Covenantal Turn of 1525  63 posteriori of a covenant with Adam, which could be renamed a kind of foedus creationis. That Zwingli was really speaking of the creaturely state of Adam before the fall is confirmed by his statement that Adam was given dominion while he was “still an innocent and uncorrupted man,” so the creatures subordinated themselves to him without resistance. But this subordination was “diminished because of sin.”35 The parallelism does not stop here. Zwingli paraphrased Genesis 9:3, in which God’s permission to eat of every animal is in line with his giving of all vegetation, in the imperative mode as follows: “I give you therefore the meat of wild animals and birds to eat, as I gave Adam the plants of the earth to eat.”36 The reference to Genesis 1:29 is clear. The Noahitic covenant in Genesis 9:9 is not immediately connected to the creational covenant mentioned above. Zwingli restricted its jurisdiction to the flood: “The covenant [pactum], however, is that there will be no more condemnation of the earth through water inundation.”37 (Italics mine) Zwingli chose to translate ‫ ְּב ִרית‬or διαθήκη (in the LXX) as pactum in his exegesis of the chapter, except in association with the sign of the rainbow, where he spoke of signum foederis or signum testamenti.38 That the covenant was also made with Noah’s posterity was evidence for Zwingli that “the testament of Christ is not only affirmed for us, but also for our offspring.”39 It was a subtle allusion to the Anabaptist controversy. Zwingli also used the giving of the rainbow as a covenant sign as the opportunity for a small excursus on the general meaning of the covenant sign. The external sign was added to the divine promise.40 However, the sign “is not the covenant nor makes the covenant, but only reminds us of the covenant.”41 Zwingli then came explicitly to both sacraments of the New Testament and stated that they “do not confirm, but unify and conjoin.”42 Zwingli had in mind the sacramental communion of Christ’s members.

35 Zwingli, in Genesim, 57. 36 Zwingli, in Genesim, 57: “Do igitur vobis in cibum carnes bestiarum et volucrum, quemadmodum Adae herbas terrae in cibum dedi.” 37 Zwingli, in Genesim, 58: “Pactum autem est, quod ultra non sit aquis diluvii terram perditurus.” 38 Zwingli, in Genesim, 59. 39 Zwingli, in Genesim, 58: “testamentum Christi non solum nobiscum, sed et cum posteris nostris esse firmatum.” 40 See Zwingli, in Genesim, 59. 41 Zwingli, in Genesim, 59: “neque pactum est neque pactum facit, sed pacti nos admonet.” 42 Zwingli, in Genesim, 59: “non certificant, sed uniunt et coniugunt.”

64  Zwingli as Initiator

The Abrahamic Covenant Before Zwingli started commenting on the first verse of the 12th chapter, he wrote of the beginning of the Abraham story in a preamble that assumed the function of a hermeneutic prolegomenon. It is not so much in the actual comments as in the preamble that we find the most relevant assumptions with regard to Zwingli’s new covenantal understanding of the biblical Heilsgeschichte. The patriarch’s faith, he wrote, was to be imitated because “Abraham’s faith is the same as ours.”43 This same faith was to be understood in the sense of fides quae, that is, of the faith which is believed, which is Christ. Zwingli wrote, “The gospel is nothing other than the revelation of divine benevolence and grace or pledge [pignus], which was also revealed to the fathers (although not yet as plainly and clearly). In the new testament, [the revelation] is overt and spreads to the whole world.”44 (Italics mine) It is important to stress here that the “revelation of the divine benevolence and grace or pledge” was already Christological with respect to the fathers. There is somehow a quantitative difference because it was not as clear and broad before Christ’s incarnation. Qualitatively speaking, however, the pledge in the old testament was already Christ by anticipation. So Zwingli could affirm that there has always been “therefore one faith, one church of God” and that “how many there ever have been [true] believers, they came to God through Christ alone as the pledge of salvation and grace”.45 Zwingli thought in terms of a promise-​fulfillment pattern, as was evident in his commentary on the chapter. The word “covenant” is not specifically mentioned in Genesis 12, but contains a promissio for Abraham, which Zwingli interpreted as twofold: an earthly promise with respect of the giving of the land of Canaan, and a spiritual promise “that concerns the faith and the spiritual offspring,”46 which is, of course, Christ himself. This twofold promise is reiterated in the 15th chapter of Genesis. The blessed seed is equated with God himself, the incarnate God. But even the earthly promise of the land of Canaan is a type of spiritual reality, which Zwingli called the “land of the living,”47 which is given to believers. A double 43 Zwingli, in Genesim, 67. 44 Zwingli, in Genesim, 67: “Evangelium enim nihil est aliud quam divinae beneficentiae et gratiae manifestatio ac pignus, quae et patribus (tametsi non usque adeo clare et late) facta est. In novo vero testamento per Christum manifeste exhibita et in orbem diffusa est.” (Italics mine) 45 Zwingli, in Genesim, 67–​68: “Una ergo fides, una ecclesia dei fuit omnibus temporibus. Quotquot fideles sunt, per solum Christum, salutis ac gratiae pignus ad deum iverunt”. (Italics mine) 46 Zwingli, in Genesim, 69: “quae fidem et spiritale semen respicit”. 47 Zwingli, in Genesim, 86.

Zwingli’s Covenantal Turn of 1525  65 meaning of the blessed seed is also evident in Zwingli’s comments on Genesis 15:5, where he recorded, “This promise refers partly to the flesh, and partly to Christ and the salvation of the world.”48 More relevant to our investigation is the explicit connection between this promise of Christ and the covenant. In Genesis 15:10 Zwingli interpreted the covenanting rite of cutting animals into two parts as pointing to Christ’s saving work on the cross. These two parts stand namely for the two natures of Christ, who spiritually unites the divided Jews and heathens through his death. Zwingli concluded, “We see therefore that from the beginning the faith of the fathers and ours was the same. All are, namely, saved by means of this testament and covenant, which God has made with faithful Abraham and his offspring.”49 (Italics mine) Jews and Gentiles are united in one faith and therefore in one “testament and covenant.” Zwingli made a significant comment with respect to the Mosaic role in this one covenant. The slavery in Egypt predicted in Genesis 15:14 was compared by Zwingli to slavery under the law: The Egyptian slavery does nothing else than adumbrate the future slavery of the law under which the Jews lived because of Moses, in order to be led out and liberated through Christ. Through Him, then, we are freed from the awful slavery of the law, that is, from the condemnation of the law. However, even the ones under the law knew Christ truly. Christ was the peace and rest of the conscience, [the one] who took away fear of the law.50 (Italics mine)

“The future slavery of the law” clearly refers to the Mosaic dispensation and is limited to the Jews before Christ. However, with respect to salvation “from the condemnation of the law,” Christ’s work is described from a first-​person plural perspective (“we are freed”) and includes, therefore, the Gentiles. Hence, Zwingli meant in a wider sense the moral law in its pedagogical function

48 Zwingli, in Genesim, 88: “Promissio haec partim corporalis est, partim ad Christum et ad salutem mundi refertur.” 49 Zwingli, in Genesim, 89: “Videmus ergo iam ab initio patrum fidem et nostram eandemque fuisse. Omnes enim hoc testamento et foedere salvantur, quod cum fideli Abraham et semine eius pepigit Deus.” (Italics mine) 50 Zwingli, in Genesim, 90: “Adumbrat nihilo minus Aegyptiaca servitus legis futurae servitutem, sub qua Iudaei vivebant, donec per Mosen, hoc est: per Christum educerentur et liberarentur. Nam per hunc a dira legis servitute, id est: a damnatione legis eripimur. Tametsi et illis, qui etiam tum sub lege Christum vere agnoscebant, Christus pax erat et conscientiae tranquillitas, legisque terrorem adimebat.” (Italics mine)

66  Zwingli as Initiator (usus paedagogicus),51 which pervades the testamental distinction. He clearly assumed covenantal continuity in affirming that Christ was already knowable “under the law.” In Genesis 15:18, where the word “covenant” first appears in the biblical text, Zwingli translated it as foedus. In his exposition Zwingli used the terms pactum and testamentum, even the early modern German pundt. Probably intended as a conclusion to the whole chapter, Zwingli wrote at the end that “the good God adjourned the coming of his Son so long as the night of the sins and the horror of the conscience would grow so much, that no hope of salvation would be greater.”52 Christ’s light has then come to “erect and confirm the testament with us.”53 Here it is said that Abraham’s covenant was erected and confirmed by Christ. These two verbs were never used by Zwingli with respect to God’s covenanting with Abraham,54 as Abraham’s covenant was a promise that was fulfilled in Christ’s testament. The covenant erected in Genesis 15 is broken by Abraham in the next chapter, as the patriarch takes in hand the promise to become a father through Agar. In c­ hapter 17, however, the covenant is renewed by God. As we have already seen in the Subsidium, Genesis 17 was the central text of Scripture from which Zwingli developed his new covenantal thinking. It should therefore be no surprise to find in the comments on this chapter the most important evidence for covenantal continuity. The theological weight of this chapter is also demonstrated by Zwingli’s longest exposition by way of comparison throughout In Genesim. It is noticeable that Zwingli had a proclivity for the terms promissio and pactum, which function virtually as synonyms.55 The use of foedus and testamentum is less frequent. Chapter 17 was basically the renewal of the promise already made in Genesis 12.56 Zwingli considered the first verse (especially the second part of it) to be the heart of the covenant.57 “I am God almighty” and “Walk before me and be

51 My reference to these different uses of the law refers to the well-​known theological concept of the threefold use of the law that antedated the Reformation but was widely used by Reformers. The usus paedagogicus corresponds to the first use of the law. The usus normativus or usus in renatis corresponds to the third use of the law. The second use of the law, the usus politicus, is not referred to in this study. 52 Zwingli, in Genesim, 92: “Sed tantisper suis adventum filii sui distulit optimus deus, donec nox peccatorum et conscientiarum horror tantum invalesceret, ut nulla esset amplius spes salutis.” 53 Zwingli, in Genesim, 92: “testamentum nobis cum deo erigens and confirmans.” (Italics mine) 54 Zwingli used instead pangere or firmare, inire or ferire. See Zwingli, in Genesim, 82 and 92. 55 See Zwingli, in Genesim, 98: “Verba pacti ac promissionis brevia sunt”. (Italics mine) 56 Zwingli, in Genesim, 98: “refricat hoc caput promissionem superius factam”.; Zwingli, in Genesim, 98: “adparet Abrae deus ac renovat promissionem”. 57 Zwingli, in Genesim, 98: “Verba pacti ac promissionis brevia sunt, sed plena mysteriis; debent itaque ruminari a fidelibus ac mente volvi.”

Zwingli’s Covenantal Turn of 1525  67 perfect” are the two parts of the covenant, the divine and the human, which are detailed at length.58 But this covenant was located in a much larger history of redemption: “The one, namely, who so generously extended to Adam, Noah and Abraham the bosom of his mercy and munificence is enduringly generous to anyone who walks innocently before God and trusts in him with all of his heart.”59 The covenant reaches back to Adam and forward to every believer. With respect to Adam, Zwingli could have had only the postlapsarian promise in Genesis 3:15 in mind.60 Furthermore, this statement stands within an appreciation of God’s condescension in covenanting with the “miserable little man” by his promise to the “miserable mortals.”61 This can only apply to the human condition after the fall. Similar to c­ hapter 12, the promise was considered by Zwingli to be twofold: earthly, applying only to the Jews, and spiritual, referring to Christ and applicable to everyone. As one might expect, the institution of circumcision was used by Zwingli as an opportunity to develop his view on the Christian sacraments. Circumcision was basically seen as an “external sign” and a “symbol of the testament.”62 However, Zwingli showed that circumcision is called pactum in the biblical text, although, as the Reformer pointed out, it cannot be the covenant itself, just as the bread and wine of the Eucharist cannot be Christ’s own body and blood. Further, he pointed to the fact that Abraham’s children were included in the covenant by circumcision—​Christian children should therefore also receive the sign of the covenant, that is, baptism. That Zwingli did not argue analogically as in Von der Taufe but thought in terms of covenantal continuity becomes most evident when he added, “There is only one church, which joins together Gentiles and Jews.”63 In the discussion about the benefit of the sacraments, Zwingli demarcated himself not only against the Roman Catholics and the Anabaptists but also against the Lutherans. After rejecting the Lutheran understanding of sacraments as an external confirmation of an internal faith, he explained, 58 See Zwingli, in Genesim, 98–​102. 59 Zwingli, in Genesim, 102–​103: “Nam qui Adam, qui Noë, qui Abrahamo misericordiae suae ac munificentiae sinum tam liberaliter expandit, sic perenniter liberalis est in omnes, qui innocenter coram eo ambulant quique ei toto corde fidunt.” 60 See Zwingli’s exposition of Gen. 3:15 in Zwingli, in Genesim, 28: “Hic iam ab initio promittitur liberatio per semen illud benedictum, per quod benedicendae erant omnes gentes.” (Italics mine) 61 Zwingli, in Genesim, 102. 62 Zwingli, in Genesim, 105. 63 Zwingli, in Genesim, 105–​106: “Una enim atque eadem est ecclesia, quae ex gentibus Iudaeisque compingitur”. See further Zwingli, in Genesim, 106: “Una ergo fides est Abrahae et nostra; perinde enim ille fidebat deo per semen, quod ei promissum erat, atque nos, quam quod nunc praestitus est, cui isti promisso tantum fidebant.”

68  Zwingli as Initiator “Indeed, God supplied [Abraham’s seed] when the time was fulfilled so as to confirm his promise toward us. He added to that promise or covenant [pactum] an external symbol. The symbol, therefore, does not confirm faith, but the offspring who was promised and is [now] supplied.”64 (Italics mine) In other words, Zwingli held that his opponents had confused the sacrament with the promised seed. This statement clearly reveals the promise-​ fulfillment pattern with which Zwingli worked. The faith or covenant of Abraham’s promised seed is confirmed or supplied by God in Jesus Christ and not by any sacrament. The sacrament is additional to the covenant and acts as a reminder of the covenant.65

The Mosaic Covenant After the book of Genesis, the Prophezei turned to the book of Exodus. Zwingli’s lectures on Exodus 1–​24 were published by Jud and Megander on 1 September 1527.66 As Zwingli had already alluded to the Mosaic covenant in the book of Genesis, we need to touch on his exposition in Exodus. God’s covenanting with Moses and Israel is described in Exodus 24. Regarding verse 8, on covenant-​making by way of sacrificial blood, Zwingli wrote, “The covenant consists in [God] himself being our God, and we, his people, walking before Him uprightly, according to Gen. 17[:1].”67 The Mosaic covenant is unmistakably and explicitly interpreted in continuity with the Abrahamic covenant. The law given by God at Sinai to Abraham’s offspring is the norm (usus normativus) according to which to live uprightly before God. However, in Zwingli’s further exposition, he interpreted the “blood of the testament”68 as the penal consequence for anyone who breaks the law. Therefore, the law must be first understood in its condemning function, which leads to Christ 64 Zwingli, in Genesim, 107: “Nam seminis Abrahae facta confirmatio est divinae erga nos misericordiae, in qua omnes salvamur tam ipsi quam nos. Salutis ergo fundamentum est divina misericordia, quae in semine promissa erat. Quod quidem semen, cum tempora completa essent [cf. Gal. 4:4], praestitit deus, ut confirmaret promissionem suam erga nos. Huic promissioni et pacto addidit symbolum externum; non ergo symbolum confirmat fidem, sed semen promissum et praestitum.” (Italics mine) 65 Zwingli, in Genesim, 107: “At quicunque velut Abraham misericordiae dei per Christum praestitae toto pectore fidunt, student omnibus modis, ut innocenter et integre coram deo ambulent, ut quottidie atque in horas adfectus carnis amputent. Hoc enim significat circumcisio.” 66 See Bollinger, Nachwort, 528. 67 Huldreich Zwingli, In Exodum alia farraginis annotationum particula, in Z 13, 424: “Foedus esse, ut ipse sit deus noster, nos populus eius recteque ambulemus coram ipso, supra in Genesi 17.” 68 Zwingli, In Exodum, 424.

Zwingli’s Covenantal Turn of 1525  69 (usus paedagogicus). Ultimately, Zwingli explained in light of Hebrews 9 and 10, the law points to Christ’s atonement on behalf of those covenanted with God.

Covenantal Continuity, 1525–​1531 In the period after 1525, Zwingli was engaged in the defense and consolidation of his Reformation in Zurich. The battlefronts drawn up against the Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Anabaptists continued to grow and intensify. Zwingli fought on two levels. On a polemical-​theological level, he cultivated an apologetic reflection and epistolary discourse with his three counterparts. The polemic crystallized around the sacraments, both baptism and the Supper. While first applied in the eucharistic discourse on the right interpretation of the words of institution, Zwingli’s covenant theology was refined in his writing against the Anabaptists. The conflict between Luther and Zwingli over the Eucharist reached its climax paradoxically at the Marburg Colloquy in 1529, intended as a demonstration of the Reformers’ unity. On a religious-​political level, Zwingli sought to break out from Zurich’s isolation. The most immediate opponents of Zwingli’s Reformation were in Zurich itself, but the most serious threat came from beyond the borders of the city-​state, from the Roman Catholic confederates and the emperor. The future of the Swiss Confederation and its relationship with the empire were at stake in a new game where confessional lines could determine alliances. The formation of the Christliches Burgrecht in 1527, between Swiss Reformed and southern German cities, was followed in 1529 by the creation of the Christliche Vereinigung, a defensive alliance between the Roman Catholic states and the Austrian Archduke Ferdinand I. Zwingli sought the Reformation of the whole Swiss Confederation and lobbied the Zurich city council to pursue a policy of exerting influence and creating alliances to reach this goal. On an international plane, he was especially attentive to the religious-​political climate in Germany and sought the favor of the French King Francis I against the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. Zwingli’s religious-​political engagement ended with the Second Kappel War of 1531, when Zurich’s aggressive policy against the Roman Catholic central states of Switzerland failed. It also cost him his life. Throughout these years, Zwingli continued to teach at the Prophezei and expound the books of the Old and New Testaments.

70  Zwingli as Initiator The first writing relevant to our theme was Zwingli’s Antwort (5 November 1525).69 His first defense of infant baptism, in Von der Taufe, had been directed against the Anabaptist teaching and had been countered in turn in July 1525 by Von dem christenlichen Tauff der gläubigen70 by Balthasar Hubmaier (1480–​ 1528). Formerly a friend of Zwingli, Hubmaier had supported the Reformer at the Second Zurich Disputation in 1523. Although initially unsuccessful, Hubmaier had eventually reformed Waldshut in Further Austria, his former parish, in 1524. His conversion to Anabaptism at the end of that year was completed at Easter 1525 with his rebaptism. He himself began to rebaptize nearly the whole town and made Waldshut into the first Anabaptist “state church.” Zwingli’s obtained Hubmaier’s refutation of his Von der Taufe only at the beginning of October and wrote his Antwort a month later.71 Far from diminishing, the Anabaptist movement continued to be a (theological) challenge, so Zwingli was compelled to write his Elenchus (31 July 1527) two years later, systematically refuting their teaching anew and for the last time.72 He did, however, also write in defense of infant baptism in Contra Suenckfeldium, sent at the end of 1530(?)73 to Leonhard Brunner (ca. 1500–​1558), Martin Bucer’s colleague in Strasburg. Caspar Schwenckfeld (1489/​90–​1561) had sent Brunner a series of questions that undermined infant baptism, for Schwenckfeld occupied some common ground with the Anabaptists. Those questions, perhaps through Bucer’s mediation, were handed over to Zwingli, who seems to have been considered best able to respond. Zwingli’s Von der Taufe also brought opposition from the “Lutheran camp.”74 In a letter to the Zurich Reformer, Urbanus Rhegius (1489–​1541), following Luther, accused Zwingli of denying original sin and making Christ dispensable in his first writing on baptism.75 Zwingli’s refutation of this accusation in De peccato originali (25 August 1526)76 did not entirely 69 Huldreich Zwingli, Antwort über Balthasar Hubmaiers Taufbüchlein, in Z 4, 585–​642. 70 Balthasar Hubmaier, Von der christlichen Taufe der Gläubigen, in Balthasar Hubmaier Schriften, ed. Gunnar Westin and Torsten Bergsten, Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte vol. 29, no. 9 (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1962), 118–​163. 71 Walther Köhler, “Einleitung Antwort über Balthasar Hubmaiers Taufbüchlein,” in Z 4, 580. 72 Huldreich Zwingli, In catabaptistarum strophas elenchus, in Z 6:1, 21–​196. For a modern English translation, see Huldreich Zwingli, Refutation of the Tricks of the Catabaptists, in SWZ, 123–​258. 73 Huldreich Zwingli, Ad Leonhardum Fontanum contra Suenckfefeldium, in Z 6:4, 26–​74. 74 Urbanus Rhegius was nevertheless a moderate and sought evangelical unity. 75 See Walther Köhler, “Einleitung De peccato originali ad Urbanum Rhegium,” in Z 5, 359–​360. 76 Huldreich Zwingli, De peccato originali declaratio ad Urbanum Rhegium, in Z 5, 369–​396. For a modern English translation see Huldreich Zwingli, Declaration of Huldreich Zwingli Regarding Original Sin, in LWZ 2, 1–​32.

Zwingli’s Covenantal Turn of 1525  71 satisfy Rhegius.77 The main point of the Lutheran critique of Zwingli, which increased after his Subsidium, remained the question of Christ’s presence (according to his human nature) in the elements of the Eucharist. Zwingli answered the Lutheran evaluation in several writings, which included Über Straussens Büchlein (January 1527).78 One of the most decisive was certainly the Amica exegesis (8 February 1527).79 In this work, directly addressed to Luther at the insistence of Martin Bucer and others, the Zurich Reformer articulated his interpretation of the Supper in unpolemical but sharp opposition to that of the German Reformer. Luther perceived it as a presumptuous and offensive provocation rather than a friendly call for rapprochement, and their theological disagreement took a personal turn. As the controversy grew, Zwingli developed his relationship to Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse, the political leader of the German “protestants” at the Imperial Diet at Speyer in 1529, who was interested in a united evangelical front. The Marburg Colloquy was called by Philip of Hesse the same year, and Zwingli dedicated his sermon De providentia (20 August 1530),80 held on that occasion, to the landgrave. The Marburg Colloquy not only failed to unite the Wittenberg and Zurich Reformers but instead clearly marked their irreconcilable differences. Zwingli’s Fidei ratio (3 July 1530)81 and his Fidei expositio (Summer 1531)82 were of a similar genre. They were both “confessions,” or digests, of the Christian faith as held by the Swiss Reformed and were both addressed to leading political powers of the time, the former to Emperor Charles V and the latter to French King Francis I. Fidei ratio represented the Zwinglian equivalent of the Lutheran Confessio Augustana and was sent to the emperor at the Diet of Augsburg, where toleration of the evangelicals was at issue. Fidei expositio was a renewed attempt to win Francis I for the Reformed

77 See Urbanus Rhegius, Urbanus Rhegius an Zwingli: Augsburg, 28. September 1526, in Z 8, 726–​ 728, no. 532. 78 Huldreich Zwingli, Antwort über Straussens Büchlein, in Z 5, 464–​547. 79 Huldreich Zwingli, Amica exegesis, in Z 5, 562–​758. For a modern English translation see Huldrych Zwingli, Friendly Exegesis, in HWZ 2, 238–​385. 80 Huldreich Zwingli, Ad illustrissimum Cattorum principem Philippum sermonis de providentia dei anamnema, in Z 6:3, 64–​230. For a modern English translation see Huldreich Zwingli, Reproduction from Memory of a Sermon on the Providence of God, in LWZ 2, 128–​234. 81 Huldreich Zwingli, Fidei ratio, in Z 6:2, 790–​817. For a modern English translation see Huldreich Zwingli, An Account of the Faith of Huldreich Zwingli, in LWZ 2, 33–​61. 82 Huldreich Zwingli, Christianae fidei brevis et clara expositio ad regem Christianum, in Z 6:5, 50–​ 163. For a modern English translation see Huldreich Zwingli, A Short and Clear Exposition of the Christian Faith, in LWZ 2, 235–​293.

72  Zwingli as Initiator cause, or at least for an alliance against the pope and the emperor. These confessions did not reach their intended religious-​political audiences, but they are testimony to the most mature and self-​confident expressions of Zwingli’s thought. Subsequent to Zwingli’s covenantal turn in 1525, we can observe a shift within his writing with respect to the terminology associated with his new theology of the covenant. We have already noted that gmächt, or testamentary contract, as apposition to “testament,” disappeared from Von der Taufe in favor of pflicht, or pledge. Pflicht was now put aside in favor of “covenant,” which went hand in hand with a more theological emphasis on the human part of the covenant. The term pflicht was still in use only as part of a compound noun, together with zeichen, that is, as pflichtzeichen (pledging token), and far less frequently than before. Zwingli’s key terms for defining the covenant were now definitely testament and pundt and their Latin equivalents testamentum and foedus or pactum, which often appear together as a pair. When used alone, pundt, foedus, or pactum were preferred to testament or testamentum. This preference does not point to any difference in meaning but depended largely on the biblical reference: Zwingli tended to translate ‫ ְּב ִרית‬of the Hebrew Old Testament to covenant and the διαθήκη of the New Testament to testament.83 As Genesis 17 grew in importance, the term “covenant” occurred more prominently. We will explore the textual evidence as I develop at length the relation of the testament or covenant to the sacraments. The term “sacrament” is no longer explicitly understood as a synonym of testament, but the idea of a communion or bond between Christ’s members that is testified to by the sacraments was still very present in Zwingli’s thinking. Zwingli repeatedly stressed covenantal continuity by way of the ecclesial unity between the people of Israel awaiting Christ’s coming and the Christian church. Hence, the terms ecclesia and kilche are given a covenantal orientation. The term promissio, closely associated to covenant in his Genesis commentary, was less prominent in subsequent writings.

83 As lecturer on the Septuagint at the Prophezei, Zwingli would have known that the oldest Greek translation of the Old Testament, like the New Testament (cf. Acts 7:8), translates ‫ ְּב ִרית‬by διαθήκη and not by the expected συνθήκη.

Zwingli’s Covenantal Turn of 1525  73

Old Testament Commentaries We turn first to Zwingli’s scriptural exposition. By his death, in 1531, Zwingli had expounded almost every book of the Old Testament in the Prophezei.84 His annotations for the Old Testament, especially for the Great Prophets, contain only remarkably sparse or sporadic comments with regard to the covenant. In most of the instances where the word “covenant” appears in the Bible text, Zwingli did not see the need for an annotation or homiletical note and ignored the term. (In comparison, in his sermon notes Bullinger would often include an excursus on the covenant.) Zwingli’s translation of the Psalms represented an exception, however, as he often added a short explanation when the word “covenant” appeared. Here I highlight some of this small number of covenantal references in the prophets and some references from the Psalms. Zwingli interpreted the Isaianic reference to the “everlasting covenant” in 24:5 as the “true covenant” made even with Gentiles, for the “fear of God,” or the “illumination and knowledge of God,” was shared with some non-​ Israelites too.85 This spiritual or heart-​related interpretation of the covenant is developed in particular in his exposition of Jeremiah 31:31–​34, on the promise of a “new covenant,” which is set in a redemptive-​historical pattern. The “newness” of the novum foedus does not refer to some change related to the substance of the covenant.86 Rather, the Gentiles are now integrated into the covenant with the Jews, forming one community that enjoys one same spiritual reality that has never changed.87 This reality is the remission of sin and the writing of the law into the heart. The law here is the moral law.88 The 84 For an overview of the books, see Bolliger, Nachwort, 528–​529. 85 See Huldreich Zwingli, Homilien zum Propheten Jesaja (zweite Parallelüberlieferung): Sermones populares ac vulgares ex propheta Esaia, in Z 15, 94: “ ‘Sempiternum foedus’ [v. 5] Den ewigen pundt, das ist der recht pundt, quod deus eciam cum gentibus pepigit. Gotsforcht ist der recht pundt, uff got sechen und vertruwen. Das erlüchten und erkantnus gottes, das gibt ouch got vilen under den heiden, ut Iob [1:1], Iethro, Senece, Socrati etc. . . . Das ist der eewig pundt, wenn got sin bildnis und erkantnus schribt und zuo verstan gibt”. 86 See Huldreich Zwingli, Erklärungen zum Propheten Jeremia (zweite Parallelüberlieferung): In Ieremiam prophe[tam] ser[mones], in Z 15, 361: “Nec novum dicitur, quod deus sit novus aut quod nobis aliquid fecerit, quod non antea proposuerit.” 87 See Huldreich Zwingli, Erklärungen zum Propheten Jeremia (dritte Parallelüberlieferung): Ieremias Propheta, in Z 16, 217–​218: “Hic clare notantur exponunturque superiora, que dominus iusserat prophetam in libro scribere [30, 2] pro memoria eterna rerum earum, que deus facturus esset colligendo ex gentibus ecclesiam, que coniungeretur Iudaice, et quod ea, que superius dicta sunt presertim de congregatione et plenitudine ac ubertate onmium rerum a deo promissarum, non sint corporaliter adimplenda, sed spiritualiter.” 88 Zwingli, Erklärungen zum Propheten Jeremia (zweite Parallelüberlieferung), 218–​219: “Loquitur hic de lege, quam pactum vocat, de lege, inquam, non ceremoniarum, de quibus patribus mandatrnn

74  Zwingli as Initiator difference between the old testament and the new testament is not ultimately between law and gospel but rather between external law and internal law. Or, to put the matter in Pauline terminology, between letter and spirit (2 Cor. 3). Zwingli related the Mosaic law in the first instance to the ceremonial law. The ceremonial law could already be understood spiritually or internally insofar as it is understood as a prefiguration or anticipation of Christ in the old testament. However, Christ’s coming has rendered it obsolete. Zwingli mentioned three differences relating to the transition from the old testament to the new testament: We speak of a new covenant [pactum] or new testament not because there is a new invention by a new god about new things or a new faith, but, firstly, because everything that was adumbrated before has now come to pass. Secondly, because gentiles are newly called into the church. Thirdly, as is clear from what follows, because in the old testament a certain ceremony with sacrifices was needed for the expiation of sins, whereas now we offer ourselves to God with contrition of heart in humility.89

There is a historical difference as Christ has now come. There is a difference with the participation of the formerly excluded Gentiles, and there is a difference in the liturgy, or the way worship is rendered to God. This internal-​external antithesis is, however, also applied to the law in more general terms, that is, it is applied to the moral law. The moral law given at Sinai could be also be received without the Spirit and only as letter, or, in Zwingli’s words, the law can be received either externally, in the stone tablet or, figuratively, in a heart of stone, or internally, in a heart made receptive by the Holy Spirit. In the case of external reception, the law is of no use as dedit, sed de preceptis, que spectant ad innocentiam vite veram, ut prorsus excludat ceremonias legis, que erant in significationem futurorum.” 89 Zwingli, Erklärungen zum Propheten Jeremia (dritte Parallelüberlieferung), 219: “Et dicitur novum pactum vel novum testamentum, non quod sit novi dei novum inventum et de novis rebus aut nova fide, sed primo, quod omnia, que prius significata, iam venerunt. Secundo, quod gentes noviter in ecclesiam vocate sint. Tercio, ut ex sequentibus liquet, quod, cum olim in veteri testamento peccata externo quodam cultu et victimis expiari oportebat, nunc autem fide corda innovantur et purgentur, cum contritione cordis nos deo in suavitatem offerimus.” See also Zwingli, Erklärungen zum Propheten Jeremia (zweite Parallelüberlieferung), 361: “Sed ideo novum dicitur, quod, que prius significativa et figurativa fuerant, iam cessarunt in Christo. Deinde et novus populus accrevit, scilicet gentilis ad Iudaicum. Item olim sacrificia pecuina fiebant, que non poterant mentem purgare. Novum testamentum est deum spiritu nosse et illi syncero pectore adherere. Quod et veteres habuerunt, sed non ita clare.”

Zwingli’s Covenantal Turn of 1525  75 there is no interest in it. In contrast to the Lutheran-​Melanchthonian view, the elenchtical or pedagogical use of the law, the law as terror, is for Zwingli already the work of the Spirit. The first use of the law, however, is only a momentum within the ordo salutis that leads to Christ. The law shall be eventually written “on the heart on faithful so that they . . . would spontaneously do the things that the law once commanded.” This third use of the law in renatis or for the faithful results not in fear but in “desire and joy” to do God’s will.90 Similarly, the preaching of the gospel can be received either as letter or as spirit. Zwingli overcame the Lutheran-​Melanchthonian law-​gospel antithesis and worked in terms of a law-​gospel distinction. The law can be received as gospel or spirit as much as the gospel could be received as law or letter. Ultimately, the internal reception of the law and the gospel through the Holy Spirit rests on election by God. Election does not depend on the external proclamation, which is an instrument in the service of God’s elective purpose.91 In his exposition of Jeremiah 31:31–​34, Zwingli had already emphasized the priority and perpetuity of the believing Israel in the one spiritual covenant,92 a position especially evident in his exposition of Ezekiel 16:61. The covenant is per se with Israel. The Gentiles were added to the “Jewish church,” which heard the gospel first out of God’s liberality “beyond his covenant” with Israel.93 A key comment is found in Zwingli’s exposition 90 Zwingli, Erklärungen zum Propheten Jeremia (dritte Parallelüberlieferung), 220: “Nunc autem scribam lege meam in corda fidelium, ut qui ea lege fidei imbuti facient ea, que olim lex iubebat, idque sponte et ultro. Quasi dicat: Ich wil dz hertz bereiten, dz es sich got ergibt, dz es niener an me lust und fröud hat dan an gottes wort und will, welches dz hertz, dz nit glouben hat, nit thuot etc.” 91 Zwingli, Erklärungen zum Propheten Jeremia (dritte Parallelüberlieferung), 220: “Externa, inquam, doctrina a quocunque tandem fiat, eciam si fieri debeat divino iussu, non est nisi instrumentum divini spiritus, qui corda illustrat et docet, quod, ubi ille non inspiraverit, non potest operari externum verbum, ut verum sit, quod Christus dixit Ioan. 6 [44]: ‘Nemo venit ad me, nisi pater meus traxerit eum’, et iterum [cf. Joh 6,46. 7,28f. 8,55]: Nemo novit patrem nisi filius etc. Dar umm mag kein rnensch den andren nöten zuo gots erkantnuß, die allein von got kumpt, ders ins hertz schribt.” See further Zwingli, Erklärungen zum Propheten Jeremia (dritte Parallelüberlieferung), 221: “Wer die erkantnus und glauben warlich in im hatt, dz ist ein zeichen der erwellung gots, welche aber nit, die sind nit erwelt von got sälig zewerden.” 92 Zwingli, Erklärungen zum Propheten Jeremia (dritte Parallelüberlieferung), 222: “ ‘Et semen Israel deficiet, ut’ etc. [v.36]. More Heb[raico] ut supra pro: semen IsraeI non deficiet, sed semper erit gens. Tam abest, quod ego imperpetuum repudiare velim Israel a lege fidei, quod eum, quem elegi, eternaliter habiturus sim, ut me semper agnoscat et colat. Et intelligitur primo de populo Iudaico, quod eum non omnino abiicere velit, sed reliquias servire, de quo Pau[lus] loquitur Ro. 11 [23]: ‘llli, si non permanserint in incredulitate, inserentur.’ Et rursum [Rom. 11:25]: ‘Excecatio ex parte Israel accidit, donec plenitudo gentium’ etc. Testes sunt apostoli, qui erant de gente Iudaica. Ergo omnes, qui de gente Iudaica Christum receperunt, inter filios dei connumerati sunt.” 93 Huldreich Zwingli, Erklärungen zu den Propheten Ezechiel und Daniel sowie den zwölf Kleinen Propheten: Scholia H.Z. in Ezechielem, Danielem et in 12 prophetas minores, in Z 14, 706: “ ‘Et non ex foedere’ [v. 61]. Intelligit matrimoniale foedus et pactum. Nam gentes non ex pacto adducuntur et dantur Judaice ecclesie, ubi primum verbum evangelii predicatum est. Pactum matrimoniale et ut Iudei essent populus dei et ipse verus deus. Sed quod gentes sunt adducte et eis date et adiuncte, est liberum extra pactum. Hac lege se deus remissurum peccata promittit, si resipuerimus et

76  Zwingli as Initiator of Hosea. Regarding the broken “covenant with Adam” mentioned in Hosea 6:7, he explicitly referred to the fall in Genesis 3.94 This mention further indicates that Zwingli considered the prelapsarian state of man as a covenant. The covenantal references in the Great Prophets are sparse, but in his translation of the Psalms, as I have noted, Zwingli made more regular annotations, by way of comparison, especially when the word covenant is explicitly mentioned in the biblical text. His recurring recourse to the Abrahamic pundt95 is striking. Most of his annotations are summarized by a comment to Psalm 50:596 in which the Reformer paraphrased Genesis 17:1: “The highest covenant [punt] with God consists in having him as our God, and hence walking according to his will, and having him as the one who can give us all things that we need for body and soul.”97 The covenant is to have God as God, which consists of grasping his grace through faith and subsequently walking before him according to his will. The bilateral aspect of the covenant is emphasized. In reference to another psalm, Zwingli could define the covenant more Christocentrically as God’s unilateral “covenant to give his son”98 (Ps. 55:21). Also significant is an annotation that refers to “God’s elect, who are anointed as the covenanted”99 (Ps. 105:15), thus combining the themes of election and covenant.

New Testament Commentaries From the summer of 1526 Zwingli began to exposit the New Testament.100 While the Old Testament sessions took place in the morning at the mores mutaverimus. Nam in hoc pacto requiritur. Tunc vere resipimus, si huc redacti fuerimis, ut agnoscentes nos peccatores pre multitudine peccatorim non audemus os aperire implorantes misericordiam dei.” 94 Zwingli, Erklärungen zu den Propheten Ezechiel und Daniel sowie den zwölf Kleinen Propheten, 766: “ ‘Isti autem sicut Adam transgressi’ [v. 7]. Sie sunt contumaces, sequuntur sua iumenta quemadmodum ille diaboli consilium [Gen. 3:6].” 95 See Huldreich Zwingli, Übersetzungen der Psalmen und Erläuterungen zu einzelnen Stellen, in Z 13, 528, 590–​591, 601, 655, 718, 724–​725, 748, 794. 96 Zwingli’s translation is idiosyncratic as he pits the covenant against the sacrifices, see Zwingli, Übersetzungen der Psalmen, 590: “versamlend mir mine heligen, die minen pundt über die opfer haltend.” (Italics mine) 97 Zwingli, Übersetzungen der Psalmen, 590: “Der höchst punt mit got, das wir inn für unsern got haltind und darnach vor im wandlind nach sinem willen und habend inn für den, das er uns alles mög gäben, des wir bedörffend an lib und se.” 98 Zwingli, Übersetzungen der Psalmen, 601. 99 Zwingli, Übersetzungen der Psalmen, 725: “die userwelten gotz sind die gsalbeten, die pundtsgnossen.” 100 For an overview of the books see Bolliger, Nachwort, 531.

Zwingli’s Covenantal Turn of 1525  77 Grossmünster, the New Testament gatherings were held in the afternoon at the Fraumünster. References to the covenant are also thin in Zwingli’s annotations to the New Testament. In his exposition of the Gospel of Luke, Zwingli equated God’s foedus in Luke 1:72 with his promissiones, as we also noted in his Genesis commentary.101 His comments on the Pauline Epistles, however, are far more pertinent. In Roman 9:4 Zwingli interpreted the Pauline expression testamenta as follows: “[Paul] speaks of the testament that God made once with the human race and which he affirmed. [God] made the undivided [testament] through this people first with the fathers, then through the prophets, through the Son, and through the apostles.”102 The continuity of the covenant (testamentum) is particularly emphasized, for the fathers, the prophets, the Son, and the apostles are assembled in one redemptive-​ historical line. Note Zwingli’s move from the plural form of the biblical text to the singular form in his exposition. The testamentum mentioned in Roman 11:27 is basically defined as the unilateral “remission of sin, which [God] writes on the heart and which Christ confirmed through his blood.”103 With the reference to writing on the heart, Zwingli was probably alluding to Jeremiah 31:31–​34, which speaks, however, of the law written on the heart (see above). The Reformer had no problem merging the gospel of the remission of sin with the moral law written on the believer’s heart (third use of the law). In the 11th chapter of Paul’s Epistle to the Corinthians, the words of institution of the Lord’s Supper, especially the testament, are also discussed in a manner similar to the covenantal rationale found in the Subsidium. His definition of the covenant follows in more bilateral terms, as between two parties, Christ and us: “The testament or covenant, consists in Christ, the Son of God, being ours, and we being through Him elected as sons of God.”104 The election of the covenanted precludes, however, any synergistic understanding of the redemption offered in the covenant. Zwingli then immediately referred 101 Huldreich Zwingli, Erklärungen zum Evangelium nach Lukas: Annotationes in Evangelium Lucae, in Z 18, 22. 102 Huldreich Zwingli, Erklärungen zum Brief an die Römer: In epistolam ad Romanos annotationes, in Z 21, 57: “ ‘Et testamenta’ [v . 4]. Testamentum dicitur, quidquid deus cum humano genere unquam fecit et testatus est, et hoc totum fecit per hanc gentem, primum cum patribus, deinde per prophetas, per filium, per apostolos.” =​“‘And the testaments.’ [Paul] speaks of the testament that God made once with the human race and which he affirmed. [God] made the undivided [testament] through this people first with the fathers, then through the prophets, through the Son, and through the apostles.” 103 Zwingli, Erklärungen zum Brief an die Römer, 74: “remissio peccatorum, quod scribit in cor; hoc firmavit Christus sanguine suo.” 104 Huldreich Zwingli, Erklärungen zum 1. Brief an die Korinther: In Priorem ad Corinthios annotationes, in Z 21, 157: “Testamentum enim sive foedus, hoc est, quod Christus, dei Filius, noster est et nos per cum in filios dei cooptati sumus.”

78  Zwingli as Initiator to the testator’s death in light of Galatians and Hebrews as the confirmation of the unilateral bestowal of the testament. Zwingli’s exposition of the third chapter of the second Epistle to the Corinthians,105 where the new testament is opposed to the old testament, follows the Pauline argument of the letter-​Spirit antithesis that we have already noted in relation to Jeremiah 31:31–​34. He began his exposition with a rhetorical question: “Did God really make another testament?”106 The Latin formulation of the question anticipates a negative answer. According to Zwingli, Paul would have answered as follows: When I said that I am a minister of the new testament, I did not intend to say that there was another god or that [God] had made another testament. But the old testament was nothing else than the letter through which we were killed, such as [the commandment] “You shall not covet” [Exod. 20:17]. However, Christ vivifies believers through his spirit in their heart.107

God remains the same and there is no other testament. Zwingli affirmed covenantal continuity. Nevertheless, Zwingli opposed the deadly letter of the old testament to Christ’s vivifying spirit in the new testament. The fundamental question for Zwingli was whether the law has been given to us externally as letter (Moses) or internally as spirit (Christ). Admittedly, Zwingli could also speak of a law-​grace antithesis in the strongest terms, akin to Lutheran-​Melanchthonian language.108 However, this antithesis merges at the end with the Pauline letter-​Spirit antithesis, which opposes the external law and the internal law, with the former leading to justification by works and ceremonialism.109

105 For a more detailed analysis of Zwingli’s exegesis of the letter-​Spirit antithesis in 2 Cor. 3 in comparison with Luther’s and Melanchthon’s, see Hildebrand, “Geist und Buchstabe.” 106 Huldreich Zwingli, Erklärungen zum 2. Brief an die Korinther: In Secundam ad Corinthios annotationes, in Z 21, 199: “Num deus aliud testamenturn condidit?” 107 Zwingli, Erklärungen zum 2. Brief an die Korinther, 199: “Quod me dixi ministrum novi testamenti, non in hoc dixi, quasi deus alius sit factus aut aliud testamentum condiderit, sed quod vetus testamentum aliud nihil erat quam litera, qua occidebamur, ut: ‘Non concupisces’ [Ex 20, 17]; Christus vero per spiritum suum in corde vivificat credentes.” 108 Zwingli, Erklärungen zum 2. Brief an die Korinther, 200: “Administrationem mortis et condemnationis legem vocat, quae docet et ostendit nos, mortuos esse et condemnatos; administrationem vero iustitiae gratiam, quae iustitiam subministrat, nostram, sed iustitiam Iesu Christi, quae nostra facta est;” 109 Zwingli, Erklärungen zum 2. Brief an die Korinther, 200: “Egressio autem est tacita, qua Paulus omnia legis Mosaicae exteriora reiicit taxatque eos, qui ad opera legis pelliciebant aut qui pro ceremoniis legis digladiabantur.” (Italics mine)

Zwingli’s Covenantal Turn of 1525  79 Zwingli’s exposition of Hebrews also highlights how he distinguished between the old and new testaments. The old testament is taken more narrowly for the ceremonial law or the Levitical priesthood.110 When speaking of Christ’s higher sacrifice and priesthood, he compared the lex Christi to the Levitical law.111 Tellingly, he used the expression “Christ’s law” to refer to the unique priestly office of Christ and his propitious sacrifice for the remission of sins, not to moral standards, so quasi as the ceremonial law of the new testament. He associated this law again with the new testament referred to in Jeremiah 31:31–​34. Nevertheless, Christ is seen in continuity, as the perfection or consummation of the old testament and its priesthood. Here too, Zwingli thought in terms of the external-​internal antithesis. The Levitical law leads to “external purification,” Christ to “everlasting redemption.”112 This antithesis is grounded in the divine nature of Christ and his sacrifice, as already referred to in earlier writings with respect to the everlasting testament discussed in the first chapter.113 Zwingli never used foedus in his annotations to Hebrews, a term that usually conveys a bilateral emphasis. Testamentum is translated at some places as the early modern German gmächt114 and is basically defined in unilateral terms, as remission of sins from the legal practice of a testamentary contract.115

110 See Zwingli, Erklärungen zum Brief an die Hebräer, 331–​333. 111 Zwingli, Erklärungen zum Brief an die Hebräer, 335: “Hoc est, testamentum et haec lex sacerdotii Christi praestantior fuit lege Levitarum. Christi enim hostia et sacrificio salvi reddimur, quod non factum est sacrificiis Leviticis. Atque ita docet praestantio rem esse et praestantiora habere legem Christi. Locum itaque Hieremiae citans ad suum accommodat institutum. Quasi dicat: Ex Hieremia [31:31–​34] etiam constat deum praedixisse testamentum hoc vetus, id est sacrificandi hunc ritum Leviticum abolendum locoque eius novum instituendum. Dabit enim deus filium suum, qui seipso semel litato iram patris coelestis placabit, idque non solum pro Iudaeis, sed et cunctis gentibus.” 112 Zwingli, Erklärungen zum Brief an die Hebräer, 338: “Christus semel litavit, alias oblatio eius quemadmodum pontificum veteris testamenti non fuisset perfecta ac consummata. Denique legalis externam purificationem, noster sacerdos Christus perpetuam invenit redemptionem.” 113 See Zwingli, Erklärungen zum Brief an die Hebräer, 344: “Hoc, inquam, testamentum, quod nobis cum deo est quodque testamentum deus opt[imus] max[imus] non hircorum, sed filii sui proprio sanguine dedicavit ac confirmavit.” 114 See Zwingli, Erklärungen zum Brief an die Hebräer, 331.335. 115 See Zwingli, Erklärungen zum Brief an die Hebräer, 339: “Quandoquidem testamentum ratum nullum est nisi morte testatoris. Argumento ergo sumpto a communi mortaliurn consuetudine probat Christi ratem esse testamentum necessumque fuisse Christum mortem subire, si novi testamenti reconciliator esse velit. Vide 1. Corinth. 11 [25]: ‘Hoc poculurn novum testamcntum in meo sanguine,’ hoc est, per sanguinem meum testamentum novum, id est gratuita peccatorum rernissio generi humano obveniet.”

80  Zwingli as Initiator

Baptism Although the Subsidium points to the Eucharist controversy as the contextual origin for Reformed covenant theology, we must acknowledge that after Zwingli’s covenantal turn his position became central to his arguments against the Anabaptists. This fact would eventually lead to Schrenk’s influential thesis about the Anabaptist origins, noted earlier. The first writing of this nature subsequent to Zwingli’s covenantal turn was that open response, written in November 1525, to the Anabaptist leader and theologian Balthasar Hubmaier (1480–​1523). As we heard, Hubmaier had published a small treatise on baptism with polemical overtones entitled Von dem christenlichen Tauff der gläubigen against Zwingli’s earlier writing Von der Taufe. Comparison of Zwingli’s thoughts on baptism found in Von der Taufe, so before his covenantal turn, and his Antwort, his first text after that turn, highlights the contrast. In the former, Zwingli argued from analogy or from testamental discontinuity between the old and new testaments. In the latter, Zwingli’s claim rested on covenantal continuity. In his foreword to the Antwort, Zwingli pointed to the foundational ecclesial unity between Abraham’s posterity and Christians as grounded in covenantal continuity: “Note in summary that the children of Christians are in the testament, in the church or covenant as well as Abraham’s offspring. If they are in the church of Christ, why do you want to cut them off from the sign of the testament?”116 “Church” sits alongside “testament” and “covenant” such that the church functions here as a synonym for the covenant. Zwingli argued that Christian children are in the testament, church, or covenant “as well as” Abraham’s posterity, that is, ultimately old testament Israel. This argument is repeatedly presented by Zwingli in connection with church unity, as we will see in his other writings. Significantly, he immediately specified the kind of church of which he was speaking, namely, the church of Christ. Zwingli assumed a fundamental continuity grounded in Christ from Abraham to the church of his own time. This continuity has an immediate consequence for Zwingli’s understanding of the sacrament of baptism, wherein we observe a change in

116 Zwingli, Antwort, 588: “Merck in einer summ, das der Christen kinder glych im testament, kilchen oder pundt sind wie der som Abrahams. Sind sy nun in der kilchen Christi, warumb wöllend ir inen das testamentzeichen abschlahen?” (Italics mine)

Zwingli’s Covenantal Turn of 1525  81 emphasis from the ethical to the theological, from a token of human pledging to a token testifying God’s gracious pledging. Although Zwingli reiterated the summary theses first formulated in Von der Taufe, he reinterpreted them in light of his new understanding of the covenant. The terminology used in the Antwort provides evidence of this shift when it is compared with the terminology used in the earlier Von der Taufe. The term pledge (pflicht) was dominant in Von der Taufe, whereas Zwingli’s mentioning of the covenant (pundt) or the sign of the covenant (pundtzeichen) was more hesitant. In the Antwort, pundt and its synonyms clearly prevail, whereas the term pflicht, with two occurrences in apposition to pundt, has almost disappeared. Pundt is used 43 times by Zwingli and Pundtzeichen 14 times. The pledging sign (Pflichtzeichen) occurs 11 times and there are two occurrences of the verb (ver-​)pflichten (to pledge). However, these occurrences of pflicht are mostly found in the second part of the text. In this second section,117 Zwingli quoted and interpreted anew the theses of Von der Taufe, in which the term pflicht was already used. Zwingli was therefore compelled to repeat the same term. Nevertheless, he understood it now in a different way. We can now work through the Antwort, highlighting places where we observe this shift. The Anabaptist Hubmaier argued for baptism as “a public testimony of faith,”118 a reference to believer’s baptism. Essentially Zwingli could accept this definition on condition that “faith” was taken not as a subjective confession of faith (fides qua) but in the sense of the objective content of the faith professed (fides quae). Zwingli wrote that baptism is “a token or initiation into the Christian faith, i.e. into the Christian testament or covenant [pundt].”119 With the content of the faith defined as “Christian testament or covenant,” faith and covenant have become interchangeable terms. And what exactly is the content of this faith and covenant? Zwingli explained that baptism, as a token of the Christian faith, is itself taken for the covenant or testament, which is nothing else but “Christ himself.”120 Christ 117 Zwingli, Antwort, 627–​641. 118 Zwingli, Antwort, 621. 119 Zwingli, Antwort, 621: “Ja, wenn du also ‘den glouben’ für ‘den gantzen innhalt des pundts’ nemmen wilt, so wil ich’s mit dir haben. Denn tuost du im recht, daß du den touf ein offne verzügnus, das ist: pundtszeichen, sacrament, teletam [τελετἠν], pflichtszeichen oder derglychen, nennest; dann es ist ein offne kundtschaft, verzeichnung, oder initiation des christenen gloubens, das ist: des christenen testaments oder pundts.” (Italics mine) 120 Zwingli, Antwort, 622: “Also wirt hie der ‘touf,’ der allein ein zeichen des christenen gloubens ist, das ist: der christenlichen summ des christenlichen testaments, für ‘das testament’ oder ‘Christum selbs’ genommen.” (Italics mine)

82  Zwingli as Initiator is said to be the “summary of the Christian testament” or, in other words, the epitome of the covenant. Christ had already been epitomized by Zwingli as the new testament in eucharistic writings before the Reformer’s covenantal turn. However, Christ is now said to be the summary of the one covenant, which includes the old testament and the new testament, as becomes clear as the Reformer argues for infant baptism. A further indication of the covenantal shift is provided by the new emphasis on grace with respect to what baptism signifies. Zwingli took advantage of Hubmaier’s concession that God might eventually save the unbaptized children “by grace,”121 and asked, rhetorically, “Tell me, however, how do we become blessed? By grace? I hear therefore well, that we become blessed by grace, as well as [our children].”122 If Anabaptists themselves recognized that Christian children and their parents are saved by grace, Zwingli could point out Hubmaier’s inconsistency as he made his case for infant baptism. He wrote, “Then, as soon we recognize by way of the covenant that God has made with Christian people that they are no less blessed or Children of God than in the old testament, it follows that we should give them the sign of the covenant no less than in the old testament.”123 The relationship between grace and covenant was not obvious in Von der Taufe. Here, however, it is clearly affirmed. That grace is the element of continuity in the covenant is all the more emphasized in the second part of the text, where Zwingli reinterpreted the theses at the end of Von der Taufe in light of his covenantal turn. On infant baptism he recorded: I. The children of Christians are no less children of God than their parents, just as in the old testament. If [children] belong to God, who wants to deny them water baptism? II. Circumcision was for the ancient [people] a sign similar to what baptism is for us. As children were circumcised, so should we baptize children.124

121 Zwingli, Antwort, 625. 122 Zwingli, Antwort, 625: “Sag aber an, wodurch werdend wir sälig? Uss gnad? So hör ich wol, wir werdend eben uss gnaden sälig, wie ouch sy.” 123 Zwingli, Antwort, 625: “Denn so bald sy durch den pundt, den gott mit dem christenen volck hat, erkennt werdend nüt minder sälig sin unnd kinder gottes weder im alten testament, so volgt von stund an, das man sy ouch nitt weniger mit dem pundtszeychen bezeychnen sol weder im alten testament.” 124 Zwingli, Antwort, 629; see also Zwingli, Von der Taufe, 333: “Vom kindertouff.

Zwingli’s Covenantal Turn of 1525  83 To strengthen the first thesis Zwingli undertook an exposition of Genesis 17:1–​7, summarizing God’s covenanting with Abraham in seven points. We refer to the fifth point: Fifthly, [God] requested them to bear circumcision as a seal, a covenant sign or a pledging token, which he also requested children to bear. This is a sure proof that they were no less in God’s grace and covenant [pündtnus] than their parents. God would not have requested them to give the token to [their children] if they were not members or partakers of his covenant and people.125 (Italics mine)

Circumcision is now defined as “proof,” or evidence, of a state of grace that is synonymous with covenantal membership. That circumcision now univocally means or signifies the same as baptism is obvious from Zwingli’s interpretation of the second thesis: The other proposition “that our children are no less children of God than the children of the Israelites were” is proven as follows: It is evident to all believers that the Christian covenant or new testament is precisely the old covenant with Abraham. Except that we now have Christ unveiled, which was still promise to them.126 (Italics mine)

The new testament is unambiguously identified with the old Abrahamic covenant. Covenantal continuity cannot be expressed in stronger terms. Once more we meet the well-​known promise-​fulfillment pattern with regard to Christ, the very foundation and substance of this one, gracious covenant. The parallelism between the new testament and the Abrahamic covenant was I. Der Christen kinder sind nüts minder gotteskinder weder ire elteren, glych als wol als im alten testament. So sy nun gottes sind, wär wil inen vor dem wassertouf sin? II. Die bschnydung ist den alten gewäsen, des zeychens halb, das uns der touf ist. Wie nun die den kinden ggeben ist, also sol ouch der touf den kinden ggeben werden.” 125 Zwingli, Antwort, 631: “Das fünft stuck ist, das er sy hat gheyssen die bschnydung tragen, ein sigel-​oder pundts-​oder pflichtszeichen, welches er ouch den kinden hat gheyssen geben; welches ein gwüsse bewärnus ist, das sy in der gnad unnd pündtnus gottes nüts weniger sind gsin weder die elteren; oder aber gott hette inen das zeychen nit heyssen geben, wenn sy nit glider und mitgeteylen sines pundts unnd volcks wärind.” (Italics mine) 126 Zwingli, Antwort, 634–​635: “Der ander punct ‘das unsere kinder nüts weniger gottes kinder sygind, dann der Israeler kinder warend’, wirt also bewärt: Es ist offenbar by allen glöubigen, das der christenlich pundt oder nüw testament eben der alt pundt Abrahams ist, usgenommen, das wir Christum, der yenen nun verheissen was, bar habend.” (Italics mine)

84  Zwingli as Initiator eminently demonstrated by Zwingli in a schematized comparison following his seven-​point exposition of Genesis 17:1–​7: Abraham’s chart.

The Christian’s chart.

I . God II. is Abraham’s God. III. He should walk uprightly before Him. IV. He is also the God of his offspring. V. To Abraham God promised the savior. VI. Covenant sign: circumcision of young children and adults. VII. However, children are first taught in due time.

I . II. III. IV.

God all-​sufficient is our God. Before Him we should walk. He is also the God of our offspring. V. The savior was supplied to us by God. VI. Covenant sign: baptism of young children and adults. VII. Children are taught in due time.*

*Zwingli, Antwort, 638: “Abrahams tafel. I. Gott II. ist Abrahams gott. III. Der sol recht vor im wandlen IV. Der ist ouch sines somens gott. V. Abrahamen hat gott den heiland verheissen. VI. Pundtszeichen: bschnydung junger kinden und alter. VII. Noch lert man die kinder erst zuo siner zyt. Der Christen tafel. I. Gott alle gnueege, II. ist unser gott. III. Vor dem söllend wir recht wandlen. IV. Der ist ouch unsers somens gott. V. Den heyland hat uns gott geleystet. VI. Pundtszeychen: touf junger kinden und alter. VII. Kinder leert man zuo syner zyt.”

The unique difference between the charts is found in the specific sign of the covenant. It is, however, not a difference “regarding power” but one regarding the externality of the seal.127 Zwingli reaffirmed circumcision’s substitution by baptism just as he had in Von der Taufe, that is, in stating that Christ’s blood has put an end to the bloody ceremonies.128 What exactly is the function of the law from the perspective of covenantal continuity? We gained a glimpse of its purpose from Zwingli’s exegetical writings. His view of the law was more complex than has often been allowed, and, unfortunately, it has never been the subject of a thorough treatment.129 We cannot present an exhaustive treatment of Zwingli and the law here, but

127 Zwingli, Antwort, 638 128 See Zwingli, Antwort, 638. 129 With the possible exception of Walther Eisinger’s unpublished dissertation, Gesetz und Evangelium bei Huldrych Zwingli (PhD Dissertation, Universität Heidelberg, 1957). Locher discusses

Zwingli’s Covenantal Turn of 1525  85 we can usefully limit ourselves to the interrelation of the law with the covenant. Zwingli’s covenantal turn in 1525 also affected his view of the law. Before that turn, we observed a law-​grace antithesis between Abraham’s covenant and Christ’s testament, as was especially evident in Zwingli’s discussion of the pledging sign: circumcision pledges to (old testament) law, while baptism pledges to (new testament) grace.130 After Zwingli’s covenantal turn, we can speak of grace or Christ through and under the old testament law. As we could already conclude from his exposition of Exodus 24, Zwingli saw the Sinaitic covenant as basically in continuity with the Abrahamic in Genesis 17 and, therefore, with the new testament. However, Zwingli was somewhat confusing in his definition of the Mosaic law, as we see from two senses he gave to it in his Antwort. In its first sense, the Mosaic law is taken for “the bloody or fleshly law,”131 which must have meant the ceremonial law. Moses as such belongs to Abraham’s covenant, but not “the law of Moses.”132 The Mosaic law evidently refers to the ceremonies that were not part of the original covenant with Abraham but came under Moses in anticipation of the ultimate revelation of Christ. The second sense given to the Mosaic law actually includes and emphasizes the moral law as becomes evident in Zwingli’s discussion of the difference between the old and the new testaments: “The [difference] is that the covenant of Abraham is made with a new people, i.e. the gentiles, and that Christ, who redeemed us from the law of Moses, is now supplied, who was still a promise [in the old testament].”133 The twofold difference between Abraham’s covenant and Christ’s covenant

it briefly in the context of the whole body of Zwingli’s theology or in comparison to Luther’s and Calvin’s own views, see Locher, Die Zwinglische Reformation, 214–​215; Locher, Grundzüge, 233–​ 239. In his earlier systematic work on Zwingli’s Christology, the law is not even listed in the table of contents, Gottfried W. Locher, Die Theologie Huldrych Zwinglis im Lichte seiner Christologie, Studien zur Dogmengeschichte und systematischen Theologie 1 (Zurich: Zwingli-​Verlag, 1952), 7–​8. Stephens has only a small subchapter on “The Law and the New Life,” in Stephens, The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli, 164–​169. 130 See Zwingli, Von der Taufe, 219. 131 Zwingli, Antwort, 636. 132 Zwingli, Antwort, 636–​637: “Hie reychend wir alleyn dahin, das wir eben in den pundt, den Abraham mit gott gehept hat, nit in das gsatzt Moses yngelassen unnd angenommen sygind, das die vordrigen kundschafften eigenlich anzeygend. Darumb Paulus allenthalben uns kinder Abrahams, nit Moses kinder, macht; nitt, das Moses nitt im pundt Abrahams gewäsen sye, sunder das wir erlernind, daß wir nit in das lyplich gsatzt mit dem pundt getrungen werdind; denn Abraham ist 400 jar vor dem gesatzt gewäsen, das Mosen ggeben ist.” 133 Zwingli, Antwort, 637: “Sprichst: ‘Was underscheyds ist dann zwüschend dem alten und nüwen testament?’ Der, das der pundt Abrahams mit eim nüwen volck ist gmachet: mit den heyden; und das Christus yetz geleystet ist, der im noch nun verheissen was, der uns vom gsatzt Moses erlößt hat.”

86  Zwingli as Initiator comprises, on one hand, the enlargement of the one covenant to the Gentiles, and, on the other hand, the fulfillment of what was formerly anticipated as promise. This fulfillment is summarized as the redemption of “us,” that is the Gentiles, from the law of Moses. The first-​person-​plural point of view signals that the Mosaic law can hardly be confined to the ceremonial law, which concerned only the Jews.134 Furthermore, as this salvation was already promised to Abraham, the law cannot be restricted to the ceremonial law, which came only after Abraham. Zwingli likely referred to the moral law. Accordingly, the moral law exemplified in the Decalogue is in Zwinglian understanding not ultimately Mosaic but instead a substantial part of the one covenant of grace from the beginning of redemptive history. If here the elenchtical or pedagogical use of the law is manifest, we must remember, as Zwingli’s exposition of Exodus 24 testifies, that the law has the ultimate goal of functioning as the norm for life in the covenant. The covenant of grace restores the God-​ human relationship, which is “conditioned” or normalized by the law (usus normativus or in renatis). However, the usus paedogogicus and the usus normativus are part of one and the same covenant. The moral law is not confined in Melanchthonian-​Lutheran fashion to the old testament versus new testament. As we observed in Zwingli’s answer to Hubmaier, covenantal continuity became foundational in arguing for infant baptism. Zwingli never departed from this insight, but now, with subsequent writings, he stressed its inherent correlation with election.135 God’s predestination had already been addressed in subordination to providence early on by the Reformed Zwingli.136 This locus grew in independence and importance with the theological dispute over the function of baptism. Historically, the decisive impetus for this development was likely the Lutheran polemic against Zwingli concerning his understanding of original sin. In Von der Taufe he had spoken of original sin as an inborn “disease [präst] from Adam”137 that would eventually lead to sinful acts but does not stand under damnation in and of itself. This seeming 134 See above Zwingli’s exposition of Gen. 15. 135 This fact as such is a serious challenge to the thesis held since the nineteenth century that sees within the Reformed tradition(s) two lines of development, one rooted in election and predestinarianism and the other in covenant theology and redemptive history. The Baker thesis is based on a fundamental dichotomy between election and covenant theology. This dichotomy is evidently not shared by Zwingli, the initiator of Reformed covenant theology, who sees election as more complementary than antithetical to the covenant. Baker’s defense rests on the claim that Zwingli had no genuine theology of the covenant, see MacCoy and Baker, Fountainhead of Federalism, 21. 136 See Stephens, The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli, 97–​98. 137 Zwingli, Von der Taufe, 307.

Zwingli’s Covenantal Turn of 1525  87 break with the Augustinian tradition was grist for the mill for anyone who already held Zwingli to be a heretic, as the Lutherans did. Even sympathizers were disturbed by Zwingli’s heterodox comment. Urbanus Rhegius asked his friend for an explanation, and Zwingli responded, as we have heard, in De peccato originali. It is not our intention here to explore every detail of Zwingli’s hamartiology, but in as much as it related to his theology of the covenant, we must treat it. As noted above, the main issue addressed in De peccato originali is the question of whether original sin damns or not. Zwingli did not deny original sin at all, as is sometimes wrongly assumed. He defined, however, original sin as morbus, the Latin equivalent of präst (disease), thereby shifting the focus of the discussion away from the legal and into a therapeutic semantics. Zwingli traced the origin of the morbus and began with the relationship between God and Adam before the fall: “When the Creator of all things had installed in paradise . . . that man whom he had set over all living things, He bound [devinxit] him to Himself by this law, ‘Of every tree in the garden thou shalt eat without fear, but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil shalt thou not eat, for on the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die.’ [Gen. 2:16–​17].”138 (Italics mine) We should note here that with regard to the prelapsarian state of man, Zwingli used the verb devincire, which had obvious covenantal connotations. In his definition of the state, Cicero used this verb in relation to the bond by which men were held together in the Roman republic.139 And this bond was essentially grounded in recognized right and mutual benefit.140 Here, wrote Zwingli, it is God who binds his creature to a specific law that should regulate their relationship. The transgression of this law will result in the fall and corrupting contamination by the morbus. Zwingli was assuming a rudimentary prelapsarian law-​covenant. Does this morbus damn Adam’s posterity? Zwingli’s answer to this question was astonishingly clear with regard to its corrupting power: “As far, therefore, as the force of sin is concerned, the first man and all who are descended from him are damned by it.” However, Zwingli added with respect 138 Zwingli, Declaration, 6–​7; Zwingli, De peccato originali declaratio, 374: “Cum rerum omnium conditor hominem, quem regem animantibus cunctis praefecerat, in paradisum tanquam in Alcinoi regiam induceret, hac sibi lege devinxit: ‘De omni ligno horti edes intrepide, verumtamen de ligno sciendi bonum et malum non edes. Quo enim die de ipso ederis, intermorieris’ [Gen. 2:16f.].” (Italics mine) 139 See Cicero, On the Republic. On the Laws, in LCL 213, trans. Clinton W. Keye (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1928), 66 (I.26.42), 66 (I.26.42): “vinculum, quod primum homines inter se rei publicae societate devinxit.” (Italics mine) 140 See Cicero, On the Republic, 65 (I.25.39).

88  Zwingli as Initiator to its condemning power, “Original sin damns, to be sure, so far as its force and nature are concerned, but a very present remedy saves and supports, and it has been applied just in time.”141 What was this remedy and when exactly was it applied? The remedy to damnation or eternal death was already provided in God’s providence “before man fell.”142 A logical order of God’s decree is not at stake here. Zwingli’s statement could be understood in both ways, as either infra-​or supralapsarianism. The remedy is simply Christ’s atonement, revealing thereby God’s justice and grace. But how does this remedy work even before Christ’s coming, for Adam himself in the first place? Zwingli argued: Presently, when supreme wisdom saw that man was going to make shipwreck by wood, it determined to throw him wood to cling to and bring him to shore, and promised that there should be born of woman one who should bruise the head of the general enemy, for through his wiles the incautious had been ruined. And God would have been unfaithful to this promise if no fruit of the victory had returned unto Adam. For what could it have done but increase the man’s pain to know that a deliverer was to come, but [that he would] have no part in him? Adam understood, therefore, that this seed was to bring salvation not only to his posterity but [also] to himself . . . ; yet he did not know the particular time it was to come.143

The redemptive-​ historical manifestation of election is the covenantal promise-​ fulfillment pattern. Zwingli referred to the promised seed of Genesis 3:15, that is Christ, which already bears its fruit for Adam. Christ’s 141 Zwingli, Declaration, 15; Zwingli, De peccato originali declaratio, 381: “Quod ergo ad peccati vim adtinet, damnatus est ea primus homo et qui ex eo nati sunt. . . . Damnat quidem peccatum originale, quod ad vim ingeniumque eius attinet, sed servat ac fulcit praesentissimum remedium, quod non sero nimis, sed tempestive est adhibitum.” 142 Zwingli, Declaration, 16; Zwingli, De peccato originali declaratio, 382: “Ibi bonitas ac misericordia conditoris, quod providerat remedium, antequam incideret homo, profert. Meritus erat iste iusto dei iudicio aeternam mortem peccando; statuerat ille iusticiam suam placare morte filii sui, qui peccare non potest, ut simul iusticiam simul misericordiam eius clarissime disceremus—​ misericordiam, cum proprium filium pro collapso dependeret homine, iusticiam, cum tanto precio redimit; vilius enim istam placari non potuisse ostendit.” 143 Zwingli, Declaration, 17; Zwingli, De peccato originali declaratio, 383: “Mox, ut summa sapientia vidit hominem ligno naufragaturum, ligno quoque obiecto, cui niteretur, statuit in littus reducere, promittitque ex foemina nasciturum, qui publici hostis caput conterat; huius enim insidiis imprudentes perierant. Quod parum fideliter promisisset deus, si eius victoriae fructi nihil ad Adamum rediturum fuisset. Quid enim quam dolorem augere viro potuisset, scire venturum esse liberatorem, sese autem non fruiturum? [cf. 1. Mose 3. 15 ff.]. Intellexit ergo Adam semen hoc non posteritati tantum, sed sibi quoque salutare futurum; attamen temporis articulum, quo venturum erat, ignorabat.”

Zwingli’s Covenantal Turn of 1525  89 saving work is proleptically anticipated in prospective-​cataphoric expectation. As the whole agitation around original sin started with Zwingli’s statement that original sin does not damn, Zwingli restated his position more precisely, noting it was assuredly true as far as children of Christian parents are concerned because of their belonging to the covenant. Zwingli proceeds from Adam to Abraham without any transition and introduces his concept of covenantal continuity as implying an ecclesial unity between Gentiles and Jews.144 Abraham was, much like Adam, already a recipient of Christ, as the promised one, not the revealed one. And to be a recipient of the promise is another way to speak of belonging to the covenant. Because of identical covenantal and ecclesial membership, Zwingli argued that at the most basic level whatever applies to Abraham applies also to Christians, and therefore what applies to Abraham’s descendants applies to the descendants of Christians. Zwingli needed to reinforce the proposition that Abraham’s children were not damned by original sin. If they were not, then neither were the children of Christians damned. For that argument Zwingli went back to God’s covenanting with Abraham, which included his seed, in Genesis 17:7, arguing: “If, therefore, He promises that He will be a God to Abraham’s seed, that seed cannot have been damned because of original guilt, and He is speaking of the seed born to him according to the promise.”145 God’s promise to be not only Abraham’s God but also his seed’s excludes Abrahamic posterity from the damnation of original sin, Zwingli affirmed. For if his descendants are included in the covenant, they are recipients of the promise, which is the remedy, which heals from the disease. Circumcision as a sign 144 See Zwingli, Declaration, 19; Zwingli, De peccato originali declaratio, 384–​385: “Eorum, qui ex Christianis generantur parentibus, aequa est conditio cum his, qui ex Abraham prognati sunt; sed istos non perdebat originalis morbus, ergo nec illos, nostros dico, perdet morbus iste. Primam propositionem sic probamus: Quorum eadem est ecclesia, horum eadem est conditio, non aliter quam qui eiusdem sunt rei publicae, fortuna quoque eadem est. Una autem atque eadem est ecclesia, quae ex gentibus Iudaeisque compingitur. Una igitur eademque conditio est.” (Italics mine) See further Zwingli, De peccato originali declaratio, 385: “Si ergo una est fides Abrahae et nostra -​perinde enim ille fidebat deo per semen, quod ei promissum erat, atque nos, quam quod nunc praestitus est, cui isti promisso tantum fidebant; unde clarum fit, quod una est amborum ecclesia -​, erit ergo ecclesiae huius eadem quoque sors et conditio.” (Italics mine) Abraham’s faith is already faith in Christ, but as the promised Christ, not as the fulfilled or revealed one. This is why Zwingli spoke of one church of both Jews and pagans. 145 Zwingli, Declaration, 20: “In Gen. 17:7, God thus speaks unto Abraham, ‘I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee.’; Zwingli, De peccato originali declaratio, 385: “Genn. 17. cap. sic alloquitur deus Abraham: ‘Statuam pactum meum inter me et te et inter semen tuum post te in generationes eorum foedere sempiterno, ut sim deus tuus et seminis tui post te’ [1. Mose 17. 7]. Si ergo seminis Abrahae deum se pollicetur futurum, iam semen damnari non potuit propter culpam originalem; loquitur autem de semine, quod ei secundum promissionem nascebatur.”

90  Zwingli as Initiator of initiation into the covenant testifies to belonging to the covenant of the healed and, therefore, undamned: “From the initiation by the token it is clear that the children of the Hebrews had not been damned because of original sin. For the token of circumcision was the token of the covenant.”146 Zwingli turned the tables, arguing that covenantal membership does not follow by virtue of a covenant sign (by removing original sin and damnation, as his opponents argued); rather, from the acquired removal of damnation (which signifies de facto covenantal membership) one receives the sign of the covenant. The order is reversed. Salvation depends not on any sacrament, but on election, which becomes manifest as and in the covenant. In that respect, Zwingli compared the Anabaptists with the Roman Catholics in their reliance on the sacraments, as “they do not look to the free election of God, but think salvation is bound up with symbols as the pontifical party does.”147 (Italics mine) Were one not to adhere to Zwingli’s covenantal view and its implications for children of believers, that would mean conversely that “the condition of those who are in Christ after the coming of Christ is worse than that of the people of old,”148 a proposition that the Anabaptists would never admit. Zwingli related the covenant to the “inner man” and not to external signs.149 In De peccato originali Zwingli makes an interesting comment concerning the relation between the Mosaic law and the prelapsarian command or law given before the fall: “If we have been freed from the law, original sin cannot damn us, for that would damn us through the power of the law that had been transgressed.”150 In the background here stands Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, in which the apostle clearly argues for liberty from the Mosaic law. Zwingli also packed into this argument liberty from the prelapsarian law 146 Zwingli, Declaration, 20; Zwingli, De peccato originali declaratio, 386: “Iam ex signi initiatione patet infantes Hebraeorum non fuisse damnatos propter peccatum originale. Signum enim circumcisionis signum foederis fuit.” 147 Zwingli, Declaration, 21–​22; Zwingli, De peccato originali declaratio, 387: “non spectant liberam electionem dei, et salutem putant cum pontificiis alligatam esse symbolis.” 148 Zwingli, Declaration, 22; Zwingli, De peccato originali declaratio, 387: “Si ergo a peccato originali liberi non reddimur, nascendo a Christianis parentibus, deterior est conditio eorum, qui post adventum Christi in Christo sunt quam priorum.” 149 See Zwingli, De peccato originali declaratio, 393: “Probat enim divus Augustinus signa diversa fuisse illis atque nobis, sed eandem fidem”; Zwingli, De peccato originali declaratio, 394: “Eadem enim est fides, ac idem testamentum sive foedus, quantum ad interiorem hominem attinet.” 150 Zwingli, Declaration, 22; Zwingli, De peccato originali declaratio, 387: “Si ergo a peccato originali liberi non reddimur, nascendo a Christianis parentibus, deterior est conditio eorum, qui post adventum Christi in Christo sunt quam priorum; quod non tam stultum est quam impium. Non loquitur enim Paulus de libertate carnali, sed legis: quodsi a lege liberati sumus, non poterit nos damnare originale peccatum; istud enim vi legis transgressae damnaret.”

Zwingli’s Covenantal Turn of 1525  91 transgressed at the fall in affirming that the original transgression does not damn Christians (and their children). Zwingli seems to conflate the law given at creation and the law given at Sinai, which must be the moral law. As in the Subsidium, he suggests that the original law-​transgression of the first parents point to a prelapsarian (covenantal) relationship regulated by the law. Zwingli reformulated the insights gained in De peccato originali in his Elenchus of July 1527, his last polemical writing addressed to the Anabaptists in its entirety. Cottrell considered this work to be “the climactic expression of his doctrine of the covenant.”151 In my assessment, Zwingli does not go beyond what he had previously said in De peccato; I would speak at most of a clarification. Only the third of the three parts of this text is of interest for our study. Having rebutted the Anabaptist argumentation in the first two parts, Zwingli made a case for infant baptism, grounded on covenant and election. The two loci are treated separately although they are intrinsically connected, as we will see. With respect to the covenant, Zwingli retraced redemptive history. He began with the fall, not with creation, as the covenant of grace is postlapsarian. He then progressed toward the election of Israel, from and for which Christ would eventually come, orientating himself on the great biblical actors of redemptive history. The first of these is Adam, to whom a son who would eventually crush the devil’s head was promised. This promise of Genesis 3:15 forms a guiding thread. When Zwingli came to Cain, the promised son is explicitly thought to be the one who would repair his parents’ fall.152 But the redemptive thread goes not through Cain but through Seth and Noah. Here Zwingli spoke of the renewal of the covenant, but he meant not the promise of Genesis 3:15 but the prelapsarian covenant of creation, as he argued in the Genesis commentary. For Noah, he wrote, “The covenant [foedus] was renewed with him, in whom the whole human race was renewed and spreading to all parts of the earth in order to its cultivation.”153 (Italics mine) What Zwingli here described as a renewed covenant has its origins in God’s order to Adam to subdue the earth (Gen. 1:28). From Noah, Zwingli

151 Cottrell, Covenant and Baptism, 230. 152 See Zwingli, elenchus, 156: “Cain parricida conscientię trepidatione nihil obscure ostendebat ex se nasciturum non esse, qui parentum casum sarcire posset”. (Italics mine) 153 Zwingli, Refutation, 221; Zwingli, elenchus, 156: “Renovatur cum illo foedus, a quo deinde humanum genus postliminio nascitur atque in omnes orbis partes ad colendum terram diducitur.” (Italics mine) See also Fesko’s succinct reference to this passage in Fesko, Covenant of Works, 21.

92  Zwingli as Initiator went on to Abraham, to whom it was said, according to the Reformer, that his posterity would be the savior of the whole human race, not of the Jews alone. It is only here that this promise is said to be a covenant: “With him then he renewed the covenant [foedus] he had compacted with Adam, and made it clearer.”154 (Italics mine) Zwingli alludes to the now paradigmatic Bible passage of Genesis 17, which he then summarizes. From Abraham Zwingli arrived at God’s covenanting with Israel in Exodus 19. Zwingli pointed out that the Hebrew children were a full part of the “body of God’s people”155 covenanted by him, even if they could not understand what was going on. This is testified by their circumcision, just as baptism is given to everyone who is part of the “body of God’s church.”156 Zwingli did not want to be misinterpreted here. It is not the sign that confers covenantal membership, but, conversely, it is covenantal or ecclesial membership that is the prerequisite for receiving the sign.157 Zwingli summarized his retracing of redemptive history culminating in Israel’s election with the following preliminary conclusion: “The Israelites were God’s people with whom he entered into covenant, whom he made especially his own, to whom he also gave a sign of his covenant from the least to the greatest, because high and low were in covenant with him, were his people and were of his church.”158 God’s election of Israel manifests itself historically in terms of the Sinaitic covenant. It was critical to Zwingli in arguing against the Anabaptists that Israelite parents were included together with their children in that covenant, partaking in the same covenant sign. The whole force of Zwingli’s argument rests in covenantal continuity or ecclesial unity between Israel and the Christian church, as we saw above: “Therefore the same covenant which he entered into with Israel he has in these latter

154 Zwingli, Refutation, 221; Zwingli, elenchus, 156: “Cum illo foedus, quod cum Adam pepigerat, renovat et clarius reddit”. (Italics mine) 155 Zwingli, elenchus, 158. 156 Zwingli, elenchus, 158. 157 Zwingli, elenchus, 158: “Prior est spiritus gratia, qua in ecclesię consortium allegimur, quam consortii signum.” 158 Zwingli, Refutation, 227; Zwingli, elenchus, 162–​163: “In summa (quid enim in re tam adperta pluribus uteremur testimoniis?) id volumus: Israëliticum populum dei populum esse, quocum foedus iniit, quem peculiariter suum fecit, cui et foederis sui signum dedit a minimo usque ad summum, eo quod et supremi et imi in foedere eius, de populo eius, de ecclesia eius essent, quodque, dum universum populum istum alloquitur aliquid pręcipiendo aut vetando, non ideo infantes excluduntur, quod eorum, quę dicuntur aut mandantur, nihil intelligant, sed synecdochicis sermonibus utatur, quibus tam abest, ut ea pars, ad quam pro tempore vel ętate horum, quę fiunt, nihil pervenit, excludatur, ut etiam includatur non aliter, quam, cum quis cum uno homine agit, iam cum omni familia eius ac posteris actum est.”

Zwingli’s Covenantal Turn of 1525  93 days entered into with us, that we may be one people with them, one church, and may have also one covenant.”159 (Italics mine) In asserting the continuity of the covenant, Zwingli referred to the elenchtical use of the moral law against the Anabaptists, who argued from Galatians 4 for two different testaments: “Through the law then we learn only of our condemnation, for by it we are included in sin and bound unto the penalty. From this it is easily inferred that they also who were under the law saw that by one salvation through Christ that both they and the whole world are saved.”160 On the one hand, that the condemning function of the law, for Zwingli, eventually leads to salvation in Christ applies for those “under the law” as well as for Christians. On the other hand, Zwingli obviously kept a dispensational distinction between the ones who were under the law, that is the Israelites, and the Christians, who are therefore not under the law anymore. What sort of law was the Reformer referring to here? To the ceremonial law? To the moral law? Probably the latter. It could be helpful to take Calvin, who held a very similar position, as a discussion partner.161 As we will see, Calvin held to covenantal continuity in the strongest terms. However, he differentiated with reference to the same text, namely Galatians 4, between the enslaving law and the gospel of liberty. This distinction is not to be confused with the Lutheran or Melanchthonian law-​gospel antithesis. The difference lies in a literal view of the law (narrow sense) versus a spiritual reading of the law, which leads to the evangelical promise (broader sense). The narrow sense is thereby only to be applied to the old testament, the broader to both old and new testaments. Zwingli’s argument went further. If there is only one people, one church, and one covenant, the same identity or continuity with respect to election must be their prerequisite: “Paul, wherever there arises a question about the difference between Jews and Gentiles who had faith, carefully proves that one

159 Zwingli, Refutation, 227; Zwingli, elenchus, 163: “Idem ergo foedus, quod olim cum populo Israëlitico, in novissimis temporibus nobiscum pepigit, ut unus essemus cum eis populus, una ecclesia, et unum foedus quoque haberemus.” (Italics mine) 160 Zwingli, Refutation, 230; Zwingli, elenchus, 165: “Discimus ergo per legem solummodo damnationem nostram; per eam enim concludimur in peccatum et tenemur ad poenam. Unde iam facile colligitur: eos quoque, qui sub lege fuerunt, nullo negocio vidisse una salute per Christum et se et mundum universum salvari.” 161 Jean Calvin, Institutio Christianae religionis: In libros quatuor nunc primum digesta certisque distincta capitibus, in CO 2, 335–​336 (II.xi.9). See also Lillback’s helpful distinction between law in the narrow and broader senses in Peter A. Lillback, The Binding of God: Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant Theology, Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-​Reformation Thought (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 150–​156.

94  Zwingli as Initiator people and one church arise from both. In Rom. xi. he makes election the basis of this; formerly the Jews were by election the people of God, now the Gentiles are.”162 (Italics mine) In referring to Romans 11, Zwingli argued that Gentiles succeeded Israel. It would be categorically wrong, however, to assume that Zwingli adhered to some substitution theory, that is, that the church has simply replaced Israel. There has always been one people and one church of believers in the progress of redemptive history: first Jews, then Gentiles. Even this order is not taken as absolute, as Zwingli seems to be open to the possibility of an eschatological conversion of unbelieving Jews. The most recent quotation is taken from a series of biblical references that Zwingli used to make his case for covenantal continuity and concluded as follows: “All these things, to shorten sail in this part of the discussion, make for this, that we may know that it is one and the same testament that God had with the human race from the foundation of the world to its dissolution.”163 (Italics mine) What “time” exactly was Zwingli actually referring to in saying that there has always been one same testament or covenant “from the foundation of the world”? There is an apparent tension, since we noted earlier that Zwingli began with the fall in retracing redemptive history in terms of a postlapsarian covenant. Scholars have been puzzled by this point. Schrenk was undecided: “Zwingli already knows a covenant with Adam. It is not clear, however, whether he [Zwingli] means a covenant at creation or one that is made after the fall.”164 Locher affirmed that the covenant with the human race includes “unshakenly and eternally a condito mundo, since the creation, the fall.”165 Cottrell took it “in a general sense as referring to the beginning of the world but still to the time after the fall.”166 I follow Locher. Cottrell failed to discern 162 Zwingli, Refutation, 231; Zwingli, elenchus, 166: “Paulus sic est in hac sententia, ut ubicunque quęstio de discrimine Iudęorum et gentium, qui scilicet fidem habuerunt, incidat, anxie comprobat unum populum unamque ex utrisque ecclesiam esse factam. Rom. 11. electionem huius rei fundamentum facit. Olim Iudęos fuisse per electionem populum dei, nunc gentes, neque tamen ita, ut ex Iudęis ultra nemo sit intra electorum consortium, cum et ipse sit Israëlita, et tamen in salutaris euangelii prędicationem missus sit minister, sed aliquousque substituros, donec gentium multitudo ingrediatur [cf. Rom. 11:1–​32].” (Italics mine) 163 Zwingli, Refutation, 233; Zwingli, elenchus, 168: “Hęc omnia, ut vela in hac disputationis parte colligam, huc faciunt, ut sciamus unum atque idem esse testamentum, quod deus cum mortalium genere habuit a condito mundo usque ad eius dissolutionem.” (Italics mine) 164 Schrenk, Gottesreich und Bund, 37: “Schon Zwingli kennt einen Bund Gottes mit Adam. Dabei wird allerdings nicht deutlich, ob er einen Schöpfungsbund meint oder einen solchen, der nach dem Fall geschlossen ist.” This statement refers not only to the Elenchus but also to De peccato originali and Fidei ratio. 165 Locher, Die Theologie Huldrych Zwinglis, 153: “Der im ‘Elenchus’ beschriebene Bund Gottes mit dem Menschengeschlecht überspannt, unerschütterlich und ewig gültig a condito mundo, seit der Schopfung, auch den Fall.” 166 Cottrell, Covenant and Baptism, 273.

Zwingli’s Covenantal Turn of 1525  95 between God’s ahistoric or prehistoric decree and its historical execution in light of what follows: For God is not prosphatos, i.e., recent, or of an uncertain wisdom that mends in time what had at first been unwisely begun. He knew [sciebat] that man would perish as he did by his own fault, and he had prepared [composuerat] the healing by Jesus, that is the Savior, before man gave himself the self-​ inflicted wound. God therefore made no other covenant with the miserable race of man than that he had already conceived [concinnaverat] before man was formed. One and the same testament has always been in force. There is ever one and the same unchangeable God, one only Savior Jesus Christ, the Son of God not by adoption, but by nature, God eternal and blessed forever. So there could be no other testament than that which furnished salvation through Jesus Christ.167 (Italics mine)

The whole point turns on God’s providential omniscience. God “knew” (sciebat) about the fall before it happened. He did not discover the remedy after the fact. Notice here that Zwingli used the past perfect: God “had prepared” or foreordained (compuaserat) the savior and “had conceived” (concinnaverat) the covenant before man was even created. This is clearly a reference to God’s decree before history. But the covenant itself is defined as “the healing,” or remedy, that is a response to the disease that spread out at one point in history, namely, at the fall. The covenant has its redemptive-​ historical beginning in Genesis 3:15 and not in Genesis 1:1. The remedy is the promised Christ. All in all, I agree with Locher’s conclusion: “The decree of salvation was foreordained, yet, in consideration of the fall, which was foreseen. Strictly speaking, we have therefore still to do with an infralapsarian proposition.”168

167 Zwingli, Refutation, 233–​234; Zwingli, elenchus, 169: “Neque enim est deus πρόσφατος, id est recens factus aut precarię sapientię, ut quę tempore sarciat, quod primo sit inconsultius coeptum. Hominem, qui sua culpa periit, periturum sciebat et medelam Iesu, id est salvatoris, composuerat, priusquam iste sibi vulnus infligeret. Non ergo iniit cum hoc misero hominum genere unquam foedus aliud deus, quam quod iam concinnaverat, antequam homo esset formatus. Semper igitur viguit unum atque idem testamentum. Unus enim atque idem incommutabilis deus semper est; unus ac solus salvator est Iesus Christus, dei non adoptione, sed natura filius, deus ęternus ac benedictus in sęcula. Non potuit ergo unquam aliud esse testamentum, quam quod per Iesum Christum salutem pręstabat.” (Italics mine) 168 Locher, Die Theologie Huldrych Zwinglis, 153: “Hier wird der Heilsratschluss zeitlich zum Voraus gefasst, jedoch mit Bezug auf den vorhergesehenen Fall; das ist, genau besehn, immer noch infralapsarisch gesprochen.” (Italics mine)

96  Zwingli as Initiator In Contra Suenckfeldium, published at the end of 1530, Zwingli felt compelled to account anew for his doctrine of baptism, but he did not develop further his mature argument. Schwenckfeld emphasized a strong canonical dichotomy between the Old Testament and the New Testament and shared with the Anabaptists their rejection of infant baptism. Arguing within the paradigm of covenantal continuity, Zwingli started from the concept of Abrahamic sonship: “Would we be sons of Abraham, then, if Abraham had not the same faith as we do?”169 The rhetorical question affirms church and faith unity between Abraham and Christians. There is substantially no difference in terms of “principles of faith and religion” or, in other words, between the old and the new testaments, as Christ is the substance of both. The difference is historical or a matter of chronology. Christ is either providentially promised or given, depending on one’s position in redemptive history with respect to Christ’s saving work. From his covenantal turn in 1525 to the end of his life, Zwingli continued to argue his doctrine of baptism on the covenantal basis found in the Genesis narrative on Abraham.

Eucharist Originally developed in the eucharistic controversy with Roman Catholics, covenantal continuity remained a strong element in Zwingli’s defense of his Reformed doctrine of the Supper. However, the argument was now directed toward his Lutheran detractors as well. Jakob Strauss (ca. 1480/​1485–​1527/​ 1532), who was close to Luther, mixed himself in the debate between Zurich and Wittenberg and wrote personally against Zwingli’s “atrocious error.” In Über Straussens Büchlein of January 1527, Zwingli answered Strauss and stressed the relationship between the covenant and the Eucharist. The sacrament of the Eucharist is defined as “a testimony of the Christian communion” or bond whereby believers “testify to one faith” in the redemption of Christ and “pledge to one another to be one body with all other members.”170 The Lord’s 169 Zwingli, contra Suenckfefeldium, 52: “Nam alias qui essemus filii Abrahae, si Abraham non haberet eandem quam nos fidem? Testamenta quoque non sunt diversa, quantum ad praecipua fidei ac religionis pertinet; sed quantum ad Christum et ea, quae Christum portendebant ac paedagogi instar inducebant, hoc modo diversa sunt: Christus illis promissus est, nobis autem iam datus ac praestitus.” 170 Zwingli, über Straussens Büchlein, 470–​471: “Und zuo eim urkund christlicher einigung hat Christus ein offen früntlich zeychen, das er synem lychnam und bluot nach genennet, verordnet mit einander bruederlich ze niessen, daß die, so miteinander imm dancksagtind syner erlösung, wie sy einen glouben bezugtind, sich ouch mit dem offnen zeychen veriähind einen lychnam mit allen mitglideren sin.” (Italics mine)

Zwingli’s Covenantal Turn of 1525  97 Supper testifies to the body of Christ. Zwingli also spoke of a pflichtzeichen. This pledging token is to be understood as a testimony to corporate brotherhood.171 The members form together the body of Christ, who is himself the head. That this ecclesial unity is linked with the covenant becomes evident when Zwingli explicitly refers to Genesis 17. The Reformer drew a general argument from circumcision that he had applied in the context of baptism, but now used it to support his doctrine of the Lord’s Supper: “[Circumcision] is only a sign of the covenant according to Genesis 17. Only the ones who are already in the covenant receive it. Therefore it follows: as circumcision was commanded but could not justify anyone, so does baptism not justify either. It is a sign for someone who either believes or is a member of the church.”172 Interestingly, in these passages the covenant and the body of Christ, or the communion of the church, are placed on the same level, and Eucharist (as well as baptism) is the sign thereof. Zwingli thus alluded succinctly to the organic-​mystical aspect of the covenant, which, as we will see, was so important to Bullinger. A month later Zwingli addressed his Amica exegesis of February 1527 to Luther, taking a step toward the German Reformer without compromising his own view. One passage about the Eucharist and the covenant merits consideration, where Zwingli argued in reference to Genesis 17 that the cup of the Eucharist is not the testament in itself but a “sign of the covenant”.173 We have already met this argument in the Subsidium. However, Zwingli first explained what the testament actually consists of and linked it with the corporate identity of the church. In Zwingli’s words “the testament or covenant is that Christ the Son of God is ours, and that through him we have been

171 Zwingli, über Straussens Büchlein, 471–​472: “Wir leerend die thüren gnad und liebe gottes gegen uns, und darüber dancksagend wir imm und wie er uns ein sichtbar pflichtzeichen ggeben hat zuo ofner kundschafft bruederlicher liebe unnd erzeygung der glideren und lybs Christi, leerend wir ouch bruederliche liebe.” (Italics mine) 172 Zwingli, über Straussens Büchlein, 529: “Ietz heb’s gegen den ceremonien des alten testaments, gegen der bschnydung und nachtmal des osterlambs. Es volgt nit: Gott hat die bschnydung thür gebotten, darumb wirt in der bschnydung etwas ggeben; oder: sy hat etwas krafft; dann sy ist nun ein zeichen des punds, Genn. 17., so wirt es ouch nun ggeben denen, die vor und ee im pundt wesenlich sind; sunder es volgt also: wie die bschnydung thür gebotten ist, und hat dennocht den menschen nit mögen recht machen, also ouch der touff mag nit recht machen, sunder er ist ein zeichen deß, der vor eintweders ggloubt oder sunst ein glid der kilchen gewesen ist.” 173 Zwingli, Friendly Exegesis, 362; Zwingli, Amica exegesis, 746: “Testamentum enim sive foedus, hoc est: quod Christus dei filius noster est et nos per eum in dei filios cooptati sumus. Quod omne illius morte perfectum atque sancitum est. Unde neque corpus neque sanguis testamentum sunt, sed testamenti confirmatio. . . Quod si quis maxime obstrepat testamentum esse, meminerit circumcisionem perinde vocari testamentum sive pactum, cum signum tantum sit foederis Gen. 17 [Gen. 17:10].”

98  Zwingli as Initiator elected unto the number of the children of God.” In referring to the divine election in Christ Zwingli unmistakably adopted here a more theological emphasis on his covenantal view of the Eucharist, as earlier the sacrament seemed to be reduced to a covenant between fellow Christians. This formulation stressed the interconnection of the vertical and horizontal planes. The brotherly bond of the children of God has its roots in the covenant between God and his elected. Although the Eucharist was the stumbling block for Zwingli and Luther, Zwingli also integrated into his Amica exegesis a longer excursus on baptism, especially infant baptism. Zwingli’s argument from covenantal continuity was not directed here against Anabaptist teaching. The Zurich Reformer rejected Luther’s understanding of infantile faith, on which the Wittenberg Reformer grounded infant baptism. Zwingli wrote: And while you were on this topic, why did you not see, I ask, first that it is one and the same church, one and the same testament, one and the same faith, whether of those who came before Christ at dawn, or at the third, or sixth, or ninth hour, or ours, who came into the vineyard at the eleventh hour? . . . Yet they were received as liberally as those first workers, no indeed, were given our reward before them [Matt. 20:lf.], that the casting off of the Jews from the olive tree and the grafting of us upon this you would not afterward in teaching about the baptism of infants have been obliged to say that baptism simply ought not to be given where there was not faith. For you would have known by the beneficent power of the testament the infant children of Christians are just as much enrolled among the people of God as are their parents.174 (Italics mine)

“One same church, one same testament, one same faith” forms an indissoluble triplet of synonyms. Faith is not the subjective act of believing, but the objective fact of God’s covenanting. Zwingli’s reference to Jesus’ parable of the vineyard, together with the Pauline illustration of the olive tree, shows, 174 Zwingli, Friendly Exegesis, 299–​300; Zwingli, Amica exegesis, 649: “Apud eum autem locum cum esses, quur, quęso, non vidisti, primum unam eandemque esse ecclesiam, unum idemque esse testamentum, unam eandemque fidem tam eorum, qui ante Christum matutina, tertia, sexta nonaque hora venerunt quam nostram, qui undecima tandem vineam ingressi ęque tamen liberaliter atque primi isti accepti sumus, imo mercede ante donati quam isti [Matt. 20:1f.], quo excidium Iudaeorum ex oliva nostraque insitio pateret [cf. Rom. 11:17f.]? Hoc enim si vidisses, non fuisses postmodum de baptismo infantium docens, coactus dicere, baptismum prorsus dari non debere, ubi non adsit fides. Scisses enim, vi beneficioque testamenti infantes Christianorum perinde populo dei accenseri atque eorum parentes.”

Zwingli’s Covenantal Turn of 1525  99 on the one hand, that he acknowledged the primacy of the Jews in redemptive history. On the other hand, the Gentiles become with Christ’s coming a full part of God’s people together with the Jews, except for the ones who reject Christ. The continuity of the covenant grounded in election, which includes children of believers, was for Zwingli the ultimate and objective ground for infant baptism. Zwingli could later in this text also refer to the promise (repromissio) as, in Cottrell’s words, “the element of continuity in the covenant”:175 “As within the Church and people of God were reckoned those who had been born of the seed of Israel, so within the Church are counted those who are born of the children of the renewed promise,” the promise, namely, that the children of believers of all times are elected and included in the covenant. In this regard Zwingli reiterated the triplet mentioned above: “For there is one Church, one faith, and God is not angrier with us and our children than he was with the Jews, whose children were just as much in the covenant and the Church as their fathers were.”176 (Italics mine)

De providentia—​On Providence (1530) Zwingli’s most famous writing on providence, De providentia of 20 August 1530, was an adaptation of a sermon he had given one year earlier at the Marburg Colloquy. Before engaging with Zwingli’s development of election and covenant in ­chapters 5 and 6, we will look at ­chapter 4, where Zwingli developed at length the themes of the law and the prelapsarian state of man, which already have covenantal overtones. Zwingli declared the law to be the means given to man to enjoy “the agreement [commercium] and friendship”177 with God, as they are intimately related to the creation of man in the image of God. The notion of “agreement” comes near to the notion of a covenant. Zwingli defined the law fundamentally as “the divine order, expressing His nature and will.”178 The Reformer then polemized against his Lutheran 175 Cottrell, Covenant and Baptism, 229. 176 Zwingli, Friendly Exegesis, 353; Zwingli, Amica exegesis, 733: “Quemadmodum intra ecclesiam populumque dei censebantur, qui semine erant Israelitico prognati, sic intra ecclesiam connumerantur, qui sunt ex repromissionis filiis nati. Una est enim ecclesia, una fides; neque iratior est nobis liberisque nostris deus, quam fuerit Iudęis, quorum liberi aeque in foedere perindeque in ecclesia erant atque parentes. Est et hic analogia: Circumcisio est Hebręorum pueris data, ergo et Christianorum infantibus non debet non dari baptismus.” 177 Zwingli, de providentia, 117. 178 Zwingli, on the Providence, 166; Zwingli, de providentia, 128: “Lex est numinis iussus illius ingenium.”

100  Zwingli as Initiator detractors who placed the use of the law in a negative light. The evangelical deliverance is not strictly deliverance from the law, but liberty from the damnation merited by its transgression (usus paedagogicus). The law, therefore, is seen by Zwingli as positive, that is spiritual, as belonging to the very nature of God. God’s communication of the law is for the good of man, who by the law can know and enjoy God.179 The friendly relationship between God and his creature is grounded in the law: “Since then, God shows Himself as a friend to man, by revealing His will and character to him through the law when man in his boldness disobeys either from the negligence of the spirit or the violence of the body, he is rightly condemned.” Or, in other words, to be created in the image of God is to be created for the law, as “to live exempt from the law has in no wise been permitted to man. For he who is exempt from law knoweth not the will of God, and that which knoweth not the will of God was not created for His friendship and companionship.”180 If the law is normative for the prelapsarian God-​man relationship, then logically the fall is a transgression of the law. This transgression results in the corruption of the imago Dei, the fall of God’s creature, which will need to be restored to its original destiny. At this point redemptive history begins, that is the postlapsarian covenant of grace in Christ. Hence, the use of the law in the covenant of grace as restoration of the image of God cannot be reduced to the usus paedagogicus, and instead ultimately leads to the usus normativus, to the recovery of the law as divine norm of human life. In ­chapter 5 of De providentia Zwingli addressed election. Zwingli definitely crossed over to supralapsarianism, Locher proposed, in reference to this part of the text.181 I am more cautious in my assessment. Indeed Locher seemed to relativize his claim in a footnote to Zwingli’s summary of his sermon in ­chapter 7.182 In ­chapter 5 Zwingli clearly declared the fall to be a means to the providential end of God’s self-​revelation of his goodness. 179 Zwingli, on the Providence, 170; Zwingli, de providentia, 135: “Cum ergo deus per legem voluntatem suam homini communicat, iam ista traditione sua duorum nos certos facit: unius, quod ad deum cognoscendum nati [cf. 1 Tim. 2:4], alterius, quod ad illo fruendum destinati sumus.” 180 Zwingli, on the Providence, 173–​174; Zwingli, de providentia, 140: “Cum ergo homini sese deus familiarem faciat voluntatem suam atque ingenium revelando per legem, et ille audax sive spiritus negligentia sive corporis violentia contra ipsum facit, iure damnatur. Exlegi quoque nullatenus licuit homini vivere. Qui enim exlex est, dei voluntatem ignorat. Quae dei voluntatem nesciunt, ad illius amicitiam et contubernium non sunt creata.” 181 Locher, Die Theologie Huldrych Zwinglis, 154: “wenn nun das fünfte Kapitel des Sermo De Providentia . . . eindeutig zum Supralapsarismus übergeht.” (Italics mine) 182 See Locher, Die Theologie Huldrych Zwinglis, 154: “Aber sogar in diesem Abschnitt kommt Zwingli nicht ohne die infralapsarische Kongruenz aus, Gott beschloss simul hominem fingere und per filium suum illum redimere.”

Zwingli’s Covenantal Turn of 1525  101 However, God’s self-​revelation is not understood solely on Christological grounds. Locher seems to have overlooked that point. Zwingli wrote: “As to goodness, therefore, I will say that the divine goodness did not cease to act when it did not guard against the fall of man, but manifested itself in a two-​fold manner, in creating man and restoring him when created.”183 (Italics mine) There is a twofold revelation, one at creation including fall and one in redemption. Redemption is related to the fall, of course, but the revelation of creation together with the fall stands on its own ground. Zwingli’s basic argument was as follows: As goodness includes justice and righteousness, which can only be revealed in the “light” of unrighteousness, God created man (and angels) who would eventually fall. “Thus by creating man so that he could fall, God manifested His goodness. For by the fall the splendor of the divine righteousness was made apparent.”184 And this revelation has per se nothing to do with Christ; it is a kind of natural revelation related to creation. The second revelation is related to redemption, that is, the Christological revelation: “In the second place, His goodness displayed itself in the restoration of man. For when He might have restored the fallen in any way He was pleased, He preferred to adopt none other than that by which He who had been man’s Creator became his Redeemer, that there might be no less goodness and righteousness in the redemption than in the creation.”185 This revelation is Christ’s undoing of the fall, that is, God’s renewing of the original creation. This revelation is secondary with respect to the unfolding of redemptive history, which is still postlapsarian. However, there is a congruence between creation and redemption, as Zwingli further explains: “Hence, the redemption was determined from eternity just as much as the creation. But the redemption could not have been determined unless wisdom had seen that man was going to fall. . . . Divine wisdom, therefore, could not fail to know that man was going to fall, for it provided a remedy therefor.”186 (Italics 183 Zwingli, on the Providence, 174–​175; Zwingli, de providentia, 141: “Quod ergo ad bonitatem attinet, non cessavit divina bonitas, cum lapsum hominis non cavit, sed sese manifestavit duplici ratione, creando scilicet atque creato medendo.” (Italics mine) 184 Zwingli, on the Providence, 177; Zwingli, de providentia, 145–​146: “Creando itaque hominem deus, ut labi posset, bonitatem suam manifestavit; lapsu enim divinae iusticiae splendor illuxit.” 185 Zwingli, on the Providence, 178; Zwingli, de providentia, 147: “Secundo autem prodidit sese bonitas medendo. Cum enim lapsum posset, quacunque illi placuisset, ratione restituere, nullam sequi maluit, quam qua ipse redemptor fieret hominis, qui autor fuerat, ut in redimendo non minor esset bonitas et iusticia, quam fuerat in creando.” 186 Zwingli, on the Providence, 179; Zwingli, de providentia, 148: “Aeque igitur ab aeterno est constituta redemptio atque creatio. At redemptio constitui non potuit, ni sapientia vidisset fore, ut laberetur homo; quis enim medelam destinat morbo, quem ignorat? Nescire itaque non potuit divina sapientia, quod homo lapsurus esset, cui remedium providit.” (Italics mine)

102  Zwingli as Initiator mine) This last quotation shows most clearly the challenge in deciding between infra-​and supralapsarianism. One the one hand, there is a “temporal” (or even logical?) simultaneity between the decrees of creation and redemption, but on the other hand, Christ is seen as the remedy for the fall, which has been known in advance by God, which I see as infralapsarian in emphasis. What is indisputable is that redemptive history, the unfolding of the covenant of grace, is basically postlapsarian and does not begin at Genesis 1:1. Strictly speaking, the covenant comes into play when Zwingli moves on to ­chapter 6, which addresses particular election, defined as the “the free disposition of the divine will with regard to those that are blessed.”187 An excursus about the role of faith with regard to election draws our attention, as here the question of infant baptism is addressed. Significantly, the Anabaptists are not in view here at all (at least not explicitly); rather, he was addressing the “sacramentarians.”188 This was originally a pejorative nickname given by Luther to Zwingli because of his argumentation on the Eucharist from the etymology of the Latin word sacramentum. Here, Zwingli proposed that the true sacramentarians are those who conflate the sign and the thing signified, clearly having the Lutherans in mind, although his definition would include Roman Catholics as well. He argued against a view of baptism as, together with the Word, conveying faith in and of itself. According to Zwingli, those sacramentarians fail to see “that baptism is not given to any one unless he first confesses that he has faith, if he is a grown person, or unless he has the promise [promissio] in virtue of which he is counted a member of the Church, if he is a child.”189 The promise is here to be understood, as we have seen in other writings, as referring to the covenant. Zwingli’s basic argument with respect to adults is that faith precedes baptism, but in terms of infants he argues not for a preceding faith but from the continuity of the promise or ecclesial unity between Hebrews and Christians, as follows: “The promise is, that the Gentiles, when they have obtained the knowledge of God, and true religion, shall be just as much of the church and people of God as the Hebrews” 190

187 Zwingli, on the Providence, 184; Zwingli, de providentia, 156: “libera divinae voluntatis de beandis constitutio.” 188 Zwingli, de providentia, 172. 189 Zwingli, on the Providence, 194; Zwingli, de providentia, 173: “quod baptismus nulli datur, nisi aut fidem prius sese habere fateatur, si est adultus, aut promissionem habeat, cuius virtute ad ecclesiam censeatur, si est infans.” (Italics mine) 190 Zwingli, on the Providence, 195; Zwingli, de providentia, 174: “Ea [promissio] est: gentes, cum numinis cognitionem ac religionem adeptae sint, perinde fore de ecclesia et populo dei atque Hebraeos.” (Italics mine)

Zwingli’s Covenantal Turn of 1525  103 (Italics mine). And from ecclesial unity it logically follows that “Since, therefore, the children of the Hebrews have always been counted with the Church with their parents, and the divine promise is sure, it is clear that the children of Christians belong to the Church of Christ just as much as their parents”191 (Italics mine). With respect to faith Zwingli held that “faith is given to those who have been elected and ordained to eternal life, but that election precedes and faith follows as a sign of it.”192 (Italics mine) This is a form of argumentation already familiar to us. The covenant is omnipresent without being explicitly named. We must await a swipe by Zwingli at the pope to find the only explicit mention of it: “Who shall bring anything to the charge of the elect, especially when he who is accused knows by what covenant [foedus] and faith he has God as his bondsman?”193 (Italics mine) This statement makes indisputable that everything about election and faith expressed above was implicitly grounded in the covenant. The appositive to foedus here, that is fides, refers to the object of the covenant and of faith, namely Christ and his saving work.

Confession of Faith At the very end of his life Zwingli composed two comprehensive accounts of the Christian faith as confessed in Reformed Zurich, the Fidei ratio and the Fidei expositio. As such, these writings are the main sources of Zwingli’s latest theological developments and give us insight into his most mature thoughts on the covenant. Zwingli’s Fidei ratio of 3 July 1530 was the self-​confident and polemical Zwinglian counterpart to Melanchthon’s Confessio Augustana. Both were addressed to Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Augsburg. Zwingli intended to deliver a summarized account of the confessed faith that he was spreading in Switzerland. The Fidei ratio is a systematic compendium in 12 articles. Zwingli packed the doctrine of God, including the Trinity and the two natures of Christ, into

191 Zwingli, on the Providence, 195; Zwingli, de providentia, 174: “Cum igitur Hebraeorum infantes semper sint intra ecclesiam censi cum parentibus et promissio divina firma sit, constat infantes Christianorum non minus esse de ecclesia Christi quam parentes.” (Italics mine) 192 Zwingli, on the Providence, 197; Zwingli, de providentia, 178: “Fides itaquehis datur, qui ad vitam aeternam electi et ordinati sunt, sic tamen, ut electio antecedat et fides velut symbolum electionem sequatur.” (Italics mine) 193 Zwingli, on the Providence, 198; Zwingli, de providentia, 179: “Quis enim adcusabit electum [cf. Rom. 8:33], praesertim cum is, qui adcusatur, scit, quo foedere ac fide obnoxium habeat deum?” (Italics mine)

104  Zwingli as Initiator the first of these articles. Christ’s saving work is the subject of the second article and is already imbedded in God’s elective decree, as Zwingli started from God’s free counsel in all things. God is said not to depend on any creaturely “contingency” or occasion. His (pre-​)determination does not follow “any reasoning process or waiting for events.” So God determined the fall and its reparation by his Son “at the same time” to reveal “his goodness.”194 Does Zwingli argue from an infra-​or supralapsarian perspective? Locher was evasive, saying that “an infralapsarian proposition is here used as proof for the supralapsarian thought.”195 This issue cannot be resolved beyond doubt, but even if Zwingli moved to supralapsarianism, the beginning of redemptive history was not per se called into question. In terms of redemptive history, the covenant of grace is still postlapsarian. Christ comes to “restore” the fall. And God’s election is only in Christ, as clearly stated in the third article: “Those whom He elected before the foundation of the world He elected in such a manner as to make them His own through His Son.”196 In article four, Zwingli stated his doctrine on original sin in a similar manner to De peccato originali, and in the fifth article he addressed the issue of children before God. With respect to Gentile children, Zwingli was reluctant to see them de facto condemned, as “faith follows election”197 and not the other way around. As for Christian children, in light of covenantal continuity Zwingli saw them as certainly elected, although the term covenant itself was not explicitly mentioned: “But to the Church of the Jews, their infants belonged as much as the Jews themselves. No less, therefore, belong our infants to the Church of Christ than did, in former times, those of the Jews.”198 It follows that

194 Zwingli, An Account of the Faith, 38; Zwingli, Fidei ratio, 794–​795: “Secundo scio numen istud summum, quod deus meus est, libere constituere de rebus universis, ita ut non pendeat consilium eius ab ullius creaturę occasione; hoc enim est mutilę illius humanę sapientiae proprium pręcedente discursu aut exemplo statuere. Deus autem, qui ab aeterno usque in sempiternum universa unico et simplici intuitu inspicit, non habet opus ulla ratiocinatione aut factorum expectatione; sed ex aequo sapiens, prudens, bonus etc. libere constituit ac disponit de rebus universis; sua enim sunt, quaecunque sunt. Hinc est, ut, quamvis sciens ac prudens hominem principio formaret, qui lapsurus erat, aeque tamen constitueret filium suum humana natura amicire, qui lapsum repararet. Hac enim ratione bonitas illius ex omni partemanifestata est.” 195 Locher, Die Theologie Huldrych Zwinglis, 154: “hier ein infralapsarischer Satz zum Beweise des supralapsarischen Gedankens heran gezogen wird.” 196 Zwingli, An Account of the Faith, 39–​40; Zwingli, Fidei ratio, 796: “Constat autem etfirma manet dei electio; quos enim ille elegit ante mundi constitutionem [vgl. Eph.1.4], sic elegit, ut per filium suum sibi cooptaret.” 197 Zwingli, An Account of the Faith, 42; Zwingli, Fidei ratio, 799: “fides electionem sequitur.” 198 Zwingli, An Account of the Faith, 42–​43; Zwingli, Fidei ratio, 799–​800: “Ad ecclesiam autem Judaeorum ęque pertinebant infantes ipsorum atque ipsi Judęi. Nihilo igitur minus pertinent nostri infantes ad ecclesiam Christi quam olim Judęorum.”

Zwingli’s Covenantal Turn of 1525  105 “since the infants of Christians no less than the adults, are members of the visible Church of Christ, it is evident that they no less than the parents are of the number of those whom we judge elect.”199 (Italics mine) Zwingli used the word ecclesia instead of foedus. Being a member of the church or covenant was synonymous with election or salvation. Zwingli dedicated article six to the church, which he intimately connected to the sacrament of baptism in explicit demarcation from the Anabaptists. Here and only here in the whole text did Zwingli mention the covenant: “But since our infants are in the same position as those of the Hebrews, the promise also declares their adherence to our Church and makes confession. Hence, in reality baptism, like circumcision (I am speaking of the sacrament of baptism) presupposes nothing but one of two things, either confession, that is a declaration of allegiance or a covenant, that is a promise.”200 (Italics mine) We encounter again the synonymical triplet of church, faith, and covenant. The covenant or promise, which is again seen in continuity with the Hebrews, is as valid as a subjective confession of faith for membership of the church, and therefore an infant might receive baptism. The covenant is considered by Zwingli to be an objective confession of faith. When, in article seven, Zwingli came to speak specifically about baptism, he said, “By baptism, therefore, the Church publicly receives one who has previously been received through grace.”201 Baptism is a sign of reception into the covenant which is the church. Although Zwingli’s insights on covenantal continuity can be followed into his last writings, the second account of the faith, the Fidei expositio of Summer 1531, is astonishingly silent on the matter. Zwingli’s final text does not use terms such as foedus or promissio. Even the locus of election is not given the prominence it had in earlier writings. This absence merits highlighting, because Fidei expositio claimed to be a synthetic exposition of the Christian faith as confessed by the Zurich Reformer. The lack of any covenantal reference in such a text reveals that Zwingli’s theological use of the covenant

199 Zwingli, An Account of the Faith, 43; Zwingli, Fidei ratio, 800: “Christianorum igitur infantes, cum non minus sint de visibili ecclesia Christi quam adulti, constat non minus esse de eorum numero, quos nos electos iudicamus quam parentes.” (Italics mine) 200 Zwingli, An Account of the Faith, 45–​46; Zwingli, Fidei ratio, 802–​803: “Cum autem nostri infantes eo loco sint quo Hebraeorum, iam et nostrae ecclesiae promissio nomen dat et fatetur. Vere igitur baptismus perinde ac circumcisio (loquimur autem de sacramento baptismi) nihil quam alterum istorum, aut confessionem sive nominis dationem aut foedus sive promissionem, requirit.” 201 Zwingli, An Account of the Faith, 47; Zwingli, Fidei ratio, 805: “Baptismo igitur ecclesia publice recipit eum, qui prius receptus est per gratiam.”

106  Zwingli as Initiator remained inchoate and did not develop into an overarching locus in his theological thinking. In other words, Zwingli seems to have been able to formulate the faith with a non-​covenantal terminology. Or did Zwingli see himself compelled to employ a more “catholic” language and give up a theological semantic too specifically Reformed to win Francis I for the evangelical party in the Christliches Burgrecht? In contrast to his polemical Fidei ratio, which Zwingli knew would never convince Emperor Charles V, Zwingli had now real hopes of finding support in France against the Holy Roman Empire and Pope Clement VII (1478–​1534). It remains uncertain, however, whether the French king even took notice of the Reformer’s appeal. When Zwingli died in the course of the Second War of Kappel, the originator of the Reformed view of the covenant passed the baton to Heinrich Bullinger.

Conclusion Zwingli’s covenantal turn in mid-​1525 marked a change in his manner of argumentation. He made use of covenantal theology in various genres of writings, from biblical annotations and thematic letters to a comprehensive confession of faith. However, he deployed it principally with respect to the sacraments, especially baptism. Zwingli’s covenantal insights can be summarized as follows: despite his turn to proposing a fundamental continuity of the covenant from Adam through Abraham and Moses to Christ, he also recognized elements of discontinuity between the old and new testaments. First, there was a historical difference, as the promise of Christ has been fulfilled. Second, there was a liturgical difference, as the ceremonial law that anticipated Christ had been rendered obsolete in the new. Nevertheless, the moral law in its didactic and normative usi, or functions, belonged to the core of covenantal continuity. Third, there is a participational difference, as the covenant that had been formerly only Israelite was enlarged to embrace the Gentiles. This notion of covenantal continuity, including these three differences, was carried forward by Bullinger. Two insights into Zwingli’s covenantal thinking will be relevant for our study of Bullinger. First, his notion of a covenantal relationship between God and the Adamic couple differs in some way from the postlapsarian and Christocentric covenant of grace. The sources point to a prelapsarian covenant regulated by the law. While Bullinger, like Zwingli,

Zwingli’s Covenantal Turn of 1525  107 was not very interested in developing that concept, he would nevertheless agree with his predecessor. Further, Zwingli understood covenantal continuity in terms of ecclesial unity, that is, the one church of Christ in the old and the new testaments. This ecclesial emphasis of the covenant anticipated in nuce the organic-​mystical aspect of the covenant, which would grow in importance with Bullinger.

PART II

HEIN R IC H BU L L I NG E R A ND T HE DEV E LOPM E NT OF A T R A DIT ION Bullinger’s development of the covenant theology initiated by Zwingli receives a thorough examination in the next three chapters, which form the second part of this study. Zwingli’s successor at the head of the church in Zurich took the theological locus “covenant” a step further and made it a central theme of his theological thinking. Moving beyond the sacramental context, Bullinger viewed God’s covenant as the heart of the entire doctrine, life, and end of the church. Through his acknowledgment of the heritage of the Church Fathers and his unprecedented homiletical and exegetical activity during his long life, Bullinger served as a major actor in the consolidation of the foundations of the Reformed tradition.

3 Mutual Influence, to 1534 Chapters 3 to 5 examine Heinrich Bullinger’s development of Zwingli’s insights and form the heart of my study. As I pointed out in the survey of selected past research in the introduction, Bullinger’s contribution to the development of Reformed covenant theology was recognized by scholars before Zwingli’s. However, in line with the current consensus, I argue that with his covenantal turn, Zwingli preceded Bullinger. First, I demonstrate that Bullinger continued along the path of his predecessor by adopting all of Zwingli’s basic insights. Second, I argue that he made the covenant an overarching locus, whereby we need to consider two indissociable and integrated aspects of the covenant. Like Zwingli, Bullinger put strong emphasis on the redemptive-​historical unfolding of the one covenant of grace, which culminates in Christ’s vicarious atonement and implementation of his testament through his death; this I term the “historical-​legal” aspect of the covenant. Additionally, however, Bullinger also emphasized, much more than had his predecessor, the communal, ecclesial, and spiritual life of the covenanted people in their union with Christ all through redemptive history until its consummation in the eschaton; this I term the “organic-​mystical” aspect of the covenant. While Bullinger was long considered exclusively in light of his covenantal thought, renewed interest in the Reformer during the last few decades has openly challenged this view. The alternative approaches proposed by scholars seem to converge in seeing the church as the true heart of Bullinger’s thought. Indicative of that trend is Opitz’s concept of Gemeinschaft, or communion, through which he seeks to give systematic coherence to Bullinger’s theology. However, a close reading of a broader number of sources shows that these concepts represent false alternatives in Bullinger’s theology. Covenant, church, and communion function in Bullinger’s thought increasingly as synonyms. The history of redemption is the history of the covenant, the history of the covenant is the history of the church, and the history of the church is the history of the communion with Christ. In making a categorical distinction among covenant, church, and communion, we impose a The Zurich Origins of Reformed Covenant Theology. Pierrick Hildebrand, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2024. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197607572.003.0004

112  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development framework foreign to Bullinger’s thought that does not match with the very close relationship between these terms evident in the texts. Consideration of historical-​legal and organic-​mystical aspects of his covenantal thought is one way to leave false alternatives behind. Similarly, my reading of Bullinger leads me to consider wrongheaded the question posed (and answered) by Baker as to whether Bullinger held an unconditional and unilateral covenant or a bilateral and conditional covenant. The question has been similarly wrongly applied to Zwingli. Again, we must be careful not to read into the sources’ contemporary problems and posit false alternatives. The question assumes an antagonism and a dichotomy that Bullinger did not endorse. Bullinger was not unaware of such tensions, but his thought on the covenant has often been over-​rationalized. He worked with these different concepts by interlacing them and giving them scope of application in their own right, that is on different levels. This becomes especially evident in the continuing use of both the terms foedus and testamentum. The covenant is both unilateral and bilateral. The covenant is governed by election and includes conditions. Hence, based on Bullinger’s writings a definition of the covenant as monopleurically established but dipleurically administered is most persuasive.

Bullinger and Zwingli What was the precise relationship between Zurich’s Reformation pioneer Huldreich Zwingli and his successor Heinrich Bullinger? The latter came to a Reformed confession of the Christian faith independently of the former. Bullinger later wrote succinctly in his vita about his conversion. In this autobiographical entry Bullinger sketched the main stages of his spiritual development, which began “by the year of 1520,” when he was studying at the faculty of liberal arts in Cologne.1 He heard at the university of Luther’s 1 Heinrich Bullinger, Vita Henrici Bullingeri usque ad annum 1560, in Heinrich Bullingers Diarium (Annales vitae) der Jahre 1504–​1574: Zum 400. Geburtstag Bullingers am 18. Juli 1904, ed. Emil Egli (Basel: Basler Buch-​und Antiquariats-​Handlung, 1904), 126: “Cum anno 1520. gravis esset concertatio de propositionibus Lutheri, controversa capita, et quae damnabant theologi Colonienses, contuli cum scriptis beatorum patrum, Augustini imprimis; deprehendebam, papistica non congruere per omnia cum doctrina patrum; deprehendebam, patres relegare ad scripturas canonicas. Paravi ergo mihi Biblia, Novum Testamentum imprimis, ac legi qua potui diligentia. lnspiciebam item interpretationes veterum. Didici, salutem esse a Deo per Christum; didici, superstitiosa et impia esse, quae Papistae docebant. Caepi tum quoque legere Lutheri et Melanchtonis libellos. Circa annum 1522. Caepi fugere missas et coetus sacros Papistarum.”

Mutual Influence, to 1534  113 condemnation by the theological establishment. Luther did not immediately convince him, but the controversy around him acted as a catalyst. Bullinger compared the theological “propositions” of the Wittenberg professor “with the writings of the Church Fathers, especially Augustine.” The comparison caused him to doubt the “popish doctrine” and to purchase and read a copy of Erasmus’s edition of the New Testament edition, as “the Fathers [again and again] referred to the canonical Scriptures.” He also consulted the Fathers’ own exposition of Scripture. His thorough study eventually led Bullinger to learn “that salvation comes through Christ [alone].” As he moved toward what would prove to be his conversion, he applied the humanistic method learnt in Cologne, going deeper and deeper ad fontes. He also started to read Luther and Melanchthon, and around 1522 he stopped attending the “sacred gatherings of the papists.” According to Bullinger’s Diarium, his more detailed journal, his study of Luther’s writings began simultaneously with his reading of patristic literature.2 After his conversion Bullinger became connected to evangelical humanists in Switzerland. In January 1523—​about the time the First Disputation was taking place in Zurich—​Bullinger followed a call, perhaps mediated by Zwingli, to become schoolmaster at the Cistercian abbey of Kappel. He accepted the call only on condition he was freed from the duties of a monk, to which Wolfgang Joner, Kappel’s abbot, who was inclined to the evangelical teachings, agreed. Applying the humanistic method, Bullinger lectured on the New Testament in the vernacular in the morning, while in the afternoon he taught Latin. As introduction to his biblical lectures he used Erasmus’s “Ratio seu methodus compendio perveniendi ad veram theologiam,” which was appended to the humanist’s New Testament edition, as well as the first edition of Melanchthon’s “loci communes.”3 In 1523 he also met Zwingli for the first time. He recalled this first meeting as follows: “In 1523 I heard for the first time Huldrych Zwingli. I had already read his books, however, especially his work on the [67] articles. I was highly impressed by his teaching, which was solid, right and scriptural.”4 The fact that Bullinger had read the Opus arcticulorum, which was Zwingli’s Auslegen und Gründe der Schlussreden, 2 Heinrich Bullinger, Diarium (Annales vitae), in Heinrich Bullingers Diarium (Annales vitae) der Jahre 1504–​1574, 6. 3 See Fritz Büsser, Heinrich Bullinger (1504–​1575): Leben, Werk und Wirkung, vol. 1. (Zurich: TVZ, 2004), 30. 4 Bullinger, Vita, 126: “Anno 1523. audivi primum Huldricum Zuinglium, cujus libellos prius, imprimis autem Opus articulorum, legeram. Confirmabar maxime hujus doctrina solida, recta et scripturis conformi.”

114  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development before this encounter suggests that he was attentive to the Reformation that was taking place in Zurich. This encounter, which made an impression on Bullinger, became the first of many. Bullinger recalled another in his Diarium in September 1524, when he and Zwingli recognized their shared views on the Eucharist.5 Their relationship included theological discussion. Bullinger was also involved in decisive disputations, including the disputations with the Anabaptists in Zurich in 15256 and the disputation of Berne in 1528. Bullinger’s evangelical teaching at Kappel made such an impact that the abbey was thoroughly reformed and entrusted to Reformed Zurich in 1527; it was eventually dissolved and became a residential school. Formally, Bullinger joined the Zurich church in 1528, when he took the oath as a minister of the Zurich church. He was then installed in the parish of Hausen am Albis—​on 21 June 1528, he gave his very first sermon—​while remaining a teacher in Kappel for a time. In 1529 he moved to the parish of Bremgarten, his native city. The Second Kappel War of 1531, when Zwingli died and Zurich was defeated, led to Bullinger’s exile from Bremgarten—​the re-​Catholicization of Bremgarten was a term of the peace that concluded the war. He went to Zurich, where in December 1531 he accepted the call to succeed Zwingli. The relational and ecclesial closeness between Bullinger and Zwingli generated their indisputable theological influences on one another. In tracing the beginnings of Reformed covenant theology to Zwingli—​ especially to what we have called Zwingli’s covenantal turn of mid-​1525—​ we are challenging two competing narratives. They have in common that Heinrich Bullinger ought to be given priority over Zwingli. The first of these positions has been recently restated by Joe Mock, who suggests that the theological discovery of the covenant in the Reformed tradition is to be attributed to Bullinger, who passed it on to Zwingli, and not the other way around.7 5 Bullinger, Diarium, 9. 6 See Heinold Fast, Heinrich Bullinger und die Täufer (Weierhof, Pfalz: Mennonitischer Geschichtsverein, 1959), 14–​22. 7 See Joe Mock, “Biblical and Theological Themes in Heinrich Bullinger’s ‘De Testamento’ (1534),” Zwa 40 (2013): 31–​34; Joe Mock, “Bullinger and the Covenant with Adam,” RTR 70:3 (2011): 189–​ 191. Mock is not the first to have challenged the traditional order. Williams argued from Bullinger’s letter to Simler Von dem Touff, assuming that this writing antedates Zwingli’s Von der Taufe, see George Huntston Williams, The Radical Reformation (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962), 131. Williams’s dating has been proved inaccurate by Heinold Fast; e.g., see Fast, Bullinger und die Täufer, 20–​21. For our own considerations of the date, see below on Von dem Touff. Joachim Staedtke also considered Bullinger prior to Zwingli, on the basis of the former’s Antwort an Burchard, which he dated as early as the beginning of 1525, see Staedtke 1962, 65, fn. 28–​29, 274. Staedtke’s early dating has been meanwhile also been proven wrong by Endre Zsindely, Wayne Baker, and Hans-​ Georg vom Berg, all three differing on the terminus ad quem but agreeing on 1526 as terminus a

Mutual Influence, to 1534  115 Mock attacked head-​on the traditional order of influence. The second, older position was espoused by Baker, whose name has been linked to a thesis that has generated heated debate over the past couple of decades. The indirect attack from this Baker thesis is subtle, in that he does not fundamentally question Zwingli’s discovery of the “covenant idea,” as he names it; instead he denies that Zwingli ever had a genuine theology of the covenant (properly bilateral) as Bullinger did. In fact, he locates Bullinger as the first exponent of the covenant in Christian thought.8 I propose that Zwingli was the first Reformed theologian to make use of covenant theology (pace Mock) and that Bullinger built upon his predecessor’s discovery to develop and enlarge it, so that there was a fundamental continuity between the two theologians (pace Baker). Mock’s recent challenge to the traditional Rezeptionsgeschichte in the development of covenant theology by asserting the priority of Bullinger over Zwingli appears, according to his article on the covenant with Adam, to rest on three points. First, Mock calls for “sufficient weighting” to be given to a letter written by Leo Jud to Bullinger on 1 December 1525, where the former “thanks Bullinger for his letter to Zwingli in which Bullinger drew Zwingli’s attention to quotes from both Lactantius and Tertullian supporting the covenant unity of Scripture which Zwingli had incorporated in his reply to Hubmaier a month earlier.”9 The said letter has been lost. Mock seems to imply, however, that this epistolary exchange assumes Zwingli’s dependence on Bullinger. Now, the first difficulty lies in the fact that neither Lactanctius (250–​325) nor Tertullian (155–​240) was explicitly referred to in Zwingli’s Antwort. Both authors would certainly have strengthened Zwingli’s argument against Hubmaier’s charge that pedobaptism had been introduced by the pope 600 years earlier. But Zwingli referred only to Augustine (354–​ 430) and Origen (184/​185–​253/​254) and crucially not to the earlier Father Tertullian.10 Why this gap? Probably because Zwingli was not yet aware of the passages Bullinger had forwarded to him. In other words, the lost letter quo, see Hans G. Vom Berg, “Noch einmal: zur Datierung von Heinrich Bullingers ‘Antwort an Johannes Burchard,’” Zwa 14:10 (1978): 588; J. Wayne Baker, “Das Datum von Bullingers ‘Antwort an Johannes Burchard,’” Zwa 14:5 (1976): 274; Endre Zsindely, “Aus der Arbeit an der Bullinger-​ Edition: Zum Abendmahlsstreit zwischen Heinrich Bullinger und Johannes Burchard, 1525/​26,” Zwa 13:7 (1972): 478. 8 See J. Wayne Baker, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1980), 25. 9 Mock, “Bullinger and the Covenant with Adam,” 92. 10 Zwingli, Antwort, 623–​624.

116  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development from Bullinger to Zwingli must have been received by the latter only after the publication of the Antwort on 5 November 1525. The letter itself points to a short lapse of time in the epistolary exchange. Jud, who, supporting a busy Zwingli, assumed here the role of secretary, was about to send right back his own (not Zwingli’s!) opinion on the passages when Bullinger’s letter carrier drew his attention to one word. Only subsequently did Jud ask Zwingli for his opinion, letting him know of the quotations.11 This delay did not require a great amount of time, so that Bullinger’s lost letter was probably written not long before Jud’s response of 1 December 1525. I do not challenge the mutual influence of Bullinger and Zwingli per se. What we are trying to settle here is when this influence originated. And above all, who introduced the covenant into the discussion. This letter from Jud to Bullinger is of no help in giving Bullinger priority over Zwingli. Second, Mock assumes, as did other scholars before him,12 that Zwingli’s Elenchus of 1527 “appears to be the very first occasion that Zwingli mentions a covenant with Adam.”13 Bullinger, however, had already mentioned it in his Von dem Touff. If my interpretation of Zwingli’s Subsidium is correct, then Mock’s argument is obsolete. I concluded that Abraham’s covenant was said to be essentially Christ’s testament and had already been promised just after Adam’s fall as the Protoevangelion. Zwingli’s Subsidium of August 1525 clearly preceded Von dem Touff. The editing of the latter has been dated by the most recent scholarship to 5 November 1525 at the earliest.14 Third, Mock refers to Bullinger’s De scripturae negotio of 30 November 1523, “which contained, in embryo, Bullinger’s thoughts concerning the covenant.”15 Bullinger’s rapprochement with Zwingli and his self-​effacement when making common cause with Zurich’s Reformation would suggest that Bullinger shared his view on the covenant with Zurich’s Reformer, Mock further proposes. As we shall see, Bullinger did indeed lay the hermeneutical foundations for the development of covenant theology in De scripturae negotio, but as the covenant was not mentioned or even alluded to, it is too 11 Leo Jud, Leo Jud an Bullinger: Zürich, 1. Dezember 1525, in HBBW 1, 81, no. 11: “Haec mea sunt, que quod ad sententiam attinet puto satis esse, quaeque tibi statim misissem, nisi adolescens, qui mihi tuas attulit litteras, iam abiens de hoc verbo ‘anteponeret’ dixisset. Rogavi ergo Zuinglium”. (Italics mine) 12 See Schrenk, Gottesreich und Bund, 37–​38; Stephens, The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli, 91; Baker, Bullinger and the Covenant, 2–​3. 13 Mock, “Bullinger and the Covenant with Adam,” 192. 14 Even if our interpretation were proved wrong, it would only mean that Bullinger took covenantal continuity back to Adam, not that he was the originator of covenantal continuity over all. 15 Mock, “Bullinger and the Covenant with Adam,” 193.

Mutual Influence, to 1534  117 much to speak of covenantal thought even in nuce. Bullinger was not yet drawing the necessary redemptive-​historical conclusions in terms of covenantal continuity. One question remains: If Bullinger shared a basic notion of covenantal continuity with Zwingli as early as 1523/​1524, how do we explain that Zwingli waited until mid-​1525 (in Mock’s view even to November 1525) to make use of these ideas? While no satisfactory evidence can confirm Mock’s hypothesis, he does raise a legitimate question: What is the first source to testify to genuine covenantal continuity in Bullinger’s thought and does it antedate Zwingli’s Subsidium? This question is the subject of the next section. With regard to the Baker thesis, its author has acknowledged that “Zwingli was the first to develop the idea of covenant unity,”16 but he is not disposed to recognize a strong dependence by Bullinger on Zwingli. In fact, he builds his case for relative independence by arguing, as does Mock later, from a hermeneutical principle already expressed in De scripturae negotio of 1523 as well as from the covenant with Adam. The covenant was already traced back to Adam in Von dem Touff and thus Bullinger preceded Zwingli, so Baker.17 Baker’s argument is open to the critique expressed above. The Subsidium not only testifies to Zwingli’s covenantal turn but also alludes to the covenant with Adam earlier than Bullinger’s Von dem Touff. Bullinger’s independence cannot be built on Adam’s covenant if our interpretation of Zwingli’s covenantal turn is accepted.18 Nevertheless, Baker’s key argument seems to be Bullinger’s notion of the bilaterality of the covenant, which Baker claims is missing from Zwingli’s theology. His conclusion is instructive: On the one hand, Zwingli spoke of human obligations in the covenant, and it might be concluded from that that he taught a bilateral covenant. On the other band, it could be maintained that for Zwingli the covenant remained a unilateral promise to the elect, in reality a theology of testament in which any “conditional” elements were blunted by his doctrine of election. In any case, the contractual element, the mutual nature of the covenant, was simply not a clearly or well-​articulated idea in Zwingli’s thought. He seems not

16 Baker, Bullinger and the Covenant, 2. 17 Baker, Bullinger and the Covenant, 4ff. 18 See also Baker’s opinion on Bullinger’s view on the Eucharist in Baker, Bullinger and the Covenant, 9: “[Bullinger’s] view of the eucharist was similar to Zwingli’s but in late 1525 Zwingli had not yet so clearly and thoroughly connected the Lord’s Supper with the unity of the testament.” Ironically, the Subidium is precisely about the Eucharist.

118  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development to have developed bis covenant idea sufficiently to consider carefully the implications of the bilateral nature of the covenant. Even in the 1520s, however, Bullinger left little doubt in his reader’s mind: the covenant was bilateral, and the human conditions were faith and piety.19 (Italics mine)

No scholar acquainted with the Baker thesis will miss the point. It was Zwingli’s doctrine of election that marked the difference between him and Bullinger. According to Baker, Zwingli connected it to the covenant while Bullinger did not. Underlying this thesis is the proposition that election and covenantal conditionality are mutually exclusive. So that, if we follow Baker’s thesis of two Reformed traditions, a predestinarian tradition was associated with Calvin while the covenantal tradition was associated with Bullinger. Accordingly, Zwingli would better fit with the Calvinian thread. I will not go deeper into the Baker thesis here as it has already been convincingly treated elsewhere.20 However, we should note that if I can show that Bullinger did in fact explicitly connect the covenant to election in the strongest terms, the ultimate argument of traditionsgeschichtliche independence between Zwingli and Bullinger is not valid. Baker has, like Hagen,21 systematically redefined “covenant” as bilateral and “testament” as unilateral to create two opposed categories for the sake of his historical reconstruction of two distinct Reformed traditions. I do not adhere to this categorical distinction and therefore do not use the terms in the same sense that Baker does. This distinction is too loaded and associated with Baker’s own thesis, which does not take into account the nuanced breadth of Reformed theology from its beginnings, as I shall demonstrate. When I speak of testamental discontinuity or covenantal continuity, I do not intend to say anything about the exact nature (i.e., bilateral or unilateral) of the testaments or the covenant. Before we go further into the sources to find the earliest evidence of covenantal thought in Bullinger and compare it with Zwingli, we might wonder how Bullinger himself saw his relationship to Zwingli with respect to the covenant. Two passages have been advanced as addressing this question, the first from Von warer und falscher leer of 152722 and the second from De prophetae 19 Baker, Bullinger and the Covenant, 16. 20 See, e.g., Cornelis P. Venema, Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination: Author of “the Other Reformed Tradition”?, Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-​Reformation Thought (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002). 21 See above section “From Testament to Covenant?”, Ch. 1, 48–51. 22 Heinrich Bullinger, Von warer und falscher leer, altem und nuwem glouben, und bruch der eucharistien oder mesz, wie sy anfencklich gehalten, und mitt was mittel sy in in missbruch kummen sye

Mutual Influence, to 1534  119 officio of 1532.23 In both writings Bullinger gave Zwingli credit for having disclosed God’s eternal covenant, and in so doing for being a kind of Josiah, who engaged in cultic reform after the rediscovery of the forgotten book of the covenant (2 Kings 23). While Cottrell and Stoute took the first passage (they do not appeal to the second) at face value,24 Mock looks at them with a hermeneutics of suspicion, asserting that “Bullinger was willing to be deliberately self-​effacing in order to promote the positive contributions of Zwingli while seeking to downplay Zwingli’s negative contribution.”25 To say that Bullinger had such an agenda is one thing, but to say that he was ready to distort reality for that purpose is quite another. Our research shows Bullinger to have been right, or at least due the benefit of the doubt or a presumption of innocence. However, it is also possible that Bullinger was simply referring in a very broad sense to Zwingli’s Reformation achievements (which antedate Zwingli’s covenantal turn!) and interpreting them in light of his own (i.e., Bullinger’s) covenant theology or covenantal view of redemptive history. King Josiah, who restored genuine worship in Jerusalem, has always been an archetypal figure for church or state leaders associated with church reform or restoration.26

(Kantonsbibliothek Vadiana, St. Gallen: Msc No. 376, 1527), fol. 91r–​92r: “Dannenhar uns nun der selbig Gott durch inn nitt alein ein grosse kraafft in einem so herten und grusammen volck, als bishar wir Eydgnossen gewäsen, erzoeugt hat, mitt dem er durch sin predgen sy zuo der warheit meerenteyls beckeert, sunder er hat uns ouch die obristen stuck siner relligion durch inn häll, als vor gar nach in tusend iaren durch gheinen nie, dargestellt, als dz gantze wäsen und gruntliche erckantnusz Gottes, den verstand sines einigen ewigen pundts, von welches waegen sich der mensch von allen creaturen wenden und an niemands dann am einigen Gott hanggen soelle, dardurch die götzen und alles, dz daran gehanget, hin und verbrennt ist. . . . Und ist also Zvingly unser Josias von Gott gesendt, durch den dz Excelsum maximum, die Mesz zerbrochen und das Pascha, die Widergedaechtnus ernüweret, durch den ouch die Goetzen ussgerütet, dz Deuteronomium funden und der pundt, den wir mitt Gott habend, widerumb herfür bracht ist.” (Italics mine); See also Staedtke 1962, 50; Cottrell, Covenant and Baptism, 338–​339. 23 Heinrich Bullinger, De prophetae officio et quomodo digne administrari possit, oratio (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1532), fol. 33r–​v : “Nam per hunc virum restituit nobis Deus ecclesiae suae gloriam. Unus enim restituit testamenti et aeterni foederis capita, obsoletaeque renovavit. Unus omnipotentiam et bonitatem dei, imo et unitatem, divorum invocatione et cultu obscuratam, pristine restituit nitori. Idem Ezechiae et Iosiae sanctissimorum regum exemplo omnia sustulit simulachra”. 24 Cottrell, Covenant and Baptism, 338–​339; Stoute, The Origins and Early Development, 131–​132. 25 Mock, “Bullinger and the Covenant with Adam,” 35. 26 See, e.g., Elector Palatinate Frederick III, mandator and authorizer of the Heidelberg Catechism, who was also considered to be a “new Josiah.” But this association does not refer directly to the theological notion of the “covenant” per se, see Claus Peter Clasen, The Palatinate in European History, 1559–​1660 (Oxford: B. Blackwell, 1963), 42.

120  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development

From the Beginning to De testamento (1534) As we did for Zwingli, now for Bullinger too we will dive into his individual writings to examine covenant-​theological material and seek to identify development in his thought. For the sake of clarity, I have opted for a division of Bullinger’s huge literary activity into three chapters, which correspond to three periods. These periods do not necessarily coincide with historical or biographical turning points or with shifts in his covenantal thought. The boundary markers are provided by two key writings that gained considerable approbation during Bullinger’s lifetime as well as in their reception history—​ De testamento seu foedere Dei unico et eterno (hereafter De Testamento) of 1534, which concludes the discussion in ­chapter 3, and the Sermonum decades quinque (hereafter Decades) of 1551, which is the final text addressed in ­chapter 4. These writings have acquired quasi-​normative or representative status for his theological thought. I have sought to be as exhaustive as possible in considering printed works as well as manuscripts when looking for references to covenant theology. This search for data relevant to this study has relied on two criteria in particular. I looked first at scriptural or exegetical references to Genesis 17 and the Abrahamic covenant, and, second, at terminological references to the covenant. With regard to Bullinger’s commentaries or sermons, I directed my attention to occurrences of the term “covenant” in the biblical text of reference. This search proved more difficult than might be imagined. There are many gray areas when it comes to identification of these occurrences, especially in relation to terminology, when we might wonder if a term really has covenantal relevance. Moreover, the covenant might often have been only implicitly assumed, which makes the heuristic enterprise all the more difficult. I have broadened as much as possible the textual evidence, drawing from a wide range of sources little addressed by scholarship. The years 1523–​1534, covered by writings treated in this first chapter culminating with De Testamento, encompass four main stations in Bullinger’s activity:

• 1523–​1528: schoolmaster at the abbey of Kappel • 1528–​1529: minister in Albis am Hausen • 1529–​1531: minister in Bremgarten • 1531–​ until the end of his life: church superintendent (Antistes) in Zurich

Mutual Influence, to 1534  121 Bullinger’s time as a teacher in Kappel was productive in terms of exegetical and thematic writings of every kind. Bullinger himself mentioned 79 works in his Diarium.27 Staedtke ascertained that this number is far from exhaustive: he compiled a bibliography of 86 works that are still available, and even then, his bibliography includes only half of the writings listed in the Diarium.28 Along with his commentaries on the New Testament resulting from his lectures in Kappel, Bullinger wrote in particular on Scripture and hermeneutics, as well as on the sacraments. Most of these writings are polemical in character, as Bullinger began to fight on the same fronts as Zwingli, that is with Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Anabaptist adversaries. To some extent he inherited Zwingli’s opponents because of his close association with him. Even if Bullinger was more sensitive when it came to religious politics than was Zwingli and remained careful, he too aspired the Reformation of the Swiss Confederation and territories beyond the Swiss borders. To that end he built up a personal network of like-​minded persons, even behind enemy lines, that overlapped with Zwingli’s former network. Bullinger also actively engaged in lobbying for the evangelical cause with the political authorities. He was involved from the beginning with the Reformation of the abbey of Kappel itself. During his subsequent years as pastor in Hausen am Albis and Bremgarten, he continued to write exegetical as well as theological and polemical works, a period that ended in December 1531 with his acceptance of the call to succeed Zwingli. The first writing we shall consider is De scripturae negotio,29 dated 30 November 1523 and Bullinger’s earliest known Reformation writing. Some scholars have held that the text included Bullinger’s covenant theology in embryonic form, thus denying Zwingli’s priority in covenantal thought. The immediate setting of De scripturae negotio was the broken friendship between Wolfgang Joner, Kappel’s abbot and Bullinger’s employer, and Rudolf Asper, who took issue with Joner on account of his inclination toward evangelical teaching. This text, which is actually a letter Bullinger wrote on Joner’s behalf, represents the desperate attempt of the abbot to restore their relationship through an apology for the sufficiency of Scripture. However, the reader learns more about Bullinger’s own conversion through Scripture than about Joner’s position. We then turn to Bullinger’s Antwort an Burchard30

27 Bullinger, Diarium, 10–​16.

28 Staedtke 1962, 261–​292.

29 Heinrich Bullinger, De scripturae negotio, in HBTS 2, 21–​31; Staedtke 1962, 266, no. 21. 30 Heinrich Bullinger, Antwort an Burchard, in HBTS 2, 140–​172.

122  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development (1526), another important text in the development of his biblical hermeneutics against Roman Catholic primacy. Vom einigen Gott,31 dated 20 October 1525, was the first text by Bullinger attesting to covenantal continuity. This small and unprinted theological treatise deals with true worship versus erroneous idolatry, that is, it opposes evangelical and Roman Catholic religious practice. Bullinger dedicated the work to Zwingli’s German friend Wilhelm von Zell, who stayed in Zurich in June that year.32 The condemnation of Roman Catholic iconolatry and invocation of the saints was also a focus of other writings by Bullinger, including Verglichung der uralten und unser Zyten Kaetzeryen33 (1526) and the subsequent De origine erroris in divorum ac simulachrorum cultu34 (1529). Bullinger’s letter to Christoph Stiltz (February 1526),35 town clerk of Wildberg in Württemberg, a city in southern Germany that had not yet adopted the Reformation, was essentially a defense of evangelical teaching against Roman Catholic attack written in the name of Johannes Enzlin, who came from Württemberg and had preceded Bullinger as evangelical minister in Albis am Hausen. Bullinger’s Von dem Touff 36 (5 November–​10 December 1525) was in fact a letter, although it looked more like a theological essay on the sacrament of baptism. It was addressed to Heinrich Simler, who was Bernese and part of the movement to bring the Reformation to his city following the model of Zurich. That endeavor was threatened, however, by the rise of the Anabaptists in Bern’s rural areas, which provided the immediate context for Bullinger’s text. The year 1525 also saw three disputations with the Anabaptists in Zurich (the third between 6 and 9 November), which Bullinger attended at Zwingli’s side. The Anabaptist teaching on baptism was not the only doctrine Bullinger considered unorthodox, as Quod animae non dormiant (summer/​autumn 1526),37 on the sleep of the soul, demonstrated. The first time he was likely confronted directly with Anabaptists was during 31 Heinrich Bullinger, Vom einigen, waren, laebenden, ewigen GOTT (Kantonsbibliothek Vadiana, St. Gallen: VadSlg Ms 376, 1525); Staedtke 1962, 276, no. 37; see further appendix A. 32 On Wihelm von Zell, see Z 9, 327, fn. 1. 33 Heinrich Bullinger, Verglichung der uralten und unser zyten kaetzeryen: zuo warnen die einfaltigen Christen (Zurich: Hans Hager, 1526); HBBibl I, 3, no. 1. 34 Heinrich Bullinger, De origine erroris in divorum et simulachrum cultu (Basel: Thomas Wolff, 1529); HBBibl I, 8, no. 11. 35 Heinrich Bullinger, Bullinger und Johannes Enzlin an Christoph Stilz: Kappel, 27. Februar 1526, in HBBW 1, 100–​112, no. 16; Staedtke 1962, 278, no. 40. 36 Heinrich Bullinger, Von dem Touff, in HBTS 2, 71–​85; Staedtke 1962, 273–​274, no. 32. 37 Heinrich Bullinger, Quod animae non dormiant, in HBTS 2, 128–​133; Staedtke 1962, 282–​283, no. 55.

Mutual Influence, to 1534  123 his ministry in Bremgarten. It was there that he wrote his first extensive and comprehensive anti-​Anabaptist work, Von dem unverschämten Frevel der Wiedertaufer38 of 1531 (hereafter Von dem unverschämten Frevel). De institutione eucharistiae39 (10 December 1525) was one of the many eucharistic writings Bullinger composed in Kappel, but it was the first to place the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper in the context of covenant theology. Together with De pane eucharistiae declamationes40 (19 March 1525), these two texts targeted the Roman Catholic mass. Bullinger’s religious-​ political awareness and hope for a national Reformation can be seen in his Anklage und ernstliches Ennahnen Gottes,41 addressed at the end of 1525 to the Swiss Confederation, and in his letter to Mathias [Schmid]42 (8 February 1526), its recipient Zwingli’s friend and a priest in Seengen, which was under Bern’s dominion. The latter was an exhortation to Schmid to confess his evangelical commitment even before Bern had been Reformed. For the promotion of the Reformation in Zug, one of the five Roman Catholic Orte of central Switzerland, Bullinger placed his hopes in Rudolf Weingartner (?–​1541), a former Kappel monk who was chaplain in the city-​state.43 It was to Weingartner that the De articulo fidei ‘Descendit ad inferna’44 (1526) was addressed. Although he had been attracted by Reformed teachings, Weingartner eventually remained in the Roman Catholic camp. Bullinger’s religious-​political interest was not a nationalist program. He sought to maintain evangelical unity beyond the Swiss boarders and to cultivate contacts in the empire, as the letter to Philipp I, landgrave of Hesse45 (17 August 1532) testifies.46 38 Heinrich Bullinger, Von dem unverschampten fräfel (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1531); HBBibl I, 18, no. 28. 39 Heinrich Bullinger, De institutione eucharistiae, in HBTS 2, 88–​107; Staedtke 1962, 276–​277, no. 38. 40 Heinrich Bullinger, De pane eucharistiae declamationes, in HBTS 2, 110–​126; Staedtke 1962, 279, no. 46. 41 Heinrich Bullinger, Heinrich Brennwald, and Heinrich Utinger, Anklag und ernstliches ermanen Gottes allmächtigen (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1528); HBBibl I, 4, no. 3. See also the translation into modern High German: Heinrich Bullinger, Anklage und Mahnrede, in BS 6, 39–​79. 42 Heinrich Bullinger, Bullinger an Mathias [Schmid]: Kappel, 8. Februar 1526, in HBBW 1, 92–​99, no. 15. See also the translation into modern High German: Heinrich Bullinger, Ermunterung zum Bekenntnis, in BS 6, 7–​14. 43 On Rudolf Weingartner, see HBBW 1, 47–​48, fn. 1. 44 Heinrich Bullinger, De articulo fidei “Descendit ad inferna, ” in HBTS 2, 174–​180. 45 Heinrich Bullinger, Bullinger an Philipp von Hessen: Zürich, 17. August 1532, in HBBW 2, 181–​ 186, no. 124. 46 On the relationship between Bullinger and Philipp I (1504–​1567), see Andreas Mühling, Heinrich Bullingers europäische Kirchenpolitik, Zürcher Beiträge zur Reformationsgeschichte 19 (Bern: Lang, 2001), 77–​92.

124  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development Some of the works written in this period did not have the immediate polemical or apologetic character associated with the tense climate of the early Reformation. Theological material on the covenant can also be distilled from such writings. Das höchste Gut47 was, for example, a devotional treatise written in 1528 on the highest good. Bullinger’s letter to Anna Adlischwyler48 (24 February 1528), who had been a nun in the abbey of Oetenbach in Zurich, was the third and last of Bullinger’s love letters to the woman he openly married in August 1529.49 Marriage was for Bullinger both a personal matter and a theological issue. Approximately two months before his first letter to Anna Adlischwyler (30 September 1527), he had begun to write his first treatise on marriage, Volkommne underrichtung,50 on 18 July 1527.51 The proximity of this treatise to Bullinger’s excursus on marriage in his Vorlesung über den Hebräerbrief52 (1526/​1527) in interpreting Hebrews 13:4 has been noted.53 We shall return to Bullinger’s first treatise on marriage only in the next chapter, in comparing it with the second treatise. Further titles were immediately related to Bullinger’s exegetical activity in Kappel, as minister in Bremgarten and, above all, as church ­superintendent in Zurich. Along with the Vorlesung über den Hebräerbrief (1526/​1527) mentioned above, relevant here are his scholia on the Gospels of Matthew54 (1529) and Luke55 (1530?), written during his ministry in Bremgarten, and his commentaries on the New Testament, which he began to produce soon after his arrival in Zurich. Bullinger wrote expositions on 1 John56 (1532), on Hebrews57 (1532), on Romans58 (1533), on 47 Heinrich Bullinger, Welches das einig unbetrogen vollkommen und oberist guot sye (Zentralbibliothek Zurich: Msc D 200, 1528); Staedtke 1962, 291, no. 85. See also the translation into modern High German: Heinrich Bullinger, Das höchste Gut, ed. Joachim Staedtke (Zurich: Zwingli-​ Verlag, 1955), 7–​30. 48 Heinrich Bullinger, [Bullinger] an Anna Adlischwyler: [Kappel], 24. Februar 1528, in HBBW 1, 150–​176, no. 27. 49 On Anna Adlischwyler and Bullinger, see Rebecca A. Giselbrecht, “Myths and Reality about Heinrich Bullinger’s Wife Anna,” Zwa 38 (2011): 53–​66. 50 Heinrich Bullinger, Volkommne underrichtung desz christenlichen eestands, in HBTS 5, 1–​78; HBBibl I, 288, no. 74. 51 As Giselbrecht has pointed out, there are many similarities between this letter and Volkommne underrichtung, see Giselbrecht, “Myths and Reality about Heinrich Bullinger’s Wife Anna,” 57. 52 Heinrich Bullinger, Vorlesung über den Hebräerbrief (1526/​1527), in HBTS 1, 133–​268; Staedtke 1962, 284, no. 62. 53 See Detlef Roth, Einleitung, in HBTS 5, XI–​XII; Bullinger, Vorlesung über den Hebräerbrief (1526/​1527), 246–​260. 54 Heinrich Bullinger, Scholion in Evangelion Matthaei (Zentralbibliothek, Zurich: MS F 11, 1529). 55 Heinrich Bullinger, Scholion in Lucam (Zentralbibliothek, Zurich: MS F 11, 1530). 56 Heinrich Bullinger, Kommentar zum Ersten Johannesbrief, in HBTS 9, 307–​370; HBBibl I, 23, no. 37. 57 Heinrich Bullinger, Kommentar zum Hebräerbrief, in HBTS 9, 1–​172; HBBibl I, 24, no. 38. 58 Heinrich Bullinger, Kommentar zum Römerbrief, in HBTS 6, 13–​226; HBBibl I, 25, no. 42.

Mutual Influence, to 1534  125 Acts59 (1533), on 1 and 2 Peter60 (March 1534), and on 1 Corinthians61 (June 1534). He also wrote on hermeneutics and methodology, in particular on the locus method. The following titles fall into this category: Studiorium ratio62 (1527/​1528), the Locorum communium Index63 (undated), his Institutionum στρωματέων64 (1531), and De prophetae officio65 (1532). While the first three titles were destined for a more academic readership, the last was addressed to the ministers of the Zurich church. It was the very first writing Bullinger published as Antistes and was dedicated to the ministry of the Word. He also wrote the Vorwort zu Leo juds Katechismus,66 the foreword to the catechism of Leo Jud (1534), which was the first Reformed catechism in Zurich. Last but not least was De Testamento67 of September 1534, the key writing of this period. Some scholars have seen this text as Bullinger’s response to Schwenckfeld’s teaching on testamental discontinuity and his radical position on the relationship between church and state.68 Schwenckfeld had 59 Heinrich Bullinger, In Acta Apostolorum Heinrychi Bullingeri commentariorum libri VI (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1533); HBBibl I, 26, no. 43. 60 Heinrich Bullinger, Kommentar zum ersten Petrusbrief, in HBTS 9, 177–​272; Heinrich Bullinger, Kommentar zum zweiten Petrusbrief, in HBTS 9, 273–​306; HBBibl I, 31, no. 52. 61 Heinrich Bullinger, Kommentar zum Ersten Korintherbrief, in HBTS 6, 227–​464, HBBibl I, 31, no. 53. For a detailed study on Bullinger’s commentary to 1 Cor., see Sang-​yoon Kim, Humanistic Commentary on Scripture in the Reformation: Heinrich Bullinger’s Commentary on 1 Corinthians (1534) (Doctoral Thesis, Graduate Theological Union, 2015). 62 Heinrich Bullinger, Studiorum ratio–​Studienanleitung, in HBW Sdb. 1:1; Staedtke 1962, 288–​ 289, no. 77. 63 Heinrich Bullinger, Locorum communium index (Universitätsbibliothek, Bern: MUE Klein g 235:3, undated); see appendix C. 64 Heinrich Bullinger, Institutionum στρωματέων de philosophia Christiana libri XII (Zentralbibliothek, Zurich: Ms Car III 206d, 1531); see appendix D. 65 Bullinger, De prophetae officio; HBBibl I, 21, no. 33. See also the translation into modern High German: Heinrich Bullinger, Das Amt des Propheten, in BS 1, 11–​48. 66 Heinrich Bullinger, Dem christlichen Laeser embüt, in Leo Jud, Catechismus: christliche klare und einfalte ynleytung in den willenn unnd in die gnad Gottes (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1534), A2–​r; HBBibl I, 30, no. 50. 67 Heinrich Bullinger, De testamento seu foedere dei unico et aeterno, Heinrychi Bullingeri brevis expositio (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1534); HBBibl I, 32, no. 54. See also Bullinger’s own translation into early modern German: Heinrich Bullinger, Von dem einigen unnd ewigen testament oder pundt Gottes (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1534); HBBibl I, 34, no. 60. See also the translation into modern High German: Heinrich Bullinger, Das Testament oder der Bund, in BS 1, 57–​101. For a translation into modern English see Henry Bullinger, Of the One and Eternal Testament or Covenant of God: A Brief Exposition, in Thy Word Is Still Truth: Essential Writings on the Doctrine of Scripture from the Reformation to Today, ed. Peter A. Lillback and Richard B. Gaffin (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 2013), 245–​270; Heinrich Bullinger, A Brief Exposition of the One and Eternal Testament or Covenant of God, in Baker, Fountainhead of Federalism, 101–​138. 68 See Joachim Staedtke, “Blarer und Bullinger,” in Der Konstanzer Reformator Ambrosius Blarer, 1492–​ 1564: Gedenkschrift zu seinem 400. Todestag, ed. Evangelische K. Konstanz (Konstanz: Thorbecke, 1964), 193–​204, esp. 195; Klaus Depperman, “Schwenckfeld and Leo Jud on the Advantages and Disadvantages of the State Church,” in Schwenckfeld and early Schwenckfeldianism: Papers Presented at the Colloquium on Schwenckfeld and the Schwenckfelders, Pennsburg, Pa., September 17–​22, 1984, ed. Peter C. Erb (Pennsburg, PA: Schwenckfelder Library, 1986), 224.

126  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development just published Vom underschaid dess alten und newen testaments in 1533.69 For a time the view Schwenckfeld expressed in this work proved attractive to Bullinger’s colleague Leo Jud.70 Bullinger’s Quod in ecclesia Christi magistratus sit71 (1534) can be read against this background. Schwenckfeld’s text should not be too readily declared the framing for Bullinger’s interpretation, however, as explicit reference to him is strikingly absent from De Testamento. Indeed, that text is not openly polemical in character. In a letter to Vadian, Bullinger wrote more generally that De Testamento was written “against various heresies emerging today.”72 While Schwenckfeld’s teaching was likely included among these heresies, it was not emphasized in particular. De Testamento was also sent to Bucer, who judged it useful against “heretics,”73 without reference to any particular group. If De Testamento had been written specifically against Schwenckfeld, he would certainly have been mentioned expressis verbis. Schwenckfeld became Bucer’s immediate adversary as he was staying in Strasbourg from 1529 to 1534. A number of writings mentioned in this overview contain covenant-​ theological material but do not provide us with new insights and therefore shall not be given special treatment below.74 Taken as whole, however, these works demonstrate the width, indeed elasticity, of Bullinger’s covenant theology when it came to its application. The covenant is quasi-​omnipresent and used in an eclectic range of genres.

69 The text of this treatise has a complex edition history. Before being printed separately as a treatise in 1533, it was first a section of a letter written in January 1532 to Leonhard von Liechtenstein (1482–​1534). The letter has been edited in a modern critical edition with a short introduction in Caspar Schwenckfeld, Letters and Treatises of Caspar Schwenckfeld von Ossig, ed. Chester D. Hartranft, Corpus Schwenckfeldianorum 4 (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1914), 444–​518. The section corresponding to the separate treatise of 1533 corresponds to pp. 470–​479. A more extensive manuscript by Schwenckfeld on the same subject dated 1531 was also circulating. The correspondence between Schwenckfeld and Jud suggests that the latter must have been acquainted with both the printed version of 1533 and the manuscript of 1531, see Schwenckfeld, Letters and Treatises of Caspar Schwenckfeld von Ossig, 415–​417. 70 For the relationship between Schwenckfeld and Jud, see Depperman, “Schwenckfeld and Leo Jud on the Advantages and Disadvantages of the State Church,” 211–​236. 71 Heinrich Bullinger, QUOD IN ECCLESIA CHRISTI MAGISTRATUS SIT (Zentralbibliothek, Zurich: Ms S 34, 1534); see appendix E. See also Baker’s translation into Modern English in Baker, Bullinger and the Covenant, 120. 72 Heinrich Bullinger, Bullinger an Joachim Vadian: Zürich, 27. August 1534, in HBBW 4, 292, no. 429: “versus multas haereses hodie emergentes.” 73 Martin Bucer, Martin Bucer an Bullinger: [Strassburg] 25. September [1534], in HBBW 4, 325, no. 443. See further Bullinger’s response in Heinrich Bullinger, Bullinger an Martin Bucer: Zürich, 28. Oktober 1534, in HBBW 4, 381, no. 466. 74 See Bullinger, an Mathias [Schmid], 93; Bullinger, an Christoph Stilz, 110–​111; Bullinger, an Anna Adlischwyler, 153–​154; Bullinger, an Philipp von Hessen, 183; Bullinger, De articulo fidei, 179; Bullinger, Das höchste Gut, 13; Bullinger, Dem christlichen Laeser, fol. A2r.

Mutual Influence, to 1534  127

Bullinger’s Covenantal Turn I turn now to detailed analysis of writings previously noted. De scripturae negotio was an apology for the sufficiency of Scripture against Roman Catholic claims about the authority of tradition. In that text Bullinger began by referring to the Church Fathers, explaining how in their mutual arguments and disagreements they always returned to Scripture as the ultimate authoritative source for discerning the truth between rival theological propositions. He then went further back, to the Old Testament prophets and their authority grounded in God’s Word. Thereafter Bullinger turned to Christ and his apostles and their reliance on Scripture to conclude, “In summary: I find that the New Testament is nothing other than the interpretation of the Old [Testament], save that which the latter promises, the former teaches as fulfilled. The Old Testament is more veiled, the New Testament is more unveiled. The former consists of covers and figures, the latter of clear proofs as the fulfillment of the [Old Testament]’s proper sense.”75 (Italics mine) We must be careful not to read into the work that which is not to be found. Bullinger makes here an epistemological or hermeneutical statement but does not give a soteriological account. Old and New Testaments are taken as canonical entities and not thought of in terms of redemptive historical dispensations. At issue here was the question of where we can acquire theological knowledge. Soteriology was not the main concern. In asserting that the New Testament is the interpretation of the Old Testament, Bullinger essentially followed and sharpened Augustine’s influential statement that “the New [Testament] lies hidden in the Old and in the New [Testament] the Old is unveiled.”76 (Italics mine) Bullinger did not significantly step away from the common body of Christian thought by stating afterward that Christ was promised and veiled in the Old Testament Scriptures or that they contain figures of Christ.77 As the Old Testament prophets had to give account of God’s 75 Bullinger, De scripturae negotio, 25: “Breviter: invenio novum testamentum aliud non esse quam veteris interpraetationem nisi quod illud promittit, hoc exhibitum docet; illud obtectius, hoc apertius, illud involucris et figuris, hoc manifestis inditiis et reipsa sua agit.” (Italics mine) See further Bullinger, De scripturae negotio, 26: “Extorsit veteris testamenti sufficientia, cuius finis et interpraes Christus, Roma. 10 [4]‌, et cum cernerem novum testamentum aliud non esse quam veteris interpretationem.” (Italics mine) 76 Aurelius Augustinus, Sancti Aurelii Augustini Quaestionum in Heptateuchum libri VII, in CCSL 33, 106 (2.73): “in vetere novum lateat et in novo vetus pateat.” (Italics mine) 77 For example, as early as 1522 Zwingli mentions the bedütniß of Christ in the Old Testament, see Zwingli, Von Erkiesen, 93.

128  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development Word and as Christ and the apostles went back to the prophetic Scriptures of the Old Testament,78 the Christian theologian must, just like the Church Fathers, refer to the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures (as the Old and New Testaments) to gain theological knowledge. Bullinger did not yet draw the necessary covenantal implications of such hermeneutics, as mention of the covenant or of covenantal terminology is wanting. The biblical references later used in relation to the covenant are also missing. Reference to Abraham as the key figure is not made. To suggest that the seed of Bullinger’s covenantal thinking appears here would be an overstatement. This conclusion is confirmed by Bullinger’s writings following De scripturae negotio, which primarily looked at the mass: De sacrifitio missae79 of 1524 and Wider das Götzenbrot,80 dated 15 July 1525, contain no hint of covenantal continuity. We must wait until the end of 1525 for the first text on the Eucharist testifying to Bullinger’s own covenantal turn, which was De institutione eucharistiae, dated 10 December 1525. Here we find for the first time his eucharistic doctrine in connection with theological material on the covenant. If Bullinger had possessed these insights before, he would surely have deployed them. We can therefore reasonably infer that he did not have these views until as late as mid-​July 1525. The same can be said of De propheta libri duo,81 dated 31 August 1525, which although intended to be printed never was, and that, remarkably, contains no covenantal thought.82 If this early work on the prophetic office is compared with De prophetae officio of 1532, written just after Bullinger’s call to Zurich, in which the author prominently referred to the covenant, one can hardly escape the conclusion that at the end of August 1525 he had not yet performed his own covenantal turn. The very first (datable) writing in which Bullinger mentioned the covenant and assumed covenantal continuity was Vom einigen Gott. This small and unprinted theological treatise from 20 October 1525 basically deals with the same topic as the first book of De origine erroris (1532). To date it has entirely escaped the attention of scholars. Current scholarship usually considers Von dem Touff, dated 5 November 1525 at the earliest, as the first text by Bullinger

78 This also Zwingli’s point in Von der Taufe of May 1525 (written before his covenantal turn), in which he quotes, as does Bullinger, among other passages John 5:39, see Zwingli, Von der Taufe, 325. 79 Heinrich Bullinger, De sacrifitio missae, in HBTS 2, 38–​45. 80 Heinrich Bullinger, Wider das Götzenbrot, in HBTS 2, 49–​65. 81 Heinrich Bullinger, De propheta libri duo (Zentralbibliothek, Zurich: Car I 166, 1525); Staedtke 1962, 275–​276, no. 36. 82 My thanks go here to Daniël Timmermann, who kindly made available to me both the digitalized manuscript and part of the transcription.

Mutual Influence, to 1534  129 on the covenant. In Vom einigen Gott, however, we find an earlier reference to covenantal continuity in connection with true worship: “In short, when we have Him as God (as he has required in the covenant), then [only] is he properly worshipped and not through any external means. . . . It follows, therefore, as just stated, that the true and right worship consists of being firmly attached to God by faith as the covenant which we have with Him stipulates.”83 (Italics mine) Having addressed theology proper (the doctrine of God), Bullinger turned to theological anthropology, that is the way man rightly relates to God and the benefits thereof. Man’s right worship of God is here summarized as having God alone as God, according to the stipulation of the covenant. Significantly, Bulling referred in the corresponding margin to “Gene[sis] 17,” which was for Zwingli the foundational passage of Scripture on the covenant. Bullinger further spoke of the “covenant which we have with him.” (Italics mine) Bullinger not only considered the Abrahamic covenant still valid for a Christian but also argued that this covenant embraces all of Christian worship, or, put another way, that the Abrahamic covenant is the normative foundation of the relationship between God and his worshiper through both testaments. This description accords with our definition of covenantal continuity, found here for the first time in Bullinger’s writings. I add two further considerations. First, there was no polemic whatsoever against Anabaptists or infant baptism in Vom einigen Gott. Bullinger criticized man’s trust in the sacraments,84 but his critique is formulated in general terms, and it was probably directed against Roman Catholic sacramentology. Like Zwingli, Bullinger seems not to have developed his covenantal thought as a reaction to the Anabaptists. Second, in the preceding chapter, entitled “Of God’s Strength and All Power,”85 Bullinger argued for God’s predestination as basically subordinated to providence.86 He referred to one of the classical texts on election, namely Ephesians 1. Bullinger’s

83 Bullinger, Vom einigen Gott, fol. 13v–​14v: “[K]‌urz inn alein für einen Gott hat (wie er in dem pundt erforderet hat) sich so wirt er recht vereeret, und schlecht durch ghein ander usser ding nitt . . . . Dorumb ietzund volgt, dz obgemelts sye der waar recht gotsdienst, als, so wir stiff durch den glouben an Gott hangind, wie der pundt, den wir mitt imm haben, usswiist.” (Italics mine) See further the concluding section where the covenant is again referred to in Bullinger, Vom einigen Gott, fol. 19v–​20r. 84 Bullinger, Vom einigen Gott, fol. 16v (marg.): “Die zeichen versicherend nitt.” 85 Bullinger, Vom einigen Gott, fol. 9rff. 86 Bullinger, Vom einigen Gott, fol. 9v–​10r: “Der fürsatz, latine propositum, ists der das vorsähen und verwürcken oder verordnen, latine praescientia et praedefenitio seu praedestinatio, in und verschlüst.”

130  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development covenant theology was evidently from the beginning linked to the doctrine of election.

Baptism As I have noted, Von dem Touff has generally been regarded as Bullinger’s first work to make explicit use of covenant theology. The references discovered in Vom einigen Gott mean this scholarly consensus is no longer sustainable. However, Von dem Touff does include for the first time a whole argument based on the covenant. The text has been dated by Hans-​Georg vom Berg to between 5 November and 10 December 1525.87 While the terminus ad quem can hardly be questioned and will not be discussed here, I have some reservations about the terminus a quo. According to vom Berg, it is given by “correspondences . . . with Zwingli’s ‘Antwort über Balthasar Hubmaiers Taufbüchlein,’ ”88 connections pointed out by Johann Martin Usteri much earlier. Zwingli’s Antwort, then, is dated 5 November 1525. The problem is that Usteri’s evidence for Bullinger’s presupposed knowledge of Zwingli’s Antwort in Von dem Touff was that Bullinger’s argued from covenantal continuity.89 However, Zwingli’s Subsidium and Bullinger’s Vom einigen Gott were, I have proposed, actually the first works to address covenantal continuity, which means Usteri’s position does not hold water. Further, the correspondence seen by vom Berg between Von dem Touff and Zwingli’s Antwort could just as well be traced back to Zwingli’s Von der Taufe.90 There is no doubt that Bullinger already knew Von der Taufe, as it was written before Hubmaier’s refutation Von dem christenlichen Tauff der glaübigen, published in July 1525, to which he made reference.91

87 Hans-​Georg vom Berg, Einleitung zu “Von dem Touff,” in HBTS 2, 66–​67. 88 Vom Berg, Einleitung zu “Von dem Touff,” 67. 89 Johann Martin Usteri, “Vertiefung der Zwinglischen Sakraments-​und Tauflehre bei Bullinger,” Theologische Studien und Kritiken 56:4 (1883), 730–​731: “Nun wissen wir, dass wenigstens Zwingli dies Buch [Hubmeyers Schrift vom Christlichen Tauf der Gläubigen] erst im Oktober zu Gesicht bekam, und dass er dann noch im Spätjahr seine Widerlegung schrieb, in der er das gute Recht der Kindertaufe namentlich auf die wesentliche Einheit der sogen. Alten und Neuen Bundes stützte, hierdurch dem von der Beschneidung hergenommenen Analogiebeweis einen festen Halt gab, . . . ein Beweisverfahren, worin ihm Bullinger in dem genannten Sendschreiben getreulich folgt.” 90 See vom Berg, Einleitung zu “Von dem Touff,” fn. 20, 38, 54, 78–​79, 108. Vom Berg notes the same sequence of the Fathers (fn. 35), but it is given by the biblical testimony itself, and the allusion to an Anabaptist as a “goose” could simply have been a standard insult. 91 Bullinger, Von dem Touff, 80.

Mutual Influence, to 1534  131 Table 3.1  Zwingli’s and Bullinger’s Covenantal Terminology in Early Writings on Baptism Zwingli—​Von Bullinger—​Von der Taufe dem Touff (27.05.1525) (05.11.1525 [?]‌–​10.12.1525) Covenant (pundt, etc.) Sign of the covenant (pundtzeichen, etc.) Pledge ([ver-​]pflicht) as verb or substantive] Pledging sign (pflichtzeichen, etc.) Testament Testamentary contract (gmecht, gmächt, gmächtbrieff, etc.)*

Zwingli—​Antwort über Balthasas Hubmaier Taufbüchlein (05.11.1525)

9 1

18 3

80 13

55

10

5

20

12

10

24 0

54 9

40 0

*The orthography of the terms in the table can slightly vary in the text.

The main reason why I hesitate to follow vom Berg92 in his precise dating a quo concerns terminology. The terms used by Bullinger in Von dem Touff are closer to those in Von der Taufe than those in Zwingli’s Antwort, as we shall see. Possibly, therefore, Bullinger had not yet read Zwingli’s Antwort when he wrote Von dem Touff. When we compare quantitatively93 the terms used by Bullinger in Von dem Touff with the those used by Zwingli in both of his writings on baptism, we observe interesting trends or tendencies, as presented in the table 3.1. Zwingli’s Von der Taufe and Bullinger’s Von dem Touff clearly preferred pflichtzeichen over pundtzeichen. This trend was reversed in Zwingli’s Antwort. The term pund also significantly outnumbers the term pflicht in Zwingli’s second writing on baptism. If Bullinger had read the latter before writing Von dem Touff, as vom Berg assumes, why would he have used the terminology of Zwingli’s first writing on baptism? As I argued above, Zwingli’s Von der Taufe showed no evidence of covenant theology. That Bullinger had in fact not yet seen Zwingli’s Antwort (pace vom Berg) would provide an explanation. Accordingly, Bullinger could have adopted Zwingli’s terminology

92 My critique is also valid with respect to Staedtke 1962, 227–​228, fn. 3.

93 The absolute values here are only indicative, as the sources vary in their style and extent.

132  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development as well as some of his arguments from Von der Taufe but interpreted them in a covenantal framework. With regard to content, Bullinger’s line of reasoning differed from that found in Zwingli’s Antwort. As vom Berg puts it, Zwingli’s “approach looks more like a detailed exegesis with regard to particular theological topics, through which he eventually reaches the covenant.”94 While Zwingli also thought in terms of a covenantal redemptive history, Bullinger’s approach to the question of baptism shows that he developed the covenant further, as the starting locus. We shall now take a closer look at some semantic evidence for Bullinger’s early understanding of the covenant. Bullinger began his essay proper with God as creator of heaven and earth and of man, who “was loved and highly gifted above all other creatures.” Because of man’s ungratefulness, however, he fell from God, writes Bullinger, following the narrative of Genesis 3. The covenant is then introduced as God’s merciful response to the fall of mankind: “As God’s mercy never ends, [God] made a covenant, a testament or testamentary contract [gmecht] with the f­ athers Adam, Enoch, Noah. [The covenant] was especially clearly formulated with Abraham and his seed for eternity.”95 (Italics mine) The covenant is redemptive and frames a history of salvation that begins with fallen Adam and finds its end in Abraham’s seed for eternity. Bullinger actually moved backward from God’s covenant with Abraham in Genesis 17, which he considered a clear expression of this eternal covenant, to the beginning of redemptive history, located in the protoevangelion (Gen. 3:15) and the first mention of the promised seed. For Bullinger’s covenant theology, as for Zwingli’s, Genesis 17 is the exegetical pivot: And this is the covenant: God almighty wants to be Abraham’s God, that is the highest good, in which Abraham shall find benevolence, protection, salvation, consolation, everything and everywhere. God wants to give him a seed of such a kind that every one shall be blessed in him. Moreover, God wants to give Abraham the Promised Land as a fertile and holy [land]. 94 Vom Berg, Einleitung zu “Von dem Touff,” 68: “Sein Vorgehen aber ist eher das einer ausführlichen Einzelexegese bei der Behandlung der jeweiligen theologischen Einzeltopoi, die er gleichsam abschreitet, um schließlich zum Bund zu gelangen. Bullinger dagegen argumentiert heilsgeschichtlich. Er setzt konsequent bundestheologisch ein und rollt von da aus die Einzelfragen auf.” 95 Bullinger, Von dem Touff, 72: “Gott der allmechtig, der von anfang himel und erden schüff, hat ouch den menschen geschaffen, geliebet und hochlich für all creaturen uß begabet, dorumb aber gott nitt gedancket, sunder ouch von imm abgetretten ward. Die wyl aber gottes barmhertzigheit ist one grund, hat er ein pundt, testament oder gmecht gemachet mitt den vätteren Adam, Enoch, Noe und insonders häll und ussgetruckt mitt Abraham und mitt sinem somen in ewigheit.” (Italics mine)

Mutual Influence, to 1534  133 Abraham shall in turn have God as his God, and walk before him in holiness, in piety, innocence, and in perfection indeed. [God] did not make this covenant only with old and wise Abraham, but with all of his children. Not for five thousand years only, but for eternity.96

The covenant is here understood as a bilateral relationship with mutual obligations. To God’s promise of a holy seed, who turns out to be Christ of course, man must answer with a godly life. Nevertheless, Bullinger had a terminological preference for “testament” or “testamentary contract” over “covenant.” He also used the word erb (legacy) as appositive to testament.97 In other words, the covenant is qualified, or redefined, as a testament, drawing on the legal semantics of inheritance. But testament is not considered solely as a unilateral disposition, as we shall see when the signs of the pledge are addressed below. From Genesis 17 and Abraham Bullinger moved on in Von dem Touff to the succeeding fathers and to the prophets, to demonstrate how God consistently kept the covenant through redemptive history, which finds its culmination in Christ, for Christ is the promised seed who put the testament into effect in his death.98 Christ, or, more precisely, his death, is the epitome of the covenant, which is revealed to be a testament that is God’s last and ultimate will. In Christ the testament is “fulfilled.”99 Bullinger spoke of Christ as its “true seal,”100 for he “secured in his death the remission of sins,”101 which is inherited by those covenanted with God. As the above list demonstrates, at this point Bullinger was much more hesitant to speak of a “sign of the covenant” than of a “pledging sign.” This preference corresponds to his use of the term testament and the semantics of inheritance. In his exposition of the Abrahamic covenant, Bullinger wrote,

96 Bullinger, Von dem Touff, 72: “Und ist das der pundt: Gott der allmechtig will Abrahams gott sin; ein sömlichs guot, darinn Abraham alles güts, schutz, schirm, heil, trost, ja alles überal finden soll. Gott will imm geben ein somen, und ein sölchen somen, darinn alle menschen söllend glückselig werden. Darüber will gott Abrahamen geben das gelopt fruchtbar heilig land; Abraham aber soll herwyderumb disen gott für einen gott haben, heilig, fromglich und unstrefflich, ja vollkommenlich vor imm wandlen. Und ist diser pundt nitt alein gemachet mitt dem verstendigen alten Abraham, sunder ouch mitt sinen kinden, nitt uff 5 tusend jar, sunder allweg.” 97 Bullinger, Von dem Touff, 75. 98 Bullinger, Von dem Touff, 73: “daß der war sun gottes sterben und mitt sinem bluot das testament stiff machen wurde. . . . ‘Da aber die zyt erfült was, sandte gott den lang verheissnen gsegneten somen, sinen son’, der das testament mitt sinem todt befestete”. (Italics mine) 99 Bullinger, Von dem Touff, 74. 100 Bullinger, Von dem Touff, 74. 101 Bullinger, Von dem Touff, 78: “der uns nachlassung der sünden sicheren und das heil geben wurde.”

134  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development “To the testament a sign of the pledge is added, that is, a sign that pledges to that testament or testamentary contract. This [sign] is the circumcision, which belongs to all who either profess that testament or to their children. That is, all who are in the covenant and have God as God, as Abraham had Him as God.”102 (Italics mine) We see here clearly the connection between the testament and the pledging sign. Remarkably, Bullinger had just referred to Abraham’s pundt. The sign that pledges, which is circumcision, is given to his covenanted people, who fall into two categories. On the one hand there are the circumcised, those who “profess this testament,” which is another way to say that they have Abraham’s God as God. “To have God as God” is the counterpart or response of man to God’s will or disposition, which is to be their God and salvation. The human counterpart implies at the most fundamental level a sanctified life.103 On the other hand, the same sign of the pledge is also given to the children of those who “have God as God.” In other words, God is theirs as long as they have not attained the “age of reason” and are able to profess the testament, that is, to stay in the covenant. The issue is then not of getting into but of staying in the covenant.104 Bullinger illustrated the conditions of the covenant with the legal practice of his time in inheritance issues: “Like a child who would not be disinherited in young age save that in growing up [the child] would have acted against the will of the father as laid out in the document of the testamentary contract.”105 He thus understood the testament as a last will or disposition that can be modified as long as the testator lives. The beneficiary of the testament remains a beneficiary as long as he behaves according to the testator’s expectations. If the covenant or testament remains the same through redemptive history and if Christ is the testator, the two categories of covenanted heirs that bear the pledging sign must remain the same as well, regardless of the transition from the old to the new testament. This was Bullinger’s point when 102 Bullinger, Von dem Touff, 72: “Disem testament ist zuoggeben ein pflichtzeichen, das ist ein sölches zeichen, das zuo disem testament oder gmächt pflichtete, und ist sölchs die beschnidung, welche allen denen hört, so dises testament veryehend, oder aber den kinderen, so von denen geboren werdent, die under dem pundt sind und den gott für ein gott habend, den Abraham für ein gott hat.” 103 Bullinger, Von dem Touff, 72: “Abraham aber soll herwyderumb disen gott für einen gott haben, heilig, fromglich und unstrefflich, ja vollkommenlich vor imm wandlen.” 104 Bullinger, Von dem Touff, 73: “Ist also die beschnidung alein zum pflicht zeichen gegeben, daß under das testament pflichte, welches testament erst zur zyt der vernufft verstanden wirt, und hie in der jugend sind die kinder uß gnad nütz dister minder gottes. Anders ists, so sy ufferwachsen dem pundt nitt nach gond.” 105 Bullinger, Von dem Touff, 73: “Glich wie ein kind nitt enterbt ist, so lang es jung und inn der wiegen lygt, aber dann erst enterpt wirt, so es ufferwachsen wider den willen thuot des vatters, imm gmächtbrieff ussgetruckt.”

Mutual Influence, to 1534  135 he argued for infant baptism on the basis of covenantal membership and heirship of the testament: “How could the apostles, who are nothing else than preachers of the testament, have disinherited the children whom the right testator did not disinherit? Do you not know that everything written and done must be in conformity with the testament and that nobody is allowed to add or take anything away?”106 That the sign of the pledge has been nevertheless changed from circumcision in the old testament into baptism in the new is a key issue for Bullinger’s defense of infant baptism. The covenantal continuity emphasized above does not preclude distinctions between the two redemptive-​historical dispensations. In Von dem Touff Bullinger regarded John the Baptist as the transitional figure between both testaments. He was the person who as the last representative of the old testament dispensation introduced baptism as the initial sign of pledge to Christ, who was about to come: “To [his] preaching John [the Baptist] added baptism. . . . Baptism was for John nothing else than an initiatory sign [anfencklich zeichen] for the ones who came to hear him, repented, and wanted to receive Christ as the true Messiah.”107 (Italics mine) Bullinger could also speak of John’s baptism as an anfenglich pflichtzeichen108 to Christ, which again stresses the pledging character of baptism, like circumcision. Bullinger obviously anticipated the question that still hovered. Why change the sign of the pledge if the testament or covenant has basically the same content, which is Christ? Bullinger reasoned from a historical-​redemptive standpoint and argued typologically. Christ has fulfilled the bloody type of circumcision, which pointed to his shedding blood to death on the cross. Circumcision was therefore changed into a “friendly sign”109 (früntlichs element) signaling the fulfillment of Abraham’s covenant in Christ as the epitome of covenantal-​redemptive history. However, any testamental distinction (between old and new) or transition (from the old to 106 Bullinger, Von dem Touff, 79–​80: “Wüssend ir noch nitt, das der gmächtbrieff eben gmacht muos werden und verschriben, wie das gmächt gmachet ist vom testamentierer? Nu will das gmächt und der testamentierer das kind imm testament haben und nitt druß stossen oder des pflichtzeichens berauben, wie vor ist stiff bewert; wie könnend dann die apostlen, die nütz anders sind dann verckündiger des testaments, enterpt haben die kinder, die aber der recht testamentierer nitt enterpt hat? Wüssend ir nitt, daß all gschrifften und thaten muessend dem testament nach geformiert sin und niemands nütz darzuo, niemands nütz darvon thuon gedar?” 107 Bullinger, Von dem Touff, 74: “Diser predge hat Joannes zuogethon den touff, . . . und ist diser touff Joannis nütz anders xin dann ein anfencklich zeichen, darmitt er die verzeichnet, so sich siner predge begabend, sich besseren und Christum als den waren Messiam annemen woltendt.” (Italics mine) 108 Bullinger, Von dem Touff, 78. 109 Bullinger, Von dem Touff, 75.

136  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development the new) within the one covenant raises the question of the precise role of the law, to which now we turn. Overt mention of the law by Bullinger in Von dem Touff is rare. The Mosaic covenant is referred to as standing in continuity with the Abrahamic covenant, as circumcision testifies, but there is no explicit reference to the function of the law in that regard. The first mention is in relation to John the Baptist, “in which the Law and the Prophets came to an end”110 (Luke 16:16). Bullinger did not mean here that something discontinuously new has now come, leaving the law and the prophets behind, but that the law and the prophets have come to fulfillment. This interpretation is in line with Bullinger’s short hermeneutical introduction after his dedication, where the prophets (and implicitly the law as well) are said to be interpreted by the New Testament.111 “The Law” is used more generally to describe a canonical body of Scripture (i.e., Torah). However, Bullinger mentioned John’s preaching of the coming spirit and fire baptism and defined it as “love, which is the fulfillment of the law.”112 “Law” is taken here as a theological category, namely as the moral law, which is still in force in the New Testament as part of the one covenant. Despite the covenantal continuity between Abraham’s covenant and Christ’s testament discussed above, we have already noted some change within this one covenant in relation to the sign of the pledge. Bullinger explicitly equated (in reference to Paul’s epistles to the Galatians and Romans) the circumcised with those who are “still under the law” as they “are under the testament in which Christ is promised” and Christ has not yet come to fulfill it by the “shedding of his blood.” Circumcision as a bloody sign is the profession that one is “still waiting for Christ” for he “has not yet redeemed you from the law.”113 Bullinger evidently had in mind here the ceremonial law associated with rites involving blood, such as circumcision. 110 Bullinger, Von dem Touff, 74: “an wölchem uffgehört habend das gsatzt und die propheten.” 111 Bullinger, Von dem Touff, 72: “so wöllend wir nu in dem handel des touffs also die sach an die hand nemmen, durch die propheten faren und durch die usslegung des nüwen testamtents von anfang har den touff leiten.” 112 Bullinger, Von dem Touff, 75: “liebe, welche ist erfülnuß des gsatztes”. 113 Bullinger, Von dem Touff, 75: “Dorümb ouch Paulus spricht: ‘Lassend ir üch beschniden, so ist üch Christus ghein nütz’, so sind ir noch under dem gsatzt. Wie das, min Paule?—​Also: Die beschnidung dütet uff den zuokünfftigen Christum, und die da beschnitten werdent, bezeichnend sich, uß deren zall sin, die under das testament hörrend, in wölchem Christus verheissen ist, der mitt sinem bluovergiessen das testament festen soll. So ir üch nu beschniden lassend, so bezügend ir je mitt üwer that, daß ir uff Christum noch wartendt; wartendt ir noch, so ist er noch nitt geboren, so ist der Christus, den wir predgendt, nitt Christus, so ist er üch nüt nütz, so hat er üch noch nitt vom gsatzt erlöst, Rom. 8; 7; 6.” (Italics mine)

Mutual Influence, to 1534  137 At the end of his essay, Bullinger asked, “Indeed, why shall our children be more condemnable than [the children] of the ancients, as we are under grace and not under the law?”114 (Italics mine) Is Bullinger speaking of the moral law or of the ceremonial law? I suggest that he had both in mind. On the one hand, he spoke of circumcision as part of the ceremonial law pointing to the coming Christ, who has now come. On the other hand, he spoke in the strongest terms of salvation from the law, that is, the moral law or the condemnation (usus paedagogicus) attached to it, which has been satisfied by Christ. Significantly, this antithesis “under the law” and “under grace” was rhetorically typical of Zwingli’s Von der Taufe but disappeared after Zwingli’s covenantal turn. This reference adds credence to our thesis that Bullinger had not yet read Zwingli’s Antwort when he wrote Von dem Touff. When Bullinger summarized the differences between the testaments at the end of his text, he mentioned the three changes already observed by Zwingli: (1) that the promised Christ has now come (historical difference), (2) that the covenant has been widened to the Gentiles (participational difference), and (3) that the bloody ceremonies such as circumcision have been abolished (liturgical difference).115 Subsequent to Von dem Touff, Bullinger turned again to the question of baptism in Von dem unverschämten Frevel (1531). However, this text addressed the “Anabaptist problem” as a whole and thus raised several controversial issues of doctrine. The preceding texts such as Von dem Touff and Quod animae non dormiant had looked at only a specific doctrinal question. There were also some more oblique polemical strikes in other writings, but they remained occasional. Von dem unverschämten Frevel was prepared in the second of his two years of pastoring in Bremgarten, where Bullinger must have been directly confronted with Anabaptists and their teachings. In this writing the covenant is referred to with regard to infant baptism, along with the foundational question of whether a Christian’s children are included in the believers’ community although they are not yet believing.116 Bullinger

114 Bullinger, Von dem Touff, 84: “Ja, worumb söltend unsere kinder verwörfflicher sin dann [die] der alten, die wir doch sind under der gnad und nitt under dem gsatzt?” (Italics mine) 115 Bullinger, Von dem Touff, 84: “und wie diß testament ghein underscheid habe, dann eben das uns der Christus geleistet sye, wölcher yenen verheissen was; ouch daß diser pundt mitt einem nüwen volck gemachet sye und alles blut gestellt.” 116 Significantly, Jud added covenant material in his Latin translation Adversus omnia catabaptistarum prava dogmata of 1535, see Christian Hild, Die Reformatoren übersetzen: Theologisch-​ politische Dimensionen bei Leo Juds (1482–​1542) Übersetzungen von Zwinglis und Bullingers Schriften ins Lateinische (Zurich: TVZ, 2016), 331–​332.

138  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development answered this question in the form of a fictional dialogue with an Anabaptist that highlights the ewig pundt. This covenant was made with Abraham and his seed, and circumcision was given as a sign of the covenant (pundts zeychen), which children received “by grace and promise,” so Bullinger. This covenant is still valid for Christians as only the ceremonies and figures (ceremonial law) had been abrogated. A Christian’s children therefore belong to the covenant and receive baptism, which is equivalent to circumcision after Christ’s coming.117 We have just encountered this argument in Zwingli and in Bullinger’s Von dem Touff. In the writings following Von dem Touff, Bullinger’s terminological preference for testamentum over foedus holds up until De Testamento, where we observe a significant reversal. As we shall observe in his exegetical works, Bullinger preferred the term testamentum when referring to a passage where the New Testament word διαθήκη is used.118 While foedus and testamentum could also be used interchangeably, Bullinger’s tended to stress the unilateral establishment of the covenant by God by testamentum, and the bilateral administration of the covenant between God and man by foedus. “Testament” came to be associated with the notion of promise, and “covenant” with a whole range of relational and mystical terms, such as communio or societas. While both testamentum and foedus had a moral foundation related to the law, the relational or mystical aspect was definitely associated with the term foedus.

Eucharist It is fascinating to see how Bullinger could reshape his rationale for a Reformed doctrine of the Eucharist through a fruitful appropriation of covenantal continuity. Bullinger’s eucharistic writings that preceded Zwingli’s covenantal turn showed absolutely no mark of covenantal theology. De sacrifitio missae and Wider das Götzenbrot lacked any covenantal terms such as foedus/​pundt or testamentum/​testament (without the attribute old or new) and any scriptural reference to Genesis 17 or to Abraham’s story. This

117 Bullinger, Von dem unverschampten fräfel, fol. LVr–​LXIIIr. 118 Statistically, the word διαθήκη is used 30 times in the singular and 3 times in the plural in the New Testament: Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 1:72, 22:20; Acts 3:25, 7:8; Rom. 9:4, 11:27; 1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 3:6, 3:14; Gal. 3:15, 3:17, 4:24; Eph. 2:12; Heb. 7:22, 8:6, 8:8, 8:9, 8:10, 9:4, 9:15, 9:16, 9:17, 9:20, 10:16, 10:29, 12:24, 13:20; Rev. 11:19. See Novum Testamentum Graece, ed. Eberhard Nestle et al., 27th. rev. ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001).

Mutual Influence, to 1534  139 Table 3.2  Bullinger’s Covenantal Terminology in Early Eucharistic Writings Bullinger—​De institutione eucharistiae (10.12.1525) pundt/​foedus nüwer punt/​novus foedus verpüntnuss vereingung testament/​testamentum nüws testament/​novum testamentum alts testament/​veterum testamentum Pactum*

Bullinger—​De pane eucharistiae declamationes (19.03.1526)

Bullinger—​ Antwort an Burchard (Winter 1526)

10 1

0

41 9

8 6

5 1 1 2 25 13

2

2

5

3

*The orthography of the terms in the table can vary slightly in the text.

absence stands in contrast to the covenantal references of the three writings on the Eucharist against the mass immediately following Vom einigen Gott, which were De institutione eucharistiae, De pane eucharistiae declamationes, and Antwort an Burchard. Bullinger demonstrated a covenantal awareness in using the appropriate terminology as well as the corresponding scriptural passage, which was, as usual, Genesis 17. One issue stood out prominently in his polemics: Bullinger pointed to the covenantal continuity between Abraham’s covenant and Christ’s testament to add weight to his exegesis of the expression “new testament” in the words of institution. According to his own testimony, Bullinger used testamentum/​testament and foedus/​pundt interchangeably. Statistically, however, he had a clear preference for the former, as table 3.2 shows. Bullinger proposed a covenantal reading grounded in redemptive history of the words of institution against the ontological reading of his opponents. That is, the “new” testamentum in Christ’s blood for the remission of sins must be shown to be one with the “old” Abrahamic foedus. In De institutione eucharistiae he first quoted the words of institution and then, after a short hermeneutical prolegomenon summarized in the margin as “The New Testament is a commentary of the Old Testament,”119 he ran through the

119 Bullinger, De institutione eucharistiae, 89; see Bullinger, De scripturae negotio, 25–​26.

140  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development relevant passages of Abraham’s story and its extension in the story of the Exodus. Bullinger then qualified or declined the Abrahamic covenant as a testament, or, in other words, as a testamental covenant. The blessing of the promised seed given from God is interpreted as a legacy or testament, the promised seed as a mediator of the testament or as testator. The sacrament of circumcision as a bloody “pledge”120 becomes “the cover of the testament that was yet to be confirmed”121 or uncovered, as well as was the paschal lamb. Accordingly, bread and wine become “the token of the testament that has been confirmed and sealed, a symbol or sacrament.”122 In between lies the uncovering or revelation of the testament with the testator’s or mediator’s death, which is Christ’s. Obsignatio (seal) or obsignare (to seal) are the most commonly used terms in this work to describe Christ’s fulfilling of the covenant as a testament, which has been effected at his death. In his Antwort an Burchard, Bullinger used the early modern German equivalents sigel and versigeln.123 With these words the Reformer stressed the difference between the symbolon and the obsignatio of the testament, which had been conflated in Roman Catholic sacramentology. As we shall see, Bullinger will later apply the term obsignatio for the sacraments as well. The transformation of the sign from a lamb to bread and wine corresponds with the transition from promise to fulfillment in redemptive history. There is, however, another (yet related) use of the term foedus in this text that merits our attention. Bullinger wrote: “Assess for yourself carefully that the institution of the bread and wine can be nothing else than used for binding us together by a mutual covenant and giving thanks to the redeemer, just as the [Israelites] had been once entrusted with the lamb.”124 (Italics mine) The Eucharist is given the function of binding communicants into a mutual bonding or pledging one to another. As we have seen in chapter 1, Zwingli had made had a similar point in his Christliche Antwort of 1524.125 A comparison of Bullinger’s statement with what follows will help us understand what this mutual covenant is about: “Again, as Israelites used to eat from the

120 Bullinger, De institutione eucharistiae, 90. Significantly, Bullinger added in the margin the German terms “ein plicht-​oder pundtszeichen” as synonyms. 121 Bullinger, De institutione eucharistiae, 90: “verum etiam testamenti comprobandi involucrum.” 122 Bullinger, De institutione eucharistiae, 94. 123 Bullinger, Antwort an Burchard, 153–​154, 166. 124 Bullinger, De institutione eucharistiae, 101: “Ipsi vobiscum perpendite, num aliud potuerit quam panem et vinum instituisse, cuius usus sit mutuo foedere nos constringere ac gratias agere redemptori, quemadmodum illi olim etiam agnum habebant commendatum.” (Italics mine) 125 See Zwingli, Christliche Antwort, 226.

Mutual Influence, to 1534  141 lamb and the altar, they were calling to witness one another as the one people of God, as sons and hence as mutual brothers. Thus, the meal of the Eucharist is the authentication of the Christians, who testify to be members of the one body, namely as the one body of Christ, the head.”126 (Italics mine) The point made here by Bullinger is essentially the same. However, the covenant is here described as a body, of which Christ is the head (Christi corpus). Bullinger could also talk in the prologue of the brotherly covenant (foedus fraternus) to describe union between believers through the spirit.127 Bullinger was able to equate foedus with communion. He had not yet explicitly linked this communion with the Abrahamic covenant, but the foundation was laid for this later development. The organic-​mystical aspect of the covenant is already present in a nutshell. In Antwort an Burchard Bullinger explicitly exposed the way he uses the word “testament,” which statistically is more frequent than “covenant”: “I take the testament for a covenant, a peace [agreement], an agreement, a revelation of the will or a testimony of the heart. Ulpian, Cicero, Justinian and Livy did already understand it as such.”128 This detailed definition of the term testament mentions also the sources from which Bullinger, as a humanist, had drawn his interpretation. Ulpian (ca. 170–​223 AD), Cicero (106–​43 BC),129 Justinian I (ca. 482–​565 AD),130 and Livy (59 BC–​17 AD)131

126 Bullinger, De institutione eucharistiae, 99–​100: “Iterum, quemadmodum Izraelite de uno agno et altario edentes ipso facto se unius dei populum ac filios et proinde mutuos fratres contestantur, sic et eucharistiae esus christianorum est consignatio, qui se unius corporis membra, unius etiam capitis Christi corpus protestantur, per quem sint consequti redemptionem in sanguine eius.” (Italics mine) 127 Bullinger, De institutione eucharistiae, 88: “Quo pensitato scelus dispareat, sie et repagulum foederis fraterni decidat, ac nos in uno iuncti spiritu uni deo et patri omnium vera religione serviamus.” (Italics mine) 128 Bullinger, Antwort an Burchard, 149: “Das testament aber nemmen ich ein pundt, fryden, vereingung, enteckung deß willen und gmuets oder hertzen zügnuß; wie es dann ouch vom Ulpiano, Cicerone, Iustiniano und Livio ouch verstanden ist.” 129 Bullinger was probably referring to the quotation of Cicero that also appeared in his commentary on Galatians, see Heinrich Bullinger, Kommentar zum Galaterbrief, in HBTS 7, 65; see Cicero, Philippics 1–​6, in LCL 189, ed. D. R. Shackleton and rev. John T. Ramsey et al. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009), 160–​161 (2.42): “In publicis nihil est lege gravius; in privatis firmissimum est testamentum.” =​“In private life, the thing with the greatest validity is a will.” 130 See Bullinger, Kommentar zum Galaterbrief, 65; Justinianus, Digesta, in Corpus Iuris Civilis, ed. Theodor Mommsen and Paul Krueger, repr. vol. 1 (Hildesheim: Weidmann, 1993), 409 (28.1.1): “Testamentum est voluntatis nostrae iusta sententia de eo, quod quis post mortem suam fieri velit.” 131 In Livy’s monumental work Ab urbe condita, he repeatedly uses testamentum in terms of a last will or legacy and foedus as a peace agreement. See, e.g., Livy, History of Rome, vol. 1, books 1–​2, in LCL 114, trans. B. O. Foster (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1919), 48–​49 (1.13): “inde ad foedus faciendum duces prodeunt; nec pacem modo, sed civitatem unam ex duabus faciunt.” =​“Then the leaders came forward to make a truce, and not only did they agree on peace, but they made one people out of the two.” (Italics mine); Livy, History of Rome, 126–​127 (1.34): “Notitiamque eam brevi

142  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development are all Latin authors. Justinian I and Ulpian, whose work had been included in Justinian’s Digesta, represent the most important references with regard to the Roman law tradition (and canon law).132 We can therefore conclude that Bullinger was well aware of the juridic background of testamentum in its Latin legal context. The contention that Zwingli’s and Bullinger’s understanding of testament was simply rooted in German law tradition should be doubted.133 Bullinger suggested in this passage that the range of possible meanings for testamentum includes the term foedus.134 However, there is hardly a passage in the writings of the Latin authors mentioned above where those two terms are explicitly equated. The exception is Cicero, who mentions both terms in the same sentence, suggesting that the difference between covenant and testament consists in that foedus is a public state of affair, testamentum a private one.135 We see here Bullinger’s distinctive philological endeavor to equate testamentum and foedus for the sake of his theological argument.

apud regem liberaliter dextereque obeundo officia in familiaris amicitiae adduxerat iura, ut publicis pariter ac privatis consiliis bello domique interesset et per omnia expertus postremo tutor etiam liberis regis testamento institueretur.” =​“He was now consulted in matters both of public and private importance, in time of war and in time of peace, and having been tested in every way was eventually even named in the king’s will as guardian of his children.” 132 Ulpian is referred to with respect to the term testamentum in: Bullinger, De testamento, fol. 2v; Bullinger, Kommentar zum Galaterbrief, 65. 133 See above section “From Testament to Covenant?”, Ch. 1, 48–51. 134 Staedtke and the editors of Antwort an Burchard wrongly assumed that Bullinger’s statement refers to a range of meanings for the word pundt—​here Bullinger proposes a range of meanings for the word testament not pundt. Accordingly, pundt is only one possible meaning for testament. See Staedtke 1962, 62, fn. 15; Bullinger, Antwort an Burchard, 149, fn. 182. 135 See Cicero, Speech in Defence of Aulus Caecina, in Cicero, Pro Lege Manilia. Pro Caecina. Pro Cluentio. Pro Rabirio Perduellionis Reo, in LCL 198, trans. H. Grose Hodge (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927), 146–​149 (18): “XVIII. An hoc dubium est quin neque verborum tanta copia sit, non modo in nostra lingua, quae dicitur esse inops, sed ne in alia quidem ulla, res ut omnes suis certis ac propriis vocabulis nominentur, neque vero quidquam opus sit verbis, quum ea res cuius caussa verba quaesita sint intelligatur? Quae lex, quod senatus consultum, quod magistratus edictum, quod foedus aut pactio, quod, ut ad privatas res redeam, testamentum, quae iudicia aut stipulationes aut pacti et conventi formula non infirmari ac convelli potest, si ad verba rem deflectere velimus, consilium autem eorum qui scripserunt et rationem et auctoritatem relinquamus?” =​“XVIII. Can it indeed be doubted that neither our own language, which is said to be deficient, nor even any other, contains so large a store of words as to distinguish every concept by a definite and peculiar term; or indeed, that words are superfluous when the concept is clear for the expression of which words were originally invented? What statute, what senatorial decree, what magisterial edict, what treaty or agreement or (to speak once more of our private concerns) what testament, what rules of law or undertakings or formal pacts and agreements could not be invalidated and abolished, if we chose to sacrifice the meaning to the words without taking into account the design, the purport, and intention of the writer?” (Italics mine) See further the quote above in Cicero, Philippics 1–​6, 160–​161 (2.42).

Mutual Influence, to 1534  143

New Testament Commentaries In Zurich, the exposition of Scripture was already understood by Zwingli as a prophetic office, in reference to 1 Corinthians 14. Accordingly, the preacher or lecturer, as an interpreter of Scripture, was considered a prophet.136 This understanding of exegetical skill as the gift of prophecy was not Zwingli’s invention; it existed in the early church and was emphatically reasserted by Erasmus.137 Prophezei, the twentieth-​century term given by Reformation scholars to the Bible seminary founded by Zwingli in 1525, captures the original aims of the exegetical lectures held at the Grossmünster and Fraumünster.138 Bullinger had himself identified or interpreted these lectures as prophecy.139 At the Prophezei, Scripture was methodically expounded in humanistic fashion to train the ministers so that they could fulfill the prophetic office they were called to in their parishes. We have already noted the program followed at the seminary when we addressed Zwingli’s covenantal turn. When Bullinger came to Zurich to succeed Zwingli, he inherited the rectorship of the Prophezei. Unlike his predecessor, however, he never formally acquired a teaching mandate, although he did attend some lectures. While Zwingli’s commentaries were a product of his teaching at the Prophezei, Bullinger’s commentaries stood in immediate relation not to the school but to his preaching activity. Nevertheless, Bullinger wrote and published erudite commentaries on the whole of the New Testament except Revelation, on which he did, however, hold a 100-​sermon series (a unique contribution among the magisterial Reformers).140 Altogether, Bullinger in effect commented on the whole of the New Testament twice. While a convent

136 See Huldreich Zwingli, Von dem Predigtamt, in Z 4, 397–​398: “Also habend wir zween underscheid des ampts der propheten: Eins ist, wie die propheten im alten testament dem üblen geweert und das guot pflantzet habend; also ouch die wächter oder pfarrer im nüwen testament tuond. Und ist also das prophetenampt, das bischoff-​oder pfarrerampt, das euangelistenampt alles ein ampt. Das ander ampt der propheten ist, da sy in den grossen kilchen den verstand der gschrifft harfürbringend, voruß im alten testament, wenn man die gschrifft ze erlernen zemenkumpt. Welcher stand noch nit gemeyn ist; wirt aber, ob gott wil, by uns zuo Zürych in gar kurtzen tagen anheben; dann die bestellung schon angefangen wirt, wie sy vormals verheyssen ist in verendrung des grossen stiffts. Also mag, eygenlich ze reden, nit ein prophet sin nach disem anderen ampt, weder welcher die zungen kan ußlegen.” 137 See Daniel Timmerman, Heinrich Bullinger on Prophecy and the Prophetic Office (1523–​1538), Reformed Historical Theology 33 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 49–​57. 138 Büsser suggests that this appellation goes back to twentieth-​century reception because it does not appear in the primary sources from the sixteenth century, see Büsser, Heinrich Bullinger (1504–​ 1575), vol. 1, 198–​199. 139 See Timmerman, Heinrich Bullinger on Prophecy, 277–​308. 140 See Büsser, Heinrich Bullinger (1504–​1575), vol. 1, 242.

144  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development lecturer in Kappel (1523–​1528), he had already been through almost every book of the New Testament,141 but he did not publish these lectures. We shall evaluate them together with the later published commentaries. As Bullinger left his lectureship in Kappel for a parish in Bremgarten in 1529, he continued his prophetic work. During his time as a pastor in Bremgarten (1529–​ 1531), he wrote scholia, or collections of annotations, on all four Gospels; they too remained only in manuscript. The covenant emerges explicitly in those annotations only when the corresponding Scripture passages mentions it, and never extensively. The covenant in its continuity is briefly discussed in relation to the “cup of the new testament” in Matthew 26:28142 and in Mary’s Magnificat in Luke 1:55,143 with the expected reference to Genesis 17, the quasi-​Archimedean point of Zurich covenantal theology. As exegete, Bullinger essentially followed the text of the evangelists and consistently used the term testamentum, even reading the term back into the Genesis passage. Bullinger had his first commentary, on 1 John, published in 1532 to test the waters.144 This first commentary would be more rudimentary than those that followed. That trial run was evidently successful, as the publication of Bullinger’s exposition on Hebrews soon followed. His commentary on 1 John is of special interest, as for the first time the covenant is explicitly interpreted in its organic aspect by way of terms originally associated with mystical terminology. Probably because διαθήκη is not mentioned in the letter, testamentum does not occur at all as a covenantal term. However, we find 10 occurrences of foedus. The term appears for the first time in Bullinger’s exegesis of 1 John 1:3.145 Bullinger translated the Johannine term κοινωνία as societas (fellowship). In his exegesis, however, the fellowship

141 See Büsser, Heinrich Bullinger (1504–​1575), vol. 1, 30–​31. 142 See Bullinger, Scholion in Evangelion Matthaei, fol. 82v: “Sed et Gene. 17 circumcisio testamentum plane dicitur. Quae tum aliud non est quam testamentum symbolon. Novum denique dicitur, quod omnia morte Christi innovantur. Consummantur omnia.” 143 See Bullinger, Scholion in Lucam, 117r: “In aevum: Nam Gen. 17 scribitur in generationibus suis foedere sempiterno. Von eim gschlächt zum andrem, id est, perpetua serie. Sic testamentum unum et sempiternum est, ut alibi probavimus.” 144 See Bullinger, Kommentar zum Ersten Johannesbrief, 310: “Caeterum si sensero praeexercitamenta haec nostra piis placere lectoribus, dabo et in epistolam Pauli ad Hebraeos expositionem.” 145 Bullinger, Kommentar zum Ersten Johannesbrief, 314–​315: “3 ut et vos societatem habeatis nobiscum et societas nostra sit cum Patre et Filio eius Iesu Christo. Hic est fructus huius annunciationis et evangelii, quod ii, qui suscipiunt testimonium et credunt, unum sunt cum patre et filio, id est foedere deo iunguntur et consortes efficiuntur vitae aeternae. . . . Et Graece est κοινωνία, quae, etsi varia significet, hic tamen cogentibus circumstantiis aliud nihil est quam communio, familiaritas, amicitia et societas. . . . Itaque societas hic quoque pro pace, concordia, consensu, amicitia et foedere sumitur, quo deo unimur non substantia, sed amicitia et participatione.”

Mutual Influence, to 1534  145 with the Father and his Son is rendered as the believer’s union “to God by the covenant.” A semantic description of the Greek term κοινωνία, foedus, is mentioned together with related terms such as peace and concord, but also, most interestingly, with organic and relational terms such as communion (communio), familiarity (familiaritas), or friendship (amicitia). By the covenant “we are not united through substance, but through friendship and participation” wrote the Reformer. Bullinger’s covenantal “mysticism” consists of the union, but not the fusion, of God’s and human’s natures. Or, in other words, Bullinger interprets the fellowship not on an ontological basis but on a relational level. His covenantal interpretation precisely reinforces the bilaterality of God’s relationship to his creature and prevents man from trying to overcome it. However, the organic-​mystical aspect of the covenant cannot be separated from its legal or moral aspect. In his exegesis of 1 John 1:5, Bullinger reminded his reader of God’s demand that God’s own holiness and purity be reflected: “God, says [John], is holy and pure. Therefore, whoever wants to live with God and attached to him in the covenant must be pure.” (Italics mine) As no one can claim this moral purity, Bullinger adds, “the Son needed to be born, who would heal the world corrupted by sins and command to the world [to live] an innocent life. . . . Thus, it is written in Gen. 17[:1]: ‘Walk before me and be upright.’ ”146 The covenant with God is rooted in Christ’s expiatory healing from sin and includes therefore a unilateral and unconditional act on God’s part. God, however, restores man to respond to and obey the command to live innocently in the bilateral relationship of the covenant. Significantly, Bullinger made a redemptive-​historical reference in going back to the Abrahamic covenant and its conditions expressed in Genesis 17:1. A similar point was made by Bullinger later in relation to 1 John 2:5, when obedience to God’s commandment of love is said to be the realization of the religio or coniunctio with God.147 This organic-​mystical aspect

146 Bullinger, Kommentar zum Ersten Johannesbrief, 316: “5 quod deus lux est et tenebrae in eo non sunt ullae. Hisce iam tradit doctrinam de puritate vitae. Deus, inquit, sanctus est et purus; qui ergo deo cohabitare aut illi foedere adhaerere velit, purificetur oportet. Atqui istud nulla praestabit carnis impotentia, nulla hominis virtus. Proinde filium nasci oportuit, qui corruptum peccatis mundum sanaret et innocentem vitam orbi commendaret. Ideoque, quotquot istud dei negocium intellexerunt, innocentiae student, quippe qui senserunt deum esse sanctum et sanctimoniae amantem. Ita scriptum est: Gene. 17[,1]. ‘Ambula coram me et esto integer.’ ” (Italics mine) 147 Bullinger, Kommentar zum Ersten Johannesbrief, 323: “Porro charitas, ἡ ἀγαπη, accipitur a Ioanne pro amicitia, religione et coniunctione. Ut sit sensus: caeterum qui sermonem eius servat et innocentiae studet, hic vere pius est, hic vere deo foedere et amicitia iunctus est, der ist mit Gott recht vereint. Sic audiemus in quarto charitatem dei sumi pro vera religione.” (Italics mine)

146  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development of the covenant, as we call it in this study to differentiate (but not separate) it from the historical-​legal aspect, will be emphasized by Bullinger from De Testamento onward. The next commentary after 1 John was on the letter to the Hebrews, which Bullinger especially cherished. In his lectures at the abbey in 1526–​27, he had introduced this book with the words “there is no [other] book in the New Testament (or as close to my heart to say it bluntly) that presents the testament so beautifully, or paints Christ so livelily, or has so many proofs from Scripture [as does Hebrews].”148 (Italics mine) The covenant was prominently given as the reason why this biblical book merits special consideration. Statistically, the word διαθήκη appears 14 times in the Epistle to the Hebrews (against 33 in the whole New Testament). Ironically, Hebrews is probably the New Testament book that most sharply contrasts the old and the new testaments, but Bullinger considered that this epistle best expressed covenantal continuity. In the commentary of 1532, Bullinger presented a catalogue of the loci treated in the book, with the covenant listed first.149 His exegesis shows an awareness of some discontinuity, but his emphasis is on covenantal continuity. In his lecture, he considered that the term “old testament” was given to the Levitic law per catachresim, that is as a semantic misuse, “for there is actually only one testament, which has been made with Abraham.”150 The priestly or ceremonial laws were meant as a provisional addition to the original conditions of the covenant as expressed in the Abrahamic covenant to prevent Israel from idolatry. In the commentary, Bullinger’s interpretation of the discontinuity between old and new testaments remains basically the same. The “old testament” is synonymous with the ceremonial law introduced in Mosaic times, which prefigured and was abrogated by the “new testament.” The former was a temporary measure, the latter is eternal, as the consummation of the one covenant, which had already been revealed to Abraham in Genesis 17.151 In his lecture, testament was juxtaposed with “agreement, 148 Bullinger, Vorlesung über den Hebräerbrief (1526/​1527), 135: “ghein buch des nüwen testaments -​ daß ich ye sag, das mir am hertzen ligt! -​ist, das sich artlicher uff das testament gebe, läblicher Christum abmale und dicker von kundschafften uß der gschrifft sye.” (Italics mine) 149 Bullinger, Kommentar zum Hebräerbrief, 9: “De foedere seu testamento veteri et novo.” 150 Bullinger, Vorlesung über den Hebräerbrief (1526/​1527), 192: “Merck aber hie, das er das gsatzt per catachresim nempt ein testament! Wann sust ist nund ein testament, das mitt Abrahamen gemachet ist. Hie wirt es aber nüw und alt genempt -​ja, nitt yhenes Abrahae, sunder das, das den Juden mitt dem priesterthümb geben was, hieß alt umb deß willen, daß es durch das nüw veraltet und hinthon ward.” 151 Bullinger, Kommentar zum Hebräerbrief, 105–​108.

Mutual Influence, to 1534  147 contract, bond or covenant” (vereingung, vertrag, verbindung oder pundt).152 In the commentary Bullinger explained the use of the term: “Testament” is taken at some places in sacred [Scriptures] for an arrangement as an image coming from the practice of dying people, who make testaments, that is, dispose of their things and arrange them according to their will. At other places, [testament] is taken for a firm promise and, by way of a figure of speech, even for the thing itself, which is promised. Thus, we are used to calling the remission of sin a “testament.” With regard to that place, however, the testament is [taken for] this covenant [foedus] or agreement [pactum] of God, in which God attests to his will towards us, and further agrees with us on certain conditions.153

The scriptural use of testament, defined as the disposition of someone dying, stands for a promise that will be fulfilled with certainty. Its content is understood as the remission of sins. Bullinger obviously spoke of a unilateral and unconditional saving act on behalf of God. However, he soon added that testament is in fact the divine foedus and pactum, which includes conditions to be fulfilled by the human beneficiary. Bullinger then immediately quoted Genesis 17. What he expressed fits the definition of later systematicians: the covenant is monopleurically established, as God unilaterally “imposes” or gives himself to the covenant, but dipleurically administered, as man becomes a covenantal partner.154 In 1533 Bullinger published his commentary on Romans. His earlier exposition of Paul’s Epistle in Kappel—​it included 26 lectures on the first five chapters of Romans that he began in February 1525 and probably ended in March that year155—​had shown no covenantal awareness. Its character corroborates our dating of Bullinger’s own covenantal turn to later. In his commentary of 1533, however, Bullinger alluded to the covenant within

152 Bullinger, Vorlesung über den Hebräerbrief (1526/​1527), 192. 153 Bullinger, Kommentar zum Hebräerbrief, 106: “Testamentum in sacris aliquando accipitur pro ordinatione aliqua, metaphora sumpta a morientibus, qui testamenta condunt, id est, ita res suas disponunt ordinantque, ut volunt. Aliquando pro certa ponitur promissione et per metalepsim nonnunquam pro ipsa etiam re promissa. Sic enim solemus ipsam peccatorum remissionem testamentum vocare. Quod vero hunc attinet locum, testamentum hoc foedus et illud dei pactum est, quo deus voluntatem suam erga nos testatus est, prorsusque nobiscum certis convenit conditionibus.” 154 See Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI/​Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1996), 280–​282. 155 The date, 13 March, at the end of the manuscript is not in Bullinger’s hand, see Hans Georg vom Berg, Einleitung, in HBTS 1, 9.

148  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development the first five chapters, that is, in ­chapters 2 and 4, which deal with the role of circumcision. In ­chapter 2, circumcision stands primarily as a sign for the covenant conditions or laws the circumcised were supposed to keep as expressed in Genesis 17:1 (usus elenchticus).156 In ­chapter 4, the emphasis is on God’s benevolence and promises, for which circumcision is a seal, as well as a trainer of our faith and a reminder of the office (law-​keeping) in the believer’s life.157 Again, Genesis 17 is taken as an intertextual reference. In both chapters, foedus is the basic term used for covenant. Finally, Bullinger interpreted the testamenta in Romans 9:4 as the Sinaïtic tables of the law and immediately added that there is in fact only one testament.158 Published the same year as his commentary on Romans, Bullinger’s commentary on Acts mentioned the covenant as testamentum (the word foedus never occurs) only where the word appears in the biblical text. Only two verses therefore are relevant here, found in the sermons of Petrus (Acts 3:25)159 and Stephanus (Acts 7:8).160 The focus is on covenantal fulfillment in Christ. The first commentary published in 1534 was on 1 Peter. Bullinger mentions the covenant only in relation to Old Testament prophecy in 1 Peter 1:10.161 He stressed the spiritual unity, and therefore the canonical unity, that grounds covenantal unity against the Marcionitic dualism (he likely had the Anabaptists in mind) of an old versus a new testament, of a fleshly versus a spiritual people or church: “Thus, there is one spirit and one testament in both people.”162 Genesis 17 is taken as a summary of the ever-​true religion, which runs from the protoevangelion to the Christian era. The Mosaic law in its moral demand is the same as Christ’s (as its ultimate author) and the apostles’. Even the ceremonies that were first introduced for pedagogical purposes under Moses did not differ in their spiritual substance, as they also pointed to the divine covenant to be fulfilled in Christ. The differing nomenclature of new and old testaments, going back to Jeremiah 31:31–​33, is of redemptive-​ historical nature (historical difference). Testamentum is the term referred to here, although 1 Peter does not mention διαθήκη. Foedus is missing, probably because Bullinger was addressing the Anabaptist teaching on testamental 156 Bullinger, Kommentar zum Römerbrief, 62. 157 Bullinger, Kommentar zum Römerbrief, 92–​93. 158 Bullinger, Kommentar zum Römerbrief, 150: “Alias enim iam olim didicimus unicum tantum esse testamentum.” 159 Bullinger, In Acta Apostolorum, 45v–​46r. 160 Bullinger, In Acta Apostolorum, 78r–​v. 161 Bullinger, Kommentar zum ersten Petrusbrief, 191–​195. 162 Bullinger, Kommentar zum ersten Petrusbrief, 193: “Hactenus ergo unus est spiritus et unum testamentum utriusque populi.”

Mutual Influence, to 1534  149 discontinuity and reinterpreted their terminological emphasis on the new testament against the old in light of covenantal continuity. The same year saw the publication of Bullinger’s exposition of 1 Corinthians, which includes covenant-​theological references. We find mention of the covenant in relation to 1 Corinthians 7:14, where Bullinger wrote that children of at least one Christian parent are holy “by virtue of the testament of grace and the promise of God.”163 He drew a parallel with the covenantal inclusion of Abraham’s seed in Genesis 17:7. In his discussion of the figures of the Old Testament in the tenth chapter, the Reformer concluded that “there has been, then, one spirit of God in one church only, that is, one God, who has always taught and demonstrated the same religion and the one way to the heavens.”164 Foedus or testamentum do not explicitly appear here, but this proposition makes no sense without any idea of covenantal unity. When Bullinger addressed the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:25, he saw the relationship between the cup and the testament juxtaposed with the relationship between circumcision and the covenant.165 Significant with regard to the organic-​mystical aspect of the covenant in Bullinger’s theology is the discussion of fornication and matrimony in ­chapters 6 and 7. Bullinger equated the body of Christ, here affected by the fornication, with a foedus.166 In other words, the covenant is synonymous with the believer’s communion with God in Christ through the Spirit. Matrimony is also viewed as a body or a covenant, with the spouses as “confederates.”167 We should also mention that the Pauline use of the κοινωνία is rendered by Bullinger as communio or societas, to which the Reformer had already attached a covenantal meaning in his commentary on 1 John with a reference to 1 Corinthians in the margin.168 We have just looked at Bullinger’s New Testament commentaries, which tell us about the way his covenantal hermeneutics were materially applied. As we have seen, having the covenant as a unifying principle does not mean that covenant-​theological material is to be found on every page. It remains

163 Bullinger, Kommentar zum Ersten Korintherbrief, 311. 164 Bullinger, Kommentar zum Ersten Korintherbrief, 349: “Unus enim atque idem dei spiritus in unica illa ecclesia, unum deum, eandem semper religionem et unam ad coelos viam docuit atque commonstravit.” 165 See Bullinger, Kommentar zum Ersten Korintherbrief, 369. 166 See Bullinger, Kommentar zum Ersten Korintherbrief, 301: “Corpus enim hoc loco non usurpavit pro carnali isto corpore nostro, quod per scortationem commaculatur, sed pro illo spirituali corpore et foedere, de quo hactenus loquutus est, nos videlicet membra adeoque et corpus esse Christi et spiritum nostrum unum esse cum spiritu Christi.” (Italics mine) 167 See Bullinger, Kommentar zum Ersten Korintherbrief, 303–​305. 168 See 1 Cor. 1:9 and 1 Cor. 10:16.

150  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development something of a frame of reference, within which Scripture is to be read even when the covenant is not explicitly mentioned. Covenant theology appears mostly (but not always) when the expounded passage includes the New Testament term διαθήκη. Bullinger appended De Testamento and Assertio utriusque in Christo naturae169 (hereafter Assertio), a treatise on Christ’s two natures, to complete the commentary edition of all New Testament epistles, published for the first time in one single volume in March 1537.170 The treatises, both written in 1534, functioned as a hermeneutic prolegomenon. In other words, Bullinger intended the letters (as well as their exposition) to be read in light of the covenant and Christ. In fact, De Testamento and Assertio complement one another. The former grounds the latter, as the one and eternal covenant finds its fulfillment in the incarnation of the Son. They were never subsequently reprinted separately in Zurich and appeared as appendices in all four of the next editions of In omnes Apostolicas epistolas commentarii, all of which were published during Bullinger’s lifetime, in 1539, 1544, 1549, and 1558.171 This edition history is a strong indication that Bullinger’s covenantal hermeneutics, which comprehends the covenant as a unifying principle, endured throughout all the theological adjustments of the following years. Before we come to De Testamento, we shall first take a detour to the place given to the covenant in Bullinger’s explicit reflections on hermeneutics and methodology.

Scripture In his introduction to Antwort an Burchard (1526), vom Berg accurately points out that “Bullinger, in comparison to De sacrifitio missae, quantitively treats the issue of Scripture more extensively than the question of the Mass.”172 This writing was a polemical response to the “gesprächbuechlin”173

169 Heinrich Bullinger, Utriusque in Christo naturae tam divinae quam humanae, contra varias haereses, pro confessione Christi catholica assertio orthodoxa (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1534). 170 Heinrich Bullinger, In omnes apostolicas epistolas, divi videlicet Pauli XIIII. et VII. canonicas, commentarii Heinrychi Bullingeri, ab ipso iam recogniti et nonnullis in locis aucti: accessit operi index copiosus, accesserunt ad finem quoque duo libelli, alter de testamento dei unico et aeterno, alter vero de utraque in Christo natura (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1537), 154–​195. 171 See HBBibl I, 44–​47, no. 84–​88. 172 Hans-​Georg vom Berg, “Einleitung Antwort an Burchard,” in HBTS 2, 136: “Bullinger hier gegenüber ‘De sacrifitio missae’ schon rein mengenmässig mehr das Schriftprinzip als die Messfrage abhandelt.” 173 Bullinger, Antwort an Burchard, 140.

Mutual Influence, to 1534  151 written by the Dominican theologian Johannes Burchard under the pseudonym Theobladus Perdutianus, which was in turn a refutation of Bullinger’s De sacrifitio missae. Burchard’s work is no longer extant, but one quotation can put us on the right track with regard to its critique. Burchard had apparently taken Bullinger’s appeal to solus Christus in “that we shall listen to Christ alone”174 quite literally and did not understand it, or did not want to understand it, as the material side of the formal principle of sola scriptura, that we shall listen to Scriptures alone. Bullinger meant that all Scriptures were speaking of Christ as the epitome of the one covenant that runs through the Old and New Testament. Burchard implied, however, that Bullinger’s point was that attention should be paid only to the very words spoken by Jesus Christ. Bullinger quoted him: If we shall listen to Christ alone, why shall [Bullinger] want us to listen to Paul as well? Did not the same Christ Jesus say: “Who ever listens to you, he listens to me” [Luke 10:16]? Shall we not listen to the Holy Spirit as well, who will teach all truth? Shall we not hear the disciples and wise men, whom Christ sends, as well? Shall we not listen to the church? For it is written: “Tell it to the church!” [Matt. 18:17] Indeed, Paul himself would not have published this ban had he not first compared his gospel with the [one of] the church.175

Burchard’s argumentative strategy was to show that Scripture not only contradicts the way he understood Bullinger’s solus Christus but also appeals to the church as reliable authority. Then, as long as the church (he meant, of course, the Roman Catholic Church) can claim for itself on the basis of Scripture to be an authoritative source of revelation alongside Scripture, Bullinger’s exegesis would never be conclusive. For this reason Bullinger had first to demonstrate the perspicacity of the Reformed Schriftprinzip, for which covenant theology was very useful. Covenantal continuity allowed Bullinger to argue that apostolic preaching (the New Testament) did not basically differ from what the law and the 174 Bullinger, Antwort an Burchard, 143. 175 Bullinger, Antwort an Burchard, 144: “So man Christum alein hören sol, worumb will er dann, daß man ouch Paulum höre? Hat nitt eben der selb Christus Jesus geredt: ‘Wer üch hört, der hört mich’ [Luke 10:16]? Soll man dann ouch den heiligen geist nitt hören, der alle warheit leeren wirt? Soll man die junger und wysen, die Christus sendet, nitt ouch hören? Soll man ouch die kilchen nitt hören? So doch geschryben stat: ‘Sag es der kilchen!’ [Matt. 18:17]. Ja, Paulus selbs hette disen bann nitt also scharpff gon lassen, wann er nitt vorhin sin euangelion mitt der kilchen conferiert hette.”

152  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development prophets (the Old Testament) were already about, namely, the one and eternal covenant or testament. Bullinger wrote that “God’s will is fully revealed in the books of Moses”176 and the prophets were “an exposition”177 of the Torah. He then asked rhetorically, “When will you realize that we find in [the Old Testament] Scriptures everything that belongs to salvation as Paul preaches it, so that anything else is damned which [the Old Testament] Scriptures does not teach?”178 In Bullinger’s view the New Testament becomes, as we have already seen, “a revelation of the Law and the Prophets” that is used as “a commentary” thereof.179 This way of arguing from progressive revelation precludes any new revelation that stands qualitatively in discontinuity with what came previously. Any esoteric teaching given solely to the Roman Catholic Church could therefore not stand for itself. However, Bullinger exposed himself to the counter-​argument that he had anticipated, that he was simply Judaizing Christianity.180 In a way, that was precisely Bullinger’s point, namely that Christianity is not radically new but the continuation of messianic Judaism “so that we are together with the Ancients before Christ’s coming one people, one church, under one God, one testament, and one faith.”181 What is “new” are the three differences mentioned above: the historical (Christ the Messiah has now come), the participational (the Gentiles are now “let in”), and the liturgical (Christ as antetype has made the types obsolescent).182 We should note that in this text, the law is taken exclusively as a canonical entity, namely the Torah.183 “The Law and the Prophets” is a recurring expression used to paraphrase the Old Testament as the first part of Christian Scripture. The books of the Old and New Testament Scriptures are seen as 176 Bullinger, Antwort an Burchard, 149: “das uns der willen gottes geschrifftlich in den bucheren Mose also völlig kundtthon ist.” 177 Bullinger, Antwort an Burchard, 150. 178 Bullinger, Antwort an Burchard, 151: “wenn wöllend ir dann sehen, das wir alles, das zum heyl hört und das Paulus predget, volckomlichen verschryben habend, also nun das alles das verflöcht ist, das anders dann dise gschrifft leert”. 179 Bullinger, Antwort an Burchard, 154. 180 On Bullinger’s attitude toward contemporary Judaism, see Achim Detmers, Reformation und Judentum: Israel -​Lehren und Einstellungen zum Judentum von Luther bis zum frühen Calvin, Judentum und Christentum Band 7 (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2001), 161–​184; Joachim Staedtke, “Die Juden im historischen und theologischen Urteil des Schweizer Reformators Heinrich Bullinger,” in Reformation und Zeugnis der Kirche: Gesammelte Studien, ed. Dietrich Blaufuss, Zürcher Beiträge zur Reformationsgeschichte 9 (Zurich: TVZ, 1978), 29–​49. 181 Bullinger, Antwort an Burchard, 151: “und also wir und die alten vor Christus purt ein volck, ein kilchen, under einem gott, testament und glauben syend.” 182 Bullinger, Antwort an Burchard, 152. 183 Bullinger, Antwort an Burchard, 150: “Und so vil von bücheren Mosi, welche man bishar das gsatzt genempt hat.”

Mutual Influence, to 1534  153 “content and instruction” or “document and testimony” of the one testament, and not the testament itself.184 The nomenclature of the Christian canon as Old and New Testament is given by way of metonymy. As an analogy, Bullinger proposed a victory song that celebrates a battle after which it is named not because the song is the battle itself but because it describes its course. We have here a covenantal theology of the biblical canon. Similarly, in the Studiorum ratio Bullinger compared the relation between Scripture and God’s covenant to the relationship between a human covenant or testament and its documentary record.185 Studiorum ratio, which Bullinger completed in 1528, is of special interest because it discloses Bullinger’s early reflections on hermeneutics, that is, how one should methodologically approach and understand Scripture. As we shall see below, Bullinger adhered to the locus method, which spread among humanist circles. In Studiorum ratio Bullinger had already mentioned the covenant as the unique end (scopus) of Scripture to which every biblical book points: “There are some in our time who assign everything to law and gospel. I do no blame it for now, but neither will I convey it with praises. What is certain is that all books of Sacred Scriptures have this common and specific end, and of what kind we shall see: God of Heaven, that is, God almighty has made a testament, an agreement [pactum] and an everlasting covenant [foedus].”186 (Italics mine) Bullinger explicitly contrasted his unifying hermeneutics with the dualistic hermeneutics of Wittenberg (Luther and Melanchthon). While the latter assigned the two testaments of Scriptures to law (old) and gospel (new), Bullinger integrated both in his covenant theology. The Reformer immediately referred to the testamentum, pactum seu foedus as expressed in the Abrahamic covenant. It is a two-​sided covenant whereby God will be man’s sufficiency as long as man lives before God with integrity. Otherwise, man is considered a “covenant breaker.”187 At least hypothetically, the possibility of breaking the covenant exists. The Mosaic law is subdivided into moral, judicial, and ceremonial law. While the first of these is to be read literally, as the very expression of a life within the covenant, the third should be interpreted

184 Bullinger, Antwort an Burchard, 153. 185 Bullinger, Studiorum ratio, 76. 186 Bullinger, Studiorum ratio, 74: “Sunt, qui nostris temporibus omnia referant ad legem et euangelium; quod ut in praesentiarum non culpo, sie neque laudibus vehere volo. Hoc certum est: omnes sacrae scripturae libros communem quendam habere scopum, qui, qualis sit, videamus: Deus coeli, Deus ille omnipotens pepigit cum humano genere testamentum, pactum seu foedus sempiternum.” (Italics mine) 187 Bullinger, Studiorum ratio, 76.

154  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development allegorically, that is, in anticipation of the consummation of the covenant. The prophets were interpreters of Moses who already pointed “to the covenant as the unique end.”188 The gospel teaches nothing other than “what was once delivered in the testament.”189 Bullinger clearly considered the covenant to be a unifying principle that gives coherence to the Christian canon of Scripture. Four years later Bullinger reiterated this point in De prophetae officio, his first writing after accepting his call to Zurich. What he had once expressed in a private letter, he now made publicly accessible: “Thus, I advise you, oh prophet of God, when you are going to expound Scripture that you reflect for yourself what is the base [status] of Holy Scripture or what everything [in Scripture] refers to. Most of people claim that it is law and gospel, but this is not quite right. The testament, then, which is also the heading of whole Scripture, is the base of whole Scripture.”190 Again Bullinger contrasted the dualistic approach to Scripture grounded in a radical law-​gospel antithesis with the coherence given by the testament. Bullinger used here the term status (base) instead of scopus (end). In other words, the covenant is not only the end but also the beginning, that is, the alpha and omega of all Scripture. Bullinger defined the testament in Studiorum ratio by terms such as pactum and foedus. He further summarized the covenant in words borrowed from Genesis 17, on the one hand, as God being “our God, the all-​sufficiency, the abundance of all good and the cornucopia. [God] has thus showed it to be true by the gift of the holy Land and by the incarnation of the Son. Man must on the other hand strive toward integrity, . . . as he walks in His ways.”191 The dipleuric administration of the covenant integrates the gospel and law as the two sides of the one covenant. To put it another way, the law must be understood as man’s response to God’s gospel, which Bullinger eventually epitomized as the incarnation of the Son. There can be no antithesis, only a law-​gospel distinction.

188 Bullinger, Studiorum ratio, 98. 189 Bullinger, Studiorum ratio, 104. 190 Bullinger, De prophetae officio, 4v: “Ita moneo te quoque o propheta Dei, ut Scripturas expositurus, saepius tecum cogites quis Scripturae Sanctae status sit et quo referantur omnia. Id plerique legem esse aiunt et evangelium, sed minus proprie. Testamentum enim, qui et totius Scripturae titulus est, totius etiam Scripturae status est.” 191 Bullinger, De prophetae officio, 4v–​5r “Testamenti enim voce pactum intelligimus foedus et conventionem, eam videlicet, qua Deus convenit cum universo mortalium genere, se Deum nostrum fore, omni sufficientiam, bonorum acervum, καὶ κέρασ ἀμαλθείασ. Ideoque se maxime probaturum donatione terrae foelicis et incarnatione Fili. Debere autem hominem studere integritati, . . . ut ambulet in viis eius”.

Mutual Influence, to 1534  155 As a humanist, Bullinger welcomed and applied Erasmus’s proposition that knowledge, including theological knowledge gained from Scripture, be organized in loci, that is, compartmentalized in some basic topics or commonplaces.192 In 1523 and 1524 he used Erasmus’s Ratio seu methodus compendio perveniendi ad veram theologiam and Melanchthon’s loci communes as an introduction to his lectures on the New Testament given in Kappel.193 This approach was called the locus method,194 and during the Reformation and the post-​Reformation era was seen as an appropriate way of organizing and presenting theological material. During the period covered by this study, Bullinger seems to have left us three lists of loci, in Studiorum ratio, Institutionum στρωματέων, and Locorum communium Index;195 the last of these is, however, undated, and we cannot be sure that the manuscript is from the hand of Bullinger.196 Institutionum στρωματέων de philosophia Christiana was not meant to be a list of loci in the strict sense; it is a handwritten outline, dated 1531, of books and chapters of a work never completed. The dating of the “loci communes sacri” in Studiorum ratio leaves us with a problem. Bullinger began to work on his Studiorum ratio in 1527 and finished it in 1528, as Peter Stotz has convincingly argued.197 The Reformer wrote, however, that he had composed the list “three years ago.”198 With 1527 as the date from which he calculates, a date assumed without explanation, Stotz considered the list to be from “probably 1524.”199 If Stotz is right, the

192 Bullinger, Studiorum ratio, 110–​112. 193 See Bullinger, Studiorum ratio, 30. 194 For a helpful overview of specific literature, see N. Scott Amos, “Exegesis and Theological Method,” in A Companion to Peter Martyr Vermigli, ed. W. J. T. Kirby et al., Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 16 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 177, fn. 5. 195 Here one could also point to the listing in Bullinger, an Philipp von Hessen: Zürich, 17. August 1532, 183: “Nam doctrinam nostram sanctam esse et veram evicit compluribus scriptis ille sanctae memoriae antecessor noster H. Zvinglius, evicit et inculpatae vitae et incomparabilis eruditionis vir Ioan. Oecolampadius. Eandem illam doctrinam, quam illorum ministerio ex sacris a deo accepimus, utpote non hominum, sed dei discipuli, cuius illi erant servi, adhuc illibatam custodimus. Id quod hoc meo in Hebraeos Pauli commentario, imo et ipsa Paulina epistola comprobamus. Ex qua, si per occupationes legere liceret, intelligeres nos de scriptura, testamento et lege dei, de deo, unitate et trinitate dei, de Christo deo et homine, mediatore, sacerdote et sacrificio, de vera salute et iustificatione, de ecclesia, de vocatione ad munus docendi, de vera fide, de sacramentis et vero dei cultu, primariis nostrae religionis capitibus, nihil novum, factiosum aut haereticum, sed prorsus sana, catholica et orthodoxa credere et praedicare.” (Italics mine) Note here that the covenant comes in second position just after Scripture. 196 The archival record notes only that it is by a sixteenth-​century hand. 197 Peter Stotz, Studiorum ratio -​Studienanleitung, in HBW Sdb. 1:2, 25. 198 Bullinger, Studiorum ratio, 128. 199 Stotz, Studiorum ratio, 274.

156  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development list would precede Zwingli’s covenantal turn and Bullinger would become the undisputable pioneer of Reformed covenant theology. This dating would however make covenantal continuity’s absence from Zwingli’s and Bullinger’s writings from before mid-​1525—​an absence we have already established—​ wholly inexplicable. But if we take 1528 as the date from which to calculate the implications of that statement, the composition of the list would go back to 1525, which would make perfect sense for our results. Stotz has surely miscalculated. All three lists of loci include a locus on the covenant, with testamentum the term explicitly used. A comparison of the three sources shows a high level of flexibility in Bullinger’s ordering of the loci. We could point to many interesting variations, but we will limit our scope to three particular loci: God, Scripture, and the covenant. Table 3.3 highlights the different ordering of these specific loci in the three texts. The first locus in Bullinger’s loci communes sacri of Studiorum ratio concerns the Testamentum unicum et aeternum, immediately followed by the distinctions vetus and novum. The locus on Scripture, with which testamentum is juxtaposed, comes only 12th in the list. And one must wait until the 24th entry to find the locus on God. In Institutionum στρωματέων, however, the first locus is dedicated to Scripture, and the covenant is relegated to the last of 10 sub-​items. The doctrine of God follows the locus on Scripture. In Locorum communium index, Bullinger begins with God and deals with the covenant again as a sub-​item, not explicitly but probably paraphrased by “Deus noster est et nos populus eius,” a reference to Genesis 17:7. The doctrine of Scripture is also treated as a sub-​item, the fourth of the second locus, on Religio. What can we infer from Bullinger’s

Table 3.3  Loci Ordering in Bullinger’s Early Commonplaces Studiorum ratio (loci communes sacri)*

Institutionum στρωματέων Locorum communium Index

1.Testamentum 1.1. unicum et aeternum, 1.2. Vetus, 1.3. Novum. 12. Scriptura –​testamentum –​ 24. Deus

1. De Scripturarum absoluta veritate. Lib[er] 1 1.10. De testamento. Cap. 10. 2. De natura Dei et maiestate eius. Liber 2.

*Bullinger, Studiorum ratio, 128.

1. Deus. 1.5. Deus noster est et nos populus eius. (Gen. 17:7) 2. Religio. 2.4. Scriptura a Deo inspirata

Mutual Influence, to 1534  157 notable flexibility in sequencing theological material? Dowey used the comparison of the two first writings—​he does not seem to be aware of the third—​as evidence that Bullinger did not build his theology strictly on the covenant.200 The latest scholarship (including Dowey) has tended to relativize the constitutive role given to the covenant by earlier scholars. It has been also rightly pointed out that Reformers and post-​Reformation theologians did not have a “central dogma” as found in nineteenth-​century top-​down dogmatics, from which a system of theology by way of logical necessity could be rationally deduced. It is precisely the adoption of the locus method, with its relatively flat structure, that prevented them from creating such a system.201 We should therefore not be surprised by Bullinger’s ability to freely invert the different loci and put the covenant, Scripture, or God alternatively in pole position. However, this order of presentation also does not say much about the systematic interrelations of the different loci. Put another way, a list is not necessarily a system. I am suggesting not that Bullinger had no system, but that the system cannot be read out of a list of loci. Otherwise we would have to assume that Bullinger was uncertain whether the starting point of theology was God or Scripture. If Reformers had some kind of central dogma at all (the term is, as we said, misleading), then it would have been Scripture—​Sola scriptura! They did not begin with rational speculation on who or what God is and from there arrive logically at the doctrine of Scripture. Dowey challenged the interpretation of the covenant as a constitutive principle, but he did so by pointing to the position of the covenant in the listing of loci. I propose that we cannot draw any necessary conclusion about the systematic function of the covenant from its placement in these lists.202 All that they show is that for Bullinger the covenant must have been sufficiently significant in his system to be assigned a locus.

200 Dowey, “Bullinger as Theologian,” 47–​48. 201 See Muller, Calvin and the Reformed Tradition, 30: “one of the effects of this topical or locus method was an emphasis on the integrity or integral formulation of a topic and a deemphasis on, even a barrier to, the development of overarching dogmatic models such as used in the deductive, systematic, central dogma approaches characteristic of nineteenth-​century theology.” 202 In a similar way, Muller criticizes conclusions drawn from the location of the locus of predestination, see Richard A. Muller, “The Placement of Predestination in Reformed Theology: Issue or Non-​Issue?” Calvin Theological Journal 40 (2005): 184–​210.

158  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development

De Testamento—​On the Covenant (August 1534) Bullinger’s theological treatise on the covenant, De Testamento, published in August 1534,203 merits special attention within the scope of our study. The expositive rather than openly polemical character of this text makes it all the more interesting for a historical-​theological examination of Bullinger’s thought on the covenant. Scholars have usually taken De Testamento as paradigmatic of Bullinger’s covenant theology. They have looked at it not so much as a snapshot but as the definitive and full expression of the covenant within Bullinger’s entire theological thought. My diachronic perspective seeks to enlarge and differentiate their overly narrow picture. Greater specificity and accentuation over the years in Bullinger’s thinking on the covenant is manifest particularly through terminological differentiation. These scholars have provided, however, a good overview of the themes and their biblical basis found in De Testamento.204 I will not repeat what has been already said elsewhere; rather, I will point to what has been missed to date and to what I consider formative for the further development of Bullinger’s covenant theology. This approach will prove closely related to the question of terminology and definition. From the outset Bullinger made clear that he saw the testament or covenant as the scopus of all Scriptures, even if this technical term occurs only in a marginal note.205 Bullinger intended to proceed with a definition of his own use of the Latin term testamentum, as he was aware that “its usage varies in Scripture.”206 However, Brian Lee has rightly pointed out that the philological exposition that follows is confusing in that “it is never entirely clear what word Bullinger is trying to define,” for Bullinger “considers berith, diatheke, and testamentum in no particular order.” At the end, Lee states that “Bullinger

203 See Detlef Roth, Einleitung zu “Das Testament oder der Bund.” in BS 1, 52: “Doch erst Ende August 1534 –​nicht, wie der Druck angibt, im September –​ist sie gedruckt worden.” Roth refers to Bullinger’s letter to Vadian of 27 August 1534 and to an entry in Bullinger’s Diarium, see Bullinger, an Joachim Vadian, 291–​292; Bullinger, Diarium, 24. 204 See Mock, “Biblical and Theological Themes,” 1–​35; Aurelio A. Garcia, “Bullinger’s De testamento: The Amply Biblical Basis of Reformed Origins,” in Heinrich Bullinger: Life—​Thought—​ Influence, 2 vols., ed. Emidio Campi et al., Zürcher Beiträge zur Reformationsgeschichte 24 (Zurich: TVZ, 2007), 671–​692. 205 See Bullinger, De testamento, fol. 16r: “Omnis scriptura ad foedus ceu scopum refertur.” (Italics mine) 206 Bullinger, A Brief Exposition of the One and Eternal Testament, 101; Bullinger, De testamento, fol. 2v: “quod varius in sacris testamenti sit usus.”

Mutual Influence, to 1534  159 intended to use testamentum to mean foedus,” yet “continues to use the two terms with different connotations.”207 Bullinger began with the translation of ‫ ְּב ִרית‬by διαθήκη in the Septuagint and by testamentum in Latin, stating thereafter that it often means a testament. After a longer discussion of these Greek and Latin equivalents, the Reformer concluded that διαθήκη can mean foedus, that is, covenant, which is the most appropriate translation of ‫ב ִרית‬. ְּ 208 A comparison of the two statements clearly reveals the tension: The term ‫ב ִרית‬, ְּ that the [translators] of the Septuagint consistently translated into Διαθήκη, but the Latin [translators] into “testamentum,” means repeatedly the inheritance that results from a testament.209

And: Also διαθήκη or διαθήκαι in the plural means an agreement [pactum] or a covenant [foedus], which mostly corresponds to the [term] ‫ ְּב ִרית‬of the Hebrews.210

I shall attempt to make sense of Bullinger’s definition by reading it as an inclusio. Tellingly, Bullinger started and ended his definition with the Hebrew term ‫ב ִרית‬. ְּ I suggest that he deliberately used this concentric structure to highlight the pivotal term διαθήκη (and testamentum as its Latin translation) of the Septuagint. This Greek term is also used in the New Testament for covenant, and, as such, brings terminological uniformity to the whole body of Scripture. Bullinger enlarged, however, its semantic field by using the testimony of Scripture itself, namely as testament in the narrow sense, as in Matthew 26, Galatians 3, or Hebrews 9, and as pledge or covenant in a wider sense. In his own words, Bullinger eventually decided to use it in the latter sense, such that διαθήκη (the Latin term testamentum is not even

207 Brian J. Lee, Johannes Cocceius and the Exegetical Roots of Federal Theology: Reformation Developments in the Interpretation of Hebrews 7–​10, Reformed Historical Theology 7 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), 33–​34. 208 Bullinger, De testamento, fol. 2v–​3v. 209 Bullinger, De testamento, fol. 2v: “Vocula ergo ‫ ְּב ִרית‬quam LXX constanter verterunt Διαθήκη, Latini vero testamentum, aliquoties ipsam significat haereditatem quae testamento obvenit.” 210 Bullinger, De testamento, fol. 3r: “Item διαθήκη vel διαθήκαι numero plurali pactum quoque ac foedus significat, cui maxime respondet Hebraeorum ‫”ב ִרית‬. ְּ

160  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development mentioned) is given as foedus in the treatise, as in the foundational passage of Genesis 17, which he is about to develop. However, Bullinger did not remain entirely consistent with his original endeavor. His own terms would have required him to exclude foundational New Testament texts (such as the ones just mentioned) as well. He would instead harmonize the narrow sense of testamentum with foedus. Thus, he actually continued to use both terms, instead of just foedus. Note also that testamentum even precedes foedus in the title. Bullinger probably soon became aware of his confusing philological introduction and definition. His early modern German translation published the same year, Vom einigen und ewigen testament, does not mention ‫ ְּב ִרית‬or διαθήκη at all, but starts from testament and treats one by one the three possible meanings found in Scripture.211 Statistically, De Testamento demonstrates that Bullinger had now reversed the terminological ranking we observed in his Antwort an Burchard. While in Antwort an Burchard testamentum was clearly preferred to foedus, the occurrences of foedus in De Testamento now by far overtook testamentum. If we follow Mock’s table, foedus and testamentum appear in two-​to-​one ratio. In the early modern German translation this ratio (between pundt and testament) is even higher.212 Lee has also rightly observed that Bullinger uses testamentum mainly when he deals with objections to covenantal continuity,213 that is, when he addresses the differences between the two testaments (old and new), so testamental discontinuity. If Bullinger has a clear preference for foedus, why then keep the word testamentum at all? That Bullinger adapted the terminology to the theological discourse he was addressing, as we have seen him do before, cannot fully explain its retention. As we might anticipate, he wanted to retain the first or narrow sense of testamentum in his covenant theology. I suggest that Bullinger in fact continued to qualify the biblical foedus as a testamentum, in contrast to his confusing definition, a qualification I term a testamental covenant. This can be seen in the following statement: “In the same way, we consider children of parents to be children and indeed heirs even though they, in their early years, do not know that they are either children or heirs of their parents. They are, however, disowned if, after they have reached the age of reason,



211 Bullinger, Von dem einigen unnd ewigen testament, A2r–​A3r. 212 213

See Mock, “Biblical and Theological Themes,” 28–​30. See Lee, Johannes Cocceius, 34–​36.

Mutual Influence, to 1534  161 they neglect the commands of their parents. In that case, the parent no longer calls them children and heirs but worthless profligates.”214 Having explained how children relate to the Abrahamic covenant (foedus), Bullinger moved to an analogy from testamental practice. In other words, the covenant functions here as a testament. Offspring who are heirs or beneficiaries of the testament can be disinherited or excluded from the testament if as they grow up, they do not behave according to the will of their parents or testators. Then, as long as the testator lives, the testament is not sealed but can be unilaterally modified. Bullinger used exactly the same argument advanced in Von dem Touff, where he explicitly spoke of gmächtsbrieff and testamentierer, i.e., testator. Although, notably, he used foedus and not testament, he undoubtedly meant the same. Another obvious example of this integration of covenant and testament is the recurrence of Hebrews 9 and Matthew 26, two of the three biblical texts used by Bullinger in his philological introduction to illustrate testamentum as last disposition or will: For Paul says: “A testament takes effect only in death; it is not yet valid while the testator lives.” God, however, is the testator; therefore it behooved God to die. And since he is immutable and immortal, he assumed the seed of Abraham and, in the assumed flesh, he suffered, shed his blood, and in that way, as I would express it, ratified the testament. Moreover, in order that he might hand down this mystery to the fathers in a figure, he willed that the seed of Abraham itself be circumcised, signifying that the true seed of Abraham, Christ the Lord, would confirm that covenant by his death and blood.215

214 Bullinger, A Brief Exposition of the One and Eternal Testament, 106; Bullinger, De testamento, fol. 8r–​8v: “Interim vero sobolem, hoc est infantes istorum foedere nequaquam excludi: excludi autem ubi accedente rationis usu foederis conditiones negligunt. Non secus atque videmus liberos parentum esse liberos imo et haeredes tametsi per primos aetatis annos nesciant se esse parentum vel liberos vel haeredes. Abdicantur autem postquam ad rationis usum pervenientes parentum iussa negligunt. Tum enim parens illos non filios aut haeredes, sed profligatos appellitat nebulones.” 215 Bullinger, A Brief Exposition of the One and Eternal Testament, 131; Bullinger, De testamento, fol. 43r–​v : “Nam Paulus ‘testamentum,’ ait, ‘in mortuis ratum est: quandoquidem nondum valet cum vivit testator.’ Deus autem testator est, Deum ergo mori oportuit. Sed cum is sit immutabilis et immortalis, semen Abrahae assumpsit, et in assumpta carne patitur sanguinemque fundit, ac eo modo testamentum, ut sic dicam, ratificat. Caeterum ut hoc mysterium patribus in figura traderet, ipsum semen Abrahae voluit circumcidi, significans verum Abrahae semen Christum Dominum morte sanguineque suo foedus illud confirmaturum. Huius rei gratia ipse dominus Iesus apud Matthaeum, de sacramento novi foederis loquens, ait: ‘Hic est sanguis meus, qui est novi testamenti, qui pro multitudine effunditur in remissionem peccatorum.’ ”

162  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development If Bullinger had really wanted to limit the semantic field of testamentum to foedus, he would not have turned to these biblical passages. But he did so, explicitly interweaving them with Genesis 17 so that the Abrahamic covenant proves to be in the end a testament (and not the other way around, as in the introduction). Bullinger evidently wanted to combine the unilaterality of testamentum with the bilaterality of foedus, the former leading into the latter. But why? So as, I suggest, to overcome the antithesis between law and gospel but nevertheless keep a distinction. Bullinger assigned to the testament a ­historical-​redemptive and legal emphasis and to the covenant an organic or relational emphasis, making them indissolubly two sides of the same coin. Some scholars have already pointed out that Bullinger’s use of the covenant cannot be confined exclusively to legal categories.216 They are correct. I am suggesting here that foedus as a term is to be primarily understood relationally, organically, or mystically.217 These scholars have failed to see that Bullinger uses another term to stress the legal part, namely testamentum, which is thus to be primarily understood legally. I am not saying that foedus never has a legal aspect. It does, of course, when sanctification or obedience to the law is required as a condition of the covenant (usus normativus). Neither am I saying that testamentum has no relational aspect. Any legal aspect implies some sort of relation. My categorization must be understood in terms of tendency and emphasis. We must keep in mind that Bullinger did not play the mystical against the legal, rather the latter was the foundation of the former. As the quotation above shows, this integration of foedus and testamentum, or of the relational and the legal, is theologically refined. The orthodox dogmas of Trinitarian monotheism and dyophysite Christology are here integrated in Bullinger’s covenant theology in a very coherent way. We could speak of a Nicean-​Chalcedonian testamental covenant theology. God the Father makes a covenant with man in the Son by the Spirit (organic-​mystical). The Son put the covenant into effect as a testament in his incarnational death, that is, according to his human nature (historical-​legal). Christ is the climax of the covenant as God’s incarnation (the Son), which culminates in his death and resurrection.218 Christ is the way God’s fulfills his promise to give himself 216 See, e.g., Opitz, Bullinger als Theologe, 336–​337. 217 See, e.g., how Bullinger referred to God’s accommodating of mankind using foedus to express the “mysterium hoc unitatis societatisque divinae” (italics mine) in Bullinger, De testamento, fol. 4v. 218 Bullinger, De testamento, fol. 21v–​22r: “De Christo Domino quid dicam, qui non tantum omni doctrina, sed ipsa admirabili illa incarnatione sua, foedus illud Dei aeternum cum hominum genere

Mutual Influence, to 1534  163 to men as Schadai in the covenant (Gen. 17:1).219 God’s very name or being implies according to Bullinger’s definition the condition of the covenant on God’s side. The covenant is implemented ultimately in the incarnational death of the Son and therefore best described as a unilateral disposition, last will, or testament. If we keep in mind that the testator can only disinherit his offspring (i.e., modify his testament) as long as he is alive, then this analogy applied to God’s testament would signify that Christ’s death (according to his human nature) seals the testament once for all, so that God’s offspring entailed in the testament can no longer be disinherited and are de facto elected. The doctrine of election is implicit in Bullinger’s De Testamento. The covenant in its bilaterality results from a unilateral testament. The “conditions” (officia) imposed on man in living a sanctified life prove to be in the end not a prerequisite of God’s promissiones but its outcome accomplished by the Spirit.220 Then the covenant (mystical) is truly a means in itself (and not a means to another end) by way of a testament (legal), namely, the restitution of life as a genuine communion (consortium) with God in Christ, “the greatest mystery in the entire world, namely, that God admitted humans into the covenant and into partnership.”221 (Italics mine) In De Testamento Bullinger for the first time used the incarnation, namely the union of the two natures sanctioned at Chalcedon to be neither confused nor separated, as the very expression of this foedus between God and man. The obvious recurrence of the term foedus in De Testamento signals Bullinger’s new emphasis on the mystical aspect of his covenant theology. pactum mirifico ac vivo quodam modo exposuit atque confirmavit. Dum enim verus Deus verum assumpsit hominem, iam non verbis aut argumentis amplius egit, sed ipsa re toti orbi maximum illud attestatus est mysterium, quod scilicet Deus hominem in foedus et consortium admisit, imo nexu indissolubili illum sibi summo amoris miraculo constrinxit, et quod Deus noster sit. Inde nimirum et Christo nomen datum apud Isaiam credimus. Dictus est enim ‘Imanuel,’ quasi quis dicat ‘nobiscum Deus’. Inde nimirum evangelistae tot tantisque exemplis maxima eaque innumera Christi recensent miracula ac beneficia. His enim declaravit Deum esse beneficum, adeoque generis humani copiae cornu Patrem ac Schadai. Quo et ipsa mors et resurrectio Christi referuntur. Sunt enim divinae misericordiae iustitiae et vitae restitutae certissima testimonia, quibus se Deus ob oculos nostros statuit et totum sese nobis impendit, benedicens nobis et suscipiens nos per ipsum repurgatos in consortium et regnum aeternum.” 219 See Bullinger, De testamento, fol. 11v–​12r. See also margin: “Promissiones dei, et qualem se nobis hoc foedere offerat.” 220 Bullinger defines the conditions of the covenant as promissiones on God’s side and officia on man’s side, see Bullinger, De testamento, fol. 11v–​16r. 221 Bullinger, A Brief Exposition of the One and Eternal Testament, 115; Bullinger, De testamento, fol. 21v: “Dum enim verus Deus verum assumpsit hominem, iam non verbis aut argumentis amplius egit, sed ipsa re toti orbi maximum illud attestatus est mysterium, quod scilicet Deus hominem in foedus et consortium admisit, imo nexu indissolubili illum sibi summo amoris miraculo constrinxit, et quod Deus noster sit.” (Italics mine)

164  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development

Conclusion This chapter covering the years in Kappel, Bremgarten, and Zurich until the publication of De Testamento in 1534 has shown that from 1525 Bullinger made use of the covenant in a variety of genres in addressing an eclectic range of theological questions. Covenant theology was used for polemical as well as non-​polemical purposes. The textual evidence points to Vom einigen Gott, of 20 October 1525, as the first writing to mention the covenant, contrary to the claims of earlier scholarship, which cited Von dem Touff. However, our dating still places the beginnings of Bullinger’s covenantal theology after Zwingli’s covenantal turn. Bullinger’s dependence on Zwingli’s covenantal turn has been firmly established. As for Zwingli, the Anabaptist controversy can no longer be considered the primary context out of which covenant theology arose. The question of infant baptism also appeared as a secondary issue in the majority of his subsequent writings. From 1525 onward the covenant served not as a central dogma but as a unifying locus that shaped Bullinger’s exegesis as well as his systematic thinking. We have observed three main constants of Bullinger’s covenant theology that did not fundamentally differ from Zwingli’s. The first was the exegetical core formed by Genesis 17 on the Abrahamic covenant. This passage was a pivotal point, from which Bullinger turned backward toward Adam (Gen. 3:15) and forward toward the New Testament, generating a coherent history of redemption controlled by the covenant. I have summarized the discontinuous elements between the old and new testaments as the historical, participational, and liturgical differences. Second, Christ is seen as the climax of covenantal redemptive history. And third, Bullinger abundantly employed the terminological pair “testament/​covenant,” with a preference for “testament.” While the terms can be used interchangeably, the former stresses the unilateral and legal aspect while the latter emphasizes the bilateral and relational-​mystical aspect of the covenant. We have observed the terminological shift in De Testamento, where the term foedus is by far preferred over testamentum. As we shall see, this shift demonstrates Bullinger’s strong emphasis on the ecclesial and mystical aspect of the covenant, which culminates in union with Christ but is grounded in its redemptive-​historical and legal aspect.

4 The Centrality of the Covenant, 1534–​1551 Bullinger’s pursuit of the exegetical work that was part of his homiletical task was highly productive. By 1537 he had exposited all the New Testament letters and he turned then to the Gospels, which he finished in 1546.1 From 1534 on he also preached regularly on Old Testament books.2 The Zurich school, and Bullinger’s scholarship in particular, attracted many students from all over Europe. Bullinger’s theological achievement of this period was certainly the Decades. His growing epistolary exchange with correspondents throughout Europe is indicative of his religious-​political interest in defending and propagating Reformed commitments, especially in England. On a polemical level, he was under pressure increasingly from Luther and his allies. Together with John Calvin, however, he was able to generate and strengthen Reformed unity, as laid out in the decisive Consensus tigurinus (1549).3 Relevant for our study are further commentaries on the Pauline epistles—​ on 2 Corinthians4 (1535) and on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians5 (1535). The books were printed first separately and then together, in 1537 in a collected edition with all the other New Testament epistles. As we have noted, successive collected editions followed during Bullinger’s lifetime, in 1539, 1543, 1549, and 1558, with the De Testamento and Assertio appended. Moreover, Bullinger published during this time commentaries on all four Gospels.6 Bullinger preached from the pulpit from notes only. Most of 1 See Büsser, Heinrich Bullinger (1504–​1575), vol. 1, 242. 2 See Fritz Büsser, Wurzeln der Reformation in Zürich: Zum 500. Geburtstag des Reformators Huldrych Zwingli, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought 31 (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 146. 3 See Consensus Tigurinus (1549): Die Einigung zwischen Heinrich Bullinger und Johannes Calvin über das Abendmahl, ed. Emidio Campi et al. (Zurich: TVZ, 2009), 125–​139. See also the English translation in pp. 258–​264. 4 Heinrich Bullinger, Kommentar zum Zweiten Korintherbrief, in HBTS 6, 465–​591; HBBibl I, 38, no. 71. 5 Bullinger, Kommentar zum Galaterbrief, 9–​ 124; Heinrich Bullinger, Kommentar zum Epheserbrief, in HBTS 7, 125–​208; Heinrich Bullinger, Kommentar zum Philipperbrief, in HBTS 7, 209–​250; Heinrich Bullinger, Kommentar zum Kolosserbrief, in HBTS 7, 251–​294; HBBibl I, 38–​39, no. 72. 6 Heinrich Bullinger, In sacrosanctum Iesu Christi Domini nostri Evangelium secundum Matthaeum commentariorum libri XII (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1542); HBBibl I, 71, no. 144; Heinrich Bullinger, In divinum Iesu Christi Domini nostri Evangelium secundum Ioannem commentariorum libri X (Zurich: Froschauer, 1543); HBBibl I, 75, no. 153; Heinrich Bullinger, In

The Zurich Origins of Reformed Covenant Theology. Pierrick Hildebrand, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2024. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197607572.003.0005

166  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development those notes have been conserved and archived. Here, I will look in particular at Bullinger’s exegetical notes on the book of Genesis in his Predigtskizzen7 (23 April 1536–​4 November 1537) and Lateinische Homilien zum 1. Buch Mose8 (undated, 1536–​1537?), as no published commentary or sermon series on Genesis subsequently captured his sermons. According to Bullinger’s Diarium, his diary, he began to preach on the book of Genesis in 1536.9 In the Scholia in Esaiam prophetam10 (1537) and the fragmentary Annotationes in sermones clarissimi prophetae Isaiae11 (1548?) on Isaiah, Bullinger also mentioned the covenant. A Diarum entry testifies to Bullinger’s personal exposition of Isaiah for English students in 1537.12 The Scholia in Esaiam prophetam probably comprises notes taken by students ex ore, that is, “out of the teacher’s mouth.” Bullinger began to preach through Isaiah a couple of years later—​the first time in 1548 and again between 1562 and 1566. We shall not discuss here those notes on Isaiah but look instead at his last sermon series, which was published in 1567. Bullinger’s high view of Scripture is also reflected in De scripturae sanctae autoritate13 (1538). This text formed the first of two books that were published as one volume in 1538. Bullinger was probably addressing the Reformation endeavors in England, as these books were dedicated to King Henry VIII.14 De omnibus Sanctae Scripturae libris expositio,15 a preface provided by Bullinger for the 1539 edition of the Latin Bible by Sebastian Münster (1488–​1552),

sacrosanctum Evangelium Domini nostri Iesu Christi secundum Marcum commentariorum lib. VI (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1545); HBBibl I, 84, no. 170; Heinrich Bullinger, In luculentum et sacrosanctum Evangelium Domini nostri Iesu Christi secundum Lucam commentariorum lib[ri] IX (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1546); HBBibl I, 85, no. 173. 7 Heinrich Bullinger, Predigtskizzen (Zentralbibliothek, Zurich: Ms Car III 203, 1536–​1537); see appendix G. 8 Heinrich Bullinger, Lateinische Homilien zum 1. Buch Mose, (Zentralbibliothek, Zurich: Ms Car III 195a, undated); see appendix H. 9 Bullinger, Diarium, 24–​25. 10 Heinrich Bullinger, Scholia in Esaiam prophetam ex ore D[omini] Henrici Bullingeri (Zentralbibliothek, Zurich: Msc D 43, 1537). 11 Heinrich Bullinger, Annotationes in sermones clarissimi prophetae Isaiae (Zentralbibliothek, Zurich: Msc Car III 195e, undated). 12 Bullinger, Diarium, 26. 13 Heinrich Bullinger, De Scripturae Sanctae authoritate, certitudine, firmitate et absoluta perfectione (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1538); HBBibl I, 57, no. 111. See also the translation into modern High German: Heinrich Bullinger, Die Autorität der Heiligen Schrift, in BS 2, 13–​416. 14 On Bullinger and his relationship to King Henry VIII, see Mühling, europäische Kirchenpolitik, 155–​158. 15 Heinrich Bullinger, De omnibus Sanctae Scripturae libris eorumque praestantia et dignitate, in Biblia sacra utriusque Testamenti, ed. Sebastian Münster et al. (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1539), fol. A2r–​B7v; HBBibl I, 59, no. 114.

The Centrality of the Covenant, 1534–1551  167 became widely used, printed even in Roman Catholic Bible editions.16 Bullinger’s Brevis antibole17 (1544) came in the aftermath of a polemical exchange by letter between Roman Catholic Johann Cochlaeus (1479–​1552) and Bullinger on De Scripturae Sanctae autoritate that had taken place in the first half of 1544.18 For our purposes I draw not so much on the writing itself but on the longer dedication, to Elector Palatine Ott-​Henry (1502–​1559).19 And in 1540 Bullinger published20 his theological and moral reflections on the institution of marriage in Der christliche Ehestand.21 Marriage was far from a marginal issue for the Reformers, especially in Zurich, where the so-​ called Ehegericht, or matrimonial court, was instituted in 1525. According to Zwingli and Bullinger, marriage was one of the principal societal issues in need of reform. Sexual misconduct, particular as associated with clandestine marriages and sacerdotal celibacy, was criticized from the beginning. While Bullinger’s writing is not free of polemic, it is essentially in praise of marriage. Bullinger’s polemical writings mostly adopt a defensive position. In Der alte Glaube22 (1537) he generally countered Roman Catholic, Anabaptist, and Lutheran attacks by asserting the antiquity and orthodoxy of the Christian faith as preached and confessed in Zurich. The old faith was a

16 For a short sketch of the reception history of this preface, see Büsser, Heinrich Bullinger (1504–​ 1575), vol. 1, 251–​252. 17 Heinrich Bullinger, Brevis antibole sive responsio secunda Heinrychi Bullingeri ad maledicam implicatamque Ioannis Cochlei de scripturae et ecclesiae authoritate replicam: Una cum expositione de sancta Christi catholica ecclesia, ad illustrissimum principem et dominum D. Ottonem Heinrychum Palatinum Rheni et utriusque Bavariae Ducem etc. (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1544. There exists a critical edition of the letter of dedication in: Heinrich Bullinger, Bullinger an Ottheinrich I. von der Pfalz: Zürich, 10. November 1544, in HBBW 14, 521–​545, no. 2033. 18 See the editor’s introduction in Bullinger, an Ottheinrich I. von der Pfalz, 519. 19 On Bullinger and his relationship to Elector Palatine Ott-​Henry see Mühling, europäische Kirchenpolitik, 97–​104. 20 In contrast to his earlier Volkommne underrichtung (1527), Der christliche Ehestand was printed and became much appreciated, especially in the English world, see Carrie Euler, “Heinrich Bullinger, Marriage, and the English Reformation: ‘The Christen State of Matrimonye’ in England, 1540–​53,” SCJ 34:2 (2003): 367–​393, esp. 367: “Heinrich Bullinger’s Der Christlich Eestand (1540) is the most extensive vernacular book on marriage published by a major continental Protestant Reformer in the first half of the sixteenth century and was the most frequently published continental Protestant work in England during the reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI.” 21 Heinrich Bullinger, Der christlich eestand, in HBTS 5, 79–​190; HBBibl I, 63–​64, no. 129. See also the translation into modern High German: Heinrich Bullinger, Der christliche Ehestand, in BS 1, 425–​575. See also the early modern English translation: Heinrich Bullinger, The Christen State of Matrimonye, trans. Miles Coverdales (Antwerp: J. Hoochstraten[?]‌, 1541); HBBibl I, 67–​68, no. 137. 22 I use here the second edition, dated 1539: Heinrich Bullinger, Der alt gloub (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1539); HBBibl I, 52, no. 100. See also the translation into modern High German: Heinrich Bullinger, Der alte Glaube, in BS 1, 179–​257. See also the Latin translation: Heinrich Bullinger, Antiquissima fides et vera religio, trans. Diethelm Keller (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1544); HBBibl I, 53–​54, no. 103. See the early modern English translation: Heinrich Bullinger, The Olde Fayth, trans. Miles Coverdale (London: W. Hill, 1547); HBBibl I, 54, no. 105.

168  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development highly disputed formula that was claimed by all confessions.23 Any innovation in religious matters was suspicious and rapidly considered heretical or sectarian. Another polemical work published in this period was De origine erroris24 (1539), on the origins of idolatry and the mass. Roman Catholic religious practices were presented as a fall from the old and true faith. The conflict between Luther and the Lutherans and the Reformed entered a second phase after Zwingli’s death, in 1531, deepening and crystallizing over the sacramental question. Efforts at rapprochement, such as those laid down in the formulations of the First Helvetic Confession (1536), failed. Luther’s attack on Bullinger and the Zurich church leaders was directed principally at the doctrine of the sacraments, where he accused them of heresy. As Bullinger’s letter to Nikolaus Müller25 (1490?–​1549) of 22 July 1541 testifies, the argument from the covenant remained essential to Bullinger’s view of the sacraments. Luther’s sharpest writing in the years leading up to his death is found in his Kurzes Bekenntnis zum heiligen Sakrament26 (1544). Bullinger and the Zurich pastorate felt compelled to address their assailant in Wahrhaftes Bekenntnis der Diener der Kirche zu Zürich27 (hereafter Wahrhaftes Bekenntnis), published in 1545. After Luther’s death, in 1546, the Reformed-​ Lutheran conflict over the Eucharist entered a new phase that exposed the breadth of the confessional breach and buried any hope of consensus. This phase was initiated by the rapprochement between Calvin and Bullinger in 1547, which eventually led to the inner-​Reformed Consensus tigurinus in 1549. The first step was made by the Genevan Reformer, who visited his Zurich colleague in February 1547 to discuss a draft on the sacraments written by Bullinger for this purpose. This text was published for the first time in London four years later by John a Lasco (1499–​1560) as the Tractatio.28

23 See, e.g., Zurich’s mandate of March 1532 in EAk, 790, no. 1832: “wir habind kein(en) ketzerischen, nüwen oder falschen glouben, sunder den rechten, waren, uralten, begründten, Christenlichen glouben.” 24 Heinrich Bullinger, De origine erroris libri duo Heinrychi Bullingeri (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1539); HBBibl I, 8–​9, no. 12. See also the translation into modern High German of the second book: Heinrich Bullinger, Der Ursprung des Irrglaubens, in BS 1, 269–​415. 25 Heinrich Bullinger, Bullinger an [Nikolaus Müller gen. Maier]: Zürich, 22. Juli 1541, in HBBW 11, 245–​262, no. 1548. 26 Martin Luther, Kurzes Bekenntnis vom heiligen Sakrament. 1544, in WA 54, 141–​167. 27 Heinrich Bullinger, Warhaffte bekanntnuss der dieneren der kirchen zuo Zürych (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1545); HBBibl I, 79–​80, no. 161. 28 Heinrich Bullinger, Absoluta de Christi Domini et catholicae eius ecclesiae sacramentis tractatio, ed. Jan Łaski (London: Stephen Myerdmann, 1551); HBBibl I, 91, no. 183.

The Centrality of the Covenant, 1534–1551  169 This text was largely integrated into the fifth Decade, published in 1551.29 Bullinger’s Sermonum decades quinque30 (hereafter Decades) can be considered his chief theological work31 and deserves special attention. The Decades is a collection in five parts, each of which contains ten sermons (called decas) on theological loci. The Loci communes,32 which were probably written in the mid-​thirties, might have been used as a template for the Decades. The Decades took shape in five stages. (1) In 1549 Bullinger published Decades I and II and addressed his foreword, dated March 1549, to the Zurich clergy. (2) In March 1550 there followed the publication of Decade III and the first two sermons of Decade IV. (3) August of the same year saw the publication of Decade IV together with the remaining eight sermons; both are dedicated to the English king, Edward VI (1537–​1553).33 (4) In March 1551 Decade V was published with a dedication to Henry Grey (1517–​1554), duke of Suffolk, who was pushing for Reformation in England. (5) The first complete edition in a single volume was finally published in 1552. The sermons collected in the Decades were never given publicly in that final form. It is likely, however, that Bullinger reworked and integrated earlier sermon notes on specific loci. He considered the theme sermon, along with the lectio continua method, entirely appropriate and useful for catechetical purposes. Just as the first two Decades were dedicated to the Zurich clergy, the Decades as a whole was initially intended as a catechetical tool for pastors. Soon, however, Bullinger’s work would be translated into the vernacular languages of the Reformed world and popularized as a house book.34 The Decades and their author acquired an international renown that endured into the seventeenth century. 29 See Peter Opitz, “Einleitung Sermonum decades quinque de potissimis Christianae religionis capitibus (1552),” in HBTS 3:1, XIII–​XIV,XX–​XXI. 30 Heinrich Bullinger, Sermonum decades quinque de potissimis Christianae religionis capitibus (1552), in HBTS 3:1–​2; HBBibl I, 92, no. 184. See also the modern High German translation in Heinrich Bullinger, Dekaden, in BS 3–​5. For a modern English edition, see Heinrich Bullinger, The Decades of Henry Bullinger, 4 vols., trans. Thomas Harding (Cambridge: The University Press, 1849–​1852). 31 See Simon van der Linde, “Die Lehre von der Kirche in der Confessio Helvetica Posterior,” in Glauben und Bekennen: Vierhundert Jahre Confessio Helvetica posterior, ed. Joachim Staedtke (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1966), 339; Dowey, “Heinrich as Theologian,” 49–​50. See also Opitz, “Einleitung,” XI. 32 Heinrich Bullinger, Loci communes (Zentralbibliothek, Zurich: Ms Car I 152–​153, undated). 33 On Bullinger’s relationship with King Eduard VI, see Mühling, europäische Kirchenpolitik, 158–​168. 34 See Walter Hollweg, Heinrich Bullingers Hausbuch: Eine Untersuchung über die Anfänge der reformierten Predigtliteratur, Beiträge zur Geschichte und Lehre der Reformierten Kirche 8 (Neukirchen: Kreis Moers, 1956), 61–​191.

170  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development

New Testament Commentaries In the period under discussion, which extends from De testamento to the Decades, Bullinger’s enterprise of expounding every New Testament epistle eventually came to an end with the remaining Pauline epistles and the Catholic epistles. All epistles were then published in a single volume, In omnes apostolicas epistolas commentarii, in 1537. This omnibus volume was re-​edited three times in this period, in 1539, 1544, and 1549, and a last time, in 1558. As noted, De Testamento was appended to the volume, together with the Assertio, to function as a quasi-​hermeneutical introductory guide. Bullinger began then to expound the Gospels successively, with Matthew in 1542, John in 1543, Mark in 1545, and Luke in 1546. We shall look first at the relevant covenantal references in the (Pauline) epistles and then turn to the Gospels. In his commentary on 2 Corinthians, Bullinger referred twice explicitly to De Testamento. The first reference is in the third chapter (2 Cor. 3:6), where Paul contrasts the new testament with the old one as spirit versus letter.35 Bullinger translates διαθήκη with testamentum, whereas foedus does not appear. Bullinger emphasized covenantal continuity through both testaments. The “letter” is neither the law as such nor a literal reading of it, but the literalistic and legalistic doctrine from the “Judaizers” leading to works righteousness. Accordingly, the “Spirit,” as evangelical grace leading to righteousness through faith in Christ, is already part of the old testament. Similarly, following Zwingli, Bullinger worked in terms of a letter-​Spirit antithesis, rather than a law-​gospel antithesis. The covenantal continuity as spiritual continuity is also Bullinger’s point in 2 Corinthians 4:13, where he again referred to his writing De Testamento.36 In Galatians 3 and 4 the Reformer emphasized the continuing testament or promise of Christ to which the law was intended to lead.37 Bullinger largely had the elenchtic use of the law in mind, but it is not always obvious whether he was thinking in terms of the ceremonial law or the moral law (or both together). Bullinger’s association of promise and testament is argued from its use by Cicero and Ulpian, two of Bullinger’s sources for his understanding of testamentum already encountered in his Antwort an Burchard in the previous



35 Bullinger, Kommentar zum Zweiten Korintherbrief, 489–​490. 36 Bullinger, Kommentar zum Zweiten Korintherbrief, 502.

37 See Bullinger, Kommentar zum Galaterbrief, 65–​76,91–​94.

The Centrality of the Covenant, 1534–1551  171 chapter. The unilaterality and the unconditionality of the divine testament or covenant (pactum) are emphasized, as justification comes “through Christ alone, not through the law.”38 The testamentum dei is God’s “inviolable and holy decree”39 by which he justifies believers in Christ. The term foedus is almost never mentioned in his commentary, appearing only in relation to the handshake in Galatians 2:9, which Bullinger interpreted as “the symbol of the concord and the fellowship [societas] and the joining of the hands as well as the agreement and the confirmation of the covenants [foedus].”40 (Italics mine) We note again how closely Bullinger associated societas with the bilateral covenant. Particularly interesting for our purposes is Paul’s talk of the two testaments in his allegory of Hagar and Sarah, Isaac’s mother (Gal. 4:24). Bullinger reassured his readers that “there is in fact only one testament.” The talk of two testaments was owed to “the difference of the people and administration of religion”41 as he had amply said elsewhere, wrote Bullinger, referring probably to De Testamento. The object of Paul’s evangelical critique is not what “the law of the Spirit and Christ commands,” but, according to the Reformer, ceremonialism and “the external observation of the laws.”42 In Bullinger’s exegesis of Ephesians 2:11–​12, he reiterated the close association of testament and promise by means of the testamentum promissionis.43 In both Ephesians and Colossians, baptism is seen as a covenant or as the bond of the covenant.44 In Galatians it is described as “God’s holy mystery.”45 Organic and mystical terms such as societas, unio, or coniuctio, which we have seen applied to the organic-​mystical aspect of the covenant, are used

38 See Bullinger, Kommentar zum Galaterbrief, 65: “Cicero in 2. Philippica: ‘In publicis’, inquit, ‘actis nihil est lege gravius, in privatis firmissimum est testamentum.’ Et testamentum hoc loco usurpat pro ordinatione et legatione certa haereditatis adeoque pro promissione et decreto, quo aliquis, quid post mortem fieri velit, decernit. Ulpianus enim: ‘Testamentum’, ait, ‘est voluntatis nostrae iusta sententia de eo, quod post mortem fieri voluerimus.’ Sed quorsum haec pertinent? Absolvitur ergo argumentatio Pauli per consequentia. Iam enim indicat, quod nam dei pactum sive testamentum sit, illud videlicet, quod benedictionem et iustificationem conferre velit per unicum Christum, non per legem.” (Italics mine) 39 Bullinger, Kommentar zum Galaterbrief, 66. 40 Bullinger, Kommentar zum Galaterbrief, 39: “concordiae et societatis symbolum et consertio manuum foederum pactio confirmatioque.” The corresponding margin reads: “Foederantur in evangelio apostoli.” (Italics mine) 41 Bullinger, Kommentar zum Galaterbrief, 92: “Nemo autem offendatur, quod duorum testamentorum fit mentio. Revera enim unum modo testamentum est, quod pepigit deus cum omnibus credentibus in sempiternum. Ideoque propter discrimen populi et administrationem religionis variam duo coeperunt dici testamenta. De quo nos alibi satis prolixe disputavimus.” 42 Bullinger, Kommentar zum Galaterbrief, 92 43 Bullinger, Kommentar zum Epheserbrief, 153. 44 Bullinger, Kommentar zum Epheserbrief, 168; Bullinger, Kommentar zum Kolosserbrief, 285. 45 Bullinger, Kommentar zum Galaterbrief, 76.

172  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development to describe the corporeal and marital metaphors (mysterium) of the body of Christ, the bond between Christ and his members testified by baptism.46 On Colossians 2:2 Bullinger quotes the scholar of Greek Guillaume Budé (1467–​1540) in relating the Greek verb συμβιβάζειν (unite) to foedus and amicitiam.47 Budé might well be one of Bullinger’s philological sources for his synonymical use of covenant and relational terms such as friendship. A few covenantal references can be found in Bullinger’s exposition of the Gospels. A longer excursus on the Lord’s Supper in his exposition of Matthew 26:27–​28, the Matthean words of institution, merits particular attention.48 The new διαθήκη is interpreted by Bullinger as both testament (historicallegal) and foedus (organic-mystical aspect). The two aspects of the covenant converge in the celebration of the sacraments. First, Bullinger defined the new testamentum as the promised remission of sins as well as the eternal life. Moreover, he referred to Jeremiah 31:33. In this prophetic passage, ‫ ְּב ִרית‬is tellingly translated by testamentum. However, Bullinger soon referred to it as “this covenant.” According to Bullinger, the Lord’s Supper attests to both, to God’s promissio as well as God’s communio.49 We can therefore speak of the attestation by both to God’s testamentum as well as to God’s foedus. The sacrament of the Supper confirms Christ as testator of a legacy, as the mediator of a communion.50 Bullinger repeatedly used the verb “confirm” (attestare) synonymically for obsignare (to seal), with both terms borrowed from legal language. The Reformer emphasized the covenantal communion of the whole body of Christ, who mediates the believer’s fellowship with God as well

46 Bullinger, Kommentar zum Epheserbrief, 167–​168. 197–​198. 47 Bullinger, Kommentar zum Kolosserbrief, 265; Guillaume Budé, Commentarius linguae Graecae, in Omnia opera Gulielmi Budaei Parisiensis, vol. 4 (Basel: Nikolaus Episcopius the Younger, 1557), 1417. 48 Bullinger, In Evangelium secundum Matthaeum, 232v–​237v. 49 Bullinger, In Evangelium secundum Matthaeum, 233v: “Iam qualis sit actio illa sacra, quae mens instituentis, aut quis finis huius sacri convivii, consequentibus illis exponitur, qua Dominus pane et vino in epulum apposito suam nobis promissionem ac communionem attestatur, etc. Promissionem hic nullam aliam intelligimus quam quae salutis nostrae caput est, et quae ubique per evangelium omnemque Scripturam Sanctam proponitur ecclesiae, nempe corpore Christi tradito, et sanguine effuso constare remissionem peccatorum.” (Italics mine); Bullinger, In Evangelium secundum Matthaeum, 235v: “Redeo nunc ad institutum meum, et declaro quomodo Dominus pane et vino in epulum appositio suam nobis promissionem et communionem attestetur. Dixi autem de quali promissionem loquar, de remissione peccatorum et vita aeterna, fidelibus per traditum Domini corpus sanguinemque effusum parta. Per communionem intelligo amicitiam, societatem Dei, et participationem sui omniumque donorum suorum cum fidelibus.” (Italics mine) 50 See Bullinger, In Evangelium secundum Matthaeum, 236r: “Christus ergo Dominus noster iam moriturus testator ille est. Is haeredes instituit discipulos atque omnes Christifideles. Legatum est remissio peccatorum per traditum corpus et effusum sanguinem communioque omnium bonorum.” (Italics mine)

The Centrality of the Covenant, 1534–1551  173 as with his believing fellows.51 Bullinger’s exposition shows his interweaving and balancing of the terms testamentum and foedus. While the former is associated with a historical-​redemptive and legal semantics, the latter is clearly associated with an organic and mystical one. Bullinger spoke explicitly of the Lord’s mystical Supper and mystical signs,52 of a mystical body,53 of participation in God,54 and of the mystery of the peace and unity.55 Bullinger’s exposition of the synoptic passages in Mark 14:2456 and Luke 22:2057 does not markedly broach the issue of the Lord’s Supper or the term testamentum. However, there is another passage in the Gospel of Luke in which the term διαθήκη occurs and whose exposition merits mention, namely in Luke 1:72, as part of the Song of Zacharias or the Benedictus. Bullinger took the term testamentum “for the covenant and promise, through which God bound himself by grace to humans.”58 The testament is “holy” because, according to Bullinger, it is “established,” “inviolable,” and “confirmed by oath.”59 As evidence, the Reformer mentioned the “Latin writers.” In referring to the Roman law tradition, Bullinger emphasized the unilateral and legal aspect of the covenant. The intertextual proof texts Bullinger referred to, namely Genesis 17 and 22 as well as Galatians and Hebrews 6, emphasized the redemptive-​historical aspect of testamentum as promise. Bullinger’s commentary on John (1543) does not explicitly mention terms such as testamentum or foedus. However, the Reformer’s exposition of John 17:21 highlights what we have called the aspect of the covenant. This passage echoes 1 John 1:3, which Bullinger had already interpreted covenantally in his commentary. The spiritual and relational (versus ontological) unio with Christ is particularly emphasized and put in relation with baptism and the communio of the Lord’s Supper.60

51 Bullinger, In Evangelium secundum Matthaeum, 236v: “Colligimur item visibiliter in unum corpus ecclesiasticum actione coenae sacra quotquot Domini in ecclesia convivae sumus. Nam publica fidei nostrae professione, coimus palam velut foedere quodam sacratissimo. Et revera coena foedus est sacrosanctum Christianorum inter se omnium.” (Italics mine) 52 Bullinger, In Evangelium secundum Matthaeum, 232v. 53 Bullinger, In Evangelium secundum Matthaeum, 232v. 54 Bullinger, In Evangelium secundum Matthaeum, 235v. 55 Bullinger, In Evangelium secundum Matthaeum, 237r. 56 Bullinger, In Evangelium secundum Marcum, 37r–​v. 57 Bullinger, In Evangelium secundum Lucam, 125v–​126v. 58 Bullinger, In Evangelium secundum Lucam, 24r: “pro foedere et promissione, qua se [Deus] obstrinxit ex gratia hominibus.” (Italics mine) 59 Bullinger, In Evangelium secundum Lucam, 24r. 60 Bullinger, In Evangelium secundum Ioannem, 190v.

174  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development

Sermon Notes on Genesis Bullinger preached on the Old Testament, but he never published a commentary, in the narrow sense, on the Old Testament as he did for the New Testament. While, as we will see in the following chapters, he did have a whole series of sermons on the Old Testament printed, the book of Genesis, which is of particularly interest for the development of covenant theology, was not included. As was the case for his predecessor, the exegetical foundations of Bullinger’s theology of the covenant are laid down in the first book of the Bible. Two series of notes in Latin from Bullinger on the whole book of Genesis can be found, however, in the Zentralbibliothek in Zurich. They are almost complete, although a few folios are missing.61 It is not quite clear why there are in fact two series, or, in other words, why Bullinger repeated the whole exercise from the beginning, because we know from his Diarium, which was kept meticulously and allows us to reconstruct precisely the chronology of his preaching, that Bullinger preached only one set of sermons on the book of Genesis in lectio continua.62 One Diarium entry tells us that he began to do so in 1536, which is corroborated by the dating of one of the series of notes, which runs from 23 April 1536 to 4 November 1537.63 Unfortunately, the second series is undated. Archivists have referred to the former as Homilien, or homilies, and to the latter as Predigtskizzen, or sermon drafts, but we should be wary of giving too much weight to these subsequent labels, as neither collection contains entire sermons. It is also not possible to establish if or how one set of notes might have served as a template for the other. I shall take them here to be exegetical notes for preaching purposes quite independent of one another. As is to be expected, there is much covenant-​theological material in these notes, especially where ‫ ְּב ִרית‬is mentioned in Genesis as God’s covenant with man.64 Because of the quantity and the paleographical complexity of the notes, I will focus here on two text units. First, I consider Genesis 1–​3, driven by the question of whether there 61 Bullinger has left us two different autographs on the book of Genesis. First, Bullinger, Predigtskizzen, dated 23 April 1536 –​4 November 1537, covering c­ hapters 1–​49. There is also a transcript by Wolfgang Haller (1525–​1601) dated 1545: Heinrich Bullinger, Predigtskizzen, copy Wolfgang Haller (Burgerbibliothek, Bern: Cod. B 26, 1545). Second, Bullinger, Lateinische Homilien zum 1. Buch Mose, undated and covering c­ hapters 1–​4 and 14–​48. For text quoted in this study, I follow the original foliation of the Predigtskizzen, a. As some folios from the Lateinische Homilien zum 1. Buch Mose are missing, I have (re-​)paginated the manuscript. See appendices G and H. 62 See Büsser, Wurzeln der Reformation, 146–​148. 63 See EAk, 24–​25. 64 The term ‫ ְּב ִרית‬for a covenant between God and man occurs in Gen. 6, 9, 15, 17.

The Centrality of the Covenant, 1534–1551  175 is a prelapsarian covenant in Bullinger’s covenant theology. Second, I look to Bullinger’s paradigmatic text of Genesis 17, asking whether Bullinger explicitly links the covenant with election. These sermon notes provide evidence that enables us to answer both questions in the affirmative.

A Prelapsarian Covenant? As we recognized first for Zwingli and then for Bullinger, the covenant theology developed in Zurich saw the whole biblical narrative, embracing the Old and New Testaments, as the unfolding of one single and eternal covenant.65 I have talked of a covenant of grace. However, this covenant, first introduced in Genesis 3:15—​the so-​called protoevangelion in God’s cursing the serpent—​and fulfilled in Christ’s redemption, is unequivocally postlapsarian and redemptive. Given this argument, one might legitimately ask how Bullinger understands the prelapsarian conditio humana, or state of man, before God at creation? We shall consider Bullinger’s view of the relationship between God and man in its original state while bearing in mind the emergence of the creational covenant of works in the Reformed tradition.66 I shall argue that Bullinger, much like Zwingli, proposed a theology of the one covenant of grace that did not exclude the idea a prelapsarian covenant, and that Bullinger’s position has surprising similarities with later developments that eventually led to the covenant of works.67 To date, there has been no scholarly work on this specific issue.68 The reason is not difficult to grasp. Bullinger 65 Most of the material presented in this section has been published in Pierrick Hildebrand, “Heinrich Bullinger (1504–​1575) and the Covenant of Works,” in Covenant: A Vital Element of Reformed Theology, ed. Hans Burger et al., Studies in Reformed Theology 42 (Leiden/​Boston: Brill, 2022), 254–​66. 66 See Richard A. Muller, “The Covenant of Works and the Stability of Divine Law in Seventeenth-​ Century Reformed Orthodoxy: A Study in the Theology of Herman Witsius and Wilhelmus à Brakel,” CTJ no. 29 (1994): 87: “The concept of a covenant of works or, as it was also called by Reformed writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the covenant of nature or covenant of creation, most probably entered Reformed theology in the mid-​sixteenth century in works such as Musculus’ Loci communes, Hyperius’ Methodus theologiae, and Ursinus’ Summa theologiae or, as it is often called, Catechesis maior.” 67 There has been a similar endeavor with respect to the Reformer John Calvin, see Lillback, Binding, 276–​304. 68 Even Karlberg, who sees some continuity between Bullinger and the later federal perspective, focuses on Bullinger’s interpretation of the Mosaic covenant, see Mark W. Karlberg, Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective: Collected Essays and Book Reviews in Historical, Biblical, and Systematic Theology (Eugene OR: Wipf and Stock, 2000), 21–​22. Fesko’s sees in the distinction “between the substance of the one eternal covenant and the circumstantial legal elements of the Mosaic covenant” an “approach, which eventually flowers into key elements of the covenant of works,” Fesko, Covenant of Works, 22.

176  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development never wrote extensively on the original state of man; his pastoral focus was the restoration of fallen man in Christ.69 Before I present my analysis, we must note that the covenant of works has generated controversial master narratives of the Reformed tradition. Some Reformed theologians70 of the twentieth century have considered this covenant a development foreign to the Reformers’ emphasis on grace, almost the Sündenfall of the Reformed tradition. Karl Barth (1886–​1968) claimed that Bullinger regarded the covenant “quite unequivocally as a covenant of grace.”71 Barth considered the emergence of the covenant of works as an Einbruch (intrusion).72 His own dogmatics had no place for a prelapsarian covenant differing in any way from the postlapsarian. The systematic theologian John Murray (1898–​1975) also criticized this development of the covenant of works in the Reformed tradition.73 Murray did not fundamentally challenge the fact that some distinctions exist in the way God relates to man before and after the fall, but he considered the semantics associated with the term covenant of works as the opposite of the covenant of grace, and as inappropriate or misleading. Whether it is an appropriate terminology cannot be our concern here. I note, however, that Murray abstained altogether from any covenantal reference and preferred to speak of an Adamic administration.74 As Bullinger has been referenced by Murray, Barth, and others to back

69 Bullinger makes extensive reference to the original state of man in his historical outlines, such as Bullinger, Der alt gloub, fol. A4r–​A7r; Heinrich Bullinger, Epitome temporum et rerum (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer the Younger, 1565), 1–​4. In the Decades, however, there are only few references (mostly in decade 1: sermon 1 and decade 4: sermon 4), see Bullinger, Sermonum decades, 32–​33. 591. In those works, Bullinger stresses, on one hand, man’s original goodness as originating from God’s own goodness and, on the other hand, man’s original sin as resulting from his free will. In the correspondence regarding John Calvin’s (1509–​1564) controversial doctrine of predestination, Bullinger refers similarly to the original state of man. In this way he seeks to relieve God of the charge of being the author of the fall or sin (supralapsarianism). See, e.g., his letter to Bartholomew Traheron (c.1510–​1558) of 1553 in Heinrich Bullinger, Bullingerus Traheroni, in CO 14, no. 1707, 485. 70 For a more extensive discussion of their criticisms see Cornelis P. Venema, “Recent Criticisms of the Covenant of Works in the Westminster Confession of Faith,” MAJT no 9:3 (1993): 165–​198. 71 CD IV/​I: 48; KD IV/​I: 61: “Zwingli und besonders Bullinger haben ihn [den Bund] eindeutig als Gnadenbund verstanden.” (Italics mine) 72 KD IV/​I: 62: “Der Einbruch von dieser Seite”. (Italics mine) 73 See John Murray, Covenant Theology, in Collected Writings of John Murray, vol. 4 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1982), 217–​18: “Towards the end of the 16th century the administration dispensed to Adam in Eden, focused in the prohibition to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, had come to be interpreted as a covenant, frequently called the Covenant of Works, sometimes a covenant of life, or the Legal Covenant. It is, however, significant that the early covenant theologians did not construe this Adamic administration as a covenant, far less as a covenant of works.” 74 See John Murray, The Adamic Administration, in Collected Writings of John Murray, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1977), 47–​59.

The Centrality of the Covenant, 1534–1551  177 up their critique of the Reformed tradition, my analysis here undermines their historical-​theological reconstruction. I address the issue of whether there is a prelapsarian covenant in Bullinger’s covenant theology through an analysis of Bullinger’s exegesis of the Book of Genesis. I shall consider the sermon notes on the first book of the Bible and proceed topically exclusively from Genesis 1–​3. However, I will not always follow the chronology of either the biblical narrative or the notes themselves. Instead I look more closely at three interrelated elements that are critical to any sort of creational and prelapsarian covenant, later essential to the covenant of works. The first element refers to the imago Dei and the question of man’s role in God’s creation as his representative. The second element refers to the function of the law, or man’s moral responsibility toward God in performing his role of representation. The third and last element considers the ties between man’s performance in the garden and the tree of life, to which man was denied access after the fall.

The Imago Dei Of what does the imago Dei consist? Or, what is it to be created in the image of God? For Bullinger, it was primarily a question not of substance but of relationship. Specifically, of how man relates to God and creation. The Reformer asked about the purpose and end of God’s creature,75 the issue that underlies his theological anthropology. His overall response focused on lordship over creation (Gen. 1:28). This lordship is not left unqualified: “That he would be like a vice-​regent in the world.” That is, God’s vice-​regent in the world. God, the regent, would rule over creation through man, his vice-​regent. As such, man is the “glory of God.”76 To be created in the imago and gloria Dei, therefore, comes with a mandate that is to be fulfilled—​the mandate to rule. Bullinger discussed whether the imago Dei might be substantive, a reference to the body, but he rejected that idea: “This image does not consist in the body but in the soul and the dignity.” He could also say that it is “according the spirit,” implying man should be ruled by two spiritual virtues, holiness and righteousness. Bullinger found scriptural support notably in Colossians

75 Bullinger, Predigtskizzen, fol. 5r: “Ad quid sit conditus? . . . In quem finem? 76 Bullinger, Lateinische Homilien, 11: “Quo ad dominium gerit imaginem Dei homo. . . . Ut sit in mundo veluti vicarius. . . . Vir ad imaginem Dei conditus gloria Dei est.” (Italics mine)

178  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development 3:10 and in Ephesians 4:24, where the apostle urges “to put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him” or “to put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness” (KJV 2009).77 Bullinger interpreted Mosaic protology in light of Pauline eschatology. Imago Dei ultimately becomes imago Christi, to which man must conform. He further recorded: The mind should be illuminated with the knowledge of God, so that the will might submit to the mind. That sense might also consent and obediently abide in the body, so that the corruptible body itself might take [corruptibility] off and take on incorruptibility and be glorified. This is the imago Dei for which we were created. This image is better than the first one. Man was created that he could fall. Our restoration will be of such a kind that we cannot fall from blessedness.78

In accordance with Augustine, Bullinger argued that the renewed image is superior to the first in that it can no longer fall. Bullinger was referring here not to an eschatological fulfillment of the prelapsarian imago Dei, but to its restoration in fallen man, who is elevated to a higher or glorified mode as created in the image of God. Bullinger moved easily back and forth between man’s protological and eschatological images of God. Given his reference to the restored imago Dei as a way of explaining what the original imago Dei was meant to be, the possibility is left open for some glorified fulfillment achievable by unfallen man. With respect to the mandate of the imago Dei, Bullinger explicitly used the term officium, adding, “If we were created in [his] image, we must not dishonor it with distortions but sanctify it.”79 In another place, he wrote: “we should honor the image.” He clearly contrasted

77 Bullinger, Predigtskizzen, fol. 5r: “Iam dicit ad quid conditus homo. Ad imaginem et similitudinem. Hoc est, ut sanctus, iustus, verax esset, dominaretur omnib[us]. IMAGO haec non in corpore, sed in animo et dignitate. Huc pertinent loca Ephe. 4, Colloss. 3. Vos non sic didicistis Christum, siquidem illum audistis et in illo docti estis, quemadmodum est veritas in Iesu, deponere iuxta priorem conversationem veterem hominem, qui corrumpitur iuxta concupiscentias erroris, renovari vero spiritu mentis vestrae et induere novum hominem qui secundum Deum conditus est per iustitiam et sanctitatem veritatis.” (Italics mine) 78 Bullinger, Lateinische Homilien, 12: “Mentem oportet illustrari agnitione nostri Dei. Ut voluntas menti subiiciatur. Sensus item consentiat et in corpore sit obedientia, imo ut corpus ipsum corruptibile exuat hanc et induat incorruptibilitatem et glorificetur. Haec est imago Dei, ad quam sumus conditi. Haec imago melior prima. Nam homo conditus, ut cadere possit. Nostra restitutio talis erit, ut non possimus labi ex beatitudine.” 79 Bullinger, Lateinische Homilien, 12: “Si conditi sumus ad imaginem, non debemus polluere viciis sed sanctificare.”

The Centrality of the Covenant, 1534–1551  179 the spiritual office of lordship over creation with “tyranny.” Man is bound to a creational order he has to serve, an order regulated by law, as we shall see.80 Bullinger connected man’s lordship and the imago Dei to covenantal concepts. He was aware of a discussion among scholastics as to “whether a man in the state of mortal sin can be a legitimate owner or lord of things.” He proposed, “The [scholastics] deny [this argument]. A good prince does not feud with a foe. As sinners are foes, they cannot be legitimate owners. Lordship is in the image of God. The image of God is perverted in the wicked. Hence, they [sinners] are illegitimate owners. Adam and Eve, having been placed in paradise, were expelled. Hence, those in a state of mortal sin are not legitimate lords.”81 We do not have Bullinger’s opinion on this scholastic debate, as the crucial folios have been lost. Two implicit assumptions by medieval theologians would, however, have hardly been challenged by Bullinger in light of what we have seen so far. First, there is a causal relation between imago Dei and lordship, so that if the imago Dei is perverted it immediately affects the way man rules or owns creation. And, second, the scholastics compared the prelapsarian relationship between God and the Adamic couple with regard to paradise with the bond between a feudal lord, also called suzerain, and his vassal. The feudal relationship in medieval Europe was regulated by mutual obligations sanctioned by oath.82 By way of analogy, this relationship had obvious similarities with the so-​called suzerain-​vassal treaties of the ancient Near East, which shared common patterns with the biblical covenants, as modern exegesis has pointed out.83 We therefore have little reason to reject the suggestion that Bullinger’s concept of the imago Dei implies that the prelapsarian relationship between God and man is similar to a covenant. God grants creation to man as long as man rules over it in righteousness and holiness as expressed by the law, to which I now turn.

80 See Bullinger, Predigtskizzen, 5v: “Honoremus imaginem. Propellitur: 1) Tyrannis. Ordo est non, ut praesis sed ordine servias, ut sis utilis.” See further Bullinger, Lateinische Homilien, 13. 81 Bullinger, Lateinische Homilien, 20: “Quaerunt Scholasti an homo in mortali peccato positus sit iustus possessor et dominus rerum? Negant. Bonus princeps non dat foeudum perduelli. Peccatores sunt perduelles. Ergo non iuste possident. Dominium est in imagine Dei. Imago Dei est eversa in sceleratis ergo iniusti possessores. Adam et Eva positi in paradyso, eiecti sunt ex paradyso. Ergo in mortali peccato positi non sunt iusti domini.” 82 See François Louis Ganshof, Qu’est-​ce que la féodalité?, 2nd ed. (Neuchâtel: Baconnière, 1947). 83 This discovery is usually associated with American biblical scholars George E. Mendenhall (1916–​ 2016) and Meredith G. Kline (1922–​ 2007). See George Emery Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Pittsburgh, PA: Biblical Colloquium, 1955); Meredith G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1963).

180  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development

The Law Bullinger gave special significance to the Sabbath, which is seen not only as law in the strict sense but also as promise.84 He wrote, “The Sabbath is to be mentioned carefully. First, because it befalls created man. There is Sabbath after lordship. It signifies what man has been created for. We will understand it as we will expose the mystery of the Sabbath.”85 And what is this mystery? Bullinger continued, “God created man on the sixth day and on the seventh he rested. Christ suffered on the sixth day and on the seventh he rested. He [Moses?] spoke of the fulfillment [of the Sabbath]. [That is] the eternal rest given after labor. Man was created for rest, for eternal life.”86 The Sabbath stands for eschatological fulfillment of the imago Dei, which prelapsarian man would have achieved if he had stayed obedient. After the fall this fulfilled imago Dei could only be achieved by Christ’s obedience unto death on the cross. We see once more how protology and eschatology, as well as anthropology and Christology, are interwoven in Bullinger’s thought. With regard to the law in stricter terms, the imago Dei requires obedience. To be bound to God is to be bound to the law, as the law reflects God’s own holiness and righteousness. Bullinger wrote: “Man is now placed in paradise as in a gymnasium, where his obedience could be practiced.”87 Bullinger added, “[God] instructed [him] with law. [1)] He was Lord, so that he could command his creature. 2) As he was just, he supplied him with gifts. He wanted to test [man’s] gratitude. 3) [It was] easy. If a king imposes a duty on a city to which he has given all manner of privileges, it is a sign of lordship.”88 In other words, the law and the required obedience remind created man that there is a regent over him to whom he is accountable, as he is only a vice-​regent. Man’s own lordship is not absolute. Bullinger further asked, “What kind of law?,” and responded, “Only obedience. In it all laws are

84 See Bullinger, Predigtskizzen, fol. 6r; Bullinger, Lateinische Homilien zum 1. Buch Mose, 24–​25. 85 Bullinger, Predigtskizzen, fol. 6r: “DE SABBATO diligenter dicendum. Primum, quod homini condito obvenit. Sabbatum est, post dominium. Significans ad quid conditus homo. Quod intelligemus cum mysteria exposuerimus sabbati.” 86 Bullinger, Predigtskizzen, fol. 6r: “Deus 6. die hominem condidit, 7. quievit. Christus 6. passus, 7. quievit. Dixerat consummatum. Aeterna quies, quae dabitur post labores. Conditus ad quietem, vitam aeternam homo.” 87 Bullinger, Predigtskizzen, fol. 8v: “HOMO nunc ponitur in paradysum ut in gymnasium, in quo obedientia eius exerceatur.” 88 Bullinger, Predigtskizzen, fol. 8v: “LEGE instruit. [1)] Dominus fuit, ergo creaturae praecipere potuit. 2) Aequum fuit, dotib[us] instruxit. Gratitudinem explorare voluit. 3) Facile. Si rex omnib[us] privilegiis instructae civitati imponeret assem, signum dominii.”

The Centrality of the Covenant, 1534–1551  181 encompassed.”89 He referred to God’s command not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. “The name [of the tree] is given by anticipation,” wrote Bullinger.90 The tree functions as a sacrament and is therefore not in itself the source of moral knowledge.91 Through the command, that is through Adam’s response, the first man learns not through the mind but through the will what is good or evil, namely by way of obedience or disobedience. Bullinger wrote elsewhere regarding intellectual knowledge of the law that “the Decalogue is a compendium of the natural law engraved in the natural mind.”92 The Reformer made a fine-​tuned distinction between law as related to the mind and obedience, which is a willing submission to the former. As he stated, “What is important in the laws is obedience, that man does not determine what is just and unjust from his own judgment, but gets [it] from the law, from the Word of God.”93 Adam, however, obtained knowledge of good and evil not through obedience, but through disobedience.

The Tree of Life What if Adam had not disobeyed? Would that have meant a status quo for man or some change in his being? Or, in other words, is obedience to the law about preserving or fulfilling the imago Dei? We enter here the critical subject of prelapsarian or non-​redemptive eschatology. Is there such a thing at all in Bullinger’s thought? In addressing Bullinger’s concept of the imago Dei and concept of the law, we have already seen that some evidence points in this direction. Crucial to answering this question is the role played by the tree of life, to which access is denied for fallen man. Essentially, we must first ask whether man was created immortal. Bullinger held to a dichotomous view of man as constituted of body and soul. On the one hand, the inspired soul is celestial in origin and therefore immortal in the sense that it will never be annihilated.94 When Bullinger spoke 89 Bullinger, Predigtskizzen, fol. 8v: “LEX qualis. Obedentia tantum. In hoc omnes leges.” See also Bullinger, Lateinische Homilien, 38–​39. 90 Bullinger, Lateinische Homilien, 33: “Nomen impositum . . . per anticipationem.” 91 See Bullinger, Predigtskizzen, fol. 8v: “PER SACRAmentum adumbratum. Arbor non fuit scientia, sed admonebat. Sic sacramenta, reb[us] magnis addita.” 92 Bullinger, Lateinische Homilien, 18: “Decalogus est compendium legis naturae insculptae naturae menti.” 93 Bullinger, Lateinische Homilien, 33: “Praecipuum in legib[us] obedentia, quod iustum et iniustum homo non indicet ex suo arbitrio, sed petat ex lege, Verbo Dei.” 94 See Bullinger, Lateinische Homilien, 27: “Spiraculum significat coelestem originem esse animae. . . . Ita notatur imortalitas.”

182  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development of the death of the soul, he referred to its fallen state and not to its annihilation.95 On the other hand, the original body of man was potentially mortal. That is, it could possibly be annihilated by going back to where it came from (i.e., dust). Bullinger argued that man was created mortal to become immortal: “[Man] was created mortal with the intention that he shall be saved.”96 Bullinger referred to Elijah’s ascension as an illustration (2 Kings 2). Man’s body was created similar to that of the animals, which need food and drink. The animal body, however, is contrasted with the eschatological body (spiritual and immortal) in reference to 1 Corinthians 15. He explained: “Before [Christ] died, he lived an animal life. After [his] resurrection from the death, however, he had [no longer] an animal, that is a mortal [life].”97 Bullinger considered the tree of life, as well as the tree of knowledge of good and evil, to be a symbol or sacrament. What is the relationship between immortal life and the tree of life as a sacrament? As man’s body is sustained by the fruits produced by the tree, so should man be reminded thereby that his life ultimately relies on God, wrote Bullinger. He added that it is a symbol for Christ the savior of the body as well as of the soul.98 The fact that there is no more access to the tree of life in paradise after the fall is for Bullinger evidence that “salvation and life are no more to be found on earth. Eternity will be above the skies.”99 The sacramental function of the tree of life as a symbol for Christ points to a fulfilled or eschatological mode of being created in the image of God. At the end of this short survey, I can conclude that Bullinger assumed the following three basic points with regard to the prelapsarian relationship between God and man. First, the imago Dei as lordship over creation was a mandate. Second, this mandate was conditioned by obedience to God’s law. Third, this obedience was the prerequisite for immortal and eschatological life. If one accepts these basic points were foundational for the later development of the covenant of works, the thesis of discontinuity between Bullinger and the later covenant theologians in the Reformed tradition becomes difficult to sustain. The fact that Bullinger never mentioned the word “covenant” 95 See Bullinger, Predigtskizzen, fol. 13r: “Mors animae, quod ab originali iustitia defecit.” 96 Bullinger, Lateinische Homilien, 15: “Ex hypotisi cum conditum, ut possit mori, sed tantum servatur.” 97 Bullinger, Lateinische Homilien, 29: “Vixit ante mortus vita animali. A morte post resurrect[ionem] non habuit animale, id est mortale.” 98 Bullinger, Lateinische Homilien, 32: “Erat item symbolum servatoris Christi. . . . Non tantum corporeae ergo vitae sed animae quoque symbolum.” 99 Bullinger, Predigtskizzen, fol. 14r: “Salus et vita non est amplius in terra, id est, aeternitas posthac erit supra coelos.”

The Centrality of the Covenant, 1534–1551  183 in his exegetical notes on the first three chapters of Genesis should not alarm us. He did not mention the covenant of grace either when he came to Genesis 3:15, which signals the very beginning of redemptive history. He spoke of promise and restoration, not of covenant. I am not asserting that Bullinger was the forerunner of the covenant of works, but I have shown that Bullinger’s exegesis shares basic similarities with this later concept. Greater continuity between Bullinger and the Reformed tradition with regard to covenant theology needs to be more fully acknowledged.

Covenant and Election In the debate concerning two different Reformed traditions,100 rooted respectively in Bullinger and Calvin, each Reformer’s understanding of the covenant motif appears to be of critical importance.101 According to the Baker thesis,102 the bilaterality and conditionality in Bullinger’s covenant theology contrasts with Calvin’s view of a unilateral and unconditional covenant that is a testament, which rests on his emphasis on election. I shall address this issue exegetically and look at Bullinger’s and Calvin’s interpretations of the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 17. If the thesis about two distinct Reformed traditions is correct, we would expect profound disagreement here. Given the centrality of Bullinger’s interpretation of Genesis 17 for his theology, it is surprising that to date little attention has been paid to Calvin’s exegesis of the same biblical text. Only Lillback has compared Calvin’s exegesis of Genesis 17 with Bullinger’s De Testamento, and he concluded, “Calvin’s exposition of covenant conditionality and mutuality conforms with the prevailing Swiss theology.”103 While Lillback showed on the basis of Calvin’s interpretation of

100 Baker, Bullinger and the Covenant. See also Venema’s rebuttal in: Venema, Doctrine of Predestination. 101 Most of the material presented in this section was published in Pierrick Hildebrand, “Bullinger and Calvin on Genesis 17: The Covenant Conditions,” in Calvinus Pastor Ecclesiae: Papers of the Eleventh International Congress on Calvin Research, ed. H. J. Selderhuis et al., Reformed Historical Theology 39 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016), 297–​304. 102 This thesis, proposed by Trinterud and reiterated by Baker, goes further back, to the end of the ninetheenth century, see Trinterud, “Puritanism,” 37–​57; Gooszen, “gereformeerd Protestantisme,” 505–​554. 103 See Lillback, Binding, 165. See also Lillback’s later paper, in which he reiterates his earlier comparison: Peter A. Lillback, “The Early Reformed Covenant Paradigm: Vermigli in the Context of Bullinger, Luther and Calvin,” in Peter Martyr Vermigli and the European Reformations: Semper Reformanda, ed. Frank A. James, Studies in the History of Christian Traditions 115 (Leiden/​ Boston: Brill, 2004), 70–​96.

184  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development Genesis 17 that Calvin’s covenant theology has indeed a genuine bilateral and mutual aspect, my contribution here works in reverse. I show on the basis of Bullinger’s exposition of this same biblical text that Bullinger has indeed a genuine unilateral aspect grounded in election in his covenant theology. My contribution here seeks to broaden the textual evidence by making use of a source as yet not considered, even in Bullinger research. My exegetical approach rests predominantly on the very first verse, Genesis 17:1. We will consider Calvin’s commentary of 1554104 along with Bullinger’s sermon notes in his Homilien. His Predigtskizzen are of lesser interest. It should be mentioned that in 1559–​60 Calvin held a sermon series on the book of Genesis, including Genesis 17, that we have not considered here.105 Bullinger entitled the whole of Genesis 17: “The commemoration of the holy covenant with Abraham.”106 Of the two parts, or stipulations, that contracts usually include, God’s self-​revealing name “Ani El Schadai”107 is the first, that is, his own part. Bullinger interpreted the name as “Dei promissio,”108 that is, as covenantal name, in that God will use his power to be man’s “sufficientia.”109 Zwingli,110 in his commentary on Genesis of 1527, and Pellican111 had already translated El Schadai as omnisufficientia, and thus left aside the traditional translation of the Vulgata of omnipotens.

104 See Jean Calvin, Commentarii in quinque libros Mosis: pars I., in CO 23, 1–​622. 105 See Jean Calvin, Sermons sur la genèse, 2 vols., ed. Max Engammare, Supplementa Calviniana 11 (Neukirchen-​Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2000), 876–​947. 106 Bullinger, Lateinische Homilien, 95: “Commemoratio foederis sanciti cum Abraham.” 107 Bullinger, Lateinische Homilien, 95. 108 Bullinger, Lateinische Homilien, 96. 109 Bullinger, Lateinische Homilien, 96. 110 See Zwingli, in Genesim, 99–​100. 111 Pellican’s translation of El-​Shaddai as “omni sufficientia” is found in his famous Commentaria bibliorum on the whole Old Testament, written in Zurich between 1532 and 1535. He himself refers to Maimonides‘ translation, see Conrad Pellican, Commentaria bibliorum, 5 vols. (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1532–​1535), fol. 20v. El-​Shaddai would even be left untranslated in the new Latin translation Biblia sacrosancta by the Prophezei’s scholars, which Pellican edited in 1543, see Biblia Sacrosancta Testamenti Veteris et Novi, ed. Conrad Pellican et al. (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1543), fol. 6v. Robert Estienne (1499/​1503–​1559) printed in Geneva the new Latin Old Testament translation from Zurich, renaming it Translatio nova in 1545 and 1546, see Peter Opitz, “Calvin as Bible Translator: From the Model of the Hebrew Psalter,” in Calvinus sacrarum literarum interpres: Papers of the International Congress on Calvin Research, ed. H. J. Selderhuis, Reformed Historical Theology 5 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 15. Calvin does explicitly compare his translation of Gen. 17:4 in his commentary with the translation of the Translatio nova, see Calvin, in quinque libros Mosis: pars I, 236; see Anthony N. S. Lane, John Calvin: Student of the Church Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999), 215–​243. The Commentaria bibliorum was available at the Genevan Academy, see Alexandre Ganoczy, La bibliothèque de l’académie de Calvin: Le catalogue de 1572 et ses enseignements, Etudes de philologie et d’histoire 13 (Geneva: Droz, 1969), 195. It is therefore likely that Calvin also consulted this work. Interestingly, although Calvin must have been acquainted with both sources, he preferred to have El-​Shaddai translated as omnipotens.

The Centrality of the Covenant, 1534–1551  185 Now comes the second stipulation of the covenant, which concerns Abraham, namely to walk with God. That is, one has to conform one’s life in accordance to God’s will, so wrote Bullinger.112 There is another “­condition” for Abraham to fulfill, namely, to be perfect.113 Bullinger then made an interesting theological move that is absent from De Testamento. He linked God’s command to the locus of election, resulting in justification and sanctification.114 He began by saying that God’s command is related to the integrity of the soul in opposition to hypocrisy.115 So far this follows a basic pattern already known from De Testamento.116 But then he recorded: We should be holy and irreproachable before God. [According to] Ephesians 1[:4], [we are] elected before [the creation of] the world to be blameless. The foundation of the covenant is the gratuitous admission. Yet, it requires faith, so that we become perfect by faith. We should understand [here] the absolute perfection of Christ, which is imputed to us. Thereupon we are regenerated into integrity through the whole life.117 (Italics mine)

So even the second part of the covenant, aimed at the integrity of men, could be understood as not so much a command as God’s gift, the gift of Christ’s perfection imputed through faith to those elected into covenant. This is remarkable for our discussion because it sounds very much like a unilateral testament of God toward men as defined by Baker and attributed by him to Calvin, contrasting with Bullinger’s theology of a bilateral covenant.118

112 See Bullinger, Lateinische Homilien, 96: “Ambulat coram Deo qui vitam instituit ad voluntatem Dei.” 113 See Bullinger, Lateinische Homilien, 96: “Alia conditio: ‘Esto perfectus.’ ” 114 I am saying not that election is absent from De Testamento, but that it is never explicitly stated or linked to the covenantal conditions on men’s part as is the case in the Homilien. 115 See Bullinger, Lateinische Homilien, 96: “Anima integritas intelligitur et opponitur hypocrisi.” 116 See Bullinger, De testamento, fol. 15v: “Caeterum quae illa Dei voluntas sit, et quomodo coram Deo possimus ambulare denuo clariorib[us] exponit verbis, his ‘Et esto integer’. Nam fidei constantia et synceritas denique vitae innocentia ac puritas, illa est integritas et via recta qua coram Deo ambulant sancti.” 117 Bullinger, Lateinische Homilien, 96: “Simus sancti et irrepraehensibile coram Deo. Ephes. 1[:4]: Electi autem mundum, ut inculpati sumus. Fundamentum foederis est gratuita receptio. Requirit tamen fidem, et ut ex fide perfecti simus. Comprehendamus perfectionem Christi absolutam, quae imputetur nobis. Deinde renovemur per omnem vitam in integritate.” (Italics mine) 118 Baker writes with regard to Calvin’s understanding of the covenant conditions that “the condition of faith was fulfilled for the elect, who were then responsible to live a godly life,” Baker, Bullinger and the Covenant, 195. But here Bullinger evidently argues in a similar way and does not depart from Calvin’s view. Or how could Bullinger subordinate blamelessness to election (Eph. 1) if the required faith is not somehow fulfilled for the elect?

186  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development We move now to Calvin’s commentary from 1554. I will take the previous observations on Bullinger’s exegesis as the starting point for a comparison. Verse one is, for Calvin as well as for Bullinger, God’s entering into covenant with Abraham summatim,119 that is, as an abstract of what follows. He translated El-​Shaddai with Deus omnipotens120 but specified thereby that God wants to make Abraham confident of the sufficiency of his power to protect and save him. Calvin also saw a promise in God’s declaration of his own name, and linked, as did Bullinger, God‘s potentia with his sufficiensia.121 “Walk before me” is required of the obedient servant. Calvin wrote, “The foundation, indeed, of the divine calling is a gratuitous promise; but it follows immediately after, that they whom he has chosen as a peculiar people to himself, should devote themselves to the righteousness of God.”122 Calvin spoke of obedience as the condition, the lex, for God’s adoption of his children.123 He immediately described the covenant as two-​sided.124 But unlike Bullinger, Calvin did not interpret the second clause of the covenant as explicitly Christologically in this context, seeing it not so much as the foreign or justifying righteousness of Christ imputed through faith, but as the sanctifying righteousness men have to cultivate125 in response to God‘s gratuitous condescension in a mutual covenant.126 And how is faith involved here? Calvin explained that Abraham’s falling on his face shows his acceptance of the two stipulations of the covenant. Calvin added, “Let us therefore remember, that in one and the same bond of faith, the gratuitous adoption

119 Calvin, in quinque libros Mosis: pars I, 234. 120 Calvin, in quinque libros Mosis: pars I, 234. 121 We can admittedly see a nuanced difference in emphasis. Where Bullinger underscores that God wants to use his power to be men’s saving sufficiency, Calvin strongly affirms God’s omnipotence, pointing out that there is nothing that can oppose God’s will to save men. In the fourth book of his Institutes Calvin comes very close to the Zurich translation of El-​Shadai, see Calvin, Institutio Christianae religionis, 977 (IV.xvi.3): “Ubi Dominus circumcisionem Abrahae servandam mandat, praefatur se illi et semini illius in Deum fore; addens penes se affluentiam sufficientiamque esse rerum omnium.” (Italics mine) 122 John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses called Genesis, in CTS 1:1, 444; Calvin, in quinque libros Mosis: pars I, 235: “Fundamentum quidem vocationis divinae gratuita est promissio: sed hoc continuo post sequitur, ut Dei iustitiae se consecrent, quos ipse sibi deligit in populum peculiarem.” 123 See Calvin, in quinque libros Mosis: pars I., 235: “hac lege filios sibi adoptat”. 124 See Calvin, in quinque libros Mosis: pars I, 235: “Diximus bimembre fuisse Dei foedus cum Abram.” (Italics mine) 125 See Calvin, in quinque libros Mosis: pars I, 235: “exhortatio ad sincerum colendae iustitiae studium.” 126 See Calvin, in quinque libros Mosis: pars I, 235.

The Centrality of the Covenant, 1534–1551  187 in which our salvation is placed, is to be combined with newness of life.”127 (Italics mine) This adoption is gratuitous because it results from God’s calling, God’s election. Just as for Bullinger, in Calvin’s thought too, election secures the free grace of God. But unlike Bullinger, Calvin resolved the tension between grace and the conditionality of covenant more pneumatologically than Christologically,128 namely, with the help of a twofold calling. He distinguished a general calling based on the externum verbum from the vocatio efficax, which is to be understood as the internal inworking of the external calling in the elect through the Holy Spirit.129 The result is the prerequisite of faith in the covenant, which is—​as we have heard—​always bound to a sanctified life in righteousness. Our comparison has shown great similarities with respect to the mutuality and conditionality of the covenant for Bullinger and Calvin. The sources used here suggest greater continuity for the two Reformers than the Baker thesis posits. The deep-​rooted categorical opposition between testament and covenant, between unilaterality and bilaterality, must be seriously questioned. Man‘s sanctification as an integral and even conditional part of the covenant in Genesis 17 is assumed by both Reformers without thereby threatening the monergistic foundation of salvation.130

Scripture Astonishingly, there is virtually no mention of the covenant in Bullinger’s volume on biblical authority, De Scripturae Sanctae authoritate. We would 127 Calvin, Genesis, 445; Calvin, in quinque libros Mosis: pars I., 235: “Meminerimus ergo uno et eodem fidei complexu gratuitam adoptionem, in qua salus nostra posita est, cum vitae novitate iungendam esse.” 128 Bullinger also differentiated in De Testamento—​but, interestingly, not in the Homilien—​ between a spiritual Israel and a carnal one but still spoke of corporate Israel as the people of God, see Bullinger, De testamento, 9v–​11v.32v–​34v. See further Mock, “Biblical and Theological Themes,” 18–​19. 129 Calvin, in quinque libros Mosis: pars. I., 238: “promissio non generaliter accipitur pro externo verbo, quo Deus suam gratiam tam reprobis quam electis conferebat, sed ad efficacem vocationem quam intus obsignat per spiritum suum restringi debe.” (Italics mine) 130 See Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 77–​78: “The insistence on making a rigid and absolute distinction between unilateral and bilateral aspects as a presupposition to the study of the covenantal idea has caused much confusion. The very nature of a covenant implies that there is a two-​sidedness to it. . . . The divine initiative calls for man’s response. Man is responsible for exercising the repentance, faith, obedience, and love required of him, but unlike a human covenant, what is required was also given in the covenant of grace.”

188  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development expect some covenantal argumentation for the authority of Scripture over the authority of the church similar to what he had delivered in his Antwort an Burchard. At the very least we might expect some hermeneutical statement on the covenant as in Studiorum ratio or De prophetae officio. But there is nothing of that kind to be found. Bullinger mentioned only once and in a cursory manner the faithfulness of some Christians to “God’s testament”131 in the midst of an erring church. In the second book, on the episcopal office, however, there is a discussion of the Eucharist as a confederating act that testifies to Christ’s membership.132 The organic-​mystical aspect of the covenant is also present when Bullinger later discusses Petrine authority and the name Petrus as referring to Peter’s union with the rock (petra). Accordingly, the apostle has “Christo communionem . . . et societatem.”133 Just a few lines above, Bullinger had introduced the term societas, in reference to the thing signified by the sacraments, which is “the removal of sins or the fellowship of the church, the body and the blood of the Lord, which was offered for us on the cross to restore God’s friendship.” The societas of the church, that is, the covenant, functions as an appositive for the forgiveness of sins, which is nothing other than Christ’s testament. Christians are “members and co-​heirs of Christ.”134 We see again the indwelling of both the organic-​mystical (membership) and the historical-​ legal (heirship) aspects in Bullinger’s covenant theology, without, however, the explicit terms assigned for each, namely foedus or testamentum. Bullinger wrote about the recovery of “God’s friendship,” another synonym for covenant. Even if the more obvious terms such as foedus and testamentum are missing, Bullinger’s covenantal theology is still very present. Bullinger did not abandon the covenant as the unifying principle of the biblical canon. He still considered that the covenant provides a hermeneutic coherence to Scripture. In an introductory foreword to the reader for the 1539 edition of the Latin Bible by Sebastian Münster (1488–​1552)—​De omnibus Sanctae Scripturae libris—​the Reformer developed the scopus or “end of the sacred books.”135 Starting from the canonical nomenclature of Old and

131 Bullinger, De Scripturae Sanctae authoritate, fol. 55v. 132 Bullinger, De Scripturae Sanctae authoritate, fol. 91r: “Et certe sacramenta contestationes etiam sunt, quibus mutuam fidem invicem testamur et veluti confoederamur.” (Italics mine) 133 Bullinger, De Scripturae Sanctae authoritate, fol. 131r. 134 Bullinger, De Scripturae Sanctae authoritate, fol. 90r: “ablutionem scilicet peccatorum sive ecclesiae societatem, corpus et sanguinem Domini, quae pro nobis in cruce oblata amicitiam Dei recuperarunt, ut nunc membra et cohaeredes Christi, participes vitae et omnium donorum Christi interveniente fide et intus Spiritu Sancto operante efficiamur.” (Italics mine) 135 Bullinger, De omnibus Sanctae Scripturae libris, fol. A3v (marg.)

The Centrality of the Covenant, 1534–1551  189 New Testament, Bullinger attributes the use of the term “Testament” to the “testament” referred to in Scripture. Bullinger first defined the term as “arrangement” (ordinatio) and last will, such as the remission of sin. However, “ ‘testament’ is also used for ‘covenant’ [foedus] or ‘agreement’ [pactum],” Bullinger continued, as transition to God’s covenant. The Reformer summarized the covenantal terms by referring to redemptive-​historical passages in the book of Genesis, to the locus classicus Genesis 17, of course, but also to Genesis 3 and 12 and lastly to the Decalogue and Levitical laws. He concluded, “This is the testament and covenant [foedus], the arrangement and will of God, which is inalterable, unique, and everlasting. For there has been [only] one church over the centuries, one true faith and religion of the saints. Where do the terms Old and New Testament come from? Certainly, from the way [the covenant] was received, because regarding the substance itself there is only one.” Significantly, Bullinger can also speak of the testament as a unilateral ordinatio embrassing divine promissiones, and of the covenant as including bilateral conditiones. The Reformer sees here no contradiction in integrating the two terms. In the end the scopus of Scriptures is revealed to be the “substance of the testament,” which has always been a single substance.136

136 Bullinger, De omnibus Sanctae Scripturae libris, fol. A3v: “Idem ille sacer codex testamentum appellatur adeque et Vetus et Novum Testamentum. Accipitur autem ‘testamentum’ aliquando in sacris pro ordinatione aliqua, metaphora sumpta a morientibus, qui testamenta condunt, id est animi sui sententiam ordinatis rebus suis ut uolunt testantur, et per metalepsim accipitur ‘testamentum’ pro ipsa re testata. Ita enim peccatorum remissio ‘testamentum’ esse dicitur. Usurpatur ‘testamentum’ et pro ‘foedere’ ac ‘pacto’. Nam Deus foedere quodam se nobis obstrinxit expositis conditionibus quid expectemus ab eo et quid faciamus. Conditiones sunt, Deus verus vult esse Deus, hoc est, omnisufficientia Pater et copiae cornu mortalibus. At hi Deum illum pro Deo suo venerari et colere debent, fide innocientia et charitate. Huc autem pertinent omnes promissiones: ‘Ego sum Deus tuus et seminis tui post te.’; ‘Semen mulieris conteret caput serpentis.’; ‘In semine tuo benedicentur omnes tribus terrae.’ Rursus pertinent huc omnia instituta vitae, ipse praesertim decalogus: ‘Non habebis deos alienos coram facie mea etc.’; ‘Sancti estote, quia et ego sanctus sum.’; ‘Dilige proximum tuum sicut teipsum.’ Hoc autem testamentum et foedus, haec ordinatio et obtestatio Dei incommutabilis unica et sempiterna est. Nam una est omnium saeculorum ecclesia, una est sanctorum vera fides et religio. Unde ergo nobis Veteris et Novi Testamenti nomina existunt? Nimirum e tradendi modo, quod enim ad ipsam attinet substantiam unicum est. Expendendi enim quae res veteribus sint traditae, apparebit quod nihil aliud tradiderint nobis apostoli Christi. Veteribus traditum est unum esse Deum, hunc solum esse colendum, colendum autem spiritu innocentia et fide, item unicam esse orbis iustitiam et redemptionem, unicum esse sacerdotem et sacrificium verum Iesum Christus Dei et hominis Filium. Sperandam quoque a Deo animarum perpetuitatem et resurrectionem corporum. At quid aliud tradiderunt nobis apostoli Domini? Ergo quod ad fidei testamentique substantiam attinet, idem prorsus traditum est utrisque.” (Italics mine) See further Bruce Gordon, “‘Our Philosophy’: Heinrich Bullinger’s Preface to the 1539 Latin Bible,” in Bewegung und Beharrung: Aspekte des reformierten Protestantismus, 1520–​1650, ed. Peter Opitz et al., Studies in the History of Christian Traditions 144 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 290–​291.

190  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development

Eucharist Covenant theology remained a powerful resource for Bullinger’s apology for the Reformed view of the sacraments of the church on all fronts, especially against the Lutherans. With their Wahrhaftes Bekenntnis (1545), Bullinger and the Zurich pastorate tried to defend themselves against Luther’s accusations. We find in this text the now well-​known philological argument from the covenant in the exegesis of the words of institution. Bullinger referred namely to Genesis 17 and Exodus 12, pointing to the metonymy of the nominal sentences mentioning either circumcision as the covenant or the lamb as covenant or the Passover.137 The Zurich Reformer also mentioned the analogy that has the record of a testament or covenant that bears the name of testament or pundt not being the very content of the testament or covenant.138 Bullinger noted also the covenant of Christ’s body, which includes Christians as well as Christ as their head.139 Bullinger alluded twice to the sacramental union with Christ as a covenant.140 The organic-​mystical aspect

137 See Bullinger, Warhaffte bekanntnuss, fol. 81v. 138 See Bullinger, Warhaffte bekanntnuss, fol. 83v: “Da nun yederman wol weisst was das nüw testament ist, namlich die vollkommne verzyhung der sünden aller gloeubigen, wie heyter geschriben stadt Jeremie 31. und Hebr. 8 und 10. Soelichs aber ist der baecher nit, ouch das nit das in dem baecher ist. Und heisst aber nüt destweniger recht, das testament, glych wie man den gemaechts und pündtsbrieff ouch nennt gemaecht unnd pundt.” 139 See the same word in connection with the Abrahamic covenant in Bullinger, Warhaffte bekanntnuss, fol. 74r: “Welches mit der pündtnus mit Abrahamen ufgericht und der Beschnydung”. (Italics mine) 140 See Bullinger, Warhaffte bekanntnuss, fol. 15r–​v : “Die 7. sibende krafft. Die sacrament sind als vil als eidspflicht. Dann sacramentum heisst by den Latineren einen eid. Dann alle die die einerley sacramenten bruchend, die werdend mit dem selben ein volck, unnd als die die sich mitteinander zuo etwas heiligen dingen pflichtend, zemmenschweerend unnd verbindend, werdend yetz ein lyb, ein volck unnd gmeind. Waer nun von soelicher pündtnuss und gmeinsame abtritt, wycht unnd flüchtig wirt, und die untrüwlich übergibt und verlasst, der ist meineid und trüwloss. So nun dz volck Christi im sacramentlichen essen des lybs Christi in einen lyb zuosamengfuegt und verknüpfft wirt, und aber der, der ungloeubig ist nüt destminder sich gethar fraefenlich und glychssnerisch in die gmeind Gottes und soeliche heilige geselschafft thuon und gesellen oder ynmischen, der handlet yetz und fart ungetrüwlich, faelschlich und verraedterlich an dem lyb Christi, nitt allein an den glideren, sonder an dem houpt Christo selbs.” (Italics mine); Bullinger, Warhaffte bekanntnuss, fol. 78r–​v : “Und gemelter verstand der worten Pauli wirt in sinen volgenden worten bass bevestnet und erlüteret, welchs wir yetzund ston lassend und leerend uss vermoegen des ermelten berichts des heiligen Pauli, dass die gloeubigen in dem nachtmal Christi frye und offne bekanntnus ires gloubens thuegind, und dass sy sich zuo Christo und allen gloeubigen in einen lyb, ja in ein heilige pündtnus verbindind zuo frommem laeben und christenlichen diensten. Uss welicher ursach die alten dz nachtmal Christi ouch ein sacrament genempt habend, das ist ein eyd und verpflichten, unnd nit nun ein zeichen eines heiligen dings. Darumb vermanend wir hie die gest des herren nachtmals, das sy trüw, glouben und liebe haltind Christo und allen sinen glideren den gloeubigen.” (Italics mine)

The Centrality of the Covenant, 1534–1551  191 of the covenant is therefore also in view, that is enabled through the aspect of the testament, or Christ’s benefit of the forgiveness of sin. Bullinger’s Tractatio was written after Luther’s death and in the immediate context of the rapprochement between the Reformed leaders Calvin and Bullinger that led to the Consensus tigurinus in 1549. The Tractatio was later largely integrated into the fifth Decade. However, as it was first composed and published in 1551 as a treatise in its own right, I will discuss it here and not again in the section on the Decades. Nevertheless, my analysis also applies to the Decades. The essence of Bullinger’s point in this text was to argue that sacraments are natural signs (such as water, bread, and wine) that share the particularity of pointing beyond their natural use, in sealing God’s promise of communion between God and the believers.141 Tellingly, the communion-​related aspect of the covenant is prominent. As a paradigmatic example, the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 17 is explicitly called communio,142 which is the very word used by Bullinger to express sacramental union with Christ.143 Besides foedus, the whole range of terms emphasizing the organic-​mystical aspect of the covenant is repeatedly used in reference to the Supper in particular, so expressions such as coniunctio,144 societas and its Greek equivalent, koinonia,145 amicitia, or familia.146 When testamentum occurs, it functions again as the historical-​legal counterpart to the covenant in relation to Christ’s death and the forgiveness of sin as expressed in the words of institution.

141 Bullinger, tractatio, fol. 5v–​6r: “Habent haec cum aliis a Deo datis signis communia, quod renovant res praeteritas, adumbrant etiam futuras, et similitudine repraesentant res significatas. Habent peculiare quo differunt ab aliis, quod adiunctas habent ceremonias, quas ipse Dominus ecclesiam suam celebrare iussit. Habent et hoc particulare, quod obsignando promissa Dei, nos Deo et cum omnibus sanctis visibiliter coniungunt.” (Italics mine); Bullinger, Sermonum decades, 879. 142 Bullinger, tractatio, fol. 85v: “Ad hunc enim modum Deus optimus maximus, rex regum et principum munificentissimus, gratis et nullo praecedente bono merito evocat Abrahamum, in quem cumulatim innumera congerit beneficia, cui et foedus communionemque offert omnium bonorum nec ipsi modo, sed et omnibus posteris eius dicens: ‘Ego Deus omnisufficientia ero Deus tuus et seminis tui post te. Benedicam tibi et semini tuo. Imo in semine tuo benedicentur omnes cognationes terrae.’ ” (Italics mine); Bullinger, Sermonum decades, 937. 143 Bullinger, tractatio, fol. 68r: “Significatur baptismo foedus Dei, societas populi Dei, peccatorum remissio variorum collatio donorum. Sacramento coenae dominicae significatur corpus Domini pro nobis traditum, et sanguis eius pro nobis effusus in remissionem peccatorum, ipsa mors et passio Domini, communio cum Christo et omnibus sanctis.” 144 See Bullinger, tractatio, fol. 95v. 145 See Bullinger, tractatio, fol. 96v–​99v. 146 See Bullinger, tractatio, fol. 53v.104r.

192  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development

Der alte Glaube—​The Old Faith (1537) In Der alte Glaube, Bullinger prominently stressed covenantal continuity147 in tracing orthodox faith back to the postlapsarian promise made to the Adamic couple, that is to the protoevangelion in Genesis 3:15. From this point of departure, he drew a history of redemption showing how this primal promise of Christ was renewed many times throughout the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New Testament. Facing charges of apostasy, on account of innovation in matters of faith, on three fronts, from Roman Catholics, Anabaptists, and, especially, Lutherans, Bullinger found his covenantal theology helpful for arguing for the antiquity of the faith preached in Zurich.148 The key term for covenant is not pundt, which is here almost left unmentioned, but the recurrent Verheissung, that is, promise. Bullinger mentioned only briefly the pündtnuss made with Abraham, without the lengthier discussion of Genesis 17 to which we have become accustomed.149 Verheissung explicitly functions as a synonym for covenant,150 while pundt appears for the first time in relation to Noah: “Noah, then, was the one with whom he renewed the covenant made for the first time with Adam. Because, there is one covenant [pundt] only, namely the promised and agreement made by God to Adam, as we just mentioned.”151 (Italics mine) The Noachian covenant proves to be the renewal of the covenant with Adam, which is, according to Bullinger, simply the promise made to Adam. This equivalence of covenant and promise is not self-​evident, for the latter is usually thought of in terms of unilateral bestowal, while the former is considered to be per se bilateral. We have already observed, however, that Bullinger integrated both aspects. Bullinger understood the covenant as, in the words of the later formula, monopleurically established but dipleurically

147 See Cornelis P. Venema, “Heinrich Bullinger’s Der Alt Gloub (‘The Old Faith’): An Apology for the Reformation,” MAJT no. 15 (2004): 17: “Consistent with the claims of his earlier work on the covenant [De Testamento], which is far better known and recognized among his writings, in this treatise Bullinger emphasizes the substantial unity of teaching between the Old and New Testaments, and claims that this represents an important argument for the venerable age of the Christian religion.” 148 See William P. Stephens, “Bullinger’s Defence of the Old Faith,” R&RR 6:1 (2004): 36–​55. 149 See Bullinger, Der alt gloub, fol. C7r. However, Bullinger immediately and explicitly directs the readers to De Testamento. 150 See also Joe Mock, “Bullinger’s The Old Faith (1537) as a Theological Tract,” UNIOCC 3:2 (2017): 137–​154, esp. 152: “ ‘Promise’ is synonymous with ‘covenant,’ and its frequency in The Old Faith indicates that covenant is an underpinning theme.” 151 Bullinger, Der alt gloub, fol. C3v: “Darzuo ist Noe der, mit dem Gott zum ersten den pundt mit Adamen gemacht, ernüweret hat. Dann es ist nun ein einiger pundt, nemlich die vorgemelt verheissung und abredung, Adamen von Gott bschähen.” (Italics mine)

The Centrality of the Covenant, 1534–1551  193 administered. This definition fits particularly well in this case. Then, when Bullinger examined the promise of Genesis 3:15, the enmity between the woman’s seed and the serpent is applied to Christ (in his atonement) as well as to the members of Christ (in their Christian life).152 Both are included in the verheissung. In other words, justification and sanctification are both unilaterally promised by God in union with Christ. This corresponds essentially with the Calvinian formulation of the gratia duplex, as we shall see. There is a genuinely bilateral aspect, as sanctification is the covenantal response of justified man.

De origine erroris—​On the Origin of Error (1539) De origine erroris, published in one volume in 1539, was the completely revised edition of two separately printed books: the first, on the mass, had been published in 1528,153 and the second, which addressed the veneration of the saints and images, had been published a year later.154 In this second edition, the two books, or themes, appeared in reverse order. De origine erroris can be seen as a sort of counterpart to Der alte glaube, as it developed how the old faith had been perverted over time. At the beginning of the first book, Bullinger traced the true worship of God back to his redemptive covenant with man as expressed for the first time in the protoevangelion: “The most merciful Father, knowing in advance that the [man] he created would die, and would run away from God’s sight and word as an adversary and enemy, called him back and received him in grace by means of his Son. At that point, [God] promised to give [his Son] to the world to crush the head of the serpent and to restore life by dying for us, so as to unite us with God, whom we will some day enjoy for eternity.”155 (Italics mine) Significantly, Bullinger summarized this passage in the margin as follows: “We are united with God by covenant.”156 The covenant with Abraham immediately follows as a clearer 152 See Bullinger, Der alt gloub, fol. B1r–​B3v. 153 Heinrich Bullinger, De origine erroris in negocio eucharistiae ac missae (Basel: Thomas Wolff, 1528); HBBibl I, 7, no. 10. 154 Bullinger, De origine erroris in divorum et simulachrum cultu. 155 Bullinger, De origine erroris libri duo, fol. 19r–​v : “Nolens enim Pater clementissimus eum perire prorsus quem condiderat, hostem iam ac perduellem imo conspectum et colloquia Dei fugientem, familiarissime revocat et recipit in gratiam, idque propter Filium suum, quem ibi pollicetur daturum se mundo, ut is caput conterat serpentis, moriendo nobis restituat vitam, atque ita nos coniungat Deo, cum quo aeternum aliquando laetemur.” (Italics mine) 156 Bullinger, De origine erroris libri duo, fol. 19r.

194  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development expression of the covenant. The covenant is the way God unites himself with man. Coniunctio and foedus are one and the same. The Christological foundation of the covenant is expressed by the same synonymous terms. Christ is then “the pledge of the eternal grace as of the covenant or union of God with man, which he has and bestows at the price of [his] redemption. Indeed, he showed plainly, what we can hope as humans.”157 Man’s coniunctio or union with Christ, the incarnate God, becomes the ultimate end of the historical-​ redemptive covenant. As is clearly stated in the book on the mass, Christ as mediator is where God and man meet and unite.158 The sacrament of the Eucharist is seen as signifying the “union of believers with Christ”159 and of the “union of believers with another.”160 In De orrigine erroris the organic-​ mystical aspect of the covenant is particularly emphasized.

Der christliche Ehestand—​On the Christian Marriage (1540) We have already observed that Bullinger often used the marital metaphor to describe the covenant. Bullinger’s first treatise on marriage, his Volkommne underrichtung (Full Instruction) of 1527, did not link marriage with his covenant theology as obviously and profoundly as his second writing on the subject, Der christliche Ehestand (On the Christian Marriage) of 1540, would do. However, in the former text marriage was already defined as a pundt, or as an “everlasting covenant” to be more precise. In Bullinger’s surveying of the patriarchs’ story to exemplify what marriage should be, he again used the expression “everlasting covenant” for the covenant between God and Abraham.161 The similarity between the terminology deliberately used by Bullinger for the relationship within marriage and for God’s relation to man 157 Bullinger, De origine erroris libri duo, fol. 139v: “sed ut pignus esset gratiae aeternique foederis ac coniunctionis Dei atque hominum, et ut haberet quod pro nobis in pretium redemptionis offerret, denique ut palam demonstraret quid homines speraremus.” (Italics mine) 158 Bullinger, De origine erroris libri duo, 180r–​v : “De mysterio redemptionis et coniunctionis fidelium cum Deo per Iesum Christum, Cap. 1. Clamat omnis scriptura canonica, cum aeterno et summo bono, ipso inquam Deo vero aeternum coniungi, summum esse bonum felicitatemque et vitam vere beatam. Eadem diserte testat Iesum Christum Dei Filium venisse in carnem ut fideles ab omni iniquitate repurgatos reconciliatosque Deo coniungeret. Sunt itaque partes inter quas sit coniunctio. Est qui coniungit mediator. Est vinculum sive glutinum quo illae sibi cohaerent et uniuntur.” (Italics mine) 159 Bullinger, De origine erroris libri duo, fol. 193r. 160 Bullinger, De origine erroris libri duo, fol. 194v. 161 Bullinger, Volkommne underrichtung, 4–​5.

The Centrality of the Covenant, 1534–1551  195 signaled a closeness between the two concepts that would be developed in Der christliche Ehestand. Bullinger’s later writing on marriage has been recognized by scholars to be based on his covenant theology.162 Der christliche Ehestand leads off with an exegesis of Genesis 2. Going back to the Adamic couple becoming one flesh (Gen. 2:24), Bullinger used the terms pledge, bond, or union (pflicht, verbindung, vereinigung or einigkeit) to describe marriage as the most intimate and loving form of relationship.163 The corporeal metaphor of the body emphasizes the strength and indissolubleness of the bond (band) of marriage.164 Most of these terms are language we have assigned to the organic-​mystical aspect of the covenant. Bullinger also used the term covenant (verpündtnuss) as a synonym for marriage.165 In line with 1 Corinthians 6, the marital and corporeal metaphor for the covenant between Christ and his church forms the foundation for Bullinger’s ethics of marriage. Just as spouses become one body through marriage, so too “Christ and us, believers, [become] one body” through baptism. There is here more than an analogy. The marital body stands in immediate relation to the body of Christ such that adultery by a believer is not only sin against the fleshly body of the spouse but also sin against the spiritual body of Christ. “For he defiles the grace of Christ and sullies the holy covenant [pundt] made between him and Christ,”166 argued Bullinger.167 Significantly, Bullinger spoke here of the covenant of the body of Christ in individual terms, as the covenant of the single believer (“between him”) with 162 See Euler, “Bullinger, Marriage,” 255–​275; Herman J. Selderhuis, Marriage and Divorce in the Thought of Martin Bucer, Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies 48 (Kirksville, MO: Thomas Jefferson University Press, 1999), 44–​45. 163 Bullinger, Der christlich eestand, 84: “Dise wort [Gen. 2:24] redt noch Adam oder ouch Moses uss dem mund Gottes und zeigt damit die pflicht und verbindung oder vereinigung der eelüten, namlich das under den eelüten die hoechst liebe, verbindung unnd einigkeit sin soelle, die niemandts dann allein der todt trenne.” 164 Bullinger, Der christlich eestand, 84: “Fürträffenlichere und naehere verbindung ist nid, dann aller glideren in einem lyb, also sol haefftiger band nid funden werden, dann das eelich band. Und wie sich die glider vor dem todt nit von einandren scheidend, also sol die ee ein unufloesslich band syn.” 165 Bullinger, Der christlich eestand, 85: “Darum ist die ee ein verpündtnuss, zuosamenfuegen und waetten.” 166 Bullinger, Der christlich eestand, 120–​121: “Dann wie die ee uss zweyen menschen oder lyben ein menschen unnd ein lyb machet, also machet die geistlich ee, namlich das annemmen der gnaden Gottes, und das wir in Christum toufft und Christen sind, ein lyb zwüschen Christo und uns gloeubigen, also das wir glider Christi genennt werdend und sind. Wie nun ein eemensch so er huoret an sinem eegmahel, ja an sinem eignen lyb sündet, also sündet ouch in sinen eignen lyb der gloeubig, wenn er huoret. Dann er schendet die gnad Christi und befleckt den heiligen pundt zwüschend im und Christo gemachet.” (Italics mine) 167 See also Bullinger, Der christlich eestand, 121: “Paulus der apostel Christi sagt die huory trenne uns von Gott, zerrysse die pündtnus, die wir mit Gott habend, entfroemde und roube Gott das syn, misshandle Gott sine glider, mache uss den glidern Christi huoren glieder, geschende und entheilige den tempel Gottes, darumb werde Gott die huorer ouch schenden.” (Italics mine)

196  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development Christ. His viewing of marriage in light of the covenant illuminates in turn his understanding of the covenant as an organic-​mystical relationship, which goes hand in hand with moral accountability.

Brevis antibole—​Short Collation (1544) The covenantal marriage metaphor was not limited to addressing matrimonial issues as in Bullinger’s treatise above but served also to decisively describe what the one covenant of grace was about. In a longer dedication to Elector Palatine Ottheinrich (1502–​1559) at the beginning of his Brevis antibole, or second response to Roman Catholic Johann Cochlaeus (1479–​ 1552), Bullinger emphatically addressed ecclesiological issues defining the church as coniunctio and societas. Cochlaeus was challenging evangelical ecclesiology at its most fundamental level in considering submission to the Roman Catholic high priesthood a prerequisite for legitimate membership of Christ’s church. Bullinger, in contrast, defined the church according to the Apostles’ Creed: “The church is the assembly [coetus] of all believers and saints on earth and the closest communion [coniunctio] and fellowship [societas] holding together by the Spirit. First, [the believers are holding together] with Christ the sanctifying head through faith, and then, with one another through mutual love.”168 (Italics mine) Those united by the Holy Spirit to Christ (and his benefits) form together the church, that is, the communion and fellowship. Bullinger explained how he was applying these terms to this bi-​dimensional communion: “We talked first about the communion, which the church has with Christ, then about the fellowship, which the members of the church have with one another.”169 (Italics mine) Significantly, the immediate scriptural testimony cited by Bullinger is the marital or corporal metaphor of Ephesians 5, for he added, “Marriage is not only a covenant [foedus] of life, but also this new union and communion of all properties and this indestructible bond, which communicates everything, which belongs to one as if it was the property of the other. Such a bond [exists] in a certain way between Christ and the church.”170 (Italics mine) This reference explicitly connects 168 Bullinger, an Ottheinrich I. von der Pfalz, 525. 169 Bullinger, an Ottheinrich I. von der Pfalz, 526: “Ac primo dicemus de coniunctione, quam ecclesia cum Christo habet, deinde de societate membrorum ecclesiae inter se mutua.” (Italics mine) 170 Bullinger, an Ottheinrich I. von der Pfalz, 526: “Connubium enim non tantum est foedus vitae, sed et nova quaedam concorporatio omniumque fortunarum coniunctio et nexus indissolubilis, omnia, quae alterius sunt, ceu proprium alteri communicans. Talis quodammodo copula est inter Christum et ecclesiam.” (Italics mine)

The Centrality of the Covenant, 1534–1551  197 coniunctio with the foedus of marriage, just as we observed above. Bullinger considered the marital relationship between the church and Christ to be organic, mystical, and covenantal. Implicit here is Bullinger’s linking of union with Christ with the one gracious covenant into which God entered with man, as its very fulfillment.

Decades (1549–​1551) Bullinger’s Decades followed the locus method and therefore cannot be considered a “systematic” work in the modern sense of the term. However, Bullinger constructed this collection of sermons or sermon-​ like local treatments so that the reader could gain an overall view of orthodox Reformed theology. Whether the covenant is the organizing principle or gives a coherent structure to this collection of theme-​sermons has been debated. Similar to Peter Walser171 before him, Baker sees “the covenant [as] the thread that ties the Decades together.”172 Opitz structures the Decades concentrically (rather than linearly), categorizing the different themes in a circle around a Christological center.173 He summarizes these different themes (and the covenant is only one of them) under the term Gemeinschaft (communion), in line with his overall thesis.174 Others, such as Muller and Dowey, have concluded that the covenant is hardly the predominant locus in Bullinger’s theology.175 More generally, in recent research the Decades have functioned as a kind of test case for establishing the importance of the covenant in Bullinger’s theology. It is certainly striking that no single sermon bears a title that contains an immediate reference to the covenant, although Bullinger’s earlier writings might have led one to expect its presence. Does this really validate the claim 171 Walser interpreted the covenant in the Decades as “Sammelwort” (collective term) versus “Hauptbegriff ” (main term), see Peter Walser, Die Prädestination bei Heinrich Bullinger im Zusammenhang mit seiner Gotteslehre, Studien zur Dogmengeschichte und systematischen Theologie 11 (Zurich: Zwingli-​Verlag, 1957), 244: “Dabei ergibt sich, dass Bullinger die Bundesbezeichnung nicht als Hauptbegriff, jedoch als Sammelwort gebraucht.” 172 J. Wayne Baker, “Heinrich Bullinger, the Covenant, and the Reformed Tradition in Retrospect,” SCJ 29:2 (1998): 364. 173 See Opitz, Bullinger als Theologe, 26–​30. 174 Opitz, Bullinger als Theologe, 17: “Als These der Untersuchung liesse sich formulieren, dass sich vom Begriff der ‘Gemeinschaft’ her eine Gesamtperspektive des theologischen Denkens Bullingers entdecken lässt.” 175 Richard A. Muller, “Review of Fountainhead of Federalism,” AEH no. 63 (1994): 89–​91; Dowey, “Bullinger as Theologian,” 53.

198  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development that the covenant plays a lesser role in Bullinger’s theology, as some have assumed? Bruce Gordon has pointed to a two-​volume manuscript written in the mid-​1530s that was probably used as template for the composition of the Decades.176 This manuscript, held in the archives under the name loci communes, lays out 20 articuli. Although the covenant does not appear expressis verbis in the articles themselves, there is a discussion of the covenant under the fifth article,177 where, interestingly, the covenant functions as a kind of prolegomenon to the explanation of the article itself. Moreover, Bullinger stated in the introduction that the fifth article “depends on the third [article], in which the whole summary of Scripture is exposed.”178 In other words, the fifth article, on the covenant, functions as the interpretative framework for the doctrinal précis stated in article three. A list of loci does not show how the loci themselves are interrelated. A list is not a system. We need therefore to look more closely, examining the content of the loci, to find out which systematic role is assigned to the covenant. This principle can also be applied to the Decades. The most obvious terms for covenant, namely foedus or testamentum, used unambiguously as a theological (rather than canonical) category are concentrated in the Decades in the third and fifth Decades.179 Bullinger repeatedly mentions these terms with regard to the sacraments. At first glance he therefore seems to confine the covenant to specific loci, and it seems that the covenant is far from being an all-​embracing theological place. However, this reading proves superficial and reductionistic for at least two reasons. First, the theological weight of the covenant cannot be assessed by purely quantitative means, based on word occurrences. The quantitative approach is useful 176 Bruce Gordon, “Introduction: Architect of Reformation,” in Architect of Reformation, 25–​ 26: “The recent discovery by Urs Leu of two volumes of Bullinger’s notes [Ms Car I 152 and Ms Car I 153] in the Zurich Zentralbibliothek is of great importance. Briefly, these notes, which are likely to be from the mid-​1530s, are organised according to a system of loci that Bullinger would use for most of his life. Under each locus Bullinger would provide an extensive list of citations and notes from his reading of the Church Fathers as well as numerous biblical references. It is striking that when one looks, for example, at his Decades one finds these exact references deployed in the precise order laid out in the notes. Further, in almost every passage on particular topics Bullinger used the same biblical and patristic references.” See further Roland Diethelm, “Bullinger and Worship: ‘Thereby Does One Plant and Sow the True Faith,’” in Architect of Reformation, 153: “In the Zentralbibliothek in Zurich there is a two-​volume manuscript [Ms Car I 152 and Ms Car I 153] from the hand of Bullinger that was clearly a blueprint for the Decades. In twenty loci Bullinger drew up a list of the most important theological propositions together with the relevant biblical texts and commentary from the church fathers.” 177 See Bullinger, Loci communes, 649–​655. See our transcription of the fifth article in appendix F. 178 Bullinger, Loci communes, 649: “Pendet hic articulus a 3, in quo totius scriptura summa est exposita.” 179 See Bullinger, Sermonum decades, 345–​346.

The Centrality of the Covenant, 1534–1551  199 as a heuristic tool and as an indicator, but it must be supplemented by a qualitative analysis, which functions as a corrective. Second, Bullinger included a whole range of organic or communional terms within the semantic field of covenant, as our study has clearly demonstrated. Significantly, what I have called the emphasis on the organic-​mystical aspect of the covenant is carried forward in the Decades. Even so, there is a prominent covenantal reference in the very first sermon of the first decade. It is indisputable that this sermon lays the foundation not only for the first decade but also for the work as a whole. Having defined what God’s Word is, where it comes from, and how it comes to its recipients, Bullinger moved on to ask to whom it is addressed. And he answered that the addressees are the fathers and their offspring. Bullinger’s biblical rationale is of particular importance: “For God oftentimes witnesseth, that ‘he will be the God of the fathers and of their seed for evermore.’ ”180 Bullinger was obviously referring to Genesis 17:7, which is echoed several times throughout the Old Testament. This verse represents the most basic expression of the covenant between God and man as a mutual belonging. Bullinger asserted in this very first sermon that the most basic content of the Word of God is the covenant. He might as well have said that God’s Word to man is per se covenantal. This covenantal Word is passed on through generations and embodied in redemptive history, to which Bullinger then summarily came. He explained redemption by God from the fall to be ultimately the incarnation of the Word by which he was united (coniunxit) to man, and through the expiating death of God incarnate and the giving of the Spirit God restored man.181 Bullinger exposed this covenantal Word more extensively as God’s promising182 within an explicit covenantal framework, that is, within “the divine covenant” (foedus divinum), as he stated in the margin, “Moreover, the holy fathers taught that God by a certain league [foedus] has joined himself

180 Bullinger, The Decades, 39; Bullinger, Sermonum decades, 31: “Deus enim subinde testabatur se velle deum esse et patrum et seminis ipsorum in sempiternum.” 181 See Bullinger, Sermonum decades, 33: “Nam ut hoc incarnando hominem deo coniunxit, ita moriendo in carne expiavit, sanctificavit et liberavit hominem eidemque spiritum sanctum donando eundem reddidit divinae consortem naturae, immortalem et beatum.” 182 See Bullinger, Sermonum decades, 33: “Deum autem, qui dives est misericordia pro immensa sua bonitate misertum humanae miseriae, ex mera sua gratia condonationem culpae promisisse poenaeque gravitatem imposuisse Filio unico, ut hic, postquam ipsi a serpente contritus sit calcaneus, conterat et ipse caput serpentis. Hoc est: promittit deus semen sive Filium, qui ex singulari foemina, id est ex laudatissima virgine incarnandus, morte mortem et mortis authorem sathanam sit superaturus fidelesque Adae filios liberaturus, imo et adoptaturus in filios dei ac haeredes vitae aeternae.” (Italics mine)

200  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development to mankind, and that he has straightly bound himself to the faithful, and the faithful likewise to himself again.”183 (Italics mine) Here Bullinger used foedus together with the more mystical or organic verb coalere. Clearly, he did not abandon the covenant; rather, he put it up front in his Decades, signaling his emphasis on the organic-​mystical aspect. Their failure to see this emphasis has led many to look only at foedus or testamentum in the Decades and hence arrive at misplaced conclusions. This organic-​mystical aspect of the covenant can be expressed by other terms, such as coniunctio, communio, societas, and amicitia, which frequently occur in the Decades. The corporeal and marital metaphors are very much present.184 The whole essence of God’s worship, the cultus Dei, is understood as true religio, another covenantal term in Bullinger’s thought.185 If our thesis on Bullinger stands, namely that God’s covenant finds its consummation in the union with the Father in the Son or the Word through the Spirit, we cannot escape the conclusion that the Decades are thoroughly suffused by the covenant. Does our reading finally vindicate Baker’s earlier assessment? Only partially. Baker does not take the organic or mystical aspect of the covenant into account at all, instead basing his argument entirely on its historical-​ redemptive and legal aspect.186 This facet is of course present in the Decades, but not with the same emphasis. My approach here shares much more in common with Opitz’s study. What he defines by the word Gemeinschaft, that 183 Bullinger, The Decades, 44; Bullinger, Sermonum decades, 34: “Praeterea tradiderunt beati patres deum cum genere mortalium foedere quodam coaluisse ac se fidelibus, fideles sibi deo, inquam, arctissime obstrinxisse.” (Italics mine) 184 See Bullinger, Sermonum decades, 141: “Nam nemo ignorat deum in sacris literis coniunctionem et vinculum, quo fide religamur deo (unde et religionis nomen est) adumbrare per parabolam humani coiugii. Deus enim est maritus et sponsus noster; nos sumus eius uxor vel sponsa.”; Bullinger, Sermonum decades, 228: “Coniugium, quod et matrimonium appellatur, foedus et coniunctio est divina viri et mulieris ex consensu mutuo sociata et adunata in hoc”; Bullinger, Sermonum decades, 239: “Pugnat fornicatio cum foedere dei, quo is nobis et nos cum deo cohaeremus.” 185 Bullinger, Sermonum decades, 623: “Dicimus ergo religionem veram aliud non esse quam amicitiam, connexionem et confoederationem cum deo vero, vivo et aeterno, cui vera fide connexi solum adoramus, invocamus et colimus, a quo toti pendemus viventes in omnibus ad voluntatem vel secundum praescriptum legemque verbi eius. Proinde rectissime totum salutis fideique negotium comprehenditur uno religionis vocabulo, quod alibi foedus et pactum, alibi vero coniugium in scripturis appellatur. Sicut enim foedere uniuntur confoederati, sic deus et homo connectuntur religione, et ut coniugio in unum corpus rediguntur maritus et uxor, ita religione in corpus spirituale connectimur cum deo veluti marito et cum ipso dei filio veluti sponso et capite nostro.” 186 Baker, “Retrospect,” 364: “Clearly, the covenant is a major focus in this 368-​page summa of the Christian religion. All five of the major points of De testamento are present: (1) the eternity of the covenant; (2) its bilateral nature; (3) the entire scripture as “books of the covenant”; (4) the role of the sacraments of the covenant; and (5) the antiquity of Christianity. The question now is, if the covenant is so prominent in the Summa, which is a summary of the Decades, why is it, as Muller insists, that the Decades evidence little interest in the doctrine of the covenant? The answer is that the Decades do evidence considerable interest in the covenant.”

The Centrality of the Covenant, 1534–1551  201 is communion, is precisely what I mean by the organic-​mystical aspect of the covenant. But whereas Opitz sees the covenant as one aspect of the overarching concept of Gemeinschaft, I invert the order. The Gemeinschaft is actually an aspect of the covenant. And a number of statements in Opitz’s study can be deployed in support of my thesis.187 There is also good theological reason why the more obvious covenantal terms are to be found with respect to the sacraments. We must not be led astray by two common but equally incorrect views and assumptions: Bullinger’s covenant theology was an ad hoc argument for his view of the sacraments, or Bullinger considered the sacraments to be secondary. Rather, I posit that the balance between the redemptive-​historical and legal aspect of the covenant and its organic and mystical aspect, the unilaterality of the testament and bilaterality of the covenant, and the interlocking of redemptive-​history and communion of the church find their ultimate expression in the sacraments. These different lines of thought are gathered and knotted together in Bullinger’s sacramentology. The sacraments are tokens of the covenant as testament (redemptive-​historical and legal aspect) recalling redemptive history to mind as a way of participating in the church communion with Christ (organic and mystical aspect).188 The sacraments are not heilsnotwendig, but they remain the most visible performance of church life and worship.189

Conclusion In this period, we can observe the increasing use of terms such as promissio, societas, and coniunctio, all of which Bullinger equated with the covenant. The covenantal promissio is extensively used in Der alte Glaube, but it can also be found in other writings. The terms coniunctio and societas often appear 187 See Opitz, Bullinger als Theologe, 336: “Der Gedanke einer ‘gegenseitigen Beziehung’ von Gott und Mensch als zentraler Gehalt des ‘Bundes’ findet sich [ . . . ] in den Dekaden an wichtiger Stelle ohne explizite Verwendung des Bundesbegriffs.Weniger das am juridischen Modell erläuterte Rechtsverhältnis als die christologisch-​ pneumatologishce Begründung und Füllung der menschlichen Gottesrelation steht im Zentrum”; Opitz, Bullinger als Theologe, 344: “Mit der sachlichen Identifizierung von foedus, religio und coniugium werden die Grenzen des am Vertragsrecht orientierten Bundesgedankens deutlich.” 188 See Bullinger, Sermonum decades, 959: “Desydero item manifesta scripturae loca, quae perspicue tradant, cum aqua simul afferri foedus dei, gratiam et remissionem peccatorum. Cum pane et vino simul exhiberi corpus et sanguinem domini, aut ipsissimam Christi communionem.” 189 See Bullinger, Sermonum decades, 996: “Est autem synaxis, coniunctio, coactio, coagmentatio sive conciliatio. Ecclesia enim Christo in sacra coena perquam arctissimo foedere coniungitur ac adunitur, denique ipsa inter se membra tenacissime conglutinantur.”

202  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development together and in the same ecclesiological context. Both stress the bilateral and mystical aspect of a communion, but on two levels: the former term spoke of communion with Christ (i.e., God), while the second referred to communion with fellow believers. That the semantic field of “covenant” includes these terms in Bullinger’s theology is not a matter of conjecture, for Bullinger repeatedly associated them with the more familiar term foedus. Coniunctio and societas are frequently used in a broad variety of genres. Testamentum is still widely used, especially in Bullinger’s exegetical works. Our analysis of the sources in this period shows Bullinger’s increasing interest in the organic-​mystical aspect of the covenant. The covenant is ultimately identified with union with Christ. Past scholarship has largely neglected this aspect of his thought. The failure to acknowledge Bullinger’s covenantal identification with some organic-​mystical terms has led many scholars to overlook covenantal material in the sources, for example in the Decades. I have offered an alternative reading of this source and of other texts in light of the organic-​mystical aspect. The redemptive-​historical and legal aspect is not dismissed, however, but reaffirmed. While some sources emphasize more strongly the bilateral covenant and communion with Christ, others put the emphasis on his unilateral testament and promise. Still other sources balance both aspects. Bullinger’s discussion of the sacraments appears to be the place where both aspects, the historical-​legal and the organic-​mystical, come to fruition in the church. In the sacramental celebration the church partakes in redemptive history as well as in Christ and his body. This reminds us that if we are to have a complete view of Bullinger’s covenant theology, we must read Bullinger as a whole. Otherwise, our interpretation of his covenant theology will be distorted, confined to exclusive categories such as bilaterality versus unilaterality or conditionality versus predestinarianism. Our close reading of Bullinger’s exegesis of Genesis 17 confirms that these categories cannot be played against one other, nor should Bullinger be seen in opposition to Calvin. Moreover, our analysis of his exegesis of Genesis 1–​3 concludes that a covenantal reading of the prelapsarian state of man, as developed by later Reformed theologians, was already intended by Bullinger. We turn now to the following period to see if Bullinger remained consistent in balancing the different aspects of his covenant theology.

5 Consolidation, 1551–​1575 With the publication of his commentary on the Gospel of Luke in 1546 Bullinger finished his exposition of all of the New Testament except the book of Revelation. He could now invest more time in editing his sermons, and the publication of his sermon series began at this point with the Major Prophets and Revelation. Bullinger also produced his first comprehensive works (a systematic digest and a catechism) for the theological education of the laity. He was worried about the impact of polemical attacks on the people in the pews; a small apologetic responsive treatise is clear evidence of his concern that they were feeling increasingly insecure. On a polemical level, in several writings Bullinger continued to refute attacks from Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Anabaptists. The Council of Trent was defining the agenda of counter-​reform for the Catholic Church, which was gaining renewed strength. The evangelicals felt the need to adopt a position against invigorated Roman Catholicism. On a religious-​political level, Bullinger was still corresponding with allies across Europe. He was particularly concerned about evangelical refugees in the north as well as by what was happening in Hungary, as he made evident in his letters to the Hungarians,1 printed in 1559. The young Hungarian Reformed church was under threat from Roman Catholics as well as from the Muslim conquerors. Bullinger interpreted these historical events through the lens of apocalyptic literature. It was during this period that he composed the Second Helvetic Confession, a vital document for the Reformed world. In the mid-​1560s, the head of the Zurich church was grieving the death of some of his closest relatives and friends from the plague. He himself had fallen victim in September 1564, and although he survived, his health was impaired for the rest of his life, leaving him in need 1 Heinrich Bullinger, Heinrychi Bullingeri epistola ad ecclesias Hungaricas earumque pastores scripta MDLI: Heinrich Bullingers Sendschreiben an die ungarischen Kirchen und Pastoren 1551, trans. Barnabas Nagy (Budapest: Verlag der Presseabteilung der Synodalkanzlei der reformierten Kirche von Ungarn, 1968). In Bullinger’s letters to the Hungarian churches (1551/​1559), which will not be discussed below, he mentioned the covenant with regard to the sacraments. The function of baptism is the sealing (obsignare) of the foedus, and the Lord’s Supper seals the communio, see Bullinger, epistola ad ecclesias Hungaricas, XLIV/​44–​XLV/​45.

The Zurich Origins of Reformed Covenant Theology. Pierrick Hildebrand, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2024. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197607572.003.0006

204  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development of increased care.2 Up until his death, in 1575, however, he continued to preach and write, and his correspondence reflects his deep concern about religious-​political developments in Europe. Bullinger’s Ecclesias evangelicas orthodoxas et catholicas esse Apodixis (hereafter Apodixis)3 of 1552 should be read in the context of the Council of Trent, which met for a second period between 1551 and 1552 and sanctioned the doctrinal agenda of counter-​reform. The Apodixis was dedicated to German Duke George I of Württemberg-​Monbéliard (1498–​1558). Bullinger wrote that “this book [is] in our time particularly necessary and not entirely useless for the propagation of the evangelical truth”4 and acknowledged the duke’s commitment to the Reformed cause. As the title of this short book clearly attests, Bullinger took on the role of an apologist for the orthodoxy and catholicity of the evangelical church, which stood accused by Rome of heresy. Bullinger’s De gratia dei iustificante5 (1554) was originally directed against the teachings of Theobald Thamer (1534–​1569) and Andreas Osiander (1498–​1552) and had been printed during the winter of 1553.6 However, De gratia dei justificante was soon applied to a new context, as this text on justification was printed again in early 1554 along with a letter of dedication addressed to the Danish Crown. Bullinger sought to attest to the orthodoxy of the Reformed confession of the Christian faith against harsh Lutheran accusations, in particular with regard to the doctrine of justification. His dedication was likely an appeal to King Christian III not to discriminate against Reformed refugees in his lands.7 In this period, Bullinger also wrote his second and main work on the Anabaptists, Der Widertäufer 2 See Pestalozzi, Heinrich Bullinger, 485–​499; Büsser, Heinrich Bullinger (1504–​1575), vol. 76–​77. 3 Heinrich Bullinger, Ecclesias evangelicas neque haereticas neque schismaticas, sed plane orthodoxas et catholicas esse Iesu Christi ecclesias, apodixis (Zurich: Andrea Gessner and Rudolf Wyssenbach, 1552); HBBibl I, 124–​125, no. 258. 4 Bullinger, apodixis, 7: “Hunc autem librum nostro huic saeculo imprimis nessarium, et ad veritatem evangelicam propagandam non omnino inutilem”. 5 Heinrich Bullinger, De gratia Dei iustificante nos propter Christum, per solam fidem absque operibus bonis, fide interim exuberante in opera bona, libri IIII (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1554); HBBibl I, 133, no. 276. 6 Kurt J. Rüetschi, “Heinrich Bullinger und Dänemark: Die Widmung von ‘De gratia dei iustificante’ an König Christian III im Jahre 1554,” Zwa 15: 3–​4 (1980): 215–​237, esp. 216: “Ein Besuch Theobald Thamers im Frühjahr 1553 hatte die Schrift veranlaßt. Dieser ehemalige Marburger Professor und Prediger war an der Rechtfertigung allein aus Glaube irre geworden und konnte sie nicht mehr ohne Mitwirkung eigener Werke denken. Er war deshalb, allerdings erfolglos, von Landgraf Philipp zu sächsischen Theologen und zuletzt zu Bullinger geschickt worden. Gegen ihn und gegen die Lehren des Andreas Osiander, die in Württemberg Anhänger gefunden hatten, war diese im Herbst 1553 vollendete, im Winter gedruckte Schrift gerichtet.” 7 For a detailed discussion of the context, intentions, and effects of this letter of dedication, see Rüetschi, “Bullinger und Dänemark,” 215–​237.

Consolidation, 1551–1575  205 Ursprung (1560).8 The local context was not what drove Bullinger to write this work, as Anabaptism had been pushed back into an underground community in the territory of the city-​state of Zurich. Certainly, the outbreak of a public controversy in Schaffhausen in 1559 played a not insignificant role. However, the main threat came from the north, beyond Swiss borders, where manifold movements referred to collectively as the Anabaptists were increasing in influence. The text should not be taken as a personal obsession, for with his Der Widertäufer Ursprung Bullinger was responding to insistent requests from several friends who deemed a new clarification of his positions urgently needed.9 Bullinger’s Apologetica expositio (1556),10 which was printed in Latin and translated into German (1556 and 1557) and French (1558), followed. The work was intended by Bullinger as a defense against diverse Lutheran works—​ five books were mentioned in particular11—​that attacked the Reformed doctrine of the Supper. Bullinger defended not only himself and the Zurich church but also all the Reformed churches more generally. The Reformed were being considered heretics, categorized as such alongside various sects such as the Anabaptists.12 Far from a harmless accusation, that charge could be a life and death issue in the sixteenth century. Bullinger emphasized Reformed unity, and the fact that the book was soon translated into French and printed in Calvin’s Geneva demonstrated that the need for Reformed solidarity was understood as more important than some non-​essential theological differences. We need not address Apologetica expositio explicitly below, but we can note in this historical overview that this text includes some references to the covenant.13 Further texts should be noted here although they too are not discussed below. Bullinger’s Bericht of 1559,14 in effect a manual with FAQs for laity 8 Heinrich Bullinger, Der Widertoeufferen ursprung (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1560); HBBibl I, 185–​186, no. 394. 9 Fast, Bullinger und die Täufer, 64–​66. 10 Heinrich Bullinger, Apologetica expositio (Zurich: Andrea Gesner and Jacob Gesner, 1556); HBBibl I, 149–​150, no. 315. 11 See Bullinger, Apologetica expositio, 1. 12 See Bullinger, Apologetica expositio, 1–​2. 13 See Bullinger, Apologetica expositio, 31–​32, where the words of institutions are seen in relation to Gen. 17. Also significant is the term coniunctio, which Bullinger used for the personal union of Christ’s two natures as well as for the believer’s union with Christ, see Bullinger, Apologetica expositio, 57.94. 14 Heinrich Bullinger, Bericht wie die, so von waegen unsers Herren Jesu Christi und sines heiligen evangeliums ires glaubens ersuocht unnd mit allerley fragen versuocht werdend, antworten und sich halten moegind (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1559); HBBibl I, 182, no. 386. Bullinger’s text includes references to the covenant when treating the church and the sacraments, see Bullinger, Bericht, 42.134.

206  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development troubled by interconfessional polemics, testifies to the anxieties with which Bullinger was confronted and to how seriously the Reformer took lay concerns. The manuscript Pastor ecclesiae (1571)15 was conceived for the theological examination of candidates for the pastorate in the Zurich church. I cannot recognize Bullinger’s hand, and the manuscript is probably a copy of text that came originally from the Antistes. Its authorship is attributed to Bullinger in its title. The examination, composed in a question-​and-​­answer format similar to the catechism, had four major parts: (1) De doctrina et s[c]‌riptura, (2) De promissione, (3) De baptismo, and (4) De caena domini. Explicit covenantal references are sparse but present.16 Pastor ecclesiae tells us that Bullinger’s covenant theology had become part of the orthodox confession of faith required of the preachers in the Zurich church. In Verfolgung (1573)17 Bullinger reminded his readers of the continued persecution of the true church since its historical beginnings. In the preamble, he explained that the contemporary persecution of the evangelicals compelled him to write this treatise. In the text he made clear that he identified the real threat not so much in the persecution per se as in the interpretation of that persecution as divine condemnation of evangelical teaching and vindication of its persecutors.18 The covenant is mentioned when Bullinger examines the church’s persecution before the time of Christ in the fourth chapter, where the Reformer underscored the covenantal continuity of redemptive history in its ecclesial unity.19 15 Heinrich Bullinger, Pastor ecclesiae: domino Heinricho Bullingero authore, theologicum examen continens praecipuos locos doctrinae christianae per quaestiones breviter et ordine explicatos, omnibus sacris literis incumbentibus summe utile et necessarium (Zentralbibliothek, Zurich: Msc D 216, 1571). 16 The foedus is mentioned in relation to the name testamentum given to Scripture, see Bullinger, Pastor ecclesiae, fol. 3v–​4r: “I. Quare Testamentum? R. Qui in his libris Deus diserte testatur et exponit mentem et voluntatem suam erga nos, qualis sit, et quomodo nobis fieri veli. I. Quare vetus? Quare novum? R. Quia ea traditio, quae per typos et figuras religio est tradita veteribus appellatur testamentum vetus, sed ea quae citra figuras Christum legis perfectionem nobis describit et exhibet. Novum testamentum dicitur non iedo novum, quod veteres Christum nesciverint, sed collatione ad vetus, et quod novum populum gentium scilicet ecclesiam in hoc foedus per Christum et predicationem euangelii constat esse receptum.” (Italics mine) And the covenant is understood as the promissio passed on from Adam, see Bullinger, Pastor ecclesiae, 63v. Finally, Bullinger traced baptism back to Gen. 17, see Bullinger, Pastor ecclesiae, 111r: “Ego [marg.: Genes. 17] sum Deus tuus et seminis tui post te. I. Sed sublatum [-​]‌est hoc foedus?” (Italics mine) 17 Heinrich Bullinger, Vervolgung (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer the Younger, 1573); HBBibl I, 259–​269, no. 575. 18 See Bullinger, Vervolgung, fol. 2r–​v. 19 Bullinger, Vervolgung, 11v–​15v. See, e.g., Bullinger, Vervolgung, 11v–​12r: “Dargegen aber kundtbar ist, dass alle heiligen vor und nach der geburt Jesu Christi, ein volck sind, in einigen lyb der einigen kirchen vereiniget und verbunden, under ein einigs houpt unnd ein einigen ewigen heyland Messiam Jesum Christum, durch welchen alle, die das laeben empfangen und heyl worden sind, allein durch in in disem einigen lyb der kirchen empfangen habend und nach empfahend.” (Italics mine)

Consolidation, 1551–1575  207 From 6 October 1549 to 19 May 1555 Bullinger preached every Sunday at the Grossmünster on the Gospel of Matthew. In 1552 he published separately a number of sermons from this series, under the titles Von rechter Hilfe und Errettung in Nöten20 (hereafter Von rechter Hilfe) and Von der Verklärung Christi21 (hereafter Von der Verklärung). Bullinger also permitted compilations of his sermons to be printed in line with the liturgical year: Vom heiligen Nachtmahl (1553)22 and Festorum dierum sermones (1558).23 In 1557 he published a collection of 100 sermons on the book of Revelation, which he dedicated to the (evangelical) believers of all nations who sought and found refuge in Germany and Switzerland from Roman Catholic persecution. Bullinger interpreted history theologically through the lens of apocalyptic literature in Scripture, principally Revelation and Daniel. Together with many of his contemporaries, he expected and hoped for the imminent eschatological consummation and the final deliverance of the true church from the pope, “the Antichrist” —​a recurring motive in Lutheran, Reformed, and Anabaptist thought. Bullinger had preached on Revelation in the Grossmünster every Tuesday from 21 August 1554 to 29 December 1556, one of the few Reformers to preach or publish on this biblical book—​Zwingli and Calvin did not.24 There were antecedents in Zurich, however, with Jud’s Paraphrase of 1542 and Bibliander’s lectures on the Apocalypse of 1544 (the commentary was published 1545), which Bullinger had attended and which had influenced him.25 Bullinger’s own commentary, In Apocalypsim

20 Heinrich Bullinger, Von raechter hilff und errettung in noeten: ein predig uss dem heiligen Evangelio Matthei XIIII. cap. zuo Zürych des XII. tags julii gethon (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1552); HBBibl I, 125–​126, no. 260. 21 Heinrich Bullinger, Von der verklaerung Jesu Christi, unsers Herren: ouch von unserer verklaerung, unserem stand und waesen in ewiger froeud und saeligkeit, das ouch unser Herr Jesus Christus der waar Messias, der raecht frid unnd der einig aller waelt leerer sye, uss dem 17. cap. Matthei (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1552); HBBibl I, 127–​128, no. 265. 22 Heinrich Bullinger, Von dem heiligen nachtmal unsers Herrenn Jesu Christi (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1553); HBBibl I, 129, no. 268. See also the Latin translation: Heinrich Bullinger, De sacro sancta coena Domini nostri Iesu Christi (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1553); HBBibl I, 130, no. 270. 23 Heinrich Bullinger, Festorum dierum Domini et servatoris nostri Iesu Christi sermones ecclesiastici (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1558); HBBibl I, 174–​175, no. 369. 24 Bullinger mentions in his introduction some theologians who have written on Revelation, and Luther is quoted among them, see Heinrich Bullinger, In Apocalypsim Iesu Christi: revelatam quidem per angelum Domini, visam vero vel exceptam atque conscriptam a Ioanne apostolo et evangelista, conciones centum (Basel: Johannes Oporin, 1557), fol. β1v: “sicuti et quaedam in hunc librum Revelat[ionis] D. Lutheri.” See further Fritz Büsser, “H. Bullingers 100 Predigten über die Apokalypse,” Zwa 27 (2000): 119–​120. 25 Irena Backus, Reformation Readings of the Apocalypse: Geneva, Zurich, and Wittenberg (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 29–​33, 87–​112.

208  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development conciones centum26 (hereafter In Apocalypsim), that collection of 100 sermons on the last book of the Bible, soon became a bestseller, appearing in many editions and translated into five languages.27 Bullinger preached on the book of Jeremiah from 5 January 1557 to 28 June 1560 (initially every Tuesday but from 30 June 1559 every Friday).28 In Jeremiae prophetae sermones conciones29 (hereafter In Jeremiam) was published successively in four volumes in 1557, 1558, 1559, and 1561. Bullinger had already preached on the book of Daniel on Tuesdays over approximately one year, from 27 July 1546 to 19 July 1547, and he returned to Daniel 20 years later, preaching on the book again every Tuesday from 18 May 1563 to 19 June 1565,30 this time over more than two years. The Conciones in Danielem31 (hereafter In Danielem) was published in August 1565. Bullinger’s praefatio informs us that after he had published his sermons on Jeremiah, he was exhorted to interpret the remaining Major Prophets in a similar manner. He accepted and began to preach on Isaiah on Sundays in parae with Daniel on Tuesdays.32 His Epitome temporum33was appended to the sermons on Daniel. Bullinger preached for the second time through Isaiah on Sundays from 4 January 1562 to 14 July 1566. The publication of these 190 sermons followed a year later, as Isaias (1567).34 Bullinger preached on the book of Acts on Sundays from 14 March 1568 to 26 April 1573,35 the last time he

26 Bullinger, In Apocalypsim; HBBibl I, 155, no. 327. See also the early modern English translation: Heinrich Bullinger, A Hundred Sermons upon the Apocalips of Iesu Christe, trans. John Daus (London: John Day, 1561); HBBibl I, 167–​168, no. 355. 27 See HBBibl I, 155–​168. 28 See Büsser, Wurzeln der Reformation, 147. 29 Heinrich Bullinger, In Ieremiae prophetae sermonem vel orationem primam, sex primis capitibus comprehensam: Heinrychi Bullingeri conciones XXVI, nunc primum aeditae (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1557); Heinrich Bullinger, Sermones Ieremiae prophetae quatuor, nempe secundus, tertius, quartus et quintus, comprehensi septem capitibus, a VII. videlicet ad XIIII. usque caput XXVI.: Heinrychi Bullingeri concionibus expositi (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1558); Heinrich Bullinger, Conciones XXXXIIII. Heinrychi Bullingeri in Ieremiae capita XVI. nempe a XIIII. usque ad XXX.: continentes orationes Ieremiae VII. et narrationes historicas V. epistolam vero unam (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1559); Heinrich Bullinger, In sermones et historicas expositiones Ieremiae Prophetae, a capite XXX. usque ad finem operis: conciones Heinrychi Bullingeri LXXIIII. (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1561); HBBibl I, 168–​170, no 357–​360. 30 See Büsser, Wurzeln der Reformation, 147–​148. 31 Heinrich Bullinger, Daniel sapientissimus Dei propheta qui a vetustis polyhistor, id est, multiscius est dictus, expositus homiliis LXVI (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer the Younger, 1565); HBBibl I, 204–​ 205, no. 428. 32 See Bullinger, Daniel, fol. aa2. 33 Bullinger, Epitome temporum et rerum; HBBibl I, 206, no. 430. 34 Heinrich Bullinger, Isaias (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer the Younger, 1567); HBBibl, 250, no. 558. 35 See Büsser, Wurzeln der Reformation, 148.

Consolidation, 1551–1575  209 would preach on a whole text from the New Testament.36 From this series he published a collection of six sermons on Philipp and the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8, including an excursus on Isaiah 53 in Bekehrung (1569)37. In the dedicatory letter to Christoph III (1538–​1569) and his brother Philipp of Pappenheim (1542–​1619), both of whom became Reformed after sojourns in Zurich in 1558, Bullinger specified that he had preached these six sermons from the end of August and through September 1569. Since the appearance of Carl Pestalozzi’s biography of Bullinger in 1858, the Reformer’s Summa christenlicher Religion38 (hereafter Summa) of 1556 has been considered a condensed version of the Decades.39 Yet the letter of dedication in the Summa does not refer to Bullinger’s earlier work, and we have neither internal evidence from the work itself or external evidence from the context that supports Pestalozzi’s thesis, making an immediate correlation between the two works unlikely.40 According to Bullinger himself, the Summa was meant to meet the needs of theologically interested but uneducated laypeople who found catechisms for children too succinct and larger works too long (such as the Decades) or too polemical.41 Much as in the Summa, in his Catechesis pro adultioribus42 (hereafter Catechesis) of

36 His final, but likely incomplete, New Testament series, begun on 17 May 1573, was on Hebrews, to which he now turned for the third time, see Büsser, Wurzeln der Reformation, 147–​148. 37 Heinrich Bullinger, Von der bekerung dess Menschen zuo Gott und dem waaren Glouben (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer the Younger, 1569); HBBibl I, 251–​252, no. 561. 38 Heinrich Bullinger, Summa christenlicher religion (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1556); HBBibl I, 136–​137, no. 283. See also Josias Simler’s Latin translation: Heinrich Bullinger, Compendium christianae religionis, trans. Josias Simler (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1556); HBBibl I, 140, no. 291. 39 Carl Pestalozzi, Heinrich Bullinger: Leben und ausgewählte Schriften nach handschriftlichen und gleichzeitigen Quellen, Leben und ausgewählte Schriften der Väter und Begründer der reformirten Kirche 5 (Elberfeld: Friderichs, 1858), 469: “Aus diesen Dekaden ging 1555 sein gehaltvolles Compendium oder Handbuch der christlichen Religion hervor, auch Summa genannt, als ein gedrängter Inbegriff, inder er laut der an Landgraf Wilhelm von Hessen gerichteten Widmung den Wünschen und Bedürfnissen derer zu genügen strebte, die nach einem Inbegriff davon verlangten und doch etwas Eingehenderes begehrten, als sie in den gangbaren Katechismen fanden.” 40 See Pierrick Hildebrand, “Heinrich Bullingers Summa christlicher Religion (1556) als ‘Inbegriff ’ der Dekaden (1549–​1552)? Eine kritische Untersuchung,” in Wirkungen und Wurzeln der Schweizer Reformation: Festschrift für Peter Opitz, ed. Gergely Csukás and Ariane Albisser, Zürcher Beiträge zur Reformationsgeschichte 30 (Zurich: TVZ, 2022), 251–​267; see also my introduction to the historical-​ critical edition of the Summa, which will be published in HBTS. 41 Bullinger, Summa, fol. a1r–​v : “Es werdind wol buecheren gnuog geschriben, die syend aber so lang unnd vilfaltig, ouch mit strytigen disputationen dermassen yngewicklet, unnd mit schaelten verbitteret, das sy die zuo laesen nun gar keinen lust habind. Darnaebend syend wol etliche kinderberichten vorhanden, doch so kurtz begriffen, das sy ouch durch soeliche nit moegind vernueegt werden. Da so begaertind sy vil mee ein einfalte erklaerung und innhalt oder kurtze (so vil mueglich) summ der gantzen religion, das ist der fuernaemen und notwendigen articklen.” 42 Heinrich Bullinger, Catechesis pro adultioribus scripta (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1559); HBBibl I, 178–​179, no. 377.

210  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development 1559 Bullinger expounded in summary form the main theological loci of the Christian faith. However, the target audiences were different. He stated in his dedicatory letter, that he intended the Catechesis to be teaching material for the upper classes at the schola tigurina, which Bullinger had developed out of the more rudimentary Prophezei. The Catechesis was the adult43 equivalent of Jud’s kürtzer Catechismus (1537),44 which was already used by the lower classes at the Zurich school. The Confesso Helvetica Posterior45 (hereafter CHP), known in the English world as the Second Helvetic Confession, was originally written in 1561 as Bullinger’s “spiritual legacy”46 for the Zurich church under the title Expositio brevis ac dilucida orthodoxae fidei; it was first printed as the second confession of Switzerland in March 1566. All Reformed Orte except Basel soon subscribed to this later version, which also gained wide acceptance in the Reformed world beyond Swiss borders. The immediate circumstance that led to the creation of the CHP was the conversion of the Electoral Palatinate from Lutheranism with the adoption of the Reformed confession of the Christian faith found in the Heidelberg Catechism of 1563. Accused of heresy against the backdrop of the Peace of Augsburg (1555),47 Elector Palatine Frederick III (1515–​1576) requested theological support from Bullinger. He asked the Zurich Reformer in late autumn 1565 for a theological foundation for the case he would make at the Imperial Diet to be held in January 1566, which already had the religious circumstances in the Electoral Palatinate on its agenda. Furthermore, Frederick asked for a confession attesting to the orthodoxy of Reformed doctrine inside and outside the empire, to corroborate the Heidelberg Catechism. Bullinger met that latter request by sending Frederick

43 The average age of the students after completion of their schooling was probably between 16 and 18 years. See Ulrich Ernst, Geschichte des Zürcherischen Schulwesens bis gegen das Ende des sechzehnten Jahrhunderts (Winterthur: Bleuler-​Hausheer & Cie, 1879), 120. 44 Leo Jud, Der kürtzer catechismus (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1537). See also the translation in modern German: Leo Jud, Katechismen, ed. Oskar Farner (Zurich: Niehans, 1955), 245–​376. 45 Heinrich Bullinger, Confessio helvetica posterior, in RB 2:2, 268–​329. For a modern English translation, see Heinrich Bullinger, The Second Helvetic Confession, A.D. 1566, in The Creeds of Christendom: With a History and Critical Notes, ed. Philip Schaff and David S. Schaff (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books House, 1983), 390–​420. 46 This term was coined by Campi as a “neutral term” that avoided the dissent among scholars as to whether it was meant as a personal or an official confession, see Emidio Campi, “Einleitung zu Confessio helvetica posterior,” in RB 2:2, 245. In our opinion, Dowey has made the better case for the latter view, see Edward Dowey, “Der theologische Aufbau des Zweiten Helvetischen Bekenntnisses,” in Glauben und Bekennen: Vierhundert Jahre Confessio Helvetica posterior, ed. Joachim Staedtke (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1966), 206–​207. 47 Because the Reformed did not subscribe to the Confessio Augustana, they were excluded from the Peace of Augsburg of 1555 and still considered heretics by imperial law.

Consolidation, 1551–1575  211 his Expositio. The elector’s approval of the text was such that Bullinger was promptly requested to publish it in the name of the Swiss churches. He reworked his Expositio and sought the approbation of the Zurich church and of fellow churches in Switzerland, which allowed it to be published under the name by which it is now known, the Confessio Helvetica Posterior.48

Sermons In this period Bullinger published several sermons and sermon compilations. Some works contained individual sermons, the product of a series on the Gospel of Matthew. Others were entire commentaries arising from his lectio continua practice for Revelation and the Major Prophets. Still others were designed for the needs of specific liturgical celebrations, rather than being tied in with a preaching series.49 Bullinger’s referencing of the covenant in his preaching even when not immediately required by the text is significant. For Bullinger covenant theology not only was a way of thinking and theorizing about theology but also had homiletical and practical relevance for the faithful. In 1552 Bullinger published Von rechter Hilfe and Von der Verklärung, sermons from his series on the Gospel of Matthew. The former work, on Matthew 14:22–​33 (Jesus’ walking on the water), drew from a sermon given on 12 July, while the latter work consisted of two sermons, on Matthew 16:28–​ 17:5 and Matthew 17:5–​ 8 (the transfiguration), that had been given in October that year. Bullinger made reference several times in each work to Abraham’s covenant and to Christ as the one “through whom we are . . . united with God.”50 In 1553 he published a small work called Vom heiligen Nachtmahl, containing two sermons on the words of institution of the Lord’s Supper. In the first sermon he spoke of Christ and his benefits as the content of God’s “testament, covenant and testamentary contract” 48 See Campi, “Einleitung,” 244–​248. 49 On preaching in Reformation Zurich, see Max Engammare, Prêcher au XVIe siècle (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2018), 81–​120. 50 See Bullinger, Von raechter hilff, fol. C2v: “Und namlich hat Gott einen ewigen pundt ufgericht mit gantzem menschlichen geschlaecht und under anderem zuo Abrahamen gesprochen: ‘Ich will din Gott und dines somens Gott sein’ [Gen. 17:7]”; Bullinger, Von raechter hilff, fol. C3v: “puendtnuss des touffs”; Bullinger, Von der verklaerung, B4v: “Abrahamen den pundtsmann Gotts”; Bullinger, Von der verklaerung, fol. C2r: “Jesus Christus der raecht waar Messias von Gott der waelt geleistet sye, durch welchen wir mit Gott befridet und vereiniget”; Bullinger, Von der verklaerung, fol. C7v: “vereiniget mit Gott.” In the margin: “Einigung mit Gott.”

212  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development (testament, pundt und gemaecht).51 In the second sermon he discussed the Supper more specifically as a sacrament and to this end laid out redemptive history as covenantal history or history of the promise.52 Sacraments are defined here as siegel (seals) of the covenant.53 Additionally, Bullinger used the classic argument of Zurich sacramentology that the cup cannot itself be the new testament because the new testament is the forgiveness of sin according to Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8.54 The Lord’s Supper is said to be a “synaxim [assembly] und communionem, das ist vereinigung und gemeinschafft”55 emphasizing with his use of these terms the organic-​mystical aspect of the covenant. Bullinger’s Festorum dierum sermones (1558) was a collection of sermons for the liturgical feast following Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. The dedicatory letter was addressed to the Polish-​Lithuanian Prince Mikołaj Krzysztof Radziwiłł (1549–​1616), who would, however, never be won over to the Reformed cause; he later converted from Eastern Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism and actively supported the Tridentine counter-​reformation.56 The fact that Bullinger’s work was published twice in Latin during his lifetime (in 1558 and 1559) and never translated into German suggests that these sermons—​like the Decades—​were to a high degree a post eventu and edited product. For two posthumous editions published in 1601 and 1602, the title was modified to Sylvula homiliarum festalium et selectiorum aliarum de praecipuis doctrinae christianae capititbus, adding an explicit doctrinal connotation.57 The covenant was mentioned in relation to all the major events of Christ’s life, such as his birth and death. In the first sermon on the Nativity, Bullinger wrote: But to be united with God is the highest good and the fullest felicity. To be separated from God, [however], is the greatest misery and the greatest infelicity. So that, if the highest good ought to befall man, he needed surely to be unified and covenanted [confoederare] or united [coniungere] again with 51 Von dem heiligen nachtmal, fol. C1r. 52 Von dem heiligen nachtmal, fol. C4r–​C6r. 53 Von dem heiligen nachtmal, fol. D4r–​D5v. 54 Von dem heiligen nachtmal, fol. D2v. 55 Von dem heiligen nachtmal, fol. D7r. 56 For the rise and fall of the evangelical church in Lithuania, see Arthur Hermann and Wilhelm Kahle, eds., Die reformatorischen Kirchen Litauens: Ein historischer Abriss (Erlangen: Martin-​Luther-​ Verlag, 1998). 57 HBBibl I, 174–​177.

Consolidation, 1551–1575  213 God. Therefore, the Son of God [becomes] man, that is he assumes our own human nature, and united or joined it to himself through the most intimate bond, so that [the one] who is truly God is also truly man. Hence, will not the one who discerns with true faith that human flesh has been united with God so intimately also see that man or human flesh is not rejected nor excluded? So that we, who were separated in Adam through sin, were united with God in Christ through faith? Therefore, as we humans ought to be united with God, who is the purest light that cannot be mixed with impurity, we needed first surely to be purified from sins and from all human dirt. As such, a right purification and expiation of sins could not be without death and blood. It was necessary for the Son of God to assume human flesh and blood. So that he shed [His blood] to purify [us] from the sins, and indeed experienced death for us so as to abolish death and recover life, and lead us, having been purified, to God the Father and unite with him for eternity.58 (Italics mine)

Here Bullinger used the terms confoederare and conjungere synonymously. The coniunctio is the covenantal response to the separatio of the fall. The incarnation and the Chalcedonian (no separation, no confusion) union of the two natures become here the premise for the communion between believers and God. This mystical union (i.e., the organic-​mystical aspect of the covenant) is only possible through Christ’s expiation of sin in his human nature. The legal aspect of the covenant is its very foundation. The covenant is further mentioned in relation to Christ’s circumcision, where its original location in redemptive history (Gen. 17) and the covenantal character of this sacrament are laid out. Christ is the mysterium behind circumcision and the consummation of Abraham’s covenant.59 Terms such as foedus or promissum 58 Bullinger, Festorum dierum sermones, 2: “Est autem cum Deo coniungi, summum bonum et felicitas absolutissima, seiungi a Deo, est extrema miseria et infelicitas omnium maxima. Ergo si homini summum debuit obtingere bonum, oportuit sane ipsum denuo uniri et confoederari aut coniungi cum Deo. Nunc itaque hominem vel ipsissimam nostram naturam humanam assumit Dei Filius, et coniungit ac unit ipsam sibi ipsi vinculo arctissimo, ut qui vera Deus est, idem sit et homo verus. Iam vero qui vera fide cernit tam arcte carnem humanam Deo unitam, an non idem colligit hominem, et hominis acarnem a Deo nec reiectam esse nec seiunctam, atque adeo nunc nos Deo in Christo per fidem coniungi, qui per peccatum in Adamo eramus adeo separati? Deinde si homines cum deo debuimus coniungi, qui purissima lux est, neque ulla miscetur cum impuritate, oportuit certe nos purgari antea a peccatis et sordibus humanis omnibus. Caeterum sine morte et sanguine non fit ulla iusta purificatio et peccatorum expiatio; proinde necesse fuit Filium Dei carnem et sanguinem humanum assumere, ut illum pro peccatis expurgandis effunderet, denique vere pro nobis mortem experiretur, quo abolita morte, vitam reduceret, et purgatos nos ad Deum Patrem adduceret, ipsique coniungeret aeternum.” (Italics mine) 59 See Bullinger, Festorum dierum sermones, 40–​44.

214  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development are prominent. Finally, the other references to the covenant are in relation to the Lord’s Supper; that celebration is described as, among other terms, a confoederatio.60 Drawing from a series of sermons he had preached on the book of Acts, Bullinger published in Bekehrung (1569) a collection of six sermons on Philipp and the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8, including an excursus on Isaiah 53. He explained in the dedicatory letter why he had prepared this publication: the short account of the Ethiopian’s conversion contains the essence of Christian doctrine.61 In Bekehrung, the covenant is mentioned in the sixth sermon, on the Ethiopian’s baptism, which seals his incorporation into the church and is defined as the “sign of the covenant,” always going back to redemptive-​history. Baptism contains both aspects of the covenant, the historical-​legal and the organic-​mystical.

Old and New Testament “Commentaries” As we have noted, in 1557 Bullinger published a collection of 100 sermons on the book of Revelation. Bullinger alluded to the covenant in relation to the rainbow in Revelation 4:3 (Sermon 23),62 the angel in Revelation 8:3 (Sermon 37),63 and the ark of the covenant in Revelation 11:19 (Sermon 51),64 which are interpreted as metaphors of Christ, the consummator of the covenant. More interesting, however, is the covenantal interpretation of the eschatological wedding between Christ and his church in Revelation 19:8

60 See Bullinger, Festorum dierum sermones, 89–​90. 61 See Bullinger, Von der bekerung, fol. a2r–​v. 62 See Bullinger, In Apocalypsim, 63–​64: “Iris symbolum est perpetuae gratiae foederisque pacti a diluvio, sicuti exponitur Genesis cap. 9. Et thronus quidem supremi iudicis horrorem poterat incutere miseris nobis mortalibus. Admonet ergo iris gratiae divinae et quod foedere se Deus ille qui providentia sua gubernat omnia humano constrinxerit generi, cuiutique bene velit. Viret illud foedus, et valet semper iugis est Dei bonitas erga homines. Ut enim coelum ruat et ex throno hoc gravissima procedant fulmina, et instar nimbi irruant calamites. Deus tamen foederatus est nobis et nos amat impense.” (Italics mine) 63 See Bullinger, In Apocalypsim, 105: “Is, posterior angelus [cf. Mal. 3:1], mox a praedicatione Ioannis venit, et foedus illud aeternum consummavit.” (Italics mine) 64 See Bullinger, In Apocalypsim, 154 (Sermon 51–​Rev. 11:19): “Porro in ipso coeli templo divini, visa est arca testamenti eius. Testamentum et foedus pepigit cum fidelibus Deus, quod velit ese Deus ipsorum, saturitas, et comnium bonorum mare inexhaustum, abundantissimumque, et sufficientissimum copiaecornu; cuius quidem rei confirmatio, testimonium et exhibitio est arca foederis, ispe Dei filius, in quo habitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis, et in quo completi sumus.” (Italics mine)

Consolidation, 1551–1575  215 (Sermon 81) and Revelation 21:1–​3 (Sermon 90). Bullinger interpretation of the former passage reads as follows: However, there is in marriage [first] the betrothal, that is the bond [connexio] or union [coniunctio] to one another, and then only comes the wedding. This betrothal was made from the beginning of the world, as God promised to free the human race through the Son and take it back in glory. However, the bond or union to one another is made after the act of betrothing through certain ceremonies: as [for example] the gift of the down payment or of the ring is given with joined hands and formulated words, etc. [This pertains] also to the covenant [foedus] and union [coniunctio] made soon after the beginning between God and humans, which involved ceremonies, as we often read [in Scripture]. [The covenant] has been restored through certain words and sacrifices as by Abraham, Moses and others. God bound himself to humans, as well as [he bound] humans to him. The sacraments come in between. All the [sacraments] show at that point that God wants to be united with man, as well as to have man united to him, and all his goods communicated to us. Of all bonds, however, this marriage is the most intimate, where the Son of God united himself with flesh in one person, and commanded to the apostles to preach to all nations that he will have communion [communio] with believers. We read everywhere many [passages] about this communion in Sacred Scripture. Moreover, [the Son] gave the down payment of the faith and the eternal union, not a golden ring but the more precious sacraments, nay more, the Holy Spirit, as Paul told in 2 Cor 1[:22] and Eph 1[:14].65 (Italics mine)

65 Bullinger, In Apocalypsim, 251–​252: “Sunt autem in coniugio sponsalia, est connexio vel coniunctio utriusque, sunt denique nuptiae. . . . Sponsalia haec facta sunt ab exordio mundi, dum Deus promittit se liberaturum humanum genus per Filium, recepturumque in gloria. . . . Connexio autem, vel coniunctio utriusque fit post desponsationem, certis caeremoniis; coniunctis videlicet manibus et verbis conceptis, datur arrhabo vel annulus, etc. At mox ab initio foedus et coniunctio quoque inter Deum et homines facta est, quae saepe legitur non sine caeremoniis, verbis certis et sacrificiis reparata, veluti per Abrahamum, Mosem atque alios. Obstringit se hominibus Deus, et homines sibi. Sacramenta intercedunt. Huc spectant illa omnia, quod Deus coniunctus esse velit homini, et homines sibi obstrictos, et omnia sua nobis bona communicata. Omnium autem arctissime connexum est hoc connubium, dum Dei Filius in unam atque eandem personam sibi univit carnem, et per apostolos praedicare iussit omnibus gentibus, se communionem habiturum cum fidelibus. De ea communione multa passim leguntur in sacris literis. Arrhabonem autem fidei et coniunctionis aeternae dedit, non annulum aureum sed sacramenta potius; imo Spiritum Sactum, sicut Paulus ait 2 Corinth. 1 et Ephes. 1.” (Italics mine)

216  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development This longer discussion is interesting because Bullinger interwove covenantal redemptive history (historical-​legal aspect) with the incarnation and the covenantal union with Christ (organic-​mystical aspect). The sacraments are defined as marriage pledges that unite redemptive history with its eschatological fulfillment in the consummation that is the covenantal wedding, when the sacraments are no longer necessary. In this rich passage Bullinger used the whole range of covenantal terminology that we have already encountered. The tight relationship between the two aspects is reiterated in the latter passage, where Bullinger recognized in Revelation 21:1–​3 the connection of the eschatological wedding with the most basic covenantal formula, met for the first time in Genesis 17:7 and reiterated many times in the Old Testament, in particular in relation to the tabernacle or meeting tent, which is interpreted as a prefiguration of this cosmic meeting.66 The next commentary-​ like publication was on the Great Prophet Jeremiah. Bullinger’s sermon series on Jeremiah was published in four stages: Jeremiah 1–​6 (Sermons 1–​26) in 1557, Jeremiah 7–​13 (Sermons 27–​ 52) in 1558, Jeremiah 14–​29 (Sermons 53–​96) in 1559, and lastly Jeremiah 30–​52 (Sermons 97–​170) in 1561. In his discussion of the introductory chapters Bullinger stressed the violation of the covenant by Israel.67 The terms used as synonyms for foedus are various and include coniugium, amicitia, and societas. Jeremiah’s prophecy of restoration in Jeremiah 3:11–​18 (Sermon 11) is interpreted Christologically, with Christ as the true ark of the covenant (Jer. 3:16), that is, the consummation of the covenant.68 Jeremiah’s order

66 Bullinger, In Apocalypsim, 283: “Coniunctio Dei cum hominibus sanctis, quondam praefigurata per tabernaculum testimonii, quo testificabatur se Deus in medio populi sui futurum. Id autem sub finem a iudicio praestabit abundatissime. Ideoque subiungit vox illa. ‘Et habitabit cum eis, et ipsi populi eius erunt, et ipse Deus cum eis erit eorum Deus.’ ” 67 Bullinger, In Ieremiae prophetae sermonem [ch. 1–​6], fol. 34v–​35r (Sermon 6–​Jer. 2:10–​13): “Sermonis vero figuram ita attemperat, ut videaris tibi videre ipsum Deum ante consessum stare iudicum, et accusare, imo reos agere apostasiae, aut violati foederis totum Iudaeorum populum. Orationem vero propheta sic connectit, cum nihil iniquitatis in me inveniatis, et nihilominus omnes gradus et ordines praevaricentur in me impudentissime, et absque ulla poenitentia, cogor sane vocare vos in iudicium, iudicioque contendere vobiscum, et convincere vos violati foederis, et foedissimae defectionis a me.” (Italics mine); Bullinger, In Ieremiae prophetae sermonem [ch. 1–​6], fol. 69r (Sermon 10–​Jer. 3:1–​10): “Aversatrices vel praevaricatrices ac rebelles nuncupat utrasque sorores, quod refractario animo repellentes Verbum Dei animi sui libidinem sectatae sunt, quinimo perfide foedus, coniugium, pacta et amicitiam, socetiatemve cum Deo violarunt. Isti itaque Izraelitae rupto foedere”. (Italics mine) 68 Bullinger, In Ieremiae prophetae sermonem [ch. 1–​6], fol. 76r (Sermon 11–​Jer. 3:11–​18): “Christus est arca, ipse templum, ipse sacerdos et sacrificium. Arca erat symbolum foederis Dei et praesentiae atque inhitationis eius in populo. Christus incarnatus et sedens in carne ad dexteram Patris, demisso in corda nostra spirituo suo, arca nostra est, foederisque aeterni robur et conciliatio.” (Italics mine)

Consolidation, 1551–1575  217 to circumcise oneself (Jer. 4:4–​9) is understood as related to the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 17 and, further, to baptism and sanctification.69 Within the section on Jeremiah 7–​13, a special covenantal focus is placed on the first verses of ­chapter 11, concerning Israel’s covenant breaking (Sermons 43–​45). Bullinger interpreted the “verba foederis” as the words of the law that required Israel’s obedience.70 The promise of the land was conditioned by these words of the covenant. Bullinger referred in this respect to Genesis 17.71 Israel’s disobedience through idolatry (violation of the first commandment) is a rebellion against God’s covenant, arousing God’s wrath.72 This apparent conditionality of the covenant is not abrogated by the new testament, as Christians are also required to be obedient to the first commandment. They do so in worshiping the only God in his Son Jesus Christ, the embodiment of his “omnisufficientia” (Gen. 17:1). They will otherwise incur God’s wrath as Israel did.73 Finally, in his 50th sermon, on Jeremiah 13:11, the Reformer interpreted the girdle around man’s hips as an image for the way God has bound himself to his people by way of the covenant. Bullinger cites several metaphors, related, for example, to marriage and parenthood, as further examples of covenantal imagery.74 In the third section, which covers Jeremiah 14–​29, the covenant is prominently mentioned in Sermon 63, on Jeremiah 17:1–​8. Referring to the last two verses (7–​8), about the prosperous state of the one who puts his faith in 69 Bullinger, In Ieremiae prophetae sermonem [ch. 1–​6], fol. 87r–​88r (Sermon 14 –​Jer 4:4–​9). 70 Bullinger, Sermones Ieremiae prophetae [ch. 7–​13], fol. 104v (Sermon 43–​Jer. 11:1–​8): “Lex enim Dei foedus et pactum et verbum Dei ac foederis nuncupatur.” 71 Bullinger, Sermones Ieremiae prophetae [ch. 7–​13], fol. 106r (Sermon 43–​Jer. 11:1–​8): “His coniungit multiplex bonum promissionemque variam in lege vel foedere copiosissime alioqui expositam. Si, inquit, ambulaveritis in viis meis, si meum verbum et audieritis et feceritis, principio: Eritis populus meus, adeoque filii dilecti et haeredes. Quo nihil potest dici maius. Deinde ego ero Deus vester, nimirum Pater, Dominus, defensor, et omnisufficientia, adimplens omnia in omnibus. Ita enim in foedere inito cum Abraham quoque promisit Genesis 17 et alias saepissime.” 72 Bullinger, Sermones Ieremiae prophetae [ch. 7–​13], 109v (Sermon 44–​Jer. 11:9–​14). 73 Bullinger, Sermones Ieremiae prophetae [ch. 7–​ 13], fol. 116v (Sermon 45–​ Jer. 11:15–​ 17): “Adoremus ergo et colamus unicum et aeternum Deum in Filio eius Iesu Christo, qui unus omnia habet, omnisufficientia et fons est omnium bonorum et inexhaustus et largissimus.” 74 Bullinger, Sermones Ieremiae prophetae [ch. 7–​13], fol. 143v–​144r. (Sermon 50–​Jer. 13:1–​ 11): “His et aliud adiungit quod visionem explicet: sicut cingulum lumbis arcte constringitur, ita arctissimo foedere coniunxi mihi populum istum. Varie alioqui adumbratur coniunctio Dei et hominum in Scripturis, ut imagine Patris et liberorum, regis et subditorum, pastoris et gregis ovium, sponsi et sponsae vel coniugii, patrisfamilias et familiae, et in praesentiarum cinguli et lumborum. Sicut enim cingulum lumbis viri adhaerescit, ita ecclesia connexa est Deo opt[imo] maximo. De hac coniunctione alias dicta sunt plurima. Iam etiam finis, usus et fructus huius coniunctionis exprimitur a Deo verbis Ieremiae. Unde discemus ineffabilem Dei erga nos amorem vel gratiam, et salutis nostrae certitudinem, ex qua infallibilem et maximam spem concipiemus. Principio vocati sumus fideles omnes, ut simus singularis, peculiaris et selectissimus Dei populus.” In the margin: “Ad quid simus Deo confoederati.”

218  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development the Lord, Bullinger offered an excursus on the term religio. As I noted earlier, Bullinger associated religio with a highly covenantal semantics. Religion is nothing other than the coniunctio between man and God by way of a foedus in Christ, the mediator by the Holy Spirit through faith. The benefits of this covenant in Christ are justification, sanctification, and glorification.75 The historical-​legal and organic-​mystical aspects of the covenant are intrinsic to a full understanding of the one covenant of grace. In the last section Bullinger addressed the covenant above all in relation to Jeremiah 31:31–​34 (Sermon 104) and Jeremiah 31:35–​40 (Sermon 105). Bullinger wrote of the differences between the old testament and the new testament, or the abrogation of the law in the new dispensation, in light of Hebrews 8. In an approach reminiscent of Aristotelian categories, the Reformer differentiated between the substantialia and the accidentalia of the one covenant of grace, the latter being equated with the ceremonies abrogated in Christ. However, he spoke also of the coercive and wrath-​effecting nature of the moral law (as testified by Israel at the time of Jeremiah) without the regenerative, faith-​giving, and justifying Spirit, which brings spontaneous obedience. While this Spirit was also given to the fathers in the old testament economy, God extended the new testament dispensation to the end of the earth. The distinctiveness is more quantitative (see the comparative adjectives) than qualitative.76 There is also a covenantal allusion in Sermon 99, which is about the words of restoration in Jeremiah 30:21–​24, a restoration that Bullinger understood as fulfilled by the covenant in Christ.77

75 Bullinger, in Ieremiae capita XVI [ch. 14–​29], fol. 54v–​55r (Sermon 63–​Jer. 17:1–​8): “Religio enim a religando dicta, coniungit aut religat nos cum Deo, et Deum nobiscum. Significatur haec res in Scripturis et per foederis similitudinem. Nam dicitur Deus nobiscum coalescere foedere, et nos ipsi obstringi. Germani quoque foedus vel pactum den pundt derivant a colligatione vom verbinden, ac religionem Germanice appellare potes ein verbindung colligationem. Porro gratia sua per mediatorem Filium suum coniungitur nobis Deus, nos vero Spiritu per fidem unimur et connectimur illi, ut ipse ex gratia cum omnibus bonis suis noster sit, nos vero per fidem simus filii et haeredes eius. Proinde fiduciam ponentes in solo Deo vivo, vero et aeterno per mediatorem Christum, felices et beati sunt, et felicitas atque beatitudo vera est, coniunctum vel unitum esse vera religione cum Deo. Qui enim per veram fidem in praesenti saeculo Deum possident, et cum Christo coniuncti sunt, non esuriunt, et bonis Christi fruuntur, in futuro saeculo glorificati plenissime absolvuntur, et sempiterna fruuntur gloria.” Bullinger, in Ieremiae capita XVI [ch. 14–​29], fol. 59r “Coniungit enim nos cum Deo, in quo omne bonum possidemus, et per quem iustificamur, sanctificamur et servamur plenissime.” 76 Bullinger, In sermones Ieremiae Prophetae [ch. 30–​52], fol. 27v–​35v (Sermon 104–​105–​Jer. 31: 31–​40). 77 Bullinger, In sermones Ieremiae Prophetae, 11r (Sermon 99–​Jer. 30:21–​24): “Iam etiam quid ex Christo fideles habeant ostenditur, licet verbis paucissimis petitis ex foedere Dei, ac saepe in scriptura repetitis. Per Christum ergo habemus, ut Deus ille summus opt[imus] max[imus] sit Pater noster, nos autem populus et filii eius.”

Consolidation, 1551–1575  219 Bullinger’s sermon series on Daniel formed the next commentary, published in 1565. Here there are few references to the terminology associated with “covenant.” We should note, however, that for Bullinger true worship includes physical martyrdom “pro testamento Dei”78 (Sermon 17, Dan. 3:28), a probable allusion to the etymological proximity between testimony and testament. Also important is the longer excursus79 on “the covenant or testament” in Sermon 50, on Daniel 9:26–​27, which again shows the breadth and richness of Bullinger’s covenantal language. His wording includes terms such as religio, unio, confoederatio or ordinatio, and testamentum. Intertextual references are found in Hebrews 8–​10 and Jeremiah 31. The Supper is interpreted as coena mysticam and as the “everlasting testimony 78 Bullinger, Daniel, fol. 34r–​v. 79 Bullinger, Daniel, fol. 108v: “Caeterum berith [marg.: De foedere vel testamento.], quod dicitur testamentum, foedus, pactum, est actus vel conventus, quo duo vel plures, (qui mutuum sibi aliquid promittunt, vel in re aliqua conveniunt) verbis disertis mutuum declarant, qua in re conveniant, quo denique promissa sancte confirmant atque fanciunt. Est ergo berith unio ein vereinigung und ein Ee. Hinc maiores nostri Helvetii appellitant Vetus et Novum Testamentum, die alt und nüw ee. Nam ehe est unio et arctissima coniunctio. Est berith etiam confoederatio, ein verbindung und pundt, cum duo vel plures certis se obstringunt vel religant conditionibus. Unde fortassis religio [margin: Religio.] dicitur christiana, qua Christus nobis et nos Christo religati obstrictique sumus. Vult Christus noster esse redemptor, et vivere in nobis, ut nos vivamus in ipso. In eo versatur christiana religio. Berith item est pacificatio, cum ab inimicitia et bello vel armis disceditur, et in pacem transitur. Significat quoque berith ordinationem et testamentum, voluntatem inquam cuiusque extremam, mentisque contestationem. Deus autem ab initio rerum iniit fecitque cum humano genere berith, foedus, unionem, conventionem, confoederationemque pacificationem quoque et testamentum, quo se nobis et nos ipsi arctissime obstrinxit, ac certis nobiscum conditionibus convenit, quas beatis patribus exposuit, ut Adamo, Noe, Abrahamo, Mosique, subinde sese magis magisque declarans et foedus seu testamentum hoc illustrans atque renovans. Ac habet foedus quod percussit et solenniter cum patribus illis sanctis iniit, certas, quod saepe repeto, conditiones, copiose tandem et scripto publico expositas a Mose, praecipue autem in decalogo. Simul vero praedixerunt prophetae, Deum hoc scilicet testamentum vetus abrogaturum, et conditurum novem per Messiam, sicut videre licet apud Ieremiam in cap. 31. Huius [marg.: Christus novi testamenti mediator] autem foederis vel testamenti novi meminit in praesentia archangelus Domini, manifestissime exponens Deum vel Messiam ad ultimam istam septimanam, sub finem utique eius, ut superius ostendimus, confirmaturum foedus certe novum. Etenim Christus Dominus, huius testamenti vel foederis, ut Paulus ad Galat. et Hebr. ait, mediator est. Proinde a septuaginta illis septimanis sanguinem fundendo in cruce (nam absque sanguinis effusione non fit remissio) testamentum sancivit atque confirmavit quod in medio ultimae septimanae preadicando condidit, denique moriendo (nam testamentum non nisi ratum est in mortuis) nos Deo reconciliavit, omnibusque fidelibus plenariam peccatorum remissionem acquisivit et contulit. Quae quidem plenaria peccatorum remissio et reconciliatio cum Deo summa est testamenti novi, Ieremia attestante atque dicente ‘Et hoc est testamentum, quod placatus ergo super iniustiis eorum, et peccatorum iniquitatumque eorum non recordabor amplius.’ [cf. Jer. 31:31–​ 34]. Exponuntur haec fusius ab apostolo Hebr. 8., 9. et 10. cap. Ergo illa nocte qua se Dominus in manus hostium mortemque tradebat, in coena sua ultima, inter discipulos suos duodecim poculum consecrans, novum testamentum nuncupat, in sanguine suo vel per sanguinem suum utique dedicatum vel confirmatum. Voluit enim coenam hanc mysticam sempiternum esse testimonium sanciti confirmatique foederis, quod omnes, quotquot in Christum credunt, ipsi coniunguntur, et gratias agunt, plenariam sint consequti peccatorum remissionem, in eius sanguine et morte, ac haeredes facti vitae aeternae.” On the differences between the testaments, that is the abrogation of the law, see further Bullinger, Daniel, fol. 109r–​v.

220  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development of the testament that was sanctified and confirmed” by Christ’s atonement. Through the use of these different terms and concepts, we see clearly that the organic-​mystical and historical-​legal elements are not to be held separate but instead understood as complementary aspects of the one covenant of grace. Epitome temporum was published in the same volume as Bullinger’s “commentary” on Daniel. This work on biblical chronology in the tradition of Christian chronography80 is divided into two parts. The first part narratively traces creation, fall, and redemptive history, while the second part includes tables with annotations and is meant as an aid to Bullinger’s exposition of Daniel.81 The first part, which shares much with Der alte Glaube, is relevant to our study. It makes evident that God’s promise in Genesis 3:1582 runs as a unifying thread through the Bible. When Bullinger discusses God’s covenanting with Abraham, this unilateral promissio is remembered as a bilateral covenant that is a foedus or amicitia.83 Bullinger preached a second time through Isaiah on Sundays from 4 January 1562 to 14 July 1566. Bullinger’s covenantal references in this sermon series come mostly in relation to the “everlasting covenant,” which the book of Isaiah mentions in several places.84 This foedus sempiternum is directly related to the one covenant running through redemptive history, which finds fulfillment in Christ. Particularly significant is a statement by Bullinger in relation to Isaiah 33:15 on the conditionality of the covenant going back to Genesis 17:1. He explained that justice is a genuine condition of being united to God, but a condition fulfilled by Christ (pro nobis) and in Christ through faith. Then only through participation in Christ does one becomes a partaker of his benefits, that is, is justified and sanctified.85 There is no room for a synergistic 80 See Aurelio A. Garcia, The Theology of History and Apologetic Historiography in Heinrich Bullinger: Truth in History (San Francisco: Mellen Research University Press, 1992), 71–​115. 81 As expressed in the full title of the work: “Epitome temporum et rerum ab orbe condito, ad primum usque annum lothan regis Iudae; in qua praecipue attinguntur, quae pertinent ad sacras literas illustrandas, et ad veram antiquamque religionem et eius certitudinem, progressum item, et mutationem, cognoscendam. Una cum VI tabulis chronicis, a temporibus lothan usque ad excidium urbis Hierosolymorum deductis, potissimum pertinentibus ad expositionem Danielis Prophetae, authore Heinrycho Bullingero Tigurinae ecclesiae ministro.” (Italics mine) 82 Bullinger, Epitome temporum, fol. 4r. 83 Bullinger, Epitome temporum, 12v: “Equidem pepigit Deus ab initio foedus, amicitiamque iniit cum Adam et Noe caeterisque sanctis patribus quo se illis gratia sua, et ipsos sibi fide officiisque pietatis obstrinxit.” 84 Bullinger, Isaias, fol. 113v (Sermon 70–​Isa. 24:1–​12); Bullinger, Isaias, fol. 159r–​v (Sermon 97–​Isa. 33:13–​15); Bullinger, Isaias, fol. 277v (Sermon 156–​Isa. 55:1–​5); Bullinger, Isaias, fol. 282r (Sermon 158–​Isa. 56:1–​8); Bullinger, Isaias, fol. 319v (Sermon 177–​Isa. 61:8–​11). 85 See Bullinger, Isaias, fol. 159r–​ v (Sermon 97–​ Isa. 33:13–​ 15): “Nunc [marg.: Quinam coniungantur foedere cum Deo] ergo respondet ad istorum querelas, et ostendit non ita durum et incommodum esse Deum, cum quo societate nemo coniungi possit, imo per capita quaedam

Consolidation, 1551–1575  221 understanding of the covenantal conditions. The administration of the covenant is indeed bilateral or dipleuric, as the use of organic-​mystical terms testifies. But its monergistic origin in Christ is underscored by Bullinger.

Apodixis—​Exposition on the Orthodoxy and Catholicity of the Evangelical Churches (1552) As the title of this short book clearly attests, Bullinger acted as an apologist for the orthodoxy and catholicity of the evangelical church, which had been accused by Rome of heresy. A clear emphasis was laid on the relationship between Scripture and tradition that was at the heart of the ecclesiological controversy. The Council of Trent had addressed this question at its fourth session, in 1546, and had reaffirmed the magisterial primacy of the Roman Catholic Church over the orthodox interpretation of the Bible.86 Bullinger, by contrast, underscored the sensus catholicus of Holy Scripture and enumerated

enumerata exponit, qui nam cum Deo coniungantur foedere, ut in praesenti vita, ipse cum eis habitet, et illi cum ipso habitent vel societatem intimam retineant, et post hanc vitam nunquam in foedere icto, quo cum patre nostro Abrahamo Deus pepigit, uno capite et paucis verbis comprehendit atque prososuit, dicens: ‘Ambula coram me, et esto perfectus vel integer’ [Gen. 17:1], idipsum pluribus enumerat atque enarrat hic Isaias et in Psalmo 15 David, quem imitatus in praesenti videtur beatus Isaias, Davidis cognatus. “Primum [marg.: Ambulare in iustitiis] caput est: Ambulare in iustitiis. Ambulare autem, est vitam omnem instituere, ut iustitiis non destituare, sed ex iustitia et secundum iustitiam vitam tuam omnem componas. Iustitiis in plurativo numero significanter, dixit. Est [margin: De iustitia] enim iustitia fidei, de qua tot et tanta disserit apostolus in Epist[olam] ad Romanos et ad Galatas et ad Philip[penses] 3. Christus enim datus est nobis iustitia, qui videlicet morte sua et sanguine, profuso in cruce pro nobis, effecit ne imputentur nobis peccata nostra, sed sanguine Christi sint abluta atque expurgata, imputetur denique nobis iustitia Christi, quasi propria sit, sicuti et nostra esse dicitur. Sed fide interim in Christum, Christo participamus, et fit ut Christus noster sit una cum omnibus donis suis. Sicuti ipse in evangelio fuse et clare docuit Ioan[nes] cap. 6. se videlicet esse cibum vitae, hauririque vel edi vera in ipsum fide. Ex hac fidei iustitia quae prima et fundamentum et gratuita est, fluit iustitia bonorum operum. Qui enim iustus est, iustitiam, sicut Ioannes ait, facit. Fidei iustitia sola iustificat, operum iustitia fructus iustificandis fidei, cum iustificare dicitur, improprie dicitur. Christum enim evacuare et gratis vel frustra passum affirmare non possumus, ergo opera iustificant, dum iustificantis fidei testimonia sunt. Fieri enim non potest, ut fides iustificans per Christum sibi absque bonis operibus, sed subsequentibus his et subnascentibus ex fide, quae preacedit, Christo communicat et iustificat ante bona opera subsequentia. Iccirco in iustitiis ambulat quisquis vere in Christum credit et per Christum iustificatus est, per solam inquam fidem Deique gratiam. Et quoniam iam Dei gratia iustus est, iustitiam facit, omnibus se bonis exercens secundum verbum Dei operibus, quae in Scripturis recte dicuntur iustitiae. Est et politica magistratus sancti iustitia, quae suum cuique reddit, retribuit, defendit et punit. Omnium in hac sunt iustissimi, qui sunt fideles Christi servi. Ergo qui in iustitiis ambulant, in his manet Deus et ipsi in Deo, hoc est, perpetua cum Deo societate cohaerent. Et capita bonorum operum iustitiaeque per consequentia exponuntur copiosus.” (Italics mine) 86 See Dekrete der ökumenischen Konzilien: Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta, ed. Giuseppe Alberigo et al., vol. 3 (Paderborn, Zurich: Schöningh, 2002), 662–​665.

222  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development what he considered to be the main doctrinal principles, which come from Scripture itself.87 The first is the “sacrosanct” protoevangelical promissio of Genesis 3:15,88 which was interpreted Christologically. And then Bullinger adds, “Most holy in our churches is this one and eternal covenant of God that was made between God and Adam, that is, first in Paradise. [The covenant] has been, then, often renewed and explained with the holy fathers, that is, with Noah, and especially with Abraham, the Father of all believers, as the sacrament of circumcision was also added [to the covenant].”89 (Italics mine) A short exposition of Genesis 17 follows, which Bullinger interpreted in light of Galatians 3 (believers as Abraham’s children) and Colossians 2 (baptism as circumcision). The promise made to Adam is embedded in the “one and eternal covenant of God.” The redemptive-​historical covenant is viewed by Bullinger as the very first principle of a Catholic consensus on Christian doctrine. The two next most holy principles enumerated by Bullinger are the “tables of the covenant,” including the ten commandments, and then the Apostles’ Creed. In his presentation Bullinger followed the biblical and historical-​redemptive scheme (fall –​covenant –​law –​gospel). When he remarked on the sacraments (already alluded to in relation to the Abrahamic covenant), he spoke of the corpus and societas of the church, whose members are connected to Christ by the Spirit. In this respect, he spoke also of coniunctio and of the communio of the saints.90

De gratia dei iustificante—​On God’s Justifying Grace (1554) Bullinger’s text De gratia dei iustificante (1554) is subdivided into four books, each of which treats a part of the title: “[1]‌Of God’s grace, which justifies us for Christ’s sake [2] by faith alone [3] apart from good works,

87 Bullinger, apodixis, 26–​27: “Etenim sensum illum ecclesiae catholicum adeoque ipsa prima religionis et doctrinae orthodoxae et catholicae principia religiosissime custodit evangelica ecclesia.” 88 Bullinger, apodixis, 27: “Sacrosancta est ecclesiae nostrae prima illa in paradyso, ex ipsius aeterni et summi Dei ore pronunciata promissio: ‘Ponam’.” (Italics mine) 89 Bullinger, apodixis, 28: “Sacrosanctum est ecclesiis nostris foedus illud Dei unicum et aeternum inter Deum et Adamum ictum, primum quidem in paradyso, deinde saepius renouatum et illustratum cum beatis patribus, ut cum Noe, et singulariter cum Abrahamo patre credentium, sacramento quoque circumcisionis adiecto.” (Italics mine); see also Bullinger, apodixis, 87: “Sacrosanctum est eidem unicum illud et aeternum cum primis illis parentibus nostris in exordio mundi initum foedus”. 90 Bullinger, apodixis, 68–​70.

Consolidation, 1551–1575  223 [4] by a faith, however, which is abundant in good works.”91 Interestingly, it is not so much in the work itself that we find the most prominent references to the covenant but in the preceding letters to the Danish king and to the reader. Indeed, the text alone might leave the impression that Bullinger considered covenant theology to be of little relevance for the decisive Reformation tenet of justification sola gratia. But the introductory letters attest the opposite. This construction should warn us more generally to be wary of arguments a silentio, based on the non-​presence of explicit references to the covenant. In summarizing the Christian faith, Bullinger wrote in the dedicatory letter, “We are most certain of the grace of God, our Father, who, as you see, covenanted us to himself, just as if he imprinted his seals on our bodies, which I mentioned as the sacraments of baptism and of the mystical meal. For He gave the Son and through Him poured out his Spirit on us. He most intimately bound us to himself, to bring us into the communion of one body.”92 (Italics mine) The Father’s covenant sealed by the sacraments is realized in the communio in Christ by the Spirit. Even this organic-​mystical and bilateral aspect of the covenant is, significantly, a manifestation of God’s grace. The historical-​legal aspect of the covenant is only in the background in the dedication, but it comes to the fore in the letter to the reader. In a longer statement at the beginning of the letter Bullinger declared that the promissio of Genesis 3:15, reiterated in Genesis 12 and later formally or sacramentally covenanted with Abraham (Gen. 15 and 17), contains “the foundations and the sum of our unpolluted religion.”93 It is the promise of Christ and of the benefit of justification to which Abraham’s faith was directed, so ran 91 “[1]‌De gratia Dei iustificante nos propter Christum, [2] per solam fidem, [3] absque operibus bonis, [4] fide interim exuberante in opera bona.” 92 Bullinger, De gratia Dei iustificante, fol. Bb1v: “De gratia Dei Patris nostri sumus certissimi, quippe qui se nobis confoederavit et sigilla sua, ipsa inquam sacramenta baptismi et cibi mystici, in corpora nostra velut impressit, Filium denique dedit per quem in nos Spiritum suum effudit, ac nos sibi constrinxit arctissime, adeoque et in unius corporis communionem consociavit.” (Italics mine) 93 Bullinger, De gratia Dei iustificante, fol., Dd3r–​v : “Ab hac promissione [Gen. 12] prima, quae fundamenta et summam religionis nostrae incontaminatae continet, plures ad hoc usque Dei et Abrahae colloquium lapsi sunt anni, ac senectus sterilis usqueadeo consectabatur et premebat Abrahamum, ut in 15. cap. apud Dominum non frustra videatur de iugi sua queri orbitate. Ac quoniam ne tunc quidem sobolem Abrahae dare, aut Christum mundo, nisi post multa saecula, exhibere placebat Domino, ne mora vel dilatione rerum exoptatissimarum frangeretur vel Abrahe vel posteratis eius animus, sed confirmatus de veritate promissionis indubitanter crederet se accepturum promissa a Deo, varie promissionem approbavit, confirmavit seu ratificavit, et primum quidem legitima pactione, apposita ceremonia publica, sicut in praesenti Gen. 15. describitur, deinde vero foedere percusso interpositoque circumcisionis arctissimo sacramento, quod Gen. 17. legitur, postremo autem in cap. 22. solenniter praestito iuramento, quod et Paulus citavit in 6. cap. ad Hebraeo.” (Italics mine)

224  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development Bullinger’s basic argument. We note here how the concept of justification is so closely tied to the unfolding of the unilateral promise of the covenant through redemptive history and is part of one same historical and legal aspect of the covenant. In the work De gratia dei iustificante, there is, as we have noted, little terminological reference to the covenant. We find however the “covenant and agreement of the everlasting God,” to which reference is made in book 1. Bullinger considered denial of the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement to be a violation of the covenant.94 In book 2, he discussed justification by faith, writing that “true faith unites us to Christ, who is our life and justice. . . . Therefore, we shall in our treatment of justification unite and not disunite Christ or Christ’s benefit to faith in Christ.”95 Faith in itself does not justify. It is in coniunctio with Christ through faith that one is justified. The transfer of Christ’s benefit is relational or covenantal, not ontological. The mystical and the legal or redemptive-​historical aspects of the covenant are not played off against each other; instead they are coherently integrated.

Der wiedertäufer Ursprung—​The Origin of the Anabaptists (1560) Bullinger’s second, and final, work on the Anabaptists and their teachings is subdivided into six books. Books I and II are concerned with the history of Anabaptism; books III and IV deal with general Anabaptist teachings (already summarized in 25 articles in book I, c­ hapter 8)96 and their refutation; book V defends a Reformed view of the magistracy, and book VI concerns the sacraments (especially baptism).97 There are essentially two places where prominent reference is made to the covenant. The first of these is in book IV, where Bullinger refuted the 13th article,98 which

94 Bullinger, De gratia Dei iustificante, fol. 20r–​v : “Apud Ieremiam in 31. cap. pangit Deus foedus cum ecclesia; eius foederis summa haec est ‘Placatus ero super iniustitiis erorum et peccatis eorum, et iniquitatum illorum non recordabor amplius.’ Quomodo autem non recordaretur peccatorum, si deposceret poenam? Est autem sacrilegium nephandum, foedus aut pactum Dei aeterni corrumpere.” 95 Bullinger, De gratia Dei iustificante, fol. 44r–​v : “Vel quia fides vera nos coniungit Christo, qui est vita et iustitia nostra. . . . Coniungere ergo non disiungere oportet in hoc nostro iustificationis negotio Christum vel Christi virtutem et fidem in Christum.” 96 See Bullinger, Der Widertoeufferen ursprung, fol. 17v–​19r.76r. 97 See Bullinger, Der Widertoeufferen ursprung, fol. bb1r–​v. 98 Bullinger, Der Widertoeufferen ursprung, fol. 126v–​140v.

Consolidation, 1551–1575  225 contained the Anabaptist accusation that “the [evangelical] preachers mix the Old Testament and the New Testament with each other.”99 In response he noted that whereas the Anabaptists opposed the carnal covenant (Old Testament) and the spiritual covenant (New Testament), there was in fact covenantal continuity across both testaments, in the one same Spirit. There is “one people of God, in one church and one communion, in one covenant and testament,” which therefore share in “the highest and most inner union.”100 The second place with reference to the covenant is found in book VI, where Bullinger defended his view on baptism.101 Before making the case for infant baptism, he first defined baptism more generally, in the covenantal terms we are now accustomed to, as “sign of the new covenant,” through which God “seals in us his grace” and we “are gathered into the communion [einigkeit] of the body of Christ, that is, we are made, and we are indeed, one body with Christ and all of his believers under Christ the head.”102 This statement is to be read through the lens of covenantal continuity expressed above, as both passages show that covenantal continuity results in the einigkeit or communion between believers (together with their children) and Christ, who together form the one people of God. The emphasis is on the organic-​mystical aspect of the covenant. Finally, there is one small reference to the covenant in book III that is worth noting. In referring to catechetic work in the Zurich church, Bullinger mentioned its main elements as the teachings on “God’s being, his covenant and law, the right and true Christian faith, as well as the invocation and the sacraments”.103 As we shall see below, this description is in line with Bullinger’s Catechesis, where the covenant is treated immediately after the doctrine of God, a very prominent place indeed.

99 Bullinger, Der Widertoeufferen ursprung, fol. 126v: “Die predicanten vermischlend Alt und Nüw Testament under einanderen.” In book IV (126v), this article and the next (fol. 140v) are enumerated as the 12th. In book I (fol. 18v) however, the former is the 13th. This mistake goes probably back to the fact that in his exposition in book IV, Bullinger inverted the articles. 100 Bullinger, Der Widertoeufferen ursprung, fol. 129v: “dass die alten mit uns in einer kirchen und gmeinsamen, in einem pundt und testament syend, und einerley heil mit uns und wir mit inen erlangind, und desshalben einanderen nit wenig, sonder vil anghoerind, und die hoechsten und inneristen einigkeit und gmeinsamme mit einandren habind.” (Italics mine) 101 Bullinger, Der Widertoeufferen ursprung, fol. 202v–​225v. 102 Bullinger, Der Widertoeufferen ursprung, fol. 205r. 103 Bullinger, Der Widertoeufferen ursprung, 79r: “was Gott sye, was sin pundt und gsatzt, was der raecht war christenlich gloub, ouch das baetten und sacrament syend”. (Italics mine)

226  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development

Summa—​The Sum of Christian Religion (1556) What about the covenant in this first comprehensive work after the Decades? Baker has argued convincingly for the prominent place given to this locus in the Summa.104 For Dowey too, Bullinger was close here (and in the Catechesis) to making “his covenant teaching the dominant key and organising principle.”105 These evaluations are telling because none of the 10 articles around which the Summa is built mentions the covenant expressis verbis in its title. In the overall structure of the work, the covenant appears only in the heading of the eighth chapter of the second article: “That God has united the human race with himself for steady service.”106 (Italics mine) However, a simple listing of loci does not reveal how they are interrelated, as Dowey seemed ready to admit in this instance, having assumed the opposite for the Decades. The 10 articles and how the 101 chapters are divided across them are listed here:

1. Of the Holy Biblical Scripture of the Old and the New Testament. [10 chapters] 2. Of God and His Glorious Works, of True and Right Worship also. [10 chapters] 3. Of Sin and Punishment of Sin. [5 chapters] 4. Of the Law of God. [15 chapters] 5. Of the Grace of God Revealed to the World through Christ, our Lord, and of Justification. [10 chapters] 6. Of the Faith and the Preaching of the Holy Gospel and Repentance. [20 chapters] 7. Of the Invocation and Prayer of Believers. [10 chapters] 8. Of the Holy Sacraments of Christ, and of His Holy Christian Church. [10 chapters] 9. Of the Good Works of Believers [6 chapters] 10. Of the Blessed Death of Man, and of the End of All Things. [5 chapters]107

104 Baker, “Retrospect,” 363–​364. 105 Dowey, “Heinrich as Theologian,” 55. 106 Bullinger, Summa, fol. 30v: “Das Gott das menschlich geschlaecht im verbunden habe zum heil und staetem dienst. Cap. VIII.” (Italics mine) 107 1. Von der Heiligen Biblischen Geschrifft Alts und Nüws Testaments. [10 chs.]; 2. Von Gott und sinen herrlichen wercken, ouch von warem und raechtem gottsdienst. [10 chs.]; 3. Von der sünd unnd straaff der Sünd. [5 chs.]; 4. Von dem gsatzt Gottes. [15 chs.]; 5. Von der gnad Gottes der waelt durch Christum unsern Herren bewisen unnd von der graechtmachung. [10 chs.]; 6. Von dem glouben und der predig des heiligen evangelii und der buoss. [20 chs.]; 7. Von dem anrueffen

Consolidation, 1551–1575  227 I will sketch out the prominence of the covenant, noting the distinction between the organic-​mystical and the historical-​legal aspects of the covenant, which is our focus. In the very first article, Bullinger describes Scripture as the “book of the testament or covenant” and as such God’s constitution for his people.108 It was another way of saying that God’s Word is per se covenantal. As also in the foreword to Münster’s Latin Bible, the Reformer explained that the common appellation for Scripture as “Old and New Testament” went back to God’s covenant, which Bullinger defined as follows: “Testament” signifies a legacy or a disposition that dying people are used to make according to their will and favor. Thus, they [dispose] of the property they are leaving, that is, they [decide] how and who shall receive it. “Testament” also signifies an arrangement, a convention, an accord, an agreement or covenant [pündtnuss]. Thus, God has made a legacy to his people or to anyone, whom He has accepted as his heirs, concerning the gifts and celestial gifts, which He bestows on believers for the sake of the death of his Son. With the same people [God] made a convention, an arrangement or a covenant [pündtnuss], etc.109

Interestingly, this definition does not exclude one meaning in favor of another but instead integrates the unilateral historical-​legal aspect of the testament with the bilateral aspect of the covenant. As we have noted,

und gebaett der gloeubigen. [10 chs.]; 8. Von den heiligen sacramenten Christi und siner heiligen christenlichen kilchen. [10 chs.]; 9. Von den guoten wercken der gloeubigen. [6 chs.]; 10. Von dem saeligen tod des menschen und end aller dingen. [5 chs.]. 108 See Bullinger, Summa, fol. 2r: “Wie nun sind keiserliche und künigkliche buecher, lands, fryheiten, gsatzt und pundtsbuecher, also hat unser Herr unnd Gott den menschen gaeben sine buecher, die man gmeinlich nennt die Heilige Bibel”; Bullinger, Summa, fol. 4r: “Aber erzelte buecher Nüws und Alts Testaments sind die raechten heiligen biblischen (die sunst ouch Canonisch heissend) testaments-​und pundsbuecher. Ja, die Bibel ist das raecht warhafft unfaelbar Landt-​oder kilchen-​und Gotts buoch.”; Bullinger, Summa, fol. 4r–​v : “Diewyl dann die Heilig Biblisch Geschrifft das raecht testaments-​oder pundtsbuoch, ja der raechten oder des gsatztes Gottes buoch ist”. (Italics mine) 109 Bullinger, Summa, fol. 2v: “Testament aber heißt ein gemaecht oder verschaffung, wie es die sterbenden machend ires willens und gefallens halben. Namlich, was mit irem verlaßnen guot, nach irem abgang beschaehen, wie unnd waem es werden soelle. Testament heißt ouch ein vereinigung, verkomnuß, verstand, pact und pündtnuß. Nun aber hat Gott ein gmaecht sinem volck, oder denen, die er zuo sinen erben angenommen hat, gethon siner gaaben vnd himmelischen guetern halben, welche umb des todts willen sines Suns an die gloeubigen fallend. Mit den selben menschen hat er ein verkomnuß, vereinigung und pündtnuß gemacht, etc.”

228  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development Bullinger specifically addressed the covenant in his second article on God (­chapter 8): [This chapter] is about the testimony of Holy Scripture that God has entered, made and put in force a covenant [pündtnuss] with the human race. He entered this covenant with Adam, extended it to Noah, explained and renewed it with Abraham, put it in written form through Moses and confirmed through Jesus Christ. The articles of this covenant [pundt] or testament are as follows. God wants to be our God, give us all that we need, indeed make us perfect in order to communicate to us all celestial treasures through Jesus Christ his Son. This He wants to do to us. Now follows what He wants from us. We shall have Him alone as God, have no other god beside Him, trust Him, worship Him, pray to Him and adore Him, be faithful and ally ourselves to Him and walk lifelong in all of His commandments.110

In the corresponding margin, Bullinger referred to Genesis 17. Significantly, he continued to use pundt and testament as a pair. One could speak again of a testamental covenant. The legal aspect, that is the testamental and unilateral inheritance of the “celestial treasures,” is administered in a bilateral covenant. Thus, only through faith are humans “united and joined” with God and become his “confederates” and “friends,” that is, true “religious.”111 Faith is the “means”112 and a “free gift of God,”113 not a condition in the strict contractual sense for acquiring Christ and his benefits and becoming on this basis (by the legal way of a unilateral testament) intimately united to God. The organic and

110 Bullinger, Summa, fol. 31r: “Hiehar dienet das die Heilig Gschrifft allenthalben züget, Gott habe ein pündtnuß mit dem menschlichen gschlaecht angenommen, gemacht und ufgericht. Soelichen pundt hat er angefaengt mit Adamen, erstreckt mit Noe, erlüteret mit Abrahamen, ernüweret und in gschrifft gefasset durch Mosen, beschlossen durch Jesum Christum. Dises pundts oder testaments artickel sind: Gott wil unser Gott syn, uns alle gnuege gaeben, ja durch Christum sinen Sun wil er uns vervolkomnen und alle himmlische schaetz mitteilen. Das wil er uns thuon; volgt yetz was er von uns haben woelle. Dargaegen soellend wir uns des Gotts allein halten, keinen andern gott naeben im haben, im allein vertruwen, in anbaeetten, anrueffen und vereeren, im trüw und glouben halten, unnd in sinen gebotten all unser laebenlang wandlen.” 111 Bullinger, Summa, fol. 31v. See further Bullinger, Summa, fol. 32v: “Also volgt das die uralten Gottes diener unnd verpündete Gottes fründ nienerdurch onet allein durch den glouben in Christum saelig syend worden”. 112 See Bullinger, Summa, fol. 81v–​82r: “Das aber der gloub das mittel sye dardurch wir der gnaden Gottes teilhafft, das ist das wir durch den tod Christi erloeßt, Gott vereiniget und von sunden gereiniget werdind, darzuo die geraechtigkeit Christi und das ewig laeben unser, als kindern und erben Gottes, eigen werde.” (Italics mine) 113 Bullinger, Summa, fol. 87r: “Diser Gloub ist nit von unnd uß dem menschen, sunder ein frye gab Gottes”. (Italics mine)

Consolidation, 1551–1575  229 mystical of the covenant are clearly emphasized here within the bilaterality of the covenant. The legal aspect tends to be associated with testament. In this chapter, the sacraments are referred to as “seals of the truth” (sigel der wahrheit), which are evidently seals of the covenant. The use of “seals” points also to the ancient custom of authenticating a legal document. Scripture functions as written testimony of the covenant, that is as a “document of the legacy or covenant.”114 This reference anticipates Bullinger’s exposition of the sacraments in the eighth article, where he restated more fully the analogy of human covenanting customs and applied it to the sacraments: There is the human custom not only to express promises, contracts, covenants [pündtnuss], legacies [gmaechte] or testaments orally, but have them written in a document, which is subsequently sealed so as to testify to a sure record of the truth to next generations. In an analogous manner the Lord gave his promises orally, that is, he made an everlasting covenant [pundt] and an everlasting testament or legacy [gemaecht] and put it in force. However, he added the sacraments instead of documents and seals as a testimony of the truth of our salvation, etc.115

Accordingly, baptism is defined as “a sign of the covenant [pundt] and of the children of God, the seal of regeneration and purification indeed.”116 Through this covenant with God, Bullinger specified, we become “one body with him and all believers.”117 Additionally, we read in the margin, “Believers are covenanted with all Christians.” The equating of covenant and body emphasizes the organic-​mystical aspect of the pundt. Similarly, through the Eucharist as sign and seal of the testament, believers are “incorporated.”118 As we noted for the Decades, the inseparability of the two lines of thought, the organic-​mystical and the historical-​legal, finds its ultimate expression in the church through the celebration of the sacraments. 114 Bullinger, Summa, fol. 31v. 115 Bullinger, Summa, fol. 142v: “Unnd als ein bruch by den menschen ist, daß sy ire zuosagungen, vertraeg, pündtnussen, gmaechte oder testamenta, nit nun mit worten ußspraechend, sunder ouch in brieff verfassen und schryben lassend, die sy dann wyter ouch besiglend, uff das soeliche brieff und sigel, ouch by den nachkommenden zügnuß, und gwüssen bericht der warheit gaebind, also hat unser Herr mundtlich siner kilchen sine zuosagungen gethon, einen ewigen pundt unnd ein ewig testament oder gemaecht gemacht und ufgericht, darzuo er yetzund sine sacramenta, an statt der brieffen unnd siglen thuot zur zügnuß der warheit unsers heils, etc.” 116 Bullinger, Summa, fol. 146r: “zeichen des pundts und der kindern Gottes, ja das sigel der widergeburt und reinigung.” 117 Bullinger, Summa, fol. 146v. 118 Bullinger, Summa, fol. 156r.

230  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development

Catechesis—​Catechism for Adults (1559) Much as in the Summa, in the Catechesis of 1559 Bullinger provided a summary of the main articles or loci of the Christian faith. However, his target audience was different. As he stated in the dedicatory letter, he proposed the Catechesis be used as teaching material for the upper classes of the schola Tigurina. The Catechesis, composed in Latin, falls within the literary genre of catechisms. Its question-​answer pattern provides a coherent and pedagogical transition from one article to the next. The basic catechetical elements (Decalogue, Creed, Lord’s Prayer, sacraments) are distributed across seven articles. Bullinger basically followed the ordering also found in Jud’s catechism, but with Jud’s first article, “God and the Covenant with Us,” divided into four articles, as shown in table 5.1. Jud’s emphatic titling of his first article would prove influential for Bullinger’s own catechism. His purpose was not to correct or replace the existing catechism but to contribute a more detailed version in Latin for

Table 5.1  Article Ordering in Bullinger’s and Jud’s Catechisms Bullinger, Catechesis pro adultioribus (1559)

Jud, Der kürtzer catechismus (1537)

1. Of the Foundations of Christian Religion: Holy Scripture. 2. Of the True, Living and Eternal God. 3. Of the Covenant of God, which God Made with Man, and of the True Worship of God. 4. Of the Law of God, and the Ten Commandments of the Lord. 5. Of the Christian Faith, and the Apostles’ Creed. 6. Of the Invocation of God, and the Lord’s Prayer. 7. Of the Sacraments of the Church of Christ.*

1. The First Article: Of God and of the Covenant of God with us.

2. The Second Article: Of the Faith. 3. The Third Article: Of the Prayer of the Children of God. 4. Of the Holy Sacraments.**

*De principiis religionis christianae, Scriptura Sancta. 2. De Deo vero, vivo et aeterno. 3. De foedere Dei, Quod pepigit Deus cum hominibus, et de vero Dei cultu. 4. De lege Dei, et decalogo mandatorum Domini. 5. De fide christiana, et symbolo apostolico. 6. De invocatione Dei, et oratione dominica. 7. De sacramentis ecclesiae Christi. **Der erst artickel von Gott und von dem pundt Gottes mit uns. 2. Der ander artickel von dem glouben. 3. Der dritt artickel vom gebaett der kinderen Gottes. 4. Von den heiligen sacramenten.

Consolidation, 1551–1575  231 older or more advanced students. The Catechesis is openly covenantal in its theology. The covenant is treated prominently in the Catechesis as a separate locus, following the loci on Scripture and God. However, at the beginning of the first article Bullinger had already pointed out that the term testamentum given to the twofold canon (Old and New Testaments) went back to the “testament or covenant of God.”119 He started the third article by asking, “What is the special means God used to declare his benevolence towards man?” His answer was God’s (spiritual) promissio as expressed in Genesis 3:15, reiterated in Genesis 22:18 and in Jeremiah 31 as the (unilateral) testamentum of the forgiveness of sin.120 The next question asks how Scripture explains this “benevolence and friendship,” and Bullinger answered, “By the likeness of a pact or covenant.”121 In other words, the promise becomes a covenant in its administration, an interpretation we have already observed elsewhere. Having briefly outlined the redemptive-​historical covenant from Adam to Abraham, Bullinger then explained the conditions of the covenant. It is by faith (which works through obedience to the law122) that we receive the promise as God’s “confederates.”123 Bullinger identified those faithful to the covenant as “religious or covenanted, friends or fellows of God.”124 This enumeration of synonyms exhibits an organic-​mystical emphasis for the bilateral covenant as the realization of the unilateral promise. This character is confirmed by the way he handled the sacraments in the last article. While the Holy Spirit seals (obsignare) the covenant inwardly through faith,125 the sacraments do

119 Bullinger, Catechesis, fol. 2r–​v : “I. Quare autem libri, et Testamentum, et libri Veteris et Novi Testamenti nuncupantur? R. Testamentum ideo nuncupantur, quoniam scripti sunt de testamento vel foedere Dei, sed et testificantur nobis quae sit voluntas illa Dei bona et sancta erga nos.” 120 Bullinger, Catechesis, fol. 6r–​ v : “Qua potissimum re declaravit suam erga homines benevolentiam Deus? R. Promissione”. See also the margin: “Promissio Dei.” 121 Bullinger, Catechesis, fol. 6v: “I. Quomodo autem explicat nobis alias hoc salutare benevolentiae amicitiaeque negotium Scriptura Sancta? R. Per similitudinem pacti vel foederis.” (Italics mine) 122 For Bullinger the law is a different way to express the covenant, see Bullinger, Catechesis, fol. 8v–​9r: “An non negotium hoc religionis in Scriptura ratione quoque alia nobis exponitur, quam sub figura foederis? R. Exponitur sane, et quidem per legem, qua et copiosius explicantur capita foederis modo perstricti obiter, et illustratur vera religio, et verus Dei cultus quam elegantissime.” 123 Bullinger, Catechesis, fol. 7v: “I. Quid vicissim requirit a nobis Deus, et quodnam est illud nostrum officium? R. Ut haec libenter agnoscamus, vera insuper fide recipiamus, adhaereamusque huic Deo confoederato nostro, corde syncero et integro.” 124 Bullinger, Catechesis, fol. 8r: “I. Qui autem firmiter in hoc dei foedere perstant, quomodo appellantur vulgo? R. Religiosi ac foederati, amici, ac socii Dei.” 125 Bullinger, Catechesis, fol. 40v: “Sanctificamur quidem gratia Dei Patris, sed non sine sanguine Filii eius, neque citra gratiam Sancti Spiritus, qui praeterea mentes nostras illuminat, voluntatesque commovet, ut oblatam sanctificationem fide recipiamus, quam et in nobis idem ille spiritus obsignat.” (Italics mine) See also the connection between sanctificatio and obsignatio in Bullinger, Catechesis,

232  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development so outwardly.126 Baptism signifies the “reception into the people of God”127 and the Eucharist attests to the unity of the “mystical body.”128 However, Christ’s atoning and redemptive work remains the foundation of this organic and mystical emphasis. Nobody has access to God’s promise, that is, Christ and his benefits, but through faith and union with Him.

Confession Helvetica Posterior—​Second Helvetic Confession (1566) The CHP was one of Bullinger’s most mature theological works. What role, then, does the covenant play in his thinking at this stage? Several studies have sought to find the theological heart of the CHP. In his groundbreaking systematic-​ theological monograph, Ernst Koch localized the systematische[n]‌ Schlüsselpunkt (the systematic key point)129 or Zentralbegriff (central term) of the confession in Bullinger’s idea of the covenant. Koch argued from an inner logic and not from appearances of the term foedus, which are, he admits, scarce. This inner logic is, ultimately, covenantal redemptive history.130 Locher essentially supported Koch’s thesis in aligning fol. 63v: “I. Describe mihi notis aliquot baptismum Christianorum. R. Baptismus est sacramentum, vel ritus, aut actio sacra, qua tingimur aqua per ministrum Christi, in nomen Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti, ad sanctificationem et obsignationem, quod simus sanctificati filiique Dei, ac poenitentiam agere debeamus.” (Italics mine) 126 Bullinger, Catechesis, fol. 60r–​v : “I. Expone itaque mihi quid intelligas per sacramentum? R. Varius est huius vocabuli usus, caeterum sacrarum literarum interpretes appellarunt sacramentum sacrae rei signum, verbum item visibile, et rursus invisibilis gratiae visibilem formam. I. Dic tu, si potes, paulo plenius. R. Dicam ut possum, sacramentum est symbolum sacrum, vel ritus sanctus, aut actio sacra, a Deo verbis, signis et rebus instituta, qua in ecclesia summa sua beneficia retinet in memoria, ac subinde renovat, quibus item obsignat et repraesentat, quid nobis praestet, et quid vicissim requirat a nobis.” (Italics mine) 127 Bullinger, Catechesis, fol. 62r: “In baptismo aqua affusa fideli est signum, purgatio autem vel remissio peccatorum, vel acceptatio in populum Dei, est res significata.” (Italics mine) 128 Bullinger, Catechesis, fol. 65v–​66r: “Quid est coena domini? R. Est actio sacra, vel sacramentum a Christo Domino nostro institutum, quo pane et vino in sacrum epulum appositis, ipse attestatur et significat ipsum se esse cibum et potum vivificum, qui corpus et sanguinem suum in mortem tradiderit, ut ipsum manducantes et bibentes, vivamus, memoresque mortis eius et vivificationis nostrae, gratias agamus, ac pie vivendo, contineamus nos in unitate corporis mystici, diligentes proximos nostros.” (Italics mine) 129 Ernst Koch, Die Theologie der Confessio Helvetica Posterior, Beiträge zur Geschichte und Lehre der Reformierten Kirche 27 (Neukirchen-​ Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, 1968), 383. 130 Koch, Die Theologie der Confessio, 417: “Der Bundesgedanke ist insofern der Zentralbegriff der Confessio, als sich in ihm die durchlaufenden theologischen Aspekte und Motive schneiden und er der beste Ausdruck für das die Theologie der Confessio bestimmende theologische Denkschema ist, das die Hauptakzente setzt, die Grenzen des Theologiesierens absteckt und die für die Confessio

Consolidation, 1551–1575  233 the Holy Spirit, which also functions as a kind of inner logic of the confession, with the covenant.131 Consequently, he summarized, “the Spirit lives in the covenant, and the covenant lives from the Spirit.”132 Locher also recognized that the term foedus occurs rarely. But tellingly, neither did the Reformer assign a separate article to the Holy Spirit. Van der Linde challenged Koch’s view in his essay on the ecclesiology of the CHP and proposed instead that the church is at the heart of the confession.133 Where Locher had placed the Holy Spirit within the covenant, Van der Linde brought it into alignment with the church, recording “Bullinger can certainly say that life in the Spirit is life in the church.”134 It was Dowey, however, who criticized Koch’s interpretation most harshly, pointing out that the term, or concept (he translates Koch’s term Begriff as concept), covenant “is all but totally absent from the document.”135 More fundamentally, he questioned whether Bullinger should even be viewed as a dogmatician, with his work read from the perspective of one “single principle.”136 Dowey’s concerns about a central-​dogma approach to Bullinger should be taken seriously. However, were Koch and Locher really reading into charakteristische Lösung der theologischen Hauptprobleme inhaltlich bedingt und vorbereitet. Hierbei ist es nicht von entscheidender Bedeutung, daß der Begriff des foedus in der Confessio relativ selten gebraucht wird. Die Analyse der Theologie der Confessio sowohl in ihren Einzelgliedern wie auch nach ihrer Gesamtkonzeption hat nach einer zwingenden inneren Logik selbst auf diesen Begriff und seine Struktur hingeführt. Der Bundesbegriff hat also für die Confessio zentrierende und umgreifende Bedeutung.” 131 Gottfried W. Locher, “Die Lehre vom Heiligen Geist,” in Staedtke, Glauben und Bekennen, 331–​332: “Ernst Koch weist überzeugend nach, dass der ewige Bund in Bullingers Bekenntnisschrift zu den Grundgedanken gehört, auch wenn der Ausdruck nur selten erwähnt wird, was wohl mit des Autors Bemühung zusammenhängt, ein verbindendes Dokument zu schreiben und dazu mit seinen Lieblingsideen zurückzuhalten. . . . Nun gilt ohne Zweifel vom ‘Bund’ das gleiche, was wir zu Anfang vom ‘Geist’ festgestellt haben: man könnte die ganze Confessio von ihm aus verstehen und wiedergeben.” See also Luca Baschera, Pneumatologie in der Confessio Helvetica posterior, in “. . . zu dieser dauernden Reformation berufen”: Das Zweite Helvetische Bekenntnis: Geschichte und Aktualität, ed. Martin Ernst Hirzel and Frank Mathwig, Reformiert! vol. 8 (Zurich: TVZ, 2020), 59: “Denn Heinrich Bullinger bezieht vielmehr den Heiligen Geist in den unterschiedlichsten Zusammenhängen mit ein, so dass die Pneumatologie sich in der Tat als ‘der innerste Nerv’ dieses Bekenntnisses erweist.” 132 Locher, “Die Lehre vom Heiligen Geist,” 335: “Der Geist lebt im Bund, der Bund lebt vom Geist.” 133 Simon van der Linde, “Die Lehre von der Kirche in der Confessio Helvetica Posterior,” in Staedtke, Glauben und Bekennen, 337: “Der Umfang des Stoffes, der mit der Kirche zusammenhängt, nämlich Kirche und Kultus, beide in lebendiger Verbundenheit mit der Rechtfertigung durch den Glauben, veranlasst uns zu fragen, ob nicht eher die Kirche als Zentrum des theologischen Denkens Bullingers gelten könnte als der Bund, den Koch als zentral ansieht. Der Bund Gottes zielt ja auf die Kirche Gottes ab.” 134 Van der Linde, “Die Lehre von der Kirche,” 340: “Bullinger kann wohl sagen, dass Leben im Geiste Leben in der Kirche sei.” 135 Dowey, “Heinrich as Theologian,” 38. 136 Dowey, “Heinrich as Theologian,” 39.

234  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development Bullinger’s theology a rationalistically deducible system from one single principle, that is, the covenant or the Holy Spirit? It seems that for Dowey the central-​dogma method is the only way to systematize theology. But is it? Admittedly, Koch spoke of a Zentralbegriff, but he meant thereby a concept that gives an inner coherence to the whole and not a central dogma at the top of a long chain of subordinated loci.137 Dowey drew a false parallel between the two and, at the end of the day, attacked a straw man. Bullinger certainly related the different loci to each other in a theo-​logical way (as an immediate consequence of reading the Bible as coherent whole). The different loci do not subsist on their own. It is therefore perfectly legitimate to inquire about the inner and systemic relations between them, that is, to ask after Bullinger’s “system.” This system does not have to be rationalistic per se, and in fact, it is not. What about terminology? All have acknowledged that the occurrences of foedus are few. Indeed, along with a single mention of the term (together with testamentum) in article 17, on the church, it appears only four more times, in article 20, on baptism.138 However, these few occurrences are not the end of the story. Our investigation so far has alerted us to two considerations. First, Bullinger used a whole range of terms as alternatives for the more obvious term “covenant.” The lexical reduction to the term foedus is unnecessary at best and biased at worst. Second, Bullinger’s early emphasis on the redemptive-​historical and legal aspect of the covenant was enlarged to a more organic-​mystical understanding of the covenant, generating a broader covenantal semantics. A fresh look at the CHP is needed with these two pointers in mind. 137 See Koch, Die Theologie der Confessio, 415–​416: “Dazu ist zunächst zu bemerken, daß es dabei nicht um den Versuch gehen soll, die einzelnen Kapitel der Confessio als systematisch deduzierbare Glieder eines Oberbegriffs zu erweisen.” 138 Bullinger, Confessio helvetica posterior, 310: “Et cum semper unus modo sit Deus unus mediator Dei et hominum Iesus Messias, unus item gregis universi pastor, unum huius corporis caput, unus denique spiritus, una salus, una fides, unum testamentum vel foedus, necessario consequitur unam duntaxat esse Ecclesiam: quam propterea catholicam nuncupamus, quod sit universalis, et diffundatur per omnes mundi partes, et ad omnia se tempora extendat, nullis vel locis inclusa vel temporibus.”; Bullinger, Confessio helvetica posterior, 327: “Etenim baptisari in nomine Christi, est inscribi, iniciari, et recipi in foedus, atque familiam, adeoque in haereditatem filiorum Dei, imo iam nunc nuncupari nomine Dei, id est, appellari filium Dei, purgari item a sordibus peccatorum, et donari varia Dei gratia, ad vitam novam et innocentem. Baptismus ergo in memoria retinet, et reparat ingens Dei beneficium, generi mortalium praestitum.”; Bullinger, Confessio helvetica posterior, 328: “Deus autem qui dives est misericordia, purgat nos a peccatis gratuito, per sanguinem filii sui, et in hoc adoptat nos in filios, adeoque foedere sancto nos sibi connectit, et variis donis ditat, ut possimus novam vivere vitam.”; Bullinger, Confessio helvetica posterior, 329: “Nam iuxta doctrinam Evangelicam, horum est regnum Dei, et sunt in foedere Dei, cur itaque non daretur eis signum foederis Dei?” (Italics mine)

Consolidation, 1551–1575  235 The key term used by Bullinger in the CHP to stress the covenantal continuity of redemptive history is promissio, which appears in pivotal articles in the CHP. With his use of promissio Bullinger was not introducing a new term, as the German equivalent, Verheissung, was already found running through Der alt gloub, used as a synonym for covenant. And the article on the covenant in the Summa is also introduced by God’s twofold promissio. If the reader of the CHP was acquainted with at least one of these two works, especially Der alt gloub, it would have required no leap to see a covenantal connotation for promissio in the CHP, intended for the Zurich church. We should also remember that Der alt gloub was so popular in the Reformed world all the way into the seventeenth century that it was reprinted four times in German (1537, 1539, 1542, 1544) and quickly translated, such that it was published four times in English (1541, 1547, 1581, 1624), in Latin (1544), and in Dutch (1599).139 It is therefore likely that Bullinger intended to send a covenantal signal in using the term “promise” in the CHP and that his signal was received by its readers. Promissio appears for the first time (in the plural form) cursorily in the 10th article, on predestination140 but is explained later, in article 13 “Of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Promises also, as well as of the Spirit and the Letter.”141 (Italics mine) This article on the gospel of Jesus Christ functions as the foundation for articles 14–​16,142 with the unit 13–​16 forming the heart of the CHP (not as a central dogma but as primus inter pares). Article 13 also strongly affirms covenantal continuity as expressed by the term promissio (in the plural form). This article forms Bullinger’s principal message. Although the gospel is set in opposition to the law, the former was already anticipated, as “evangelical promises” (italics mine) in the Old Testament, which Bullinger summarized with the expression “under the law and before the law.” The first two scriptural references are Genesis 3:15 and Genesis 22:18, as in the Summa. Also as in the Summa, Bullinger distinguished between earthly and spiritual promises, with the latter epitomized by Christ.143 This point is reiterated at the beginning of article 16, forming a 139 HBBibl I, 51–​57. 140 Bullinger, Confessio helvetica posterior, 291: “Consoletur nos in tentatione praedestinationis, qua vix alia est periculosior, quod promissiones Dei sunt universales fidelibus”. (Italics mine) 141 Bullinger, Confessio helvetica posterior, 299: “De Evangelio lesu Christi, de Promissionibus item, Spiritu, et Litera.” (Italics mine) 142 Dowey also sees these articles as forming as single unit, but he includes article 12, on the law, in this unit, as a counterpart to the gospel. However, he calls this unit “Saving faith,” which clearly emphases the gospel over the law, see Dowey, “Der theologische Aufbau,” 221. 143 Bullinger, Confessio helvetica posterior, 299: “Habuerunt autem veteres non tantum externas vel terrenas, sed spirituales etiam coelestesque promissiones, in Christo.”

236  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development kind of inclusio of the unit 13–​16, where Christ is said to be the “summit of all promises.”144 (Italics mine) That the evangelical promises are covenantally framed is a necessary inference from his reference to the “new testament” of Jeremiah 31:31. Bullinger wrote that the new testament is, in fact, the oldest doctrine. The evangelical promises, as he terms them, have therefore always been testamental.145 Eventually, we meet again the promissiones, for the last time, in article 20, “Of the Sacraments of the Church of Christ.” For Bullinger the main function of the sacraments (the Lord’s Supper and baptism) abides in the sealing of God’s promises preached to the church.146 They are not only signa (signs) but also obsignationes (seals).147 This terminology is unambiguously covenantal. Between articles 13–​16 and article 19, Bullinger looked at the doctrine of the church and church ministry. Article 17 is the foundation of this next unit, composed of articles 17–​18. Here Bullinger moved from the redemptive-​ historical and legal aspect of the covenant to the mystical-​organic and ecclesial. In his introductory words, Bullinger made clear that the church as communion with Christ or participation in Christ through the Holy Spirit is the goal, or eschaton, toward which redemptive history has been directed from the beginning: “Since God willed from the beginning that men should be saved and come to the knowledge of truth, it follows of necessity that there always was, and now is, and shall be to the end of time, a Church or an assembly of believers and a communion of saints, called and gathered from the world, who know and worship the true God in Christ our Savior, and partake by faith of all the benefits freely offered through Christ.”148 (Italics mine) 144 Bullinger, Confessio helvetica posterior, 307. 145 Bullinger, Confessio helvetica posterior, 300: “Et quamvis Evangelii doctrina collata cum pharisaeorum doctrina legis, visa sit, cum primum praedicaretur per Christum, nova esse doctrina, quod et Ieremias de novo testamento vaticinatus sit, revera tarnen illa, non modo vetus erat, et est adhuc (nam nova dicitur et hodie a Papistis, collata cum doctrina iam papistarum recepta) vetus doctrina, sed omnium. in mundo antiquissima.” (Italics mine) 146 Bullinger, Confessio helvetica posterior, 323: “Praedicationi verbi sui adiunxit Deus mox ab initio, in ecclesia sua, sacramenta vel signa sacramentalia. Ita enim clare testatur universa scriptura sacra. Surrt autem sacramenta, symbola mystica, vel ritus sancti aut sacrae actiones, a Deo ipso institutae, constantes verbo suo, signis, et rebus significatis, quibus in ecclesia summa sua beneficia, homini exhibita, retinet in memoria, et subinde renovat, quibus item promissiones suas obsignat, et quae ipse nobis interius praestat, exterius repraesentat, ac veluti oculis contemplanda subiicit, adeoque fidem nostram, spiritu Dei in cordibus nostris operante, roborat et auget: quibus denique nos ab omnibus aliis populis et religionibus separat, sibique soli consecrat et obligat, et quid a nobis requirat, significat.” (Italics mine) 147 Bullinger, Confessio helvetica posterior, 324: “Utrique populo data sunt illa, ut signa adeoque obsignationes gratiae et promissionum Dei.” 148 Bullinger, Second Helvetic Confession, 408–​ 409; Bullinger, Confessio helvetica posterior, 310: “Quando autem Deus ab initio salvos voluit fieri homines, et ad agnitionem veritatis venire, oportet omnino semper fuisse, nunc esse, et ad finem usque seculi futuram esse Ecclesiam, id est e

Consolidation, 1551–1575  237 There has always been a church but far from being static, that church is a dynamic (i.e., historical-​redemptive), relational (i.e., covenantal) entity that moves toward its ultimate consummation. Here, for the first time Bullinger used the term foedus, as noted above. But more prominent are other terms that we already know from previous writings are covenantal in emphasis, such as coetus, communio and coniunctio,149 civitas,150 societas, and corpus.151 Christ the mediator is also mentioned. The marital metaphor is present too, as the church is defined as “Christ’s spouse.” These terms reappear in part in article 19, on the sacraments in general terms, in article 20, on baptism, and in article 21, on the Eucharist. These reappearances are particularly significant. The sacraments embody the two aspects of the covenant: through promissio the redemptive-​historical and legal, and through the terms discussed above the organic-​mystical. The sacraments combine both lines and remind the church of its mystical spiritual communion in Christ moving toward its historical-​eschatological consummation. In that sense, Locher and Van der Linde are actually reconcilable. Baptism is mostly defined by the term foedus and as signum foederis. Baptism is the sign of the reception “into the covenant, into the family and inheritance of the sons of God.”152 The covenant is understood as family, a mystical metaphor, and as inheritance, which is a legal metaphor referring to a testament. The Eucharist is not only the sealing of the promise of remission of sin (i.e., justification) but also the communion of Christ’s body.153 In my opinion, Bullinger connected soteriology and ecclesiology by way of the covenant through terminology and also through the very structure of the CHP. From article 13 (or 12) to 16 Bullinger addressed soteriology on a mundo evocatum vel collectum coetum fidelium, sanctorum inquam omnium communionem, eorum videlicet, qui Deum verum, in Christo servatore, per verbum et spiritum sanctum, vere cognoscunt, et rite colunt, denique omnibus bonis per Christum gratuito oblatis fide participant.” (Italics mine) 149 Bullinger, Confessio helvetica posterior, 311: “Haec vero rude iam donata, in coelo triumphat, de istis devictis omnibus, et exultat coram Domino: nihilominus habent illae inter sese communionem, vel coniunctionem.” (Italics mine) 150 Bullinger, Confessio helvetica posterior, 310: “Sunt isti omnes unius civitatis cives, viventes sub eodem domino, sub iisdem legibus, in eadem omnium bonorum participatione.” (Italics mine) 151 Bullinger, Confessio helvetica posterior, 311: “Omnium tarnen horum populorum una fuit et est societas, una salus in uno Messia, in quo ceu membra unius corporis sub unum caput connectuntur omnes, in eadem fide, etiam de eodem cibo et potu spirituali participantes.” (Italics mine) The one church overcomes the testamental distinction, which is exemplified by the substantial equivalence of the sacraments. 152 Bullinger, Second Helvetic Confession, 414; Bullinger, Confessio helvetica posterior, 327: “et recipi in foedus, atque familiam, adeoque in haereditatem filiorum Dei.” (Italics mine) 153 Bullinger, Confessio helvetica posterior, 325: “Res autem significata, est ipsum traditum Domini corpus, et sanguis eius effusus pro nobis, vel communio corporis et sanguinis Domini.” (Italics mine)

238  Heinrich Bullinger and the Development covenantal and redemptive-​historical foundation (article 13). Article 17 looks at the church as mystical communion by way of the covenant, however in its mystical-​organic aspect. Ecclesiology is grounded in soteriology and not the other way around. The organic-​mystical aspect of the covenant is rooted in its historical-​legal aspect. Finally, the sacraments combine in the most intimate manner soteriology and ecclesiology as covenant signs and seals.

Conclusion The writings in this period confirm the trend observed earlier. Bullinger continued to use the organic-​mystical terms associated with the covenant, such as coniunctio or communio, in most of his writings. Particularly significant were his definitions of religio and foedus in the commentary-​like texts, which were for Bullinger closely related. The covenantal association of promissio is also made evident in some specific works. Testamentum appears predominantly in his comprehensive writings, usually paired with foedus. Here Bullinger also offered specific definitions, and this rich terminology is crucial for our covenantal interpretation of the CHP. We find that Bullinger was remarkably consistent in the covenantal orientation of his theology once we recognize its two principal aspects until his death. The terminology used in the writings considered in this chapter reaffirms that Bullinger enlarged the historical-​legal aspect of the covenant through an organic-​mystical orientation. In addition, the whole range of terms reappears at points. No single term is lost or abandoned along the way, even when the multiple terms are not always mentioned in every passage. Bullinger’s comprehensive works merit special consideration as they showed the interwovenness of both aspects in programmatic fashion. Our reading of Bullinger’s covenant theology in terms of these aspects offers a fresh interpretation of the CHP that argues for the systematic-​theological integration of soteriology and ecclesiology by way of the covenant. This final period closes the second part of our study, which has been dedicated to Bullinger’s development of the covenant into an overarching locus with both a historical-​legal and an organic-​mystical aspect. This last period confirms that Bullinger held fast to the covenant as a way of understanding and interpreting theology. We turn now to John Calvin and to the Heidelberg theologians and will find that Bullinger left a heritage from which other Reformed and early orthodox Reformed theologians drew fundamental insights that shaped the Reformed tradition.

PART III

R E C E P T IONS In this third part, we leave Zurich and follow the trajectory of the covenant theology initiated by Zwingli and further developed by Bullinger as it made its way in the Reformed world. A decisive stage was reached with Calvin’s approving reception, for the Geneva Reformer integrated Bullinger’s insights on the covenant into his theology. Far from developing a rival tradition, Calvin helped establish the tradition that had originated and been expanded upon in Zurich. Its trajectory leads us then to Heidelberg and the post-​ Reformation era. The early orthodox formulations of the Reformed tradition as laid down by German theologians Ursin and Olevian reveal lasting marks of Bullinger’s covenant theology.

6 Calvin Calvin’s theology of the covenant received greater attention in earlier scholarship than did Bullinger’s.1 As the Reformed tradition came to be so strongly associated with Calvin himself, and epitomized as Calvinism, such scholarly interest is no surprise. However, Calvinism can hardly be reduced to Calvin; it has been shown to be a broader tradition also shaped by other Reformed “Church fathers.”2 Calvin himself rejected the designation “Calvinism.”3 He constantly sought fruitful exchange with contemporary Reformers whom he greatly esteemed. This engagement with other theologians is particularly evident in the case of Reformed covenant theology, which had been distinctly shaped by Zwingli and Bullinger even before Calvin’s appearance on the Reformation scene. Whatever the nature of Calvin’s conversion from reform-​ humanism to the evangelical camp—​was it the culmination of a long process of inner maturation or a “sudden” event, a “subita conversio” as he described it?4—​it appears to have been complete by the time of Nicolas Cop’s inaugural address as rector of the Paris university, given on 1 November 1533. At that

1 Some of the material presented in this chapter has been published in Pierrick Hildebrand, “Calvin and the Covenant: The Reception of Zurich Theology,” in The Oxford Handbook of Calvin and Calvinism, ed. Bruce Gordon and Carl R. Trueman (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021), 57–​73. 2 See Richard A. Muller, After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition, Oxford Studies in Historical Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 85–​86: Individual Reformation thinkers or treatises ought not to be made a measure either of the whole Reformation era or of the Reformed character of individual orthodox era thinkers or treatises. It is one of the fundamental problems of the ‘Calvin against the Calvinists’ approach to the relationship of Reformation and orthodoxy that it views Calvin as index of all that followed him. Calvin was not, after all, the sole progenitor of the Reformed faith—​nor is it useful to characterize later Reformed theologians in general as ‘Calvinists,’ as if they derived (or should have derived) their teachings solely from Calvin. It has become increasingly clear as scholars have investigated the thought of contemporaries of Calvin, such as Bullinger, Musculus, Vermigli, and Hyperius, that the forms, patterns, and contents of later Reformed theology cannot be traced solely or even primarily to Calvin in all cases. 3 See, e.g., Calvin’s letter of dedication to Elector Palatinate Frederick III for his commentary on Jeremiah, see Jean Calvin, Calvinus Frederico Electori Palatino, in CO 20, no. 3986, 72–​79. 4 See Bruce Gordon, Calvin (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 33–​35; Peter Opitz, Leben und Werk Johannes Calvins (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), 32–​33. Biographical references are sparse.

The Zurich Origins of Reformed Covenant Theology. Pierrick Hildebrand, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2024. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197607572.003.0007

242 Receptions date Bullinger had already served two years as Zwingli’s successor as Antistes of Reformed Zurich and was the undisputed leader among the Reformed in the Swiss Confederation and beyond Swiss borders. The theological weight Calvin gave to the covenant has been the source of great controversy that generated extensive literature. The most complete work on Calvin’s covenant theology remains Peter Lillback’s The Binding of God: Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant Theology. Lillback proposes a helpful classification for the huge number of contributions according to four interpretative narratives.5 The first is entitled “Covenant Theology Is Absent from Calvin Theology” and is especially associated with Perry Miller’s thesis that covenant theology first emerged in New England Puritanism.6 The second bears the title “Calvin Develops an Incomplete Form of Covenant Theology” and includes older studies correcting Miller as well as newer works such as Bierma’s published dissertation of 1980 on Caspar Olevian’s (1536–​ 1587) covenant theology in light of sixteenth-​ century developments.7 The third narrative, called “Calvin’s Theological System Is in Tension with Covenant Theology and Especially with Fully Developed Federalism,” encompasses the majority of the contributions. Despite the different approaches, all the authors essentially agree in highlighting a discrepancy between Calvin’s doctrine of election and the bilateral or conditional nature of the covenant. Baker’s monograph on Bullinger’s covenant theology, which we encountered in the previous chapters, has been particularly influential over the past decades.8 According to Baker, Bullinger and Calvin each became the father of a Reformed tradition, and the two traditions were mutually exclusive—​Calvin’s insistence on election nullified the two-​sidedness of the covenant stressed by Bullinger and transformed it into a unilateral and unconditional testament foreign to the Zurich Reformer. In many respects, Lillback’s study is a direct and thorough case against Baker’s thesis. Lillback’s own assessment falls under the fourth and last of his narrative headings, “Calvin Develops an Extensive If Incomplete Covenant Theology.” Lillback notes his position’s parallels with the interpretation provided in the nineteenth century by van den Bergh, who closely related Calvin’s covenant theology to Bullinger’s, and with the work of Elton M. Eenigenburg



5 Lillback, Binding, 13–​26.

6 Perry Miller, The New England Mind (New York: Macmillan, 1939), 366–​367. 7 Bierma, German Calvinism, 40–​49.

8 Baker, Bullinger and the Covenant, 193–​198.

Calvin  243 and Anthony A. Hoekema.9 The most important contribution to Calvin’s covenant theology since the publication of Lillback’s monograph is probably Woolsey’s broad study Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought, which goes back to a dissertation from 1988. It includes a substantial treatment of Calvin’s thought on the covenant.10 More recently Robert J. D. Wainwright related Calvin’s covenant theology to Zwingli’s and Bullinger’s in a few pages within the chapter entitled “Swiss Concepts of the Covenant” in his dissertation, “Early Reformation Covenant Theology,” published in 2020. Wainwright acknowledges Calvin’s development to be “in line with the Zürichers, apparently drawing on their ideas.”11 Lillback12 and Woolsey,13 by contrast, recognize Zurich precedence in the development of covenant theology in the Reformed tradition but assign the Genevan Reformer a dominant role, with Calvin using the covenant more extensively and in greater detail. Today there is consensus among scholars that the Genevan Reformer was not the father of Reformed covenant theology and that the covenant idea is present in Calvin’s theology. I shall argue, however, that Calvin basically adopted his covenantal thought from Bullinger and, further, that he did not substantially develop it beyond where the Zurich Reformer had taken it. At least with regard to covenant theology, Bullinger shared with the Genevan Reformer and others paternity of what became known as Calvinism.

Calvin and Bullinger My methodological approach to Calvin’s covenant theology and its presentation differs from my treatment of Zwingli’s and Bullinger’s. In this 9 Van den Bergh, Genadeverbond; Elton M. Eenigenburg, “The Place of the Covenant in Calvin’s Thinking,” RR no. 10 (1957): 1–​22; Anthony A. Hoekema, “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Covenant of Grace,” RR no. 15 (1962): 1–​12. 10 Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 253–​343. 11 Robert J. D. Wainwright, Early Covenant Theology: English Reception of Swiss Reformed Thought, 1520–​1555. 12 Lillback, Binding, 311: “In conclusion, Calvin is not the initiator of covenant theology, since this honor must really fall to Zwingli. He is not the designer of the first paradigm of covenant thought, since this distinction falls to Bullinger. Nevertheless, Calvin is the first of the early theologians to integrate the covenant concept extensively into his theological system.” One could ask here whether Bullinger, rather than Calvin, should be accorded first place in extensively integrating the covenant in his theology. 13 Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 337: “Calvin took up all the points raised by Oecolampadius, Zwingli, and Bullinger, and expounded and applied them in considerably more detail than his predecessors had ever done.” Here too it can be objected that there is even more evidence of considerable exposition or application of the covenant concept for Bullinger than for Calvin.

244 Receptions book thus far I provided a detailed and diachronic analysis of the Zurich Reformers’ developing covenantal thought based on all the available sources. As scholars have often given greater weight to Calvin’s influence on the Reformed tradition at the expense of Bullinger’s, this chapter rebalances the scales through comparison of their covenant theology. I focus on four areas that were of critical importance for the original development of Reformed covenant theology in Zurich and that therefore provide a lens through which to examine Calvin’s thought and compare it with Bullinger’s. The first area is covenantal continuity, or the relationship between the old and the new testaments, more specifically between the two covenantal dispensations under the law and the gospel. The second area pertains to the organic-​mystical aspect of the covenant that, as we have observed, grew in importance in Bullinger’s theology of the covenant—​can a similar emphasis be observed in the writings of the Genevan Reformer? The third area concerns the theological relationship between the covenant and the sacraments, which formed the immediate context for Zurich covenant theology. Finally, we turn to a non-​redemptive and prelapsarian covenant, found in Zwingli and Bullinger, to ask whether a similar argument is found in the sources related to Calvin. My approach is necessarily selective in terms of the sources considered, offering a more synchronic and less contextual look at Calvin’s covenant theology. I am less interested in the development of Calvin’s thought over time than in a comparison of Calvin’s mature thought with Bullinger’s. Here I seldom make reference to Calvin’s biography; for the Reformer’s life, I recommend the reader consult Bruce Gordon’s biography.14 Here is also not the place for treatment of Calvin’s covenant theology as a whole; the reader is in this instance directed to Lillback, with his attention to a broad range of sources. My purpose is to focus on a comparison between the two Reformers to re-​examine their understanding of the covenant. I rely here on Calvin’s last edition of the Latin Institutes, dated 1559, which stands out as his most comprehensive and most mature theological work, although we must be aware that the Institutes is not an exhaustive compendium of all of Calvin’s positions or the most relevant argument for our purposes—​the covenant is abundantly referenced in Calvin’s commentaries on Scripture, yet lacks a locus of its own in the Institutes. As Muller rightly pointed out, “the theological arguments found in the Institutes ought no more to be viewed as the primary index to

14 Gordon, Calvin.

Calvin  245 Calvin’s thought than the arguments found in his commentaries, sermons, or treatises.” Differences in genres can mean that diverse aspects of the argument are highlighted. And Muller concludes: “To know the whole Calvin one must read the whole Calvin, and then some!”15 I have bolstered my reading of the Institutes by turning selectively to Calvin’s commentaries on the Old and New Testaments, necessarily focusing my attention on the most relevant passages; a more comprehensive study of the commentaries remains a desideratum. Calvin would have approved our reading his Institutes together with his commentaries on Scripture. He stated in his letter to the reader in the Latin edition of 1539 (before he published his first commentary), which also appeared in subsequent editions, “it has been my purpose in this labor to prepare and instruct candidates in sacred theology for the reading of the divine Word, in order that they may be able both to have easy access to it and to advance in it without stumbling.”16 The Institutes were meant as an introductory work for the reader’s study of Scripture, and Calvin clearly anticipated that commentaries would follow: “If after this road has, as it were, been paved, I shall publish any interpretations of Scripture, I shall always condense



15 Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 182:

In other words, the theological arguments found in the Institutes ought no more to be viewed as the primary index to Calvin’s thought than the arguments found in his commentaries, sermons, or treatises. Specifically, when there are differences in content between a sermon or commentary and a portion of the Institutes, the reader ought not to conclude that one content is more representative of Calvin’s thought than another. At times, the differences may indicate a development in Calvin’s thought—​but the possibility of development must be carefully assessed in the light of differences in genre between the documents. It is clear that Calvin moves in one direction in the Institutes, in another in a commentary, and in still another in a sermon, primarily because particular forms of discourse offer places to locate particular kinds of subject matter or particular forms of argument. One cannot, in other words, reject or disparage the significance of a position taken in a commentary or sermon (such as Calvin’s exegetical and homiletical interest in the conditional aspects of divine covenants) simply because that view is not treated in the Institutes. To know the whole Calvin one must read the whole Calvin, and then some! See further p. 183: “Calvin did not include a covenant locus in the Institutes—​and, as we have already noted, the larger portion of his views on covenant, pace McNeill and Baker, must be sought elsewhere. When the commentaries and sermons are examined, textual ground for the neat twentieth-​ century bifurcation between unilateral and bilateral covenant theories governed by different views of predestination simply disappears.” 16 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. F. L. Battles and ed. J. T. McNeill, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 4; Jean Calvin, Institutio christianae religionis: in libros quatuor nunc primum digesta certisque dinstincta capitibus, in CO 2, 1–​2: “Porro hoc mihi in isto labore propositum fuit, sacrae theologiae candidatos ad divini verbi lectionem ita praeparare et instruere, ut et facilem ad earn aditum habere, et inoffenso in ea gradu pergere queant.”

246 Receptions them because I shall have no need to undertake long doctrinal discussions, and to digress into commonplaces.”17 Calvin had proactively laid out in his Institutes loci communes and other doctrinal considerations that would subsequently appear in his commentaries. The commentaries could remain concise, for they were to be read in tandem with the Institutes. Elsie Anne McKee describes the complementarity of Institutes and commentaries as “a symbiotic relationship.”18 Her persuasive argument embraces the evolving and expanding biblical references through the editions of the Institutes that developed hand in hand with Calvin’s exegetical activity, with Calvin seeking to ensure his exposition of the loci conformed with Scripture. He applied the circular hermeneutics he expected from his reader to himself, a principle R. Ward Holder describes as “From Christian Doctrine to Scripture and Back.”19 While Calvin felt that the inexperienced student of Scripture needed instruction, he called on his readers to measure his doctrine against Scripture, noting for example (in the argument du present livre that appeared in place of the letter to the reader in French editions after the first in 1541, although not in the final French edition of 156020): “Above all, I must urge him to have recourse to Scripture in order to weigh the testimonies that I adduce from it [the work of the Institutes].”21 If our historical-​theological endeavor is to seek to understand Calvin as he wanted to be understood and was likely to have been understood by his contemporaries, we have to read his Institutes together with his commentaries. I do not address in detail the origins of Calvin’s single biblical commentaries here. T. H. L. Parker has concisely traced their production in his two studies on the Genevan Reformer’s New Testament and Old Testament commentaries.22 It will suffice to note that the former were conceived as 17 Calvin, Institutes, 4–​5; Calvin, Institutio, 3–​4: “Itaque, hac veluti strata via, si quas posthac scripturae enarrationes edidero, quia non necesse habebo de dogmatibus longas disputationes instituere, et in locos communes evagari, eas compendio semper astringam.” 18 Elsie Anne McKee, “Exegesis, Theology, and Developments in Calvin’s Institutio: A Methodological Suggestion,” in Probing the Reformed Tradition: Historical Studies in Honor of Edward A. Dowey, Jr., ed. Elsie Anne McKee and Brian G. Armstrong (Louisville, KY: Westminster/​John Knox Press, 1989), 168. 19 R. Ward Holder, John Calvin and the Grounding of Interpretation: Calvin’s First Commentaries, Studies in the History of Christian Tradition, vol.127 (Leiden/​Boston: Brill, 2006), 70–​75. 20 Richard A. Muller, “Calvin’s ‘Argument du livre’ (1541): An Erratum to the McNeill and Battles Institutes,” SCJ 29:1 (1998): 35–​38. 21 Calvin, Institutes, 8; Jean Calvin, Institution de la religion chrestienne (Geneva: Michel du Bois, 1541), fol. A2v: “Pour toutes choses, il fauldra avoir en recommandation de rescourir a l’Escriture pour considerer les tesmoignages que j’en allegue.” 22 See T. H. L. Parker, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries (London: SCM Press, 1971), 1–​25; T. H. L. Parker, Calvin’s Old Testament Commentaries (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986), 13–​34.

Calvin  247 “commentaries” as such, while the latter are, with a few exceptions, such as for Genesis, the product of lectures given at the school and the Academy in Geneva. Calvin published his New Testament commentaries between 1540 and 1557, including revised editions of the Pauline (1551) and Catholic epistles (1556/​1557) commentaries. He commented on the whole New Testament canon except 2–​3 John and Revelation. His commentaries on the Old Testament appeared between 1551 and, posthumously, 1565; his death left the task incomplete. The thesis that Calvin was influenced by Bullinger in his treatment of the covenant is, we have already noted, neither new nor controversial. It is the extent of this influence that remains debated. Van den Bergh argued in the nineteenth century that “Calvin’s treatment of the covenant follows in the footsteps of Bullinger.”23 For Schrenk, the Zurich Reformer’s influence on Calvin’s integration of covenant theology into his Institutes was “beyond doubt.”24 Büsser traced back the new chapter in the second Latin edition of the Institutes of 1539 called De similitudine ac differentia veteris et novi testamenti explicitly to Calvin’s reception of Bullinger’s De testamento (1534).25 Muller has assessed and nuanced Büsser’s thesis: while Bullinger’s influence in the matter of doctrine is undeniable, he proposes, the form of the new chapter (within the structure of the Institutes of 1539 more generally) follows a Melanchthonian model.26 Tellingly, from the first edition of his Loci communes (1521) onward, Melanchthon included a chapter bearing

23 See van den Bergh, Genadeverbond, 10–​11: “Ik vermeld al deze titels [The headings of Bullingers’ De testamento], opdat men zien zou, dat Calvijn’s behandeling van het Verbond in Bullinger’s voetspoor treedt en bij den eerstgenoemde zoowel de aanleiding als inhoud zijner twee aan dit onderwerp opzettelijk gewijde hoofdstukken [Inst. 2.10–​11]”. 24 Schrenk, Gottesreich und Bund, 44: “Bemerkenswert ist, dass [Calvin] nach Bullingers Schrift gerade die Bundesgedanken in seiner Institutio in der gleichen Richtung wie jener ausgestaltet hat. Dass er sich dabei durch Zwingli und Bullinger befruchten liess, scheint mir zweifellos.” 25 See Fritz Büsser, “Elements of Zwingli’s Thought in Calvin’s Institutes,” in In Honor of John Calvin, 1509–​64: Papers from the 1986 International Calvin Symposium, McGill University, ed. Edward J. Furcha, Arc supplement vol. 3 (Montreal: Faculty of Religious Studies, McGill University, 1987), 1–​27, esp. 15–​16; Fritz Büsser, “Calvin und Bullinger,” in Die Prophezei: Humanismus und Reformation in Zürich; ausgewählte Aufsätze und Vorträge zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 12. Februar 1993, ed. Alfred Schindler, Zürcher Beiträge zur Reformationsgeschichte 17 (Bern: Peter Lang, 1994), 214–​215. See already Jürgen Quack, Evangelische Bibelvorreden von der Reformation bis zur Aufklärung, Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte 43 (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1975), 105. 26 Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 126: “it would also be incorrect to deny the strong influence of Bullinger’s De testamento on Calvin’s general view of covenant. Nonetheless, Bullinger’s influence was largely doctrinal rather than formal, and his treatises cannot account well either for the architectonics of the 1539 Institutes or for the way in which this particular new chapter relates to those around it.” For his argument for the Melanchthonian model, see pp. 127–​130.

248 Receptions an almost identical title. Comparison with Calvin’s chapter highlights a significant change in emphasis:

Melanchthon Melanchthon

Calvin Calvin

Loci communes (1521) Loci communes (21535)

De discrimine veteris ac novi testamenti. Item de abrogatione legis. [18] De discrimine veteris ac novi testamenti. [19] De spiritu et littera Institutio (21539), [7]‌De similitudine ac differentia veteris et novi testamenti Institutio (51559), [2: 10] De similitudine veteris et novi testamenti. [2: 11] De differentia unius testamenti ab altero.

While Melanchthon exclusively highlighted the discontinuity (discrimen) between the old and the new testaments, Calvin mentioned first covenantal continuity across the testaments (similitudo) and only secondly the differentia between them. We shall see below how this change affected Calvin’s understanding of the covenant. The chapter added to the second edition of the Institutes as the seventh chapter remained in place, without significant modification (only minor text-​critical variants and a few glosses), in subsequent editions of 1543 and 1550.27 The addition became ­chapter 11 in the enlarged and revised editions of 1543 and 1550. In the final edition, of 1559, the chapter was split into two sections, becoming ­chapters 10 and 11 of book 2; the new c­ hapter 10 was linked to the preceding chapter on Christ as revealed in the law but remained otherwise unchanged. All references here are to the last edition of the Institutes.1 Calvin’s theological reception of Bullinger will become evident as we explore the basic lines of his theology of the covenant in the Institutes. This reception may have been initially mediated through Martin Bucer (1491–​ 1551). The 1539 edition, also known as the Strassburg Institutes, was written during Calvin’s stay in that German city (1538–​1541), where he came under the influence of the Rhineland Reformer. During his earlier sojourn in Basel 27 See Jean Calvin, Ioannis Calvini institutio religionis Christianae, in CO 1, 802–​830; Calvin, Institutio, 313–​340.

Calvin  249 (1535–​1536), he had already become acquainted with Zurich theology and had met Bullinger personally, but the first edition of his Institutes, printed in 1536 and also called the Basel Institutes, did not develop the covenant idea. His preface to the Olivetan Bible of 1535, his Épître à tous amateurs de Jésus-​Christ,28 which was probably used as a draft for the first edition of the Institutes,29 does, however, carry covenantal overtones. While Backus and Chimelli,30 following Quack,31 have argued that Calvin did not fully adhere to Bullinger’s doctrine of covenantal continuity before the second edition of Institutes, they acknowledged that Calvin might have made use of Bullinger’s De testamento of 1534 in writing this preface. When Calvin went to Strassburg, Bucer certainly discussed Bullinger’s writing on the covenant with him. Further, Bullinger had his treatise sent to Bucer, who expressed his strong approval of the work.32 In his commentary on the Gospels of 1527, Bucer had already endorsed a view of covenantal continuity similar to Zwingli’s, but he never developed that position as Bullinger would.33 The relationship between Calvin and Bullinger that followed was complex and asymmetrical, with highs and lows, and certainly not linear. There were moments of congenial admiration as well as instances of mistrust and exasperation. Tellingly, it was to Bullinger that the dying Calvin turned for counsel,34 and Calvin’s death profoundly affected the Zurich Reformer. In essence, their shared faith, doctrine, and mission tied the two men into a close, brotherly, and respectful relationship, despite their personal and theological differences. The sources give the impression, however, that Bullinger did not see Calvin as fully his equal and that Calvin had a sense of reverence for Bullinger, even if he did not submissively accept Bullinger’s paternalism. The relationship might be compared to that of an older and a younger brother.

28 Jean Calvin, “Épître à tous amateurs de Jésus-​Christ,” in La vraie piété: Divers traités de Jean Calvin et Confession de foi de Guillaume Farel, ed. Irena Backus and Claire Chimelli, Histoire et sociétés 12 (Genève: Labor et Fides, 1986), 25–​38. 29 See Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 23–​24. 30 Irena Backus and Claire Chimelli, “Introduction à ‘Épître à tous amateurs de Jésus-​Christ,’” in La vraie piété, 21–​22. 31 See Quack, Evangelische Bibelvorreden, 104–​105. 32 See Bucer, Martin Bucer an Bullinger, 325, no. 443: “Gratias ago pro egregiis lucubrationibus tuis. Illam e unico dei foedere perlegi et ago gratias domino, qui tibi in mentem immisit hoc argumentum tractare pernecessarium isthoc maxime tempore, quo haeretici ad unum omnes ex eo, quod fingunt duos populos, duo foedera, suas fallacias approbare multis videmus. Nos iis, quae scripsisti, subscribimus omnes.” 33 See Lang, Der Evangelienkommentar, 258; Johannes Müller, Martin Bucers Hermeneutik, Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte 32 (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1965), 440–​441. On Bucer’s dependence upon Zwingli, see Cottrell, Covenant and Baptism, 326–​336. 34 Gordon, Calvin, 329–​331.

250 Receptions Indisputably a theological exchange took place between the two men. The sources tell us in various ways that Calvin was very familiar with Bullinger’s theology and vice versa. First, Bullinger and his commentary on Romans are explicitly mentioned in the dedicatory letter to Calvin’s earliest commentary, also on Romans, first published in 1540.35 Less well known is that Bullinger’s commentary on 1 Corinthians is also referred to in Calvin’s own commentary on 1 Corinthians, published in 1546.36 We can therefore reasonably infer that Calvin consulted Bullinger’s New Testament commentaries more generally for his own exegetical efforts, at least with respect to the epistles, especially if he had access to the single volume including all the relevant commentaries. Bullinger also insistently requested that Calvin have his commentaries sent to him.37 Second, their epistolary exchange reveals that they read one another’s treatises. For example, in 1544 Bullinger sent to the Genevan Reformer the Latin edition of his famous Der alt gloub.38 In 1547 Calvin thanked Bullinger for having sent him the manuscript of the Tractatio for review, which he carefully read and commented upon.39 From the 1540s on, some of the most important works by the Zurich Reformer were translated into French and printed in Geneva, such as De origine erroris (1549),40 the Decades (1559–​1560),41 and the Summa42 that is the Compendium (1556). Calvin had certainly already read them in Latin. The fact that these works were made available in French in Calvin’s city makes clear that the Reformer not only read but also approved them. These particular works testify, as we have seen, to the development of Bullinger’s covenant theology. Hollweg has even argued that Calvin’s 1549 edition of the Institutes was directly influenced by the first two Decades, which had very recently been sent to the Frenchman by Bullinger.43 Third, we must bear in mind their personal contact. Calvin visited Bullinger in Zurich in 1547–​1548, a year before the publication of the Consensus tigurinus, their agreement on the sacraments. Given the importance of the sacraments for Bullinger’s covenant theology, their theological 35 See Jean Calvin, Calvinus Grynaeo, in CO 10, 404; Jean Calvin, Commentarius in epistolam Pauli ad Romanos, in Ioannis Calvini Opera Exegetica, vol. 13, ed. T. H. L. Parker and D.C. Parker (Geneva: Dorz, 1999), 4. 36 See Jean Calvin, Commentarius in epistolam Pauli ad Corinthios I, in CO 49, 573; Bullinger, Kommentar zum Ersten Korintherbrief, 464. 37 See Heinrich Bullinger, Bullingerus Calvino, in CO 13, no. 1046, 6; and CO 13, no. 1104, 116. 38 Bullinger, Bullingerus Calvino, in CO 11, no. 568, 743. 39 Jean Calvin, Calvinus Bullingero, in CO 12, no. 880, 480. 40 HBBibl I, 10–​11, no. 15. 41 HBBibl I, 106–​107, no. 212–​213. 42 HBBibl I, 142, no. 297. 43 Hollweg, Heinrich Bullingers Hausbuch, 235–​238.

Calvin  251 exchange may well have included some discussion of the covenant, even if the Consensus tigurinus remained relatively silent on the matter. Finally, the rich correspondence between Bullinger and Calvin,44 as well as the communication throughout their networks and circles of influence, speaks for a closeness both personal and theological.

Covenantal Continuity Calvin wrote the new chapter De similitudine veteris et novi testamenti “because writers often argue at length about the difference [discrimen] between the Old and the New Testament.”45 In his French translation of 1560, Calvin specified that these writers did so “in a harsh and stiff manner.”46 Although he used the exact wording of Melanchthon’s chapter here, he referred to Michael Servetus (1509/​11–​1553) and to the Anabaptists more generally, and therefore does not seem to have had Melanchthon immediately in mind. That Calvin avoided the term discrimen in the heading(s), preferring instead the softer term differentia, is probably not accidental. His foundational statement reads, “The covenant made with all the patriarchs is so much like ours in substance and reality that the two are actually one and the same. Yet they differ in the mode of dispensation.”47 (Italics mine) Calvin thus identified one unique covenant encompassing the old and the new testaments, differing only in administratio, not in substantia. Bullinger also spoke of one substantia and differing accidents, echoing Aristotelian categories.48 Calvin used foedus as a unifying term for covenant, an expression notably absent (except in quoting Jer. 31) from Melanchthon’s “parallel” chapter, which basically defined testamentum as “seu pacta, seu promissiones, seu ordinationem.”49 Calvin developed three points relating to this equation with regard to substance, 44 The data bank of Bullinger’s correspondence has 283 such letters; see https://​www.irg.uzh.ch/​de/​ bullin​ger-​edit​ion/​brief​wech​sel/​datenb​ank.html (accessed August 9, 2023). 45 Calvin, Institutes, 429; Calvin, Institutio, 313 (Inst. 2.10.1): “quia tamen apud scriptores multa saepe de discrimine veteris ac novi testamenti disputantur.” 46 Jean Calvin, Institution de la religion chrétienne, in CO 3, 484 (Inst. 2:10.1): “d’une façon rude et aspre.” 47 Calvin, Institutes, 429; Calvin, Institutio, 313 (Inst. 2:10.2): “Patrum omnium foedus adeo substantia et re ipsa nihil a nostro differt, ut unum prorsus atque idem sit. Administratio tamen variat.” (Italics mine) 48 Bullinger, De testamento, 28v: “Principio ergo certum est veteris et novi testamenti spiritus ac populi nomenclaturam non oriri ex ipsa foederis substantia, sed ascititiis quibusdam et accidentibus.” (Italics mine) 49 Philipp Melanchton, Loci communes theologici (Wittenberg: Iosephus Clug, 1535), k7v.

252 Receptions although he advised the reader that further aspects had already been or would be treated in preceding or future chapters. The three points he gave are (1) the spiritual hope of immortality versus the carnal,50 (2) the gracious foundation of the covenant versus the meritorious,51 and (3) the Christological mediation.52 On all these points, Calvin reiterated earlier statements by Bullinger. The substantial unity of the covenant is omnipresent in Calvin’s commentaries. Calvin’s repeated differentiation between the substantia and the forma is a key position for him. The substance of the covenant remains unchanging even as its form changed through the coming of Christ, who marks the transition from the old testament to the new.53 We shall begin our overview of this theme in his exegetical works with his harmony of the four last books of the Pentateuch, published in 1563. In his interpretation of the perpetual ordinance of the annual Passover celebration (Exod. 12:14), Calvin recorded, “I admit that by this expression perpetuity is meant, but only such as would exist until the renovation of the Church; and the same explanation will apply to circumcision, as well as to the whole ceremonial of the Law; for although by Christ’s coming it was abolished as concerns its use, yet did it only then attain its true solidity; and therefore the difference between ourselves and the ancient people detracts nothing from this perpetual statute; just in the same way as the new Covenant does not destroy the old in substance, but only in form.”54 (Italics mine) The abolition of the ceremonial law does 50 See Bullinger, De testamento, 12v: “Quae tametsi de terra Chanaan promissa sint adimplenda carnaliter, nam in rebus quoque ad vitae usum pertinentibus bonitatem suam prodit dominus, attamen multis nominibus de aeterna haereditate vita utique coelesti exponenda videntur.” 51 See Bullinger, De testamento, 6r: “Est autem ineffablis misericordiae et gratiae divinae argumentum quod ipsum numen, ipse inquam deus aeternus, ipsum foedus primus offert, nullis ad hoc hominum meritis adactus, sed mera et nativa bonitate impulsus.” 52 Calvin, Institutio, 314 (Inst. 2.10.2): “In tribus autem maxime capitibus hie insistendum est. Primum ut teneamus, non carnalem opulentiam ac felicitatem metam fuisse ludaeis propositam ad quam demum aspirarent, sed in spem immortalitatis fuisse cooptatos, atque huius adoptionis fidem illis fuisse tum oraculis, tum lege, tum prophetis certo faetam. Deinde, foedus quo conciliati domino fuerunt, nullis eorum meritis, sed sola Dei vocantis misericordia fuisse suffultum. Tertium, et habuisse ipsos et cognovisse mediatorem Christum, per quem et Deo coniungerentur, et promissionum eius compotes forent.” 53 The notion of substance can also be applied to the hermeneutical relation between the Old and the New Testaments, recalling Bullinger’s statement that the latter is commentary of the former: Calvin on 2 Tim. 3:17 defined the New Testament Scriptures as an “explication” of the Old Testament ones. See Jean Calvin, Commentarius in epistolam Pauli ad Timotheum II, in CO 52, 384: “Respondeo, quantum ad substantiam spectat, nihil fuisse additum. Nisi enim continent apostolorum scripta quam meram ac germanam legis et prophetarum explicationem una cum rerum exhibitione.” (Italics mine) 54 John Calvin, The Four Last Books of Moses arranged in the Form of a Harmony, with commentaries, in CTS 2:1, 463; Jean Calvin, Mosis reliqui libri quatuor in formam harmoniae digesti a Ioanne Calvino. Cum eiusdem comentariis. Pars I, in CO 24, 290: “Quod autem vocatur ritus vel edictum saeculi, hac voce notari perpetuitatem fateor, sed quae tantum usque ad renovationem vigere debuit: quae

Calvin  253 not signify that the covenant substantially changed. On the contrary, Christ confirmed the perpetuity of the covenant by removing the shell under which the true substance of the covenant was hidden to reveal its solid core. The ceremonies proleptically anticipated Christ’s coming, the true substance of the covenant. I wrote earlier of the Zurich Reformers in terms of a liturgical difference. Calvin’s statement on the covenantal perpetuity underlines the basic unity of the church, of God’s people from the old to the new testament times. He coherently relates the substance of the covenant to the true understanding of the covenant or to what the covenant was spiritually about. The positive relationship between substance and spiritual understanding is particularly obvious with regard to the Mosaic covenant associated with the Sinaitic law in all its parts. In his interpretation of the people ratifying God’s covenant in Exodus 24:5–​8 by way of a sacrifice, Calvin considered that the elect among the people rightly understood the “proper use of the law,” which consisted in leading the believer to Christ’s atonement and spiritual regeneration, without which the covenant could not be kept. Evidently, Calvin had here the usus elenchticus, or pedagogical use, of the law in mind, which leads to the usus in renatis, or the third use of the law. The Reformer projected a new testament understanding back into the old testament economy of salvation. He wrote, “It is, therefore, unquestionable that the elect of God embraced by faith the substance and truth of the shadows when they voluntarily offered themselves to keep the covenant of God.”55 (Italics mine) We recognize here a pattern similar to that observed earlier in Zwingli’s exegesis of the same passage. A look at Calvin’s published lectures on Jeremiah (1563), particularly the passage at Jeremiah 31:31–​33 prophesying a new covenant, brings further clarification of the somewhat complex yet coherent way Calvin understood the relationship between old and new testaments, or between law and gospel. As for Zwingli and Bullinger, for Calvin too the third chapter of 2

ratio tarn in circumcisione quam in toto legali cultu valere debet, qui etsi Christi adventu quoad usum abolitus fuit, tunc demum veram soliditatem obtinuit. Quare mutatio qua differimus a populo veteri, nihil ex hoc perpetuo statute detrahit: sicuti nec foedus novum, quod ad substantiam interitus est veteris, sed quod ad formam duntaxat.” (Italics mine) See further Calvin on Exod. 31:16, p. 584: “Quidquid sub lege dictum fuit aeternum, dico respexisse ad novitatem quae Christi adventu contigit: atque adeo legis aeternitas non longius extendi debuit quam ad plenitudinem temporis, quo exhibita fuit umbrarum veritas, et Dei foedus novam formam induit.” (Italics mine) 55 Calvin, The Four Last Books of Moses, in CTS 3:1, 321; Jean Calvin, Mosis reliqui libri quatuor in formam harmoniae digesti a Ioanne Calvino. Cum eiusdem commentariis: pars II, in CO 25, 76: “Dubium ergo non est quin substantiam et corpus umbrarum fide appréhendèrent electi Dei, quum se ad foedus Dei servandum voluntarios offerrent.” (Italics mine)

254 Receptions Corinthians on the letter-​Spirit antithesis provided the framework within which the Great Prophets were to be read. Calvin begins by unmistakably equating Abraham’s covenant, Moses’ covenant, and the new covenant promised in Jeremiah. The Reformer recorded, “These things no doubt sufficiently shew that God has never made any other covenant than that which he made formerly with Abraham, and at length confirmed by the hand of Moses.”56 On the newness of the covenant he again argues from the differentiation between form and substance. “It being new, no doubt refers to what they call the form; and the form, or manner, regards not words only, but first Christ, then the grace of the Holy Spirit, and the whole external way of teaching. But the substance remains the same. By substance I understand the doctrine; for God in the Gospel brings forward nothing but what the Law contains.”57 (Italics mine) With regard to substance, which Calvin summarized as “the rule of a perfect life” and the “way of salvation,”58 there is no opposition between law and gospel. The content of the gospel was foreshadowed and typified by the law before Christ’s coming, as Calvin explains from a redemptive-​historical point of view. With regard to form, however, there exists a distinction between the law and the gospel. The newness of the new covenant consists foremost of regeneration by the Spirit, which was added to the law and makes it “also efficacious.” Referring to Paul’s letter-​Spirit antithesis, Calvin opposes the outward mode of doctrine, understood solely as the letter, with the inward mode, by which doctrine through the Spirit “not only strikes the ear, but also penetrates the heart, and really forms us for the service of God.”59 The newness of the new covenant includes a transformation of the outward mode, as under the gospel “God speaks to us now openly, as it were face to face, and not under a 56 John Calvin, Commentaries on the Prophet Jeremiah and the Lamentations: Vol. 4, in CTS 10:2, 127; Jean Calvin, Praelectionum in Ieremiam prophetam: pars altera cap. VIII–​XXXI, in CO 38, 688: “Haec certe omnia satis demonstrant Deum nunquam pepigisse aliud foedus, quam quod initio percusserat cum Abraham, et tandem consignavit per manum Mosis.” 57 Calvin, Commentaries on the Prophet Jeremiah and the Lamentations: Vol. 4, 127; Calvin, in Ieremiam prophetam: pars altera cap. VIII–​XXXI, 688: “Non dubium est quin hoc referatur ad formam, sicuti loquuntur. Forma autem haec non tantum posita est in verbis, sed primum in Christo, deinde in gratia spiritus sancti, et tota docendi ratione externa: substantia autem eadem manet. Substantiam intelligo doctrinam, quia Deus in evangelio nihil profert, quod lex non contineat.” 58 Calvin, Commentaries on the Prophet Jeremiah and the Lamentations: Vol. 4, 127; Calvin, in Ieremiam prophetam: pars altera cap. VIII–​XXXI, 688: “Complexus est enim in lege regulam perfecte vivendi: deinde ostendit quaenam esset salutis via, et sub figuris populum adducit ad Christum”. 59 Calvin, Commentaries on the Prophet Jeremiah and the Lamentations: Vol. 4, 127; Calvin, in Ieremiam prophetam: pars altera cap. VIII–​XXXI, 688–​689: “Fuit igitur haec quoque aliqua novitas, quod Deus regeneuit fideles spiritu suo, ita ut non esset literalis tantum dootrina, sed efficax, quae non tantum verberaret aures, sed in animos penetraret, atque vere formaret in obsequium Dei.”

Calvin  255 veil,”60 argues Calvin from the Pauline epistle. However, he is not willing to oppose old and new testaments, or, in a Melanchtonian-​Lutheran way, law and gospel, substantially. The difference between them, he writes, lies in the absence of the grace of regeneration in the law, while grace is brought by the gospel to render the law effective.61 We might ask here whether this difference does not in fact touch on the very substance of the covenant. Or to put it in other terms, whether the people under the old testament dispensation really benefited from the same covenant of grace given Jeremiah’s prophecy of the need for a new covenant. Calvin anticipated the question: “To this I answer, that the Fathers, who were formerly regenerated, obtained this favour through Christ, so that we may say, that it was as it were transferred to them from another source. The power then to penetrate into the heart was not inherent in the Law, but it was a benefit transferred to the Law from the Gospel.”62 Calvin’s lecture on Ezekiel 16:61 (published posthumously in 1565) is illustrative, as Abraham and Moses are taken as an example: Abraham believed in God: faith was always the gift of the Holy Spirit; therefore God inscribed his covenant in Abraham’s heart. (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3; Ephesians 2:8.) He inscribed his law on the heart of Moses and on the rest of the faithful. This is true: but at first that inner grace was more obscure under the law, and then it was an additional benefit. It could not, therefore, be ascribed to the law that God regenerated his own elect, because the spirit of regeneration was from Christ, and therefore from the Gospel and the new covenant. But yet we must remember that the faithful under the ancient covenant were gifted and endowed with a spirit of regeneration.63 60 Calvin, Commentaries on the Prophet Jeremiah and the Lamentations: Vol. 4, 128; Calvin, in Ieremiam prophetam: pars altera cap. VIII–​XXXI, 699: “Nam si conferimus legem cum evangelio, loquitur hodie nobiscum Deus familiariter tanquam facie ad faciem, non sub velo, sicuti dooet Paulus [2. Cor. 3:13] Mosen habuisse velum oppositum, ubi prodibat verba facturus Dei nomine.” 61 See Calvin, in Ieremiam prophetam: pars altera cap. VIII–​XXXI, 690–​691: “Discrimen nunc exprimit legis et evangelii, quia evangelium secum afferat gratiam regenerationis, ideoque, non sit literalis eius doctrina, sed in corda ipsa penetret, ac omnes sensus reformet in obsequium iustitiao Dei.” 62 Calvin, Commentaries on the Prophet Jeremiah and the Lamentations: Vol. 4, 131; Calvin, in Ieremiam prophetam: pars altera cap. VIII–​XXXI, 691: “Respondeo, patres qui olim regeniti fuerunt, id fuisse adeptos Christi gratia, ita possumus dicere illud fuisse quasi translatitium. Non igitur residebat in lege haec virtus, ut animos penetraret, sed fuit translatitium bonum ab evangelio ad ipsam legem.” 63 Jean Calvin, Praelectiones in Ezechielis prophetae: viginti capita priore, in CO 40, 396: “Abraham credidit Deo: Fides semper fuit donum spiritus sancti. Ergo foedus suum inscripsit Deus cordi Abrahae: legem suam inscripsit cordi Mosis, et aliorum fidelium, verum est: sed primum obscurior fuit ilia interior gratia sub lege: deinde fuit quoddam adventitium beneficium. Non potuit igitur legi

256 Receptions Accordingly, spiritual regeneration was already present under the law, but it came from the gospel by way of anticipation of the redemptive-​historical fulfillment of the law through Christ’s coming. Calvin interpreted the Jeramiah passage referring to the Sinaitic covenant with the fathers as being about the naked law, that is, the law without the Spirit coming from the gospel, which reveals and inscribes its spiritual substance in the heart. Calvin recognizes a quantitative difference in the gift of the Spirit under the gospel. He is not prepared, however, to deny that the Spirit can come with the law, for with regard to their essential content, gospel and law are fundamentally identical. Calvin’s comment on Jeremiah 31:33 is telling: “God does not say here, ‘I will give you another Law,’ but I will write my Law, that is, the same Law, which had formerly been delivered to the Fathers. He then does not promise anything different as to the essence of the doctrine, but he makes the difference to be in the form only.”64 Calvin’s interpretation of 2 Corinthians 3 in his commentary on 2 Corinthians, published in 1547, basically corroborates the Spirit-​letter antithesis understood as an external-​internal antithesis and not as a strict opposition between law and gospel or between old and new testaments. On the killing function of the letter and vivifying function of the Spirit, Calvin writes, “The meaning of this passage, however, is as follows—​that, if the word of God is simply uttered with the mouth, it is an occasion of death, and that it is lifegiving, only when it is received with the heart. The terms letter and spirit, therefore, do not refer to the exposition of the word, but to its influence and fruit.”65 Law and gospel are therefore not two different words but the same Word of God. The difference lies in the efficacity of the word, that is, whether it is only expressed outwardly, as letter, or also received inwardly by the Spirit. For Calvin the killing function of the letter represents not the adscribi, quod Deus regenuit tunc suos electos, quia spiritus regenerationis a Christo erat, ideoque ab evangelio et novo foedere. Sed tamen tenendum est quod dixi, fideles sub antiquo foedere donatos fuisse et praeditos spiritu regenerationis.” 64 Calvin, Commentaries on the Prophet Jeremiah and the Lamentations: Vol. 4, 131. Calvin, in Ieremiam prophetam: pars altera cap. VIII–​XXXI, 691: “Neque enim dicit hic Deus, legem aliam dabo: Sed scribam legem meam: nempe eandem, quae tradita olim fuerat patribus. Nihil ergo diversum promittit quoad doctrinae summam: sed tantum diversitatem locat in ipsa forma.” 65 John Calvin, The Commentaries of John Calvin on the Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, in CTS 20:2, 175; Jean Calvin, Commentarius in epistolam secundam ad Corinthos, in CO 50, 41: “Sensus autem huius loci est: Verbum Dei, si ore tantum proferatur, mortis esse causam: tunc demum esse vivificum, ubi corde suscipitur. Voces ergo literae et spiritus, nihil ad expositionem pertinent, sed ad vim et fructum. Cur autem mortifica vocetur doctrina, quae aures tantum verberans cor non attingit, mox videbimus.”

Calvin  257 substance of the law but “an accidental property of the law.”66 In other words, the law cannot be considered simply identical to the letter. In his treatment of the covenant in his commentary on Galatians published in 1548, especially in ­chapters 3–​5, Calvin was striving not to fall into a simplistic law-​gospel antithesis, although in the argument he clearly warns the reader against the removal of “the distinction between the Old and New Testaments.”67 He uses the term discrimen. As expected, Calvin particularly discriminates in terms of the principle leading to justification, so between faith and works righteousness. For Galatians 3 he sees the Abrahamic promise opposed to the mosaic law.68 It is admittedly not always easy to follow or harmonize Calvin’s thought (a statement that holds also for Zwingli and Bullinger). The key is to be especially aware of Calvin’s substance-​form differentiation, or, in other words, always to ask whether the Reformer has in mind the law with or without the regenerative Spirit, without which the spiritual substance of the law (which does not differ from the gospel) cannot be grasped and the law is received in the form of the letter. From the unity of God and his people (Jews and Gentiles), Calvin argued that the law cannot substantially differ from the promise. He spoke crucially not of a fundamental contradiction but of an “apparent contradiction between the Law and the covenant of grace.”69 (Italics mine) The law in all its parts was never given as an alternative way of justification to obtain salvation; it was given to show the elect’s sinfulness and to lead him to seek righteousness in the not yet manifested Christ.70 This evangelical or inward understanding of the law (its elenchtical use) is granted anticipatorily by the gospel-​Spirit. The law contradicts the gospel only when the law is outwardly and falsely understood as a way to attain righteousness apart from Christ and therefore received as letter. Calvin also limited the scope of the law’s abolition for the new testament dispensation, in which the (moral) law continued

66 Calvin, On the Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, 178; Calvin, in epistolam secundam ad Corinthos, 42: “Ita uno verbo habemus, legis accidens esse perpetuum et inseparabile, quod occidit legis accidens esse perpetuum et inseparabile, quod occidit.” 67 John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, in CTS 21:1, 15; Jean Calvin, Commentarius in epistolam ad Galatas, in CO 50, 162: “Non enim leve malum est, suffocari evangelii claritatem, laqueum iniici conscientiis, tolli discrimen veteris et novi testamenti.” 68 See Calvin, ad Galatas, 213: “Nam lex et promissio non pugnant, nisi in causa iustificationis, quod ilia hominem iustificat operum merito, haec gratuito iustitiam donat.” 69 Calvin, Galatians, 82; Calvin, ad Galatas, 217: “propter speciem repugnantiae, quae inter lege met foedus gratiae apparet.” 70 See Calvin, ad Galatas, 218.

258 Receptions to function as it had done under the old testament dispensation as “rule of life”71 (third use of the law). While in the third chapter Calvin clearly focused on the law-​gospel distinction with regard to justification, in ­chapter 4 the Reformer recentered the discussion of the substantial continuity of the covenant, placing the focus on what unites the fathers or, more generally, the Jews and the Gentiles in one church through the entire economy of salvation, comprising old and new testaments, as well as on the discontinuities. The Reformer offers two points of convergence that mark the continuity between the “Israelitish church, which existed under the Old Testament” and the “Christian church,” points that are also treated in his Institutes. The first point concerns the “spiritual blessing promised to Abraham,” which they had in common. Calvin rejected the idea, attributed to “Servetus among others,” that the fathers of the old testament church were only a carnal prefiguration of the spiritual reality conveyed in the new testament church. They are instead “together with us the children of God.”72 Second, the fathers were united so as to enjoy inwardly the same evangelical freedom under the law. Calvin concluded, “they held the same doctrine, were joined with us in the true unity of faith, placed reliance on the one Mediator, called on God as their Father, and were led by the same Spirit. All this leads to the conclusion, that the difference between us and the ancient fathers lies in accidents, not in substance. In all the leading characters of the Testament or Covenant we agree: the ceremonies and form of government, in which we differ, are mere additions.”73 (Italics mine) We note here that only the ceremonial and civil parts of the law are considered to be appended to the substance of the law, obviously associated with the moral law. The redemption of “those under the law” (Gal. 4:4) in the new testament does “not imply that we no longer owe any obedience

71 Calvin, Galatians, 87; Calvin, ad Galatas, 221. 72 Calvin, Galatians, 114; Calvin, ad Galatas, 224: “Primo hinc colligimus, eiusdem haereditatis spem fuisse patribus sub vetere testamento, fuisse patribus sub vetere testamento, quam hodie habemus: quia eiusdem adoptionis participes fuerunt. Non enim (quemadmodum somniant fanatici quidam, et inter alios Servetus) in hoc tantum electos fuisse a Deo Paulus docet, ut nobis aliquem Dei populum figurarent, sed ut nobiscum essent filii Dei: et nominatim testatur, non ad eos minus quam ad nos pertinere spiritualem benedictionem Abrahae promissam.” 73 Calvin, Galatians, 115; Calvin, ad Galatas, 224–​225: “Inde constituendum est, eandem semper fuisse doctrinam, et vera fidei unitate nobiscum fuisse coniunctos doctrinam, et vera fidei unitate nobiscum fuisse coniunctos, unius etiam mediatoris fiducia nobiscum fretos, Deum patrem invocasse et eodem spiritu fuisse gubernatos. His omnibus consentaneum est, discrimen inter nos et veteres patres non in substantia esse, sed in accidentibus. Nam quae praecipua sunt in testamento vel foedere, in iis convenimus. Caeremoniae et totum illud regimen in quibus differimus, sunt quasi aooessiones.”

Calvin  259 to the doctrine of the law” but refers to the “law with all its appendages.”74 Again Calvin’s substance-​form differentiation is at work, which can be also expressed in terms of an inward-​outward antithesis. All Calvin’s talk of a “covenant of the law” (legis pactum) or “legal covenant” versus “evangelical covenant”75 (pactio legalis vs. evangelica) can be easily misunderstood with the pattern of a raw law-​gospel antithesis if this differentiation is not taken into account. In Calvin’s interpretation of Paul’s allegory of the two covenants, the fathers are explained to have been only outwardly and formally slaves under the schoolmaster (Gal. 3:24)76 of the law (pedagogical use), while inwardly free, for they were granted the same Spirit of adoption, which led them to partake in the substance of the law.77 As Calvin had previously written, “Their freedom was not yet revealed, but was hidden under the coverings and yoke of the law.”78 The full enjoyment of the evangelical freedom in the new testament was brought by the revelation of Christ’s coming. What we called earlier “historical difference” led indeed to a quantitative discontinuity between old and new testaments but not to qualitative or substantial difference. The life under the Spirit and evangelical freedom is then described and laid out in ­chapter 5, which does not require our particular attention here. We can note, however, that in Calvin’s commentary on Hebrews 8:6 and the “better covenant,” the Reformer not only mentioned again the substance (materia)-​form differentiation but also deferred explicitly to “the 4th and 5th chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians and my Institutes,”79 to which we now return after this exegetical overview.

74 Calvin, Galatians, 119; Calvin, ad Galatas, 227: “Porro non ita exempti a lege sumus Christi beneficio, ut nullam amplius obedientiam debeamus legis doctrinae, sed liceat quod libuerit. Regula enim bene et sanete vivendi perpetua est. Sed Paulus de lege loquitur cum suis appendicibus.” 75 Calvin, Galatians, 134–​138; Calvin, ad Galatas, 236–​238. 76 On the pedagogical use leading to faith in Christ, see Calvin, ad Galatas, 221: “Et sane nan tantum ad terrendas et humiliandas conscientias valebant caeremoniae, sed etiam erigendas in fidem venturi redemptoris. In tota caeremoniarum pompa quidquid oculis ingerebatur, id quasi notam Christi impressam babebat. Denique nihil aliud erat tota lex, quam multiplex exercitii genus, quo cultures manu ducebantur ad Christum.” 77 See Calvin, Galatians, 137–​138; Calvin, ad Galatas, 238. 78 Calvin, Galatians, 122; Calvin, ad Galatas, 229: “quia scilicet libertas eorum nondum erat revelata, sed inclusa sub legis involucri et iugo.” 79 John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews, in CTS 22:1, 185; Jean Calvin, Commentarius in epistolam ad Hebraeos, in CO 55, 100: “Nam certum est, patribus, qui sub lege vixerunt, eandem vitae aeternae spem fuisse propositam, sicuti communis fuit adoptionis gratia. Iisdem ergo promissionibus subnixam fuisse oportet eorum fidem. Verum haec apostoli comparatio ad formam potius quam ad materiam referenda est. Nam utcunque eandem illis salutem Deus promiserit quam hodie nobis promittit: non eadem tamen, nec aequalis fuit revelationis vel mensura, vel species. Qua de re si quis plura desideret, petat ex quarto et quinto capitibus Epistolae ad Galatas, et ex nostra Institutione.”

260 Receptions A comparison of Calvin’s chapter De similitudine veteris et novi testamenti in his Institutes with Melanchthon’s corresponding treatment in his Loci communes of 1535 crystallizes and summarizes by way of contrast the Reformer’s understanding of the relationship between the old testament and new testament. In the 1535 edition of his Loci communes, unlike in the first edition, Melanchthon explicitly equated the natural law with the moral part of the Mosaic law and gave it an enduring normativity across the testamental distinction.80 Accordingly, the law coexists with the gospel or promissio of Christ, which has been revealed from the beginning (Gen. 3:15). However, Melanchthon strictly discriminated between law and gospel within the biblical canon. If there is any continuity across the canonical and testamental distinction in Melanchthon’s system, it is somehow an antithetical and dehistoricized continuity. There is law and gospel in both, in the Old Testament and in the New Testament Scriptures (as canonical category). The only truly historical but discontinuous part of the law refers to the “policy of Israel.”81 The detachment of law and gospel from their redemptive-​historical foundation makes it possible to say that old and new testaments (as a theological category, corresponding to law and gospel) are actually in both parts of the biblical canon. In Melanchthon’s understanding, the fathers such as Adam, Abraham, and Moses were truly Christians insofar as they shared in the promise of the gospel, that is, the new testament, but not insofar as they shared in the old testament, that is, the law.82 For Melanchthon this antithesis was an either-​or issue. For Calvin (like Bullinger) the fathers shared in the gospel in and through the law, that is, in and through the old testament and the promises attached to it.83 Old and new testaments, theologically speaking, are, accordingly, above all redemptive-​historical categories. The one covenant of grace was

80 See Melanchton, Loci communes, k7v: “Etiamsi lex Moisi ad certum populum ac tempus certum pertinuit, tamen legem naturae omnium esse gentium communem, et ad omnes aetates pertinere, ideoque in natura scripta est.” See also Melanchton, Loci communes theologici, b4r: “Leges divinae sunt leges, quae ubicunque extant, cum in Mose, tum in libris Evangelii.” 81 See Melanchton, Loci communes, k7v. 82 See Melanchton, Loci communes, l1v: “Novum testamentum est promissio iustificationis et vitae aeternae donandae propter Christum. Et cum haec promissio, hoc est, evangelium de Christo ad omnes aetates pertineat, non sic intelligi novum testamentum debet, quasi non pertineat ad patres, sed dicitur novum testamentum, quia est novum et aliud pactum, quam legis pactum, alia priomissio est. Lex enim habebat promissionem regni Israel.” 83 Calvin, Institutio, 315 (Inst. 2.10.3): “Clarissime ergo demonstrat apostolus ad faturam vitam praecipue spectasse testamentum vetus, quum sub eo dicit evangelii promissiones contineri.” Calvin, Institutes, 431: “When the apostle says that the promises of the gospel are contained in it [the law], he proves with utter clarity that the Old Testament was particularly concerned with the future life.”

Calvin  261 administered before Christ’s coming as the old testament or as the law. After Christ’s coming the same covenant of grace was administered as the new testament, that is, the gospel. There is therefore a redemptive-​historical continuity.84 Melanchthon’s understanding of the Pauline letter-​Spirit antithesis (2 Cor. 3.) in the following chapter was intimately bound to his understanding of law and gospel, or old and new testaments. Melanchthon, interpreting Paul, spoke of two dispensations corresponding to the old and new testaments. When Calvin spoke of differing administrationes, he meant dispensations of one same “object,” which is the same covenant of grace. Melanchthon, by contrast, meant two different objects: on the one hand the “dispensation of death,” and on the other hand the “dispensation of Spirit and life.”85 At the most basic level, the spirit is equated by the Wittenberg theologian with the gospel and the letter with the law. Melanchthon acknowledged that the gospel without the Spirit is a dead letter. However, this principle does not work in reverse. The law as such cannot be associated with the Spirit. The Spirit if it comes, comes always with the gospel. Calvin also briefly treated the Spirit and the letter in c­ hapter 11. For Calvin “we are not to surmise from this difference between letter and Spirit that the Lord had fruitlessly bestowed his law upon the Jews, and that none of them turned to him.”86 The letter-​Spirit antithesis is here somewhat weakened, as Calvin acknowledged that the law could also convert people to God, as the gospel does. The antithesis is not so much between law and gospel as between an evangelical or spiritual understanding of the law and a literalistic understanding of the law. In other words, Calvin considered that the Spirit could also come with the law (much as it does with the gospel), which, in that case, becomes a way of administering the covenant of grace.87 Bullinger 84 When Calvin also seems to dehistoricize old and new testament at some places, he immediately nuances them. Compare for example his interpretation of Augustine’s view of the testaments, which is similar to Melanchthon’s in Calvin, Institutio, 336 (Inst. 2.11.10): “Prima latius extenditur: comprehendit enim sub se et quae ante legem editae sunt promissiones. Quod autem ipsas sub veteris testamenti nomine censendas Augustinus negavit, optime in eo sensit, nec aliud vomit quam quod docemus,” but “Inter nostram ergo et illius partitionem [=​Augustin’s] hoc interest, quod nostra (secundum illam Christi sententiam: lex et prophetae usque ad Ioannem, ex eo regnum Dei evangelizatur [Matt. 11:13] inter evangelii claritatem, et obscuriorem quae praecesserat verbi dispensationem distinguit; altera simpliciter legis debilitatem secernit ab evangelii firmitudine.” 85 See Melanchton, Loci communes, l2v–​l3r. 86 Calvin, Institutes, 457; Calvin, Institutio, 335 (Inst. 2.11.8): “differentia ilia literae et spiritus non sic accipienda est, ac si nullo cum fructu legem suam Iudaeis Dominus tulisset, nullo eorum ad se converso.” 87 See Hans Heinrich Wolf, Die Einheit des Bundes: Das Verhältnis von Altem und Neuem Testament bei Calvin, Beiträge zur Geschichte und Lehre der Reformierten Kirche 10 (Neukirchen: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Erziehungsvereins, 1958), 44: “Wenn es bei der Einheit des Bundes bleiben

262 Receptions also understood the moral part of the Mosaic law in his pedagogical use.88 Bullinger’s chapter on the Spirit and the letter in his CHP confirms that he shared Calvin’s understanding.89 There is a foundational difference between Melanchthon’s and Calvin’s understandings of the first use of the law. While the former considered it as a kind of a natural preparation for grace, the latter saw in it already a spiritual administration of grace. Or if one still wants to speak of preparation, it was a preparation led by the Spirit, not a natural one. Only through the Holy Spirit could the law bring someone to evangelical repentance. The law in its pedagogical use is already a work of the Holy Spirit, which leads to an evangelical or spiritual understanding of the law. What about differentia or elements of discontinuity between the two testaments in Calvin’s covenant theology? Our overview of his exegetical writings confirmed the presence of the three basic differences we identified in Zwingli and Bullinger: first, that the promised Christ has now come (historical difference); second, that the covenant has been widened to include the heathens (participational difference); and, third, that the ceremonies such as circumcision have been abolished (liturgical difference). In his Institutes Calvin mentioned explicitly five differences: (1) the mediation of celestial blessings through earthly blessing has been abolished,90 (2) the figurative

soll, dann kann diese Unterscheidung von Gesetz und Evangelium nur eine uneigentliche sein, die das Verhältnis von A. T. und N. T. in keiner Weise letztgültig bestimmen kann. So kehrt dann bei Calvin in Institutio und Schriftauslegung der Gedanke immer wieder, daß da, wo Paulus z. B. von der tötenden Wirkung des Gesetzes redet, von der nuda lex die Rede sei und er es da mit solchen Gesetzesauslegungen zu tun habe, die das Gesetz von der Gnade und dem Geist Christi trennten, für die dann ein so verstandenes Gesetz tötend sein müsse”. See further Lillback, who has synthetized visually in a scheme the complexity of Calvin’s thought in Lillback, Binding, 159. 88 See Bullinger, De testamento, 17v: “Quin ipse decalogus conditionum foederis veluti paraphrasis quaedam esse videtur. Nam quod hic brevibus dicitur, Ego dominus omnisufficientia, per decalogum copiosius exponitur, ad hunc ferme modum, Ego sum dominus deus tuus qui eduxi te de terra Aegypti.” See also Calvin’s interpretation of the first commandment in Calvin, Institutio, 375–​376 (Inst. 2.8.14): “Subest enim loquutioni relatio mutua, quae in promissione continetur: ero illis in Deum, ipsi erunt mihi in populum [Jer. 31:33]. Unde Abrahae, Isaac et Iacob immortalitatem ex eo Christus confirmat, quod Dominus se eorum Deum testatus sit [Matt. 22:32].” 89 See Bullinger, Confessio helvetica posterior, 300: “Nam Litera quae opponitur spiritui, significat quidem omnem rem externam, sed maxime doctrinam legis, sine spiritu et fide in animis, non viva fide credentium, operantem iram, et excitantem peccatum. Quo nomine et ministerium mortis ab Apostolo nuncupatur.” 90 Calvin, Institutio, 329 (Inst 2.11.1): “Porro prima est, quod tametsi olim quoque Dominus populi sui mentes in coelestem haereditatem volebat collimare arrectosque esse animos, quo tamon in spe illius melius alerentur, contemplandam sub beneficiis terrenis ac quodammodo degustandam exhibebat: nunc clarius liquidiusque revelata per evangelium futurae vitae gratia, recta ad eius meditationem omisso inferiori, quern apud Israelitas adhibebat, exercitationis modo, mentes nostras dirigit.”

Calvin  263 ceremonies of the law that have been fulfilled and abolished91 (we note that only in this respect did Calvin differentiate between a foedus legale and a foedus evangelice),92 (3) the letter-​Spirit antithesis,93 (4) the replacement of bondage and fear by freedom and trust,94 and (5) the extension of the covenant to the Gentiles.95 We find an immediate congruence with Bullinger on the first, second, and fifth differences. The third and the fourth are related to the difference between the law and the gospel and are therefore intimately related to the second difference. This variation in the listing of these differences here is indicative less of a discrepancy from the Zurich Reformer than of Calvin’s freedom in developing and ordering his thinking on the covenant. If we refer solely to Calvin’s exposition of the covenant in Inst. 2.10–​11 and compare it to Bullinger’s De testamento, which we have argued forms the background, we see further elements that distinguish Calvin’s work from Bullinger’s treatise. Here I will highlight two, which are interrelated. The first is the striking absence of Genesis 17, Bullinger’s central covenantal text, except in one reference to Genesis 17:7.96 Abraham is repeatedly referred to, but in the Institutes the Abrahamic covenant is not specifically highlighted as foundational for the theology of the covenant as it is in Bullinger’s De testamento. The second element is Calvin’s silence on the sacramental continuity between circumcision and baptism (or Passover and the Eucharist). When Calvin stressed covenantal continuity with respect to the sacraments, he immediately referred to Paul’s typological interpretation of 1 Corinthians 10.97 Bullinger did not quote this passage at all in De testamento; Genesis 91 Calvin, Institutio, 331 (Inst. 2.11.4): “Alterum veteris et novi testamenti discrimen statuitur in figuris; quod illud, absente veritate, imaginem tantum et pro corpore umbram ostentabat; hoc praesentem veritatem et corpus solidum exhibet.” 92 Calvin, Institutio, 332 (Inst. 2.11.4): “Hic videndum est qua parte foedus legale cum foedere evangelico, Christi ministerium cum mosaico conferatur. Nam si ad promissionum substantiam pertineret comparatio, magnum exstaret inter duo testamenta dissidium; sed quum status quaestionis alio nos ducat, eo tendendum est ut verum reperiamus. Foedus ergo quod aeternum et nunquam interiturum semel sancivit, in medio statuamus. Illius complementum, unde tandem habet ut statum ratumque sit, Christus est. Talis confirmatio dum exspectatur, caeremonias Dominus per Mosen praescribit, quae sunt velut solennia confirmationis symbola.” 93 Calvin, Institutio, 334 (Inst. 2.11.9): “Venio ad tertium discrimen, quod ex Ieremia sumitur, cuius sunt verba [Jer. 31:31–​34] Ex quibus occasionem accepit apostolus [cf. 2 Cor. 3:6] comparationis huius inter legem et evangelium statuendae, ut illam vocaret literalem, hoc spiritualem doctrinam.” 94 Calvin, Institutio, 335 (Inst. 2.11.9): “Ex tertio discrimine quartum emergit. Vetus enim testamentum scriptura vocat servitutis, quod timorem in animis generet; novum autem libertatis, quod in fiduciam ac securitatem eosdem erigat.” 95 Calvin, Institutio, 337 (Inst. 2.11.11): “Quintum, quod adiungere licet, discrimen in eo iacet, quod ad Christi usque adventum gentem unam segregaverat Dominus, in qua foedus gratiae suae contineret.” 96 Calvin, Institutio, 318 (Inst. 2.10.9). 97 Calvin, Institutio, 315–​316 (Inst. 2.10.5).

264 Receptions 17 remained the paradigmatic text for his covenantal interpretation of the sacraments, particularly baptism. Did Calvin depart here from Bullinger? One has to look elsewhere in the Institutes to find specific references to the Abrahamic covenant similar to Bullinger’s, which Lillback has accurately summarized.98 And most of the references to Genesis 17 are to be found in the fourth book of the Institutes, especially in relation to baptism and infant baptism. Calvin ordered his covenant material differently, but with regard to doctrine this ordering did not create a serious difference from Bullinger. We shall therefore also look beyond those two single chapters to highlight further aspects of Calvin’s covenant theology.

Covenant and Union with Christ In our study of Bullinger’s covenant theology, we noted that from the 1530s onward Bullinger began to place great emphasis on what we have called the organic-​mystical aspect of the covenant. In Bullinger’s thought, the covenant finds its fulfillment in Christ’s work (historical-​legal aspect). Indeed, the elect participate in his benefits only in union with Christ (organic-​mystical aspect). The covenant is ultimately and explicitly equated with union with Christ. Among Calvin scholars, no one has seriously challenged the fact that union with Christ plays a significant role in Calvin’s theology.99 What is discussed, however, is the theological weight to be attributed to it. I will touch here on that debate only insofar as our question is concerned with the extent that Calvin also linked the covenant to union with Christ. We find that Calvin did make this link,100 but not as obviously as Bullinger. Recent studies on Calvin’s doctrine on union with Christ or participation have more or less neglected the existing theological relationship between covenant and union with Christ. J. Todd Billing’s monograph stands as an exception in showing that Calvin’s language of participation in Christ is intimately related to his theology of the covenant.101 98 Lillback, Binding, 145–​146. 99 See Wilhelm Niesel, Das Evangelium und die Kirchen: Ein Lehrbuch der Symbolik, 2nd ed. (Neukirchen: Erziehungsverein, 1960), 152: “So geht es Calvin . . . grundlegend um ‘die Vereinigung des Hauptes mit den Gliedern, die Einwohnung Christi in unseren Herzen, die geheimnisvolle Einigung.’ ” 100 Pace Bierma in Bierma, German Calvinism, 61: “Calvin, of course, had also stressed this mystical union between Christ and the believer but never in a covenantal context.” 101 J. Todd Billing, Calvin, Participation and the Gift: The Activity of Believers in Union with Christ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 87–​89.

Calvin  265 As our observation of the development of the organic-​mystical aspect of the covenant is heuristically rooted in a close examination of terminology, here I highlight some of the terms Calvin associated with “covenant.”102 In a pattern similar to that found in Bullinger, the most frequently used term by Calvin in his Institutes is foedus (154 times), with pactum appearing 35 times and testamentum 84 times. While the latter denotes in most cases a redemptive-​ historical period, that is, old or new testament, all three terms are generally used interchangeably. Particularly significant are the 97 occurrences of the term coniunctio in his Institutes. We shall see that Calvin included coniunctio at some places explicitly in the semantic field of the covenant, which points to a more organic-​mystical emphasis. Lillback observed with reference to the close association of foedus and coniunctio that “the covenant is the means of union with God.”103 Calvin, however, seems to have been less interested in a precise or differentiated definition of the terms than was the Zurich Reformer. Bullinger, as we have seen, offered at many places, in his treatises as in his commentaries, terminological clarification. By contrast, Calvin did so only in sporadic locations, such as in his commentary on Galatians, where he struggled with appropriate terminology, namely for the right translation of διαθήκη as pactio (covenant) or testamentum in the context of Paul’s allegory.104 There is also a note in his commentary on Hebrews published 1549 where Calvin wrote in the argumentum, “διαθήκη has two meanings in Greek, while |berit| in Hebrew means only a cov� enant.”105 Significantly, Calvin never immediately referred to ‫( ְּב ִרית‬berith) as testamentum in his Old Testament commentaries, using instead foedus, pactum, or pactio. Here also no difference of definition can be inferred. The term testamentum occurs only when Calvin contrasted old and new testaments, such as in Jeremiah 31:31–​34. Crucially, the use of foedus and testamentum as a pair, as often observed in Bullinger’s writings, occurs only rarely in Calvin. As early as the introductory paragraphs of Inst. 2.10, Calvin localized the continuous substance of the covenant in the Christological mediation of the divine communion, using the verb coniungere. In 2.10.7 he spoke of the covenant as Dei participatio.106 In the next paragraph, Calvin defined the covenant basically as mutual belonging: “ ‘I will be your God, and you shall be 102 For a detailed discussion of Calvin’s covenantal terminology see Lillback, Binding, 126–​141. 103 Lillback, Binding, 137. 104 Calvin, ad Galatas, 237–​238. 105 Calvin, ad Hebraeos, 6: “Nam διαθήκη ambiguam apud Graeeos significationem habet. ‫ְּב ִרית‬ autem Hebraeis non nisi foedus significat.” 106 Calvin, Institutio, 317 (Inst. 2.10.7): “Huiusmodi verbi illuminatione, quum adhaeserint Deo Adam, Abel, Noe, Abraham, et reliqui patres, dico minime dubium esse, quin illis in regnum Dei

266 Receptions my people.’ ”107 This covenantal relationship is further defined as coniunctio, requiring justice.108 The terms coniungere/​coniunctio are of special significance as Bullinger also used them for stressing the mystical aspect of the covenant.109 When we look at the Institutes as a whole, we see that Calvin had the same connotation in mind. He employed this term for the marital metaphor between God and the church.110 Further, the term is used for the relation of the two natures of Christ111 and, even in the same chapter, for the relation between Christ and the church.112 The mediation of Christ in the covenantal coniunctio is made explicit in several places.113 Why is the mediator necessary? According to Calvin the covenantal communion can only occur in justice and holiness, which Christ alone can mediate to fallen man in union with himself. With regard to union with Christ, Calvin spoke explicitly of unio mystica.114 Participation in Christ’s justice is the foundation of the covenantal coniunctio, as Calvin wrote: “If a covenant [foedus] of this sort,

immortale fuerit ingressus. Erat enim solida Dei participatio, quae extra vitae aeternae bonum esse non potest”. (Italics mine) 107 Calvin, Institutes, 434; Calvin, Institutio, 317 (Inst. 2.10.8): “Sic enim semper pepigit cum servis suis Dominus: ‘ero vobis in Deum, et vos eritis mihi in populum’ (Levit. 26, 12).” 108 Calvin, Institutio, 318 (Inst. 2.10.8): “Non enim solis utique corporibus Deum se fore denuntiabatdenuntiabat, sed animis praecipue; animae autem, nisi per iustitiam Deo coniunctae, ab ipso alienae in morte manent. Adsit rursum ilia coniunctio: perpetuam salutem secum ducet.” (Italics mine) 109 There is a helpful index of Calvin’s references to union with Christ in Dennis E. Tamburello, Union with Christ: John Calvin and the Mysticism of St. Bernard (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 111–​113. 110 Calvin, Institutio, 279–​280 (Inst. 2.8.18): “Personam mariti erga nos induere usitatissimum est Deo, siquidem coniunctio qua nos sibi devincit, dum in ecclesiae sinum recipit, sacri cuiusdam coniugii instar habet, quod mutua fide stare oportet.” Tellingly, Calvin’s statement appears in the exposition of the second commandment of the law, which stresses the condition of the spouse. 111 Calvin, Institutio, 340 (Inst. 2.12.1): “Ita filium Dei fieri nobis Immanuel oportuit, id est nobiscum Deum: et hac quidem lege, ut mutua coniunctione eius divinitas et hominum natura inter se coalescerent.” (Italics mine) See further p. 353 (Inst. 2.14.1). 112 Calvin, Institutio, 347 (Inst. 2.12.7): “Nec vero eius delirio suffragatur Paulus, qui ubi dixit nos esse carnem de carne Christi, mox adiungit, magnum hoc esse mysterium (Eph. 5, 30). Neque enim quo sensu hoc protulerit Adam referNeque enim quo sensu hoc protulerit Adam referre voluit, sed sub figura et similitudine coniugii sacram coniunctionem propotiere, quae nos unum cum Christo facit. Et hoc verba sonant, quia se de Christo et ecclesia hoc dicere admonens, correctionis loco a lege coniugii discernit spiritualem Christi et ecclesiae coniunctionem.” (Italics mine) 113 See Calvin, Institutio, 365 (Inst. 2.15.5): “Ita quantisper a Deo peregrinamur, Christus intercedit medius, qui nos paulatim ad solidam cum Deo coniunctionem perducat.” (Italics mine) 114 See Calvin, Institutio, 370 (Inst. 2.16.3): “Sed quia in nobis, donec sua morte succurrit Christus, manet iniquitas quae Dei indignationem meretur, et est coram eo maledicta ac damnata, non ante plenam habemus firmamque cum Deo coniunctionem, quam ubi Christus nos coniungit.” (Italics mine); Calvin, Institutio, 540 (Inst. 3.11.10): “Coniunctio igitur illa capitis et membrorum, habitatio Christi in cordibus nostris, mystica denique unio a nobis in summo gradu statuitur, ut Christus noster factus, donorum quibus praeditus est nos faciat consortes.” (Italics mine)

Calvin  267 which is clearly the first union [coniunctio] of us with God, depends upon God’s mercy, no basis is left for our righteousness.”115 (Italics mine) This mystical aspect based on the legal aspect of the covenant was intimately related to the church. The organic-​mystical aspect is both individual and ecclesial. Calvin wrote, “Forgiveness of sins, then, is for us the first entry into the church and Kingdom of God. Without it, there is for us no covenant or bond [coniunctio] with God.”116 This covenant is further defined as ecclesiae societas and Dei familia: “Accordingly, we are initiated into the society [societas] of the church by the sign of baptism, which teaches us that entrance into God’s family is not open to us unless we first are cleansed of our filth by his goodness.”117 The corporeal metaphor of the church also has a covenantal dimension. Union with Christ is so intimate that Calvin could say that the covenant of grace was made with the whole body, that is, not only with the members but also, and first of all, with the head, who is Christ himself. I interpret such passages as referring to the historical covenant of grace fulfilled in union with Christ and not, as some scholars have, to a pretemporal covenant.118 In Calvin’s commentaries we also meet a terminology akin to Bullinger’s emphasis on the organic-​mystical aspect as well as to corporeal and marital metaphors. Here I highlight a number of prominent references. On the Lord’s words above Jacob’s ladder reminding him of his covenant with Jacob’s fathers (Gen. 28:13), Calvin spoke of the covenant as the “sacred bond [vinculum] of religion, by which all the sons of God are united [cohaerent] among themselves.”119 On Psalm 44:2 (the psalm commentary was published 1557) this 115 Calvin, Institutio, 567 (Inst. 3.14.6): “Eiusmodi foedus, quod primam nobis esse cum Deo coniunctionem constat, si misericordia Dei nititur, nullum relinquitur iustitiae nostrae fundamentum.” (Italics mine) 116 Calvin, Institutio, 762 (Inst. 4.1.20): “Est ergo primus nobis in ecclesiam ac regnum Dei ingressus, peccatorum remissio; sine qua nihil est nobis cum Deo foederis aut coniunctionis.” 117 Calvin, Institutio, 762 (Inst. 4.1.20): “Quare in ecclesiae societatem ablutionis signo initiamur, quo doceamur non patere nobis in Dei familiam aditum, nisi primum eius bonitate sordes nostrac abstergantur.” 118 Compare the Latin text with the French translation of the same passages: Calvin, Institutio, 484 (Inst. 3.4.32): “Stat enim foedus in vero nostro Solomone nobiscum percussum, cuius fidem nunquam fore irritam is qui fallere non potest affirmavit” (italics mine) and Calvin, Institution, 150 (Inst. 3.4.32): “Car l’alliance qu’il a une fois faite avec Iesus Christ et ses membres demeure, comme il a promis que iamais elle ne pourroit estre cassée.” (Italics mine); Calvin, Institutio, 766 (Inst. 4.1.27): “Manet enim aeternumque manebit inviolabile pactum Domini, quod solenniter cum Christo, vero Solomone, eiusque membris sancivit his verbis” (italics mine) and Calvin, Institution, 596 (Inst. 4.1.27): “Car l’alliance que nostre Seigneur a faite avec Christ et tous ses membres, demeure et demeurera tousiours inviolable.” (Italics mine) 119 Calvin, Genesis, 115; Calvin, in quinque libros Mosis: pars I, 392: “Quia autem speciale foedus pepigerat cum Abraham et Isaac, Deum se illorum nominans, ad veram fidei originem revocat servum suum Iacob, et in perpetuo foedere eum retinet. Hoc sacrum est pietatis vinculum quo inter se cohaerent omnes filii Dei, quum a primo ad ultimum eandem salutis promissionem”. (Italics mine)

268 Receptions bond is further described as one “of holy alliance [sanctae coniunctionis].”120 On Psalm 45, which is about kingly marriage, Calvin related this marital relationship metaphorically to the covenant with Abraham, which finds fulfillment in the holy coniugio uniting Jews as well as Gentiles with Christ, their spouse.121 In Calvin’s argumentum to his commentary on Isaiah (1551/​ 1559), Christ is said to be “the foundation of the covenant and the bond [vinculum] of the mutual relation [coniunctio] between God and the people.”122 The organic term societas as synonym for covenant is also used, for example in Genesis 17:19, where Ishmael is said to be included in the covenant until “he cut himself off from . . . his brother’s society.”123 In his argumentum of the Genesis commentary, the Reformer had already referred to “the society of the true church” gathering “the family of God” since Adam into the same “communion of faith” in Christ.124 Societas is a term often associated with the covenant in Calvin’s commentary on Acts, especially when the Reformer referred to the reception of the Gentiles into the covenant with the Jews. He spoke most prominently of their inclusion as in the societas foederis (Acts 2:18; Acts 10:15, 44).125 However, where Calvin translated the Pauline-​ Johannine term of koinonia by societas, as in his commentary on 1 John, he never explicitly appended the term foedus as did Bullinger (1 John 1:3).126 On Matthew 22:2 in his harmony of the Synoptics (1555) Calvin made a 120 John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. 2, in CTS 5:1, 152; Jean Calvin, Commentarii in librum Psalmorum pars prior: Ps. I ad XC, in CO 31, 438: “quin potius vinculum sanctae coniunctionis sibi proponunt in Dei foedere, ut inde colligant, ad se pertinere quidquid unquam in Deo bonitatis exporta est ecclesia.” (Italics mine) 121 Calvin, in librum Psalmorum pars prior, 456: “quia foedus quod cum Abraham pepigerat Deus, gentes a regno coelorum usque ad Christi exhibitionem arcebat. Sacro itaque coniugio mundum dignatus est, non secus ac si olim Iudaeus uxorem e gente extera et profana sumpsisset.” 122 John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, in CTS 7:1, xxix. Jean Calvin, Ioannis Calvini commentariorum in Isaiam prophetam pars prior cap. I ad XXXIX, in CO 36, 22: “qui et foederis erat fundamentum et vinculum mutuae inter Deum et populum coniunctionis”. 123 Calvin, Genesis, 462; Calvin, in quinque libros Mosis: pars I, 246: “Respondeo, quamvis Dominus Isaac primogenitum et caput constituat, a quo manare velit salutis foedus: non tamen Ismaelem prorsus excludere: quin potius dum totam Abrahae domum adoptât Ismaelem fratri suo Isaac quasi inferius membrum adiungit, donec se et patris domo et fraterna societate abdicet”. (Italics mine) 124 Calvin, Genesis, 65; Calvin, in quinque libros Mosis: pars I, 246: “Praesertim vero observet, postquam exitiali suo oasu se et omnes posteros Adam perdidit, hoc salutis nostrae fundamentum, hanc esse ecclesiae originem, quod ex profundis tenebris eruti mera Dei gratia novam vitam obtinuimus: patres huius vitae (sicuti per verbum illis a Deo offerebatur) fide factos esse compotes: verbum porro hoc in Christo fuisse fundatum: iam vero eadem salutis promissione, qua initio erectus fuit Adam, pios omnes qui postea vixerunt fuisse sustentatos. Itaque perpetuam ecclesiae successionem ex hoc fonte fluxisse, quod sancti patres alii post alios fide amplexi oblatam sibi promissionem in Dei familiam fuerunt aggregati, ut communem in Christo vitam haberent. Hoc diligenter notandum, ut sciamus quaenam sit verae ecclesiae societas, et quae fidei communio inter Dei filios.” 125 See Jean Calvin, Commentarius in Acta apostolorum, in CO 48, p. 34, p. 233, p. 250. 126 See Jean Calvin, Commentarius in epist. Iohannis, in CO 55, 302–​303.

Calvin  269 significant comment in associating the covenant to the church by way of the marriage metaphor: “God had no other design in his covenant, than to make [Christ] the Governor of his people, and to unite the Church to him by the sacred bond of a spiritual marriage.”127 Clearly, the terms foedus, coniugium, vinculum, ecclesia, and coniungere resp. coniunctio were closely interrelated and could hardly be differentiated in Calvin’s theology. By discerning the two aspects of the covenant, the historical-​legal on the one hand and the organic-​mystical on the other hand, we saw that Bullinger integrated unilaterality and bilaterality such that both had scope of application within his doctrine of the covenant. The postulated tension between election and covenant has been proven to be misleading. Similarly, Calvin also integrated both in his Institutes. Union with Christ confers a gratia duplex—​these two benefits are justification and sanctification, corresponding to the unilateral and bilateral aspects of the covenant respectively. Tellingly, Calvin could also just say that the covenant confers these two graces.128 Not only imputed justice but also inherent justice and holiness leading to obedience are genuine conditions of the covenantal relationship, which becomes bilateral.129 But the unilateral and monergistic foundation is never threatened, as Calvin explicitly links the acceptance of the foedus vitae to divine election.130 The formula monopleurially established but dipleurically administered can also be applied to Calvin’s teaching on the covenant. The bipartite covenant is the outworking of divine election.131 In Calvin’s exegetical works, the Reformer repeatedly referred to this twofold 127 John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke: Vol. II, in CTS 16:2, 169; Jean Calvin, Commentarius in harmoniam evangelicam, in CO 45, 398: “neque alio spectavit Deus in suo foedere quam ut eum populo suo praeficeret, sacroque spiritualis coniugii vinculo ecclesiam ei coniungeret, libenter amplector.” 128 Calvin, Institutio, 929 (Inst. 4.13.6): “Quando enim haec stipulatio in foedere gratiae est inclusa, sub quo et remissio peccatorum et spiritus sanctificationis continetur”. (Italics mine) 129 Calvin, Institutio, 594 (Inst. 3.17.5): “Siquidem ut in omnibus misericordiae suae pactis integritatem ac sanctimoniam vitae vicissim a servis suis Deus stipulatur, ne ludibrio sit sua bonitas, neve quis inani ob earn exsultatione turgidus, benedicat animae suae, ambulans interim in pravitate cordis sui: ita in foederis communionem admissos, vult hac via in officio continere. Nihilo tarnen minus foedus ipsum et gratuitum initio feritur, et perpetuo tale manet.” (Italics mine); Calvin, Institutio, 671 (Inst. 3.20.45): “quemadmodum his tantum duobus membris constat spirituale foedus quod Deus in salutem ecclesiae suae pepigit: leges meas inscribam cordibus ipsorum, et propitius ero eorum iniquitati (Ier. 31, 33 et 33, 8). Hic a remissione peccatorum Christus incipit, deinde mox adiunget secundam gratiam, ut nos spiritus sui virtute tueatur Deus et auxilio sustineat, ut invicti stemus contra omnes tentationes.” (Italics mine) 130 Calvin, Institutio, 678–​679 (Inst. 3.21.1): “Iam vero quod non apud omnes peraeque homines foedus vitae praedicatur, et apud eos quibus praedicatur, non eundem locum vel aequaliter vel perpetuo reperit, in ea diversitate mirabilis divini iudicii altitudo se profert.” (Italics mine) 131 For a detailed discussion on covenantal conditionality by Calvin, see Lillback, Binding, 162–​175.

270 Receptions grace conferred by way of the covenant. We have already touched upon it, for example when we discussed Calvin’s interpretation of Jeremiah 31:31–​ 33 and the new covenant. The Reformer put a particular emphasis on the law being written in the heart of the elect. Calvin wrote that “the coming of Christ would not have been sufficient, had not regeneration by the Holy Spirit been added.”132 The covenant is, in other words, about regeneration (sanctification) as well as about reconciliation (justification). In some places Calvin used synthesizing summaries, such as in reference to Jeremiah 32:40: “Doubtless the new covenant, as we have before seen, consists of two parts, even that God, in adopting us as his children, forgives us, and pardons all our infirmities, and then governs us by his Spirit,”133 or to Matthew 6:12: “for these are the two leading points of the divine covenant, in which all our salvation consists. [Christ] offers to us a free reconciliation by ‘not imputing our sins,’ (2 Corinthians 5:19) and promises the Spirit, to engrave the righteousness of the law on our hearts.”134 The two graces of the covenant are always linked to God’s election or adoption. As we also saw earlier, in Calvin’s comment on Exodus 24:5–​8, he discriminated within covenanted Israel between the elect, who participated in the inner substance of the covenant, and the those who were only externally covenanted. Only the elect could fulfill the condition of obedience in the covenant in their union with Christ through the Holy Spirit, who communicates justifying and sanctifying grace.

Covenant and Sacraments How do the sacraments relate to the covenant? In Bullinger’s covenant theology they are given a prominent place as they combine and crystallize 132 Calvin, Commentaries on the Prophet Jeremiah and the Lamentations: Vol. 4, 127; Calvin, in Ieremiam prophetam: pars altera cap. VIII–​XXXI, 688: “Sed non satis erat Christum venisse nisi adiuncta fuisset regeneratio per spiritum sanctum.” 133 Calvin, Commentaries on the Prophet Jeremiah and the Lamentations: Vol. 4, 219; Jean Calvin, Praelectionum in Ieremiam prophetam: pars ultima cap. XXXII–​LII, in CO 29, 44: “Certe quemadmodum ante vidimus, duobus membris constat novum foedus, nempe quod Deus, ubi nos semel adoptavit in filios, nobis ignoscit, et dat veniam nostris infirmitatibus: deinde spiritu suo nos gubernat.” 134 John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke: Vol. I, in CTS 16:1, 326; Calvin, in harmoniam evangelicam, 200: “sicuti haeo duo sunt praecipua capita divini foederis, quibus tota salus nostra constat: quod nobis gratuitam reconoiliationem offert peccata non imputando, et spiritum promittit, qui iustitiam legis cordibus nostris insculpat.”

Calvin  271 both aspects of the covenant. We will not discuss the differences between Bullinger’s and Calvin’s sacramentology that persisted despite their substantial agreement in the Consensus tigurinus (1549). Our concern here is to demonstrate how the covenant is related to the sacraments in Calvin’s theology. The similarities with Bullinger are obvious. We already noted that the sacraments are hardly referred to in Inst. 2.10–​11, on the covenant. This absence goes back to his organization of his work in loci, for when we look to the fourth book of the Institutes, we see that the covenant is the leading idea behind the Reformer’s doctrine on the sacraments. For Calvin the sacraments were first of all covenantal symbols confirming promises, as redemptive history testifies.135 They are seals of the covenant.136 And covenantal continuity requires that for a given covenant, that is, the covenant of grace, the sacraments remain similar in substance. Calvin’s substance-​form differentiation, observed earlier, applies to the sacraments as well. Circumcision has been changed into baptism,137 and the sacrificial ceremonies into the Eucharist. Why? Because of the redemptive-​historical fulfillment. There is a before and an after, in that the promised Christ was now manifest.138 We have already met this argument with Zwingli and Bullinger. In other words, what we called earlier the historical difference between the old and the new testaments leads to the liturgical difference. However, while Calvin did immediately refer to Genesis 17 with regard to circumcision as an antecedent to baptism, Pesach (Exod. 12) was not the primary text referred to with regard to the Lord’s Supper, as it was for Bullinger.139 What about the organic-​mystical aspect of the covenant? The sacraments are not only symbols of the foedus but also symbols of the communio and societas with Christ.140 Through them the elect participate in the covenantal society or communion.141 They are means by which the redemptive-​historical and legal covenant is communicated (communicatio) to us in our mystical union 135 Calvin, Institutio, 944–​945 (Inst. 4.14.6): “Et quando Dominus promissiones suas foedera nuncupat, sacramenta symbola foederum, ab ipsis hominum foederibus simile adduci potest.” 136 Calvin, Institutio, 1067 (Inst. 4.19.2): “Sacramentum, sigillum est, quo Dei testamentum seu promissio obsignatur.” 137 Calvin, Institutio, 980 (Inst. 4.16.6): “Foedus commune est, communis eius confirmandi causa. Modus confirmandi tantum diversus est, quod erat illis circumcisio, in cuius vicem baptismus nobis successit.” 138 See Calvin, Institutio, 956–​957 (Inst. 4.14.20). 139 Calvin refers to Exod. 12, amongst other passages, in discussing the est of the words of institution, see Calvin, Institutio, 1019 (Inst. 4.17.21). 140 Calvin, Institutio, 980–​981 (Inst. 4.16.7): “Si adduci Christo infantes aequum est, cur non et ad baptismum recipi, symbolum nostre cum Christo communionis ac societatis?” (Italics mine) 141 See Calvin, Institutio, 993 (Inst. 4.16.24).

272 Receptions with Christ.142 However, the use of the sacraments remains instrumental versus ontological. And the ultimate bond is the Holy Spirit, who unites us to Christ.143 In his exegesis of Genesis 17, Calvin explains the liturgical change to the sacraments in light of the biblical discourse on the everlastingness, that is, continuity, of the covenant. On circumcision being an “everlasting covenant” in Genesis 17:13, Calvin explained that “by the coming of Christ, circumcision was substantially confirmed, so that it should endure for ever, and that the covenant which God had before made should be ratified.”144 (Italics mine) The substance of the covenant signified and pledged through circumcision was not altered by Christ, writes Calvin. On the contrary, his coming truly revealed and confirmed the spiritual and perpetual reality of the circumcision and the ceremonial law more generally, whose utility was then brought to an end. “Therefore, although the use of circumcision has ceased; yet it does not cease to be an everlasting, or perpetual covenant”.145 Calvin argued further from Colossians 2:11 that as spiritual circumcision, Christ’s death made necessary the substitution of carnal circumcision for baptism, because of the revelation and confirmation of the substance of the covenant or the spiritual reality behind circumcision in the atonement of Christ. In discussing the words of institution, Calvin also refers to the spiritual feeding of the Supper in the new testament or covenant as Christ’s sacrifice has been offered: Now Christ openly declares that he called the bread his body, for no other reason than because he has made with us an everlasting covenant, that, the sacrifice having been once offered, we may now be spiritually fed. There are two things here which deserve our attention; for from the word testament, or covenant, (διαθήκη,) we infer that a promise is included in the Holy

142 See Calvin, Institutio, 1019 (Inst. 4.17.20): “Interea quale sit istud in Christi corpore et sanguine testamentum, ut iam admonui, tenere convenit: quia non aliter prodesset nobis foedus sacrificio mortis sancitum, nisi accederet arcana ilia communicatio qua in unum cum Christo coalescimus.” (Italics mine) 143 Calvin, Institutio, 1011 (Inst. 4.17.12): “Vinculum ergo istius coniunctionis est spiritus Christi, cuius nexu copulamur; et quidam veluti canalis, per quem quidquid Christus ipse et est et habet, ad nos derivatur.” (Italics mine) 144 Calvin, Genesis, 456; Calvin, in quinque libros Mosis: pars I, 242: “Nam Christi demum adventu in solidum sancita fuit circumcisio, ut semper duraret, ratumque esset foedus illud quod semel Deus pepigit.” 145 Calvin, Genesis, 456; Calvin, in quinque libros Mosis: pars I, 243: “Ergo licet usus circumcisionis cessaverit, non tarnen ipsa desinit esse foedus saeculi vel perpetuum.”

Calvin  273 Supper. This refutes the error of those who maintain that faith is not aided, nourished, supported, or increased by the sacraments; for there is always a mutual relation between the covenant of God and the faith of men. By the epithet “new” he intended to show that the ancient figures now cease, and give way to a firm and everlasting covenant.146

The revelation of the spiritual reality or the transition from the old to the new testament made necessary the sacramental change. We saw earlier that the polemics around both sacraments functioned as a catalyst for Zwingli’s covenantal turn and that the covenant still played a major role in Bullinger’s defense of his Reformed doctrine on the sacraments. Here lies a major contextual difference between the Zurich Reformers and Calvin. It seems that the latter’s covenant theology is to a lesser extent impregnated by confessional polemics. The most striking example is the total absence of references to the Anabaptists and their rejection of infant baptism in Calvin’s exegesis of Genesis 17 in his commentary.147 Genesis 17 is explicitly referred to in Calvin’s Institutes, in Inst. 4.16, to defend the baptism of infants against the Anabaptists, but any allusion to the pedobaptismal controversy is missing in the covenant chapters of Inst. 2.10–​11. This cannot be explained simply by the different organization of the theological material. This absence is revealing, I propose, on two counts in particular. First, it confirms that the Anabaptists did not present the same threat to the Genevan church that they did to the Zurich community. Second, and more important, it shows that Calvin found the covenant theology developed in Zurich intrinsically convincing. In Calvin’s understanding, that theology of the covenant stood firm on its own ground, without any need to justify it by importing the polemics heard in Zurich during its discovery and development.

146 John Calvin, Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke: Vol. III, in CTS 17:1, 215; Calvin, in harmoniam evangelicam, 711: “Christus est ipse qui loquitur, quem idoneum sui sermonis interpretem esse non negabunt: atqui palam ostendit, non alia ratione se panem vocasse corpus suum, nisi quia nobiscum foedus aeternum pepigit, ut, sacrificio semel oblato, spiritualiter nunc epulemur. Porro hie duo notatu digna sunt: nam ex voce testamenti aut foederis colligimus, inclusam esse promissionem in sacra coena. Quo refellitur eorum error, qui fidem sacramentis iuvari, foveri, fulciri et augeri negant: nam inter foedus Dei et hominum fidem semper mutua subest relatio. Epitheto novi docere voluit, iam desinere veteres figuras, ut stabili et aeterno pacto locum cedant.” 147 The only explicit reference to the Anabaptists is in relationships to the Noachitic covenant, but an immediate sacramental reference is lacking there, see Calvin, in quinque libros Mosis: pars. I, 148.

274 Receptions

A Prelapsarian Covenant? We have seen that Zwingli explicitly mentioned a prelapsarian covenant related to the dominio terrae and that Bullinger basically shared that concept. We have also pointed out that Bullinger linked the law or obedience to the imago Dei, traced everlasting life back to obedience, and had a sacramental interpretation of the tree of life. Lillback demonstrated the existence of similar concepts in Calvin’s covenant theology.148 Significantly, Calvin intimately linked Adam’s original creation in God’s image with his coniunctio with God.149 In discussing the sacraments, Calvin mentioned the Adamic tree of life and the Noachitic rainbows in one move as “proofs and seals of his covenants [testament].”150 (Italics mine) These two explicit references concern some sort of prelapsarian covenant, as we have already located in Bullinger. There is an interesting difference between Calvin and Zwingli on Hosea 6:7. While the Zurich Reformer, as we saw earlier, associated the broken covenant with Adam’s fall in Genesis 3, Calvin translated “Adam” in the generic sense as “men” (homines), putting aside any allusion to a prelapsarian covenant.151 Calvin, like Bullinger (and Zwingli) seems, however, not to have been interested in, or to have seen the need for, developing the theological insights of a prelapsarian covenant. Lillback’s assessment questioned the thesis of the Melanchthonian origins of Ursinus’s covenant theology, which is usually seen as a cornerstone for the mature development of the covenant of creation into a covenant of works. Melanchthon’s law-​gospel antithesis and his theological appreciation of natural law are said to have been integrated by Ursinus into Reformed covenant theology. Lillback argued that Calvin held a similar view of the natural law and that Ursinus had a law-​gospel distinction akin to Calvin’s letter-​Spirit distinction, and not to Melanchthon’s. It must therefore have been Calvin’s covenant theology that influenced Ursinus, so ran his basic argument. While Lillback certainly made a good case for his critique of the Melanchthonian origins, he neglected Bullinger. We have seen that the natural-​law concept is

148 See Lillback, Binding, 287–​289. 149 Calvin, Institutio, 345 (Inst. 2.12.6): “Ego vero ut concedam imaginent Dei Adam gestasse quatenus Deo coniunctus erat (quae vera est ac summa dignitatis perfectio)”. (Italics mine) 150 Calvin, Institutes, 1294 (Inst. 4.14.18); Calvin, Institutio, 955 (4.14.18): “documenta essent testamentorum . . . ac sigilla.” (Italics mine) See also Calvin’s use of the term symbolum in his commentary on Gen. 2–​3. 151 See Jean Calvin, Praelectiones in duodecim prophetas minores: pars prior: Hoseas-​Ioel, in CO 42, 331.

Calvin  275 not foreign to Bullinger’s understanding of the prelapsarian state either and that he also distinguished between Spirit and letter, as did Calvin. Ursinus’s influences may have been multiple, as we shall see in the next chapter. Both Calvin and Bullinger may have provided significant impetus for Ursinus’s productive development of covenant theology. A monocausal line of influence appears to be an unnecessarily reductive, especially given the similarities between Bullinger and Calvin.

Conclusion Calvin’s covenant theology contains two aspects we have identified as crucial in Bullinger’s development of covenant theology—​the historical-​legal and the organic-​mystical, two sides of the same covenant, unilateral and bilateral. From this short and selective comparison, we can only conclude that Calvin never departed from nor developed Bullinger’s insights; instead, Calvin integrated them into his theology. Differences in emphasis are apparent, but they are more quantitative than qualitative in nature. Bullinger was more often explicit in his equation of the covenant with union with Christ, and in his writings foedus is more often explicitly interchangeable with organic-​ mystical terms. In terms of covenantal terminology, Bullinger drew on richer resources. Terms such as unio, communio, and religio are not expressly linked to the covenant by the Genevan Reformer, in contrast to the Zurich Antistes. We have also seen that Bullinger generally used the covenant in a wide spectrum of genres and for different theological concerns, for example in his theology of Scripture or his discussion of the biblical canon. The same breadth has not yet been demonstrated for Calvin. Evidence of a covenantal view of the prelapsarian state of man can be found for both Reformers, although a sparsity of textual testimonies may not be legitimate evidence of a different in emphasis. Neither Reformer sensed that he needed to develop this theme as the next generation of Reformed covenant theologians would do, as we shall now see. They had paved the way, however, for this subsequent theological development.

7 Heidelberg In this final chapter, I trace some lines of development by way of a selective and thematic approach to Zacharius Ursinus (1534–​1583) and Caspar Olevian (1536–​1587). While we moved through the primary sources comprehensively for Zwingli and Bullinger and selectively for Calvin, at this point I will refer to only a limited range of texts and rely all the more on secondary sources. Ursinus and Olevian belong to the canon of orthodox Reformed theologians not only in connection to the Heidelberg Catechism but also in relation to the development of covenant theology. Their thought is generally considered a landmark in allowing a prelapsarian covenant of works to emerge alongside the redemptive covenant of grace. Older scholarship tended to interpret this development as a discontinuity, breaking with the earlier Reformers’ supposed mono-​covenantal system. As we have already seen, however, Zwingli and Bullinger already knew of a prelapsarian and non-​redemptive covenantal relationship between God the creator and his creatures. If it is anachronistic to read the later development of Reformed covenant theology into the Zurich theologians, so it appears equally implausible historically to posit such a discontinuity between the Reformation and early Reformed orthodoxy. In investigating the continuity from the Reformation to early Reformed orthodoxy, I will re-​­evaluate Bullinger’s reception by these Heidelberg theologians with respect to our earlier results. Recent studies, we have noted, have often underscored Calvin’s influence at the expense of Bullinger’s. This study will correct this view. The development of covenant theology in the Reformed tradition reached a new milestone in the 1560s in Heidelberg under Elector Palatine Frederick III. Two theologians were at the forefront of the advance, Zacharias Ursinus (1534–​1583) and Caspar Olevian (1536–​1587). The former is usually held responsible, for better or for worse, for opposing a covenant of creation (precursor of the so-​called covenant of works) to the covenant of grace. Barth summarized well the traditional interpretation as positing a foreign

The Zurich Origins of Reformed Covenant Theology. Pierrick Hildebrand, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2024. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197607572.003.0008

Heidelberg  277 Melanchthonian “intrusion” (Einbruch) into Reformed theology.1 This thesis, we have noted, is reductionist at best. Melanchthon’s influence on the Heidelberg theologians, especially on the young Ursinus, cannot be denied, but neither can Melanchthonian influence on the young Bullinger and young Calvin. We need to be reminded, for example, that Bullinger used the first edition of Melanchthon’s Loci communes as a textbook in Kappel and that Calvin modeled his Institutio after that same work. But their reception of Melanchthon was undoubtedly critical and selective. Should we not consider by way of analogy a similarly critical reception by the Heidelberg theologians? Moreover, Lillback has argued that the elements leading to the allegedly new covenantal framework attributed to the Wittenberg humanist are also present in Calvin. We have seen that these same elements were already found in Bullinger. The tendency in past research to associate certain theologians with particular doctrines has led many to see the trees but miss the forest. A common doctrinal body was shared by Melanchthon as well as by Bullinger and Calvin, despite theological differences. The sources for Ursinus’s and Olevian’s reception of that one same doctrine, which included the equation of divine law with natural law, were likely various. Melanchthon did not hold the patent for that argument. My goal here is not to replace Melanchthon or Calvin in the line of reception by Bullinger, but to show that Bullinger has a legitimate place beside them as mentor of the Heidelberg theologians.

Zacharias Ursinus (1534–​1583) Zacharias Ursinus was born in Breslau on 18 July 1534. He studied in Wittenberg under Melanchthon from 1550 until 1557, when he left Wittenberg to escort his “master” to the Colloquy of Worms and undertook a study trip to Switzerland and France to meet the main Reformed thinkers, including Bullinger, Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499–1562), and Calvin. A year later he received a call to teach in his native city. Soon involved in debates over the Lord’s Supper, he adopted increasingly Reformed views. In 1560 he left Breslau and traveled via Wittenberg to Zurich, for the second time. As Erdmann Sturm could show from his correspondence, Ursinus developed a very positive view of Zwingli’s theology that ran counter to the assessment of 1 KD IV/​I: 62.

278 Receptions his former teacher Melanchthon.2 Significantly, Calvin always remained at a distance from Zwingli. The neglected fact of Ursinus’s rapprochement with Zwingli’s theology can only be explained by Ursinus’s strong commitment to the theology developed in Zurich by Bullinger and his colleagues. Ursinus was then called by Elector Palatine Frederick III to lead the Collegium Sapientiae, the Heidelberg theological college where church ministers were trained. He had probably been recommended by Bullinger and Vermigli. Ursinus’s uncompromising commitment to the Reformed faith seems beyond doubt. This is a critical point, as some scholars considered him to have remained essentially Melanchthon’s pupil. In 1562 he succeeded Olevian as professor of theology. During his early years in Heidelberg, Ursinus composed two catechisms, the Catechesis Minor and the Catechesis, summa theologiae (below: Summa theologiae), which is of particular interest to us. The former was written in late 1561 or early 1562, probably as a draft for the Heidelberg Catechism. On that count, Ursinus was a leading member of the committee that produced the Heidelberg Catechism. He was also involved in an authorized exposition of the catechism.3 He taught in Heidelberg until the death of Frederick III, in 1577. When the elector’s Lutheran successor began to remove all evidence of the Reformed confession, Ursinus was forced to leave the Palatinate, along with his Reformed colleagues. He accepted the call from Frederick’s III brother to teach at the new theological school in Neustadt, where he stayed until his death in 1587.4 To date, there has been no thorough study of Ursinus’s covenant theology, although his name appears in most of the modern historical-​theological surveys of Protestant theology, where, as we noted, he is closely associated with a new step in the development of Reformed covenant theology. He is viewed as having placed a Melanchthonian law-​gospel antithesis within a covenantal frame and having introduced a bi-​covenantal system. This thesis has been questioned, with good reason, by Lillback, who sees in Ursinus’s covenant theology a debt to Calvin. In that Ursinus was as much in contact with Calvin as with Bullinger in the early 1560s, they might both have served

2 See Erdmann K. Sturm, Der junge Zacharias Ursin: Sein Weg vom Philippismus zum Calvinismus (1534–​1562), Beiträge zur Geschichte und Lehre der Reformierten Kirche 33 (Neukirchen-​Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972), 189–​195. 3 Zacharias Ursinus, Doctrinae christianae compendium, seu, commentarii catechetici (Geneva: Eustace Vignon, 1584). 4 For a short biographical sketch of Ursinus, see Boris Wagner-​Peterson, Doctrina schola vitae: Zacharias Ursinus (1534–​ 1583) als Schriftausleger, Refo500 Academic Studies 13 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 14–​19.

Heidelberg  279 as his mentors. Here I shall explore possible influences in light of one specific source, the Summa theologiae. This work was probably written in late 1562, after the Catechesis Minor, and it may have been used in the final stages of the composition of the Heidelberg Catechism.5 The Summa theologiae was published for the first time posthumously, in 1584,6 and then in the first volume of the collected works by Reuter in 1612,7 which is the base text of Lang’s edition.8 Whatever formulations might have been borrowed from Melanchthon,9 doctrinally Ursinus was, as we shall see, far from uncritical of his former teacher, and he moved very close to his new Reformed mentors, including Bullinger and Calvin. Ursinus introduced the Summa theologiae with the following question and response: 1 Q. What firm comfort do you have in life and in death? A. That I was created by God in his image for eternal life, and after I willingly lost this in Adam, out of his infinite and gracious mercy God received me into his covenant of grace [foedus gratiae], so that because of the obedience and death of his Son sent in the flesh, he might give me as a believer righteousness and eternal life. It is also that he sealed his covenant, in my heart by his Spirit,

5 See Lyle D. Bierma, “Introduction to ‘Translations of Ursinus’s Catechisms,’” in An Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism: Sources, History, and Theology with a Translation of the Smaller and Larger Catechisms of Zacharias Ursinus, ed. Liyle D. Bierma (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 138: “In sum, we can say in all likelihood (1) that Ursinus was the author of both the SC and LC [Larger Catechism =​Catechesis, Summa theologiae]; (2) that he composed the SC [Smaller Catechism =​Catechesis minor] in late 1561 or early 1562 and the LC in late 1562; (3) that the SC was designed as a simple catechism for untutored adults and children, possibly commissioned but certainly employed as a preliminary draft for the HC; and (4) that the LC was designed as a midlevel theological text for university students, not commissioned for the writing of the HC but probably consulted late in the process.” 6 In this first edition the catechism bears another name, namely Catechesis, hoc est, rudimenta religionis Christianae. See Zacharias Ursinus, Catechesis, hoc est, rudimenta religionis Christianae, in Zachariae Ursini Uratislaviensis, theologi summi, sacrarumque literarum in Heidelbergensi et Neustadiana schola professoris celeberrimi, et de ecclesia Dei atque scholis optime meriti, volumen tractationum theologicarum, ed. Johannes Ursinus (Neustadt 1584), 620. 7 For an English translation of the Summa theologiae, see Zacharias Ursinus, The Larger Catechism, in Bierma, An Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism, 163–​223. 8 Zacharias Ursinus, Die zwei Vorarbeiten Ursins, in Der Heidelberger Katechismus und vier verwandte Katechismen (Leo Jud’s und Micron’s kleine Katechismen, sowie die zwei Vorarbeiten Ursins), ed. August Lang, Quellenschriften zur Geschichte des Protestantismus 3 (Leipzig: A. Deichert’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1907), 151–​218. 9 See Lyle D. Bierma, “Ursinus and the Theological Landscape of the Heidelberg Catechism,” in The Spirituality of the Heidelberg Catechism: Papers of the International Conference on the Heidelberg Catechism Held in Apeldoorn 2013, ed. Arnold Huijgen, Refo500 Academic Studies 24 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 14–​16.

280 Receptions who renews me in the image of God and cries out in me, “Abba, Father,” by his Word and by the visible signs of this covenant.10 (Italics mine)

In this first question Ursinus conveyed in condensed form the fundamentals of the foedus gratiae. Redemptive-​historically, the covenant of grace is postlapsarian and begins with or in Adam and is fulfilled in Christ. The goal of the foedus gratiae is the recovering of the prelapsarian imago Dei. The mystical aspect of the covenant consists in the sealing of the covenant in the heart by God’s Holy Spirit. The individual union with Christ is given, but not yet the ecclesial communion, which happens, however, through the church sacraments as “visible signs of this covenant” (signa foederis). How did Ursinus see the relation between this covenant of grace and both testaments? He wrote: 33 Q. What is the difference between the old and new testaments? A. It is the same testament or covenant of God with all the elect from the time of the first promise announced in Paradise, concerning the seed of the woman who would crush the head of the serpent, to the end of the world. But they are called old and new testaments because some of the circumstances [circumstantia] and signs of the covenant were changed. For, in the first place, in the old testament they believed in the Christ yet to come; in the new we believe in the Christ who has been revealed. Second, the old testament contained the promise of the preservation of the nation of Israel until Christ; in the new we have only the general promise of the preservation of the church under various governments. Third, the old testament had levitical ceremonies, for which, having been abolished in the new, Christ instituted baptism and his Supper. Fourth, the old testament was more obscure; the new is clearer.11 (Italics mine) 10 Ursinus, Larger Catechism, 163; Ursinus, zwei Vorarbeiten Ursins, 152: “(1.) Quam habes firmam in vita et morte consolationem? Quod a Deo ad imaginem ejus et vitam aeternam sum conditus: et postquam hanc volens in Adamo amiseram, Deus ex immensa et gratuita misericordia me recepit in foedus gratiae suae, ut propter obedientiam et mortem Filii sui missi in carnem, donet mihi credenti justitiam et vitam aeternam: atque hoc foedus suum in corde meo per Spiritum suum, ad imaginem Dei me reformantem et clamantem in me Abba Pater, et per verbum suum et signa hujus foederis visibilia obsignavit.” (Italics mine) 11 Ursinus, Larger Catechism, 168; Ursinus, zwei Vorarbeiten Ursins, 156: “(33.) Quod est discrimen testamenti veteris et novi? “Idem testamentum est seu foedus Dei cum omnibus electis inde a prima promissione edita in Paradiso de semine mulieris conculcaturo caput serpentis, usque ad mundi finem: Sed vetus et novum dicitur propter aliquas circumstantias et signa foederis mutata. Primo enim in veteri credebatur in Christum venturum: in novo in exhibitum credimus. Secundo, vetus habebat promissionem de

Heidelberg  281 We are told that the old and new testamentum are primarily understood as two historical-​redemptive periods of the same covenant of grace. The differences mentioned are about circumstantia and not about the substance of the covenant. Ursinus echoed what we have called the historical and liturgical differences identified by Bullinger. Moreover, Ursinus distinguished between the law and the gospel in his catechism. A distinction between law and gospel could also be observed in Calvin’s and Bullinger’s covenant theology. The fundamental question is whether Ursinus’s differentiation was Melanchthonian or Reformed. While Melanchthon opposed law and gospel, Bullinger and Calvin distinguished between them without separating them so sharply. I propose that Ursinus followed the Reformed approach. Ursinus asked about the law-​ gospel distinction and answered by introducing the creational and prelapsarian foedus naturale: 36 Q. What is the difference between the law and the gospel? A. The law contains the natural covenant [foedus naturale], established by God with humanity in creation, that is, it is known by humanity by nature, it requires our perfect obedience to God, and it promises eternal life to those who keep it and threatens eternal punishment to those who do not. The gospel, however, contains the covenant of grace, that is, although it exists, it is not known at all by nature; it shows us the fulfilment in Christ of the righteousness that the law requires and the restoration in us of that righteousness by Christ’s Spirit; and it promises eternal life freely because of Christ to those who believe in him.12 (Italics mine)

Significantly, Ursinus did not equate the foedus naturale or the law with the old testament. What is the precise relationship between the foedus gratiae and the foedus naturale? Ursinus understood the foedus gratiae as the fulfillment, and servanda usque ad Christum politia Israelitica: in novo tantum generalem promissionem habemus de servanda Ecclesia sub quibuscunque imperiis. Tertio, vetus habebat ceremonias Leviticas, quibus in novo abolitis, Christus baptismum et coenam suam instituit. Quarto, vetus obscurius, novum clarius est.” (Italics mine) 12 Ursinus, Larger Catechism, 168–​169; Ursinus, zwei Vorarbeiten Ursins, 156: “(36.) Quod est discrimen Legis et Evangelii? “Lex continet foedus naturale, in creatione a Deo cum hominibus initum, hoc est, natura hominibus nota est; et requirit a nobis perfectam obedientiam erga Deum, et praestantibus eam, promittit vitam aeternam, non praestantibus minatur aeternas poenas. Evangelium vero continet foedus gratiae, hoc est, minime natura notum existens: ostendit nobis ejus justitiae, quam Lex requirit, impletionem in Christo, et restitutionem in nobis per Christi Spiritum; et promittit vitam aeternam gratis propter Christum, his qui in eum credunt.”

282 Receptions not the abolition, of the foedus naturale. He spoke elsewhere of the restitutio of the broken covenant.13 Christ’s justice is not only imputed to fallen man (justification) but also restored in fallen man (sanctification) so that he is restored into a new life of obedience to the law. The imago Dei abides in the obedience to the law because the law represents and characterizes God’s perfect being. Can Ursinus be accused of having integrated Melanchthon’s natural law concept here? Seeing in the natural law God’s implanted character in man despite man’s corruption through sin is a position associated with Zurich rather than with Wittenberg. Bullinger explicitly equated natural law with the divine law, as can be observed in the Decades14 and in the Confessio Helvetica Posterior.15 And so too did Zwingli before him, in his 67 Articles16 and in his Commentarius,17 which was even earlier than Melanchthon’s second edition of the Loci Communes. The connection between imago Dei and law can be traced back to Zwingli and Bullinger. Moreover, the idea of a prelapsarian covenant was explicit in Zwingli and implicit in Bullinger, as we have observed. Ursinus did not see a strict opposition between the foedus naturale and the foedus gratiae, as both law and obedience remain relevant for Christians. Ursinus could therefore say that good works are necessary for justification (as a second cause) because they are an intrinsic part of the covenant that is not abolished but instead endures for eternity: 140 Q. If, therefore, good works contribute nothing to our righteousness, can we be justified even though none are found in us? A. No, we cannot. 141 Q. What causes you to say this? A. First, because the covenant of God is valid only for those who keep it. We are obligated not only to believe in Christ but also to live holy lives before God, incipiently in this life and perfectly in the next. Second, because God gave his Son over to death for us and received us in grace, not so that we might have license to wallow in our sins but so that we might be thankful for his benefits by walking in newness of life. Third, because whomever God justifies because of Christ he also regenerates to new life by the Holy Spirit. So then he does not impute Christ’s merit to those who are not ruled by the Spirit of Christ. Fourth,

13 Ursinus, zwei Vorarbeiten Ursins, 162: “(72.) Quod ergo est Mediatoris officium?”



14 Bullinger, Sermonum decades, 120–​128.

Foedus inter Deum et homines, qui a Deo defecerant, restituere.”

15 Bullinger, Confessio helvetica posterior, 297. 16 Zwingli, Auslegen, 325–​327.

17 Zwingli, Commentarius, 706–​707.

Heidelberg  283 because it is impossible that there be true faith without its fruits. One who does not have these fruits, therefore, can neither boast of faith nor take comfort in partnership in the divine covenant.18

Ursinus’s statement points to a genuine bilaterality and conditionality of the covenant. However, this bilateral aspect does not hinder him from speaking of monergistic election in the strongest terms,19 which Bullinger and Calvin also did, but, tellingly, it is not to be found in the late Melanchthon, whose approach was synergistic. What of the organic and mystical aspect of the covenant? At the beginning of the catechism, Ursinus already made clear that God established (initum) a covenant with the one who is in Christ (Christo insitus).20 Covenant and union with Christ are intimately related. In question 73 Ursinus asked why there is need for a covenantal mediator. His answer ran, A. Because God’s justice demanded that he be angry with humanity forever on account of their sin. Since, therefore, it was impossible for God to have any fellowship [societas] with the human race that would violate his justice, it was necessary that someone intervene who, by appeasing God for us, satisfying his justice, and taking away every future offense, might again unite [coniungere] separated humanity with God.21 (Italics mine) 18 Ursinus, Larger Catechism, 189; Ursinus, zwei Vorarbeiten Ursins, 172–​173: “(140.) Siquidem igitur nihil ad nostram justitiam conferunt bona opera, possumus ne justificari, licet ea in nobis nulla inveniantur? Nequaquam possumus. “(141.) Quibus de causis hoc ais? Primum, quia foedus Dei nullis ratum est, nisi illud servantibus. Obligavimus autem nos non tantum ad credendum in Christum, sed etiam ad sancte coram Deo vivendum, in hac vita quidem incoatione, in altera vero consummatione. Secundo, quia Deus Filium suum pro nobis in mortem tradidit, et nos in gratiam recipit, non ut in peccatis volutandi nos licentiam habeamus, sed ut in vitae novitate ambulantes, grati simus pro his beneficiis. Tertio, quia Deus, quoscunque propter Christum justificat, eosdem Spiritu sancto ad novam vitam regenerat. Qui igitur Spiritu Christi non reguntur, his nec meritum ipsius imputatur. Quarto, quia fidem veram sine fructibus suis esse, est impossibile. Hos igitur qui non habet, neque de fide gloriari, neque foederis divini societate se consolari potest.” 19 See Ursinus, zwei Vorarbeiten Ursins, 182: “(216.) Omnibus ne hominibus ilia gratia contingit vel exposita est? “Minime vero: Sed illis tan tum, quos ab aeterno Deus in Christo ad vitam aeternam elegit. ut misericordiam suam in illis patefaciat.” 20 Ursinus, zwei Vorarbeiten Ursins, 152: “(2.) Qui scis, tale foedus a Deo tecum esse initum? Quia vere Christianus sum. (3.) Quem dicis vere Christianum? Qui vera fide Christo insitus, et in eum baptizatus est.” 21 Ursinus, Larger Catechism, 176; Ursinus, zwei Vorarbeiten Ursins, 162: “Quia justitia Dei postulabat, ut Deus hominibus propter peccatam esset in aeternum iratus. Cum igitur esset impossibile, ut contra suam justitiam Deus ullam cum genere humano societatem iniret, necesse fuit aliquem intervenire, qui Deum nobis exorans, justitiae Dei satisfaciens, et omnem in posterum offensionem tollens, homines a Deo avulsos, rursus cum eo conjungeret.” (Italics mine)

284 Receptions Christ is the mediator who mediates the human societas or coniunctio with God. Here, union with Christ is understood not simply in individual terms but as communional. However, the mystical and ecclesial aspect of the covenant is grounded in its redemptive-​historical and legal aspects. The church inherits Christ’s satisfaction of justice and his benefits by way of testamentum, with the testator Christ himself. Testamentum is explicitly equated with foedus in question 32.22 The sacraments also point to the mystical aspect of the covenant. They are not only seals and signs of the covenant but also a means to participate in Christ, which Ursinus can also formulate as participation in the covenant.23 The sacraments include both aspects of the covenant, the historical-​legal and the organic-​mystical. Willem van Vlastuin has asserted that “the most important difference between Ursinus’ Larger Catechism and the Heidelberg Catechism is the fact that the concept of the covenant was changed into the belonging to Christ.”24 However, in Ursinus’s Summa theologiae belonging to Christ was already an essential aspect of the covenant.

Caspar Olevian (1536–​1587) Caspar Olevian was born in Trier on 10 August 1536. He first came in contact with Protestant circles at the law faculties in Orléans and Bourges in the late 1550s. In mid-​1558 he began theological studies in Calvin’s Geneva that were interrupted by a three-​month stay in Zurich, where he heard Bullinger and explored Zurich theology. On the advice of Calvin and Guillaume Farel (1489–​1565), in March 1559 he returned to Trier as a preacher, seeking to reform his native city. In autumn of the same year, Olevian was imprisoned for his missionary endeavor. The young Elector Palatine Frederick III paid a ransom in order that Olevian might follow a call in 1561 to become



22 Ursinus, zwei Vorarbeiten Ursins, 155–​156: “(32.) Quare hoc foedus etiam testamentum dicitur?

“Primo, quia in Ecclesia usurpari coepit nomen testamenti pro foedere. Secundo, quia sicut testamentum non est ratuminsi interveniente morte testatoris: ita foedus hoc sanciri non potuit nisi morte Christi.” 23 See questions 281 and 300 in Ursinus, zwei Vorarbeiten Ursins, 192: “(281.) Potest ne aliquis absque sacramentorum usu, foederis divini et salutis aeternae particeps vel certus esse?”; Ursinus, zwei Vorarbeiten Ursins, 195: “(300.) Est ne manducare Christum, tantum meriti Christi et donorum Spiritus sancti participem fieri?” (Italics mine) 24 Willem van Vlastuin, “The Promise of Unio Mystica: An Inquiry into the Functioning of a Spiritual-​Theological Concept in the Heidelberg Catechism,” in Huijgen, The Spirituality of the Heidelberg Catechism, 172.

Heidelberg  285 professor of theology at the Collegium Sapientiae. Olevian relinquished the position a year later to serve as a minister and became a leading member of the Heidelberg consistory. He helped consolidate the Reformed orientation given by the new political leader to the state church. Olevian’s authorship of the Heidelberg Catechism has been a matter of debate, but it is beyond doubt is that he “identified with the catechism.”25 He was certainly involved in the creation of the new Reformed Palatine Kirchenordnung. Following the death of Frederick III in 1576 and the re-​Lutheranization of the state by his successor, Olevian was exiled to the Wetterau counties and taught in Herborn until his death, in 1587. Significantly, he had not been called back to Heidelberg after the restoration of the Reformed faith, for his reputation had been severely damaged by his rough handling of the crisis around Bullinger’s friend Erastus and church discipline26 that had broken out in 1568.27 Olevian’s main influences and support came from Geneva, that is from Calvin and Theodor Beza (1519–​1605), especially at the time of the Erastian28 conflict over church government in Heidelberg.29 I am not about to challenge this argument. The Zurich and Geneva positions on who exercised authority over (church) discipline cannot be reconciled. For Calvin and Olevian discipline was an ecclesiastical office that was to be distinguished from the coercive power of the state. Bullinger and Erastus did not make this distinction, understanding church discipline as an office within the church that was to be exercised by the (Christian) state. However, correspondence between Olevian and Bullinger prior to this conflict shows that their relationship was one of pupil and master. Olevian respectfully called Bullinger his pater. Olevian received his theological education not only from Calvin but also from Bullinger, with whom he had studied for those three months in 1559, after his sojourn of around six months in Geneva. He had had plenty opportunity to hear Bullinger and read his works.30 And we must 25 See Clark, Caspar Olevian, 31. 26 For a detailed account of the controversy, see Charles D. van Gunnoe, Thomas Erastus and the Palatinate: A Renaissance Physician in the Second Reformation, Brill’s Series in Church History 48 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 163–​260. 27 For a short sketch of key episodes in Olevian’s biography, see Clark, Caspar Olevian, 8–​38. 28 See van Gunnoe, Thomas Erastus. 29 See Clark, Caspar Olevian, 33: “This ecclesiological conflict brought to light tensions between the Calvinists of Heidelberg and Geneva, and the Zürich Zwinglians. In this episode, it is evident that whatever influence Zurich exercised over Olevian in his early theological training, eleven years later he was securely in the Genevan circle.” 30 See Andreas Mühling, Caspar Olevian, 1536–​1587: Christ, Kirchenpolitiker und Theologe, Studien und Texte zur Bullingerzeit 4 (Zug: Achius, 2008), 33: “So besuchte Olevian regelmäßig Bullingers Gottesdienste im Großmünster und las eifrig die Werke des Zürcher Antistes.”

286 Receptions not forget Bullinger’s involvement (which was at least equal to Calvin’s) with Elector Palatinate Frederick III in regard to the Heidelberg Catechism.31 Even if Olevian was not in fact the author of this catechism, an authorship that has long been asserted, he was certainly closely associated with it.32 Olevian wrote to Bullinger, “Indeed, if there be any clarity in them [the Heidelberg Catechism in German and Latin], we owe it in large measure to you and the clear geniuses of the Swiss. To God alone be rendered the glory! Not from one but pious reflections from many were brought together.”33 Particularly significant is the evidence that Olevian’s work Vester grundt of 156734 obviously borrowed its title from his revered master Bullinger, who had published his own Vester grund earlier, in 1563.35 I wish to call particular attention to Olevian’s Vester grundt, which was written and first published before the relationship between Olevian and Bullinger was

31 See Peter Opitz, “Historische Zugänge zum Heidelberger Katechismus aus Schweizer Sicht,” in Der Heidelberger Katechismus, ein reformierter Schlüsseltext, ed. Martin E. Hirzel, Frank Mathwig, and Matthias Zeindler, Reformiert! 1 (Zurich: TVZ, 2013), 21–​50; Peter Opitz, “Der Heidelberger Katechismus im Licht der ‘Schweizer’ Katechismustradition(nen),” in Geschichte und Wirkung des Heidelberger Katechismus: Voträge der 9. Internationalen Emder Tagung zur Geschichte des Reformierten Protestantismus, [17.–​19. März 2013], ed. Matthias Freudenberg, Emder Beiträge zum reformierten Protestantismus 15 (Neukirchen-​Vluyn: Neukirchener Theologie, 2013), 9–​35. 32 See Lyle D. Bierma, “The Purpose and Authorship of the Heidelberg Catechism,” in Bierma, An Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism, 49–​74. See further Andreas Mühling, “Caspar Olevian und die Einführung des Heidelberger Katechismus, in Huijgen,” in Huijgen, The Spirituality of the Heidelberg Catechism, 25–​33. 33 Letter from Olevian to Bullinger dated 14 April 1563 and printed in Karl Sudhoff, C. Olevianus und Z. Ursinus: Leben und ausgewählte Schriften nach handschriftlichen und gleichzeitigen Quellen, Leben und ausgewählte Schriften der Väter und Begründer der reformirten Kirche 8 (Elberfeld: Friderichs, 1857), 482–​483: “Gratiam ac pacem. Gratias tibi ago, Venerande pater ac frater in Christo pro libro ad me misso: et remitto Catechismos nostros latinos et Germanicos. Certe si qua in iis est perspicuitas, ejus bonam partem tibi et candidis ingeniis Helvetiorum debemus. Gloria redeat ad solum Deum. Non unius sed multorum sunt collatae piae cogitationes.” 34 Caspar Olevian, Vester grundt, das ist, die artickel des alten, waren, ungezweiffelten glaubens: den Christen, die in diesen gefährlichen, trübseligen zeiten einen gewissen trost aus Gottes Wort suchen, zu gutem erkleret und zugeschrieben (Heidelberg: Michel Schirat, 1567). This work was reprinted in 1570. The third edition of 1573 was revised and reprinted posthumously in a collected works: Caspar Olevian, Der gnadenbund Gottes: erkläret in den artickeln unsers allgemeynen, ungezweifelten christlichen glaubens und in den angehengten zeichen und sigeln, welche man die h[eiligen] sacramente nennet (Herborn: Christoff Raben, 1590). For a modern English translation of the 1567 edition, see Caspar Olevian, A Firm Foundation: An Aid to Interpreting the Heidelberg Catechism, ed. Lyle D. Bierma (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995). 35 Goeters suggests that the title was borrowed from Bullinger’s work of 1563, first published in Latin and then in German: Heinrich Bullinger, Vester grund: uff den ein yetlicher glöubiger sicher buwen und sich verlassen mag in diser gefaarlichen zwyträchtigen zyt, in deren so vil spaltungen sind und die geleerten wider einanderen kämpffend (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1563). See Gerhard J. F. Goeters, “Caspar Olevianus als Theologe,” Monatshefte für Evangelische Kirchengeschichte des Rheinlandes nos. 37–​38 (1988–​1989): 306–​307: “Und sogar den Titel des späteren Buches Fester Grund scheint sich Olevianus von Bullinger ausgeliehen zu haben.”

Heidelberg  287 severed. Olevian alluded to his plan for this work in a letter to Bullinger of 25 October 1563.36 Olevian has long been recognized as an important figure in the history of covenant theology, but only recently has he received close attention.37 He is the subject of two detailed historical-​theological monographs, by Bierma38 and by Clark.39 The former offered a general study on Olevian’s theology of the covenant(s), while the latter looked more specifically at the relationship between the covenant and Christ’s double benefit. While Bullinger’s influence on Olevian is downplayed in both studies in favor of Calvin’s, these works of scholarship remain indispensable. Whether Olevian’s reception of Bullinger’s covenant theology was direct or came indirectly via Calvin is an issue that reaches beyond the locus of the covenant. We shall argue that the mystical aspect of the covenant emphasized by Bullinger especially from the 1530s was echoed in Olevian’s Vester grundt and in his theology more generally. Heppe had already observed the close relationship between the covenant and union with Christ in German Reformed dogmatics.40 Bierma goes further, stating that “it is in union with Him [Christ as Mediator] that the terms of the covenant . . . are put into effect.”41 Bierma captures Olevian’s concern but fails, like Heppe before him, to trace it back to Bullinger.42 There is nothing particularly German in this theological emphasis. The realization of the covenant in the union with Christ belonged to the core of Bullinger’s covenant theology before Calvin and was expressed by Bullinger more intensely

36 The letter is printed in Sudhoff, C. Olevianus und Z. Ursinus, 485: “Ego praeter Conciones diffusiorem Catechismum habeo prae manibus, eadem methodo servata, quae est in minore. In eo statueram perspicue medullam praecipuorum Dogmatum tractare.” 37 Clark gives an overview of past scholarship in Clark, Caspar Olevian, xiv–​xv. 38 Bierma, German Calvinism. 39 Clark, Caspar Olevian. 40 Heinrich Heppe, Dogmatik des deutschen Protestantismus im sechzehnten Jahrhundert, vol. 1 (Gotha: Verlag von Friedrich Andreas Perthes, 1857), 144: “Mit diesem Begriff des foedus Dei verband die deutsch-​reformirte Dogmatik zugleich den Begriff der unio cum Christo essentialis oder der insitio in Christum, in corpus Christi mysticum, in welchem sie die Realität, die Substanz und das mittel des foedus Dei nachwies.” 41 Bierma, German Calvinism, 73. 42 Heppe traced it back to Pierre Boquin, Exegesis divinae atque humanae κοινονίας (Heidelberg, 1561). See Heppe, Dogmatik, 148–​149. See also Schrenk, Gottesreich und Bund, 56–​62. The term κοινονία is all-​encompassing in Boquin’s theological account, with the term foedus strikingly absent. While Boquin may also have influenced the Heidelberg theologians, Bullinger had closely equated the two terms extensively before Boquin. Indeed, it may have been Bullinger who influenced Boquin. Significantly, Boquin was befriended by Bullinger, who possessed a copy of the Exegesis divinae atque humanae κοινονίας that contained a handwritten dedication to him by its author, see Urs B. Leu and Sandra Weidmann, Heinrich Bullingers Privatbibliothek, Heinrich Bullinger Bibliographie 3 (Zurich: TVZ, 2004), 89, no. 38.

288 Receptions than by Calvin. Bullinger might well have impressed this particular point on his pupil Olevian. Vester grundt is not a comprehensive theological work of the same kind as Calvin’s Institutio or even Ursinus’s Summa theologiae. It contains catechetical instruction for the Apostles’ Creed along with a longer introduction. The law and the sacraments are not given great attention, which does not mean that they have no value in Olevian’s theology of the covenant. Olevian had more to say about the covenant(s), as in his later works in particular convey, including De substantia foederis,43 which Bierma comprehensively analyzes in his study. My focus here on the mystical aspect of the covenant is voluntarily reductionistic, a response to the needs of our study. Olevian began his “catechism” in Anselmic tradition to expose the need of a mediator between God and humanity. The link between the incarnation and the covenant is critical. He then provided a short sketch of redemptive history as the history of the promised mediator, beginning with Genesis 3:15 and running through Abraham and his offspring (Gen. 22) to Christ. Significantly, Olevian quoted Matthew 17:5, the text that was Bullinger’s biblical leitmotiv, printed on the front page of all his works. Olevian then explicitly mentioned the covenant: 3 Q. Why do you call Christ the only way to salvation? A. Because He alone is the mediator of the covenant [verbuendnuss] and the reconciliation by which humanity is reunited [vereiniget] with God the Lord, the well-​spring and origin of all salvation.44 (Italics mine)

In other words, it is through or in Christ that one is (re-​)united (vereiniget) with God in a covenant (verbuendnuss) or reconciliation (versoenung). He added as textual proof 1 John 1:3, about the koinonia with the Father and the Son. While I do not propose we read too much into this citation, it is the first passage I found in Bullinger on the mystical aspect of the covenant. Olevian explicated it as gnadenbundt (covenant of grace) and ewigen bundt, emphasizing God’s promise and pledge of reconciliation.45 The covenant 43 See Caspar Olevian, De substantia foederis gratuiti inter Deum et electos: Itemque de mediis, quibus ea ipsa substantia nobis communicator libri duo (Geneva: Eustace Vignon, 1585). 44 Olevian, A Firm Foundation, 4; Olevian, Vester grundt, 4: “Warumb nennestu Christum den einigen weg zur seligkeit? Darumb das er allein der mitler ist der verbuendnuss und versoenung, damit der mensch mit Gott dem Herrn als dem Brunnen und ursprung aller seligheyt vereiniget wird.” (Italics mine) 45 Olevian, Vester grundt, 4–​5.

Heidelberg  289 between God and us is confirmed (besteget) by Christ in the satisfaction of God’s justice on the cross.46 The legal aspect of the covenant lays the ground for the mystical aspect. The covenant is not a means to blessedness (seligkeit); it is blessedness per se. And blessedness is to be found in Christ the Seligmacher (the one who makes us blessed).47 Olevian wrote: Humanity’s happiness consists in being united with God, the source of all good (1 John 1). Humanity’s greatest unhappiness, on the other hand, consists in being separated from God. Humanity separated itself from God through sin, which is enmity with God, and united with the devil.48 (Italics mine)

The union (vereinigung) with God is the antidote to separation (absoenderung) from God or covenant with the devil. And it is the eternal and personal vereinigung of Christ two natures that secures our own eternal vereinigung or bundt with God.49 One side of the covenant is God’s union with the human nature in Christ. The other side is the union of the human nature of fallen man with the divine nature in Christ. Only as members (glieder) of Christ through the Holy Spirit do Christians become confederates (bundtsgenossen) with God and partakers of Christ’s benefits as well as of his sonship.50 Christ is the Mediator eternally, as the covenant itself is eternal. This mystical aspect

46 Olevian, Vester grundt, 5–​6. 47 Olevian, Vester grundt, 54. 48 Olevian, A Firm Foundation, 51; Olevian, Vester grundt, 85: “Denn die seligkeyt des menschen stehet in dem, das er mit Gott, dem brunnen alles gutes vereiniget sey, 1. Johan. 1. Dargegen ist diss des menschen hoechste unseligkeyt, wenn er von Gott abgesoendert ist. Nuhn hat sich aber der mensch durch die sünde, der Gott feindt ist, von Gott abgesündert und sich mit dem teuffel verbunden.” (Italics mine) 49 Olevian, Vester grundt, 85–​86: “Also muste auch dargegen ein gewisse person von Gott geordnet werden, welche der grundt und ursach were unser versoehnung, und solcher vereinigung mit Gott dem brunnen alles gutes, die nimmermehr in ewigkeyt solt noch koente getrent werden. Die person aber ist der ewige Sohn Gottes mit allen eigenschafften der goettlichen natur, und zu gleich warer mensch, mit allen eigenschafften eines waren menschen an leib und seel. Gleich aber wie diese beide naturen in der einige person Christi, den menschen mitt Gott zuversoehnen und ein bundt zumachen, ganz sein musten, mit iren eigenschafften. Also auch denselbigen bundt zuerhalten und zubewaren, das es nach der verheissung und dem eydt Gottes ein ewiger bundt sey, muessen auch diese zwo naturen in Christo, mit iren eigenschafften gantz bleiben in ewigkeyt, es sey dann, das wir den bundt Gottes im fundament wollen lassen zerstoeren und umbreissen.” 50 Olevian, Vester grundt, 79: “So haben alle Christgleubigen nit einen geringen sonder fuertrefflichen bundt mit Gott, dieweil er seine glaubige bundtsgenossen fuer seine kinder halten will in dem er sie zu gliedern seines Sohns machet, von dem sie nimmermehr sollen abgescheiden werden, legt ire sünden auff den Son und ernewert sie durch seinen Geyst zum unsterblichen leben und ewiger herligkeit?”

290 Receptions is not understood in purely individual terms, for it is profoundly organic or ecclesial and sacramental: He also makes an eternal covenant with and betrothes Himself to this people as if they were a bride, that they might be His body in true faith through the testimony of the Holy gospel and covenant sign of Holy Baptism.51

This brief account allows us to recognize basic lines of thought in relation to the mystical aspect of the covenant that echo Bullinger: the equation of the covenant with union with Christ, the legal foundation of this mystical union, and the close connection between covenant, incarnation, and union with Christ.

Conclusion Ursinus and Olevian integrated into their covenant theology aspects that had roots in Zurich, such as the covenantal view of the prelapsarian state of man and above all the organic-​mystical aspect of the covenant. On a historical level, the nature of the relationship between Bullinger and the Heidelberg theologians makes it very likely that Bullinger did not influence them only in more general terms (i.e., the covenant idea) but also on the very specific issues mentioned above. While Melanchthon’s and Calvin’s contributions to these early orthodox confessional formulations are not to be dismissed, Bullinger must be recognized as having played a more prominent role in this new stage in Reformed covenant theology than has been previously assumed.

51 Olevian, A Firm Foundation, 96; Olevian, Vester grundt, 168: “Er macht auch einen ewigen bundt und verlobt sich mit diesem volck als mit seiner braut, das sie sein leib sey in wahrem glauben durch das zeugnuss des heiligen evangelii und bundtzeichen des heiligen tauffs.”

Epilogue Where to Now?

The close reading and intertextual approach offered in this study has shown for the first time the clear influence of Zurich on the development of the Reformed covenantal tradition in Geneva and Heidelberg. The thesis of nineteenth-​century German scholarship that attributed the crucial impulses to Melanchthon and his students long went unquestioned. New studies in recent decades from the English-​speaking world have highlighted the prominence of Calvin’s contribution, but while thus challenging the somewhat simplistic Melanchthon thesis, they have tended to replace it with an equally reductionistic Calvin-​focused version. It has not been my goal to promote in turn a Bullinger-​based thesis. Rather, this study seeks to provide a more nuanced and more complex picture of the development of Reformed covenant theology by showing that the Zurich origins, especially as associated with Bullinger, must be taken fully into account. The job of a historian of ideas is essentially to construct or recount a narrative of the development of an idea. In so doing that historian must simplify and create models. But many equally coherent yet competing narratives of a single development can coexist. The model can never embrace the whole complex reality. Other historians must therefore in turn confront the model with new evidence, principally from primary sources. Occam’s razor is not a principle that can be applied to the study of history. Simpler is not necessarily truer. The evidence of this study challenges preceding models or narratives by adding greater complexity to the story that we already know. It makes it plausible to argue that a common body of thought shared by Bullinger and Calvin influenced—​ sometimes directly, sometimes implicitly—​ the Heidelberg theologians, placing them in continuity with both Reformers. There is no historical reason to emphasize Calvin at the expense of Bullinger. Indeed, there is good reason to believe that Bullinger influenced Calvin’s own covenant thought. This study not only nuances and corrects preceding narratives but also opens up paths for further research from historical-​theological perspectives. The Zurich Origins of Reformed Covenant Theology. Pierrick Hildebrand, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2024. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197607572.003.0009

292 Epilogue If Zurich, which stood at the beginning of Reformed covenant theology, still exercised influence at an early stage of Reformed confessionalization, how might this influence have looked in the later stages of the Reformed tradition? Zwingli’s and Bullinger’s names may have fallen into oblivion in the seventeenth century, but the covenantal elements they initiated and shaped remained. Exploration of their continuing influence could provide something of an undercover history of Zurich theology within the broader Reformed tradition. A systematic-​theological appreciation would also be very welcome. Bullinger’s integration of soteriology and ecclesiology by way of the covenant provides a resource for thinking about Reformed theology in today’s theological landscape, as do the various ways his covenant theology was apologetically applied in his polemics against the Roman Catholic and the inner-​Protestant alternatives of his contemporaries. I am not suggesting a naïve repristination of the reformer’s thought. We need rather to engage with Bullinger as a legitimate discussion partner, recognizing his earlier presence in the evolving conversations that created the Reformed inheritance.

APPENDIX

Bullinger’s Archive Material Introduction The texts that follow are whole or partial transcriptions of eight manuscripts by Bullinger that are relevant for our study on the Zurich origins of Reformed covenant theology. I have edited these sources for the needs of this study. While further steps would be required for an exhaustive historical-​critical edition, for our purposes I have adopted the following editorial guidelines. The foundational text is defined at the beginning. Other than in the case of the manuscript G), no additional copy is known to me. For G) I have collated the basis text (A) with the copy (B), which is also defined at the beginning. Text-​critical variations are indicated in the footnotes. Paragraphs, interspaces, and typographical elements (e.g., underlining) of headings usually follow the layout of the source. Marginalia are reproduced in the footnotes with the preceding abbreviation marg. The wording of the source is replicated faithfully. Punctuation and capitalization are normalized except for headings. Punctuation follows modern usage. Capitalization is used at the beginnings of sentences, for names of persons and places, languages and groups of people, titles of books, and words referring to God, Trinity (including the three persons of the Trinity) or the Bible (as canonical entity). The letters u/​v are normalized according to their phonetic value and j is always recorded as i. Long s is resolved as s, ß as ss, e-​caudata as ae, and & is resolved as et. Ligatures (e.g. æ/​ae), contractions (e.g. q3/​que), diacritical marks (e.g. å/​ao), and tildes have been silently expanded. Abbreviations are usually resolved. Page breaks are marked in the text with the pagination of the source surrounded by square brackets. Symbols of sentence breaks in the source are marked by //​. Biblical quotations as well as secular book titles are always printed in italics, irrespective of the typographical style of the source. Editorial interpolations or additions are enclosed in square brackets. Uncertain readings are noted with a question mark surrounded by square brackets [?]‌. Illegible words, parts of words or sentences are noted by an en-​dash inside square brackets [-​]. Text-​critical annotations as well as remarks on the contents are included in the footnotes. The following abbreviations are used in the footnotes: add./​addition; corr./​ corrected; del./​deleted; foll./​followed; interl./​interlinear; marg./​marginal; om./​omitted; prec./​preceded; repl./​replaced. With regard to comments in the footnotes or specifications of biblical references, the actual state of the edition remains inchoate.

294 Appendix

A) VOM EINIGEN, WAREN, LAEBENDEN, EWIGEN GOTT UND VON VIL FALCHEN, GMACHTEN GOETTEREN (20 OCTOBER 1525) Basis text: VadSlg Ms 376 (Kantonsbibliothek Vadiana, St. Gallen) Transcription of Part I

[1r] Vom einigen, waren, laebenden, ewigen GOTT, und von vil falschen gmachten Goetteren, geschryben durch Heinrychen Bullinger, damitt die menschen überzüget, die Creaturen faaren, und den einigen Gott anbetten, anrueffen, und vereeren lernind. Das buechlin zum Läser. In mir wirst finden, frommer Christ, Wie in der kilch erwachsen ist, Waar abgoettery den Heyden glych. Und wie es stand umb Gottes rych. Und wie die heyden Lactantius strafft, Also ich dChristen bestryt mitt krafft. So lysz mich ietzt, wilt wunder hoeren, zuo Gott, o mensch, dich solt beckeeren.

Geschryben zuo Cappell imm 1525 jar. [1v] Vorred Diewyl doch allenthalben und gar nach in allen menschen ein stanthaffte meinung ist, wie man wol koenne miteinanderen den einigen Gott, und seligen Gottes und alle abgoettery dienen, dieselben ouch anrueffen und vereeren, darzuo ouch nitt wenig viler gleerten buecher und padginen helffen, also dz ein schaedlicher irrthumb von weltlicher oberhand viler landen mit gwallt für grecht geschyrmpt wirt, bin ich bewegt zuo schryben Vom einigen waaren laebenden ewigen Gott, und von vilen falschen gmachten goetteren damitt yhen widerwysen, ia überzüget, die creaturen faren, und den einigen Gott anbetten, anrueffen und vereeren lernetind. Dorum niemands, der disen Titel lyst neiswz besonders erwarten soll von der heyden abgoett, wann von der Christen abgoettery woellend wir hie sagen. Sidmal wir uns nitt minder dann yhene sich [2r] selbs, an creaturen vergangen habend. Der heyden Torheyt ist selbs von heyden entdeckt worden, besonders von Luciano in Itaromenippo, von Euripide, von anderen, under den christen aber vom Lactantio Firmiano, vom Athanasio, von anderen. So woellend wir nun hie, nach dem exempel Lactantii der Christen torheyt an tag herfür bringen, mitt Gottes hilff der Christen aber, so nitt Christen sind, sunder alein heysend, warlicher aber Barbaristen und Petristen sind, und dz buoch woellend wir selbs teylen in zwen teyl, und imm ersten sagen von dem einigen Gott, in dem anderen von vil Goetteren.

Appendix  295

Der erst teyl: Vom einigen, waaren, laebendigen, ewigen Gott Von der erckantnusz Gottes. [2v] Der menschlich verstand ist also unverstendig und verplent, dz er von Gott nützid grundtlichs sunder alein einen whon tragt, wie dann one den 13. Psalmen ouch Plutarchus in Placitis mitt den waeltwysen wol erwyst. Darzuo usz dem Cicerone De natura deorum wol mag vermerkt werden, da man ouch dz sicht wie die wysisten diser wellt nitt alem nitt gewüst habend, wz Gott, sunder ou dahin kummen sind, dz sy vermeint habend, es sye ghein Gott. Der halben vsz gheiner menschlicher vernunfft noch phylosophischen buecheren, die war erkanntnusz Gottes zuo warten ist, dann1 sy allein von Gott obenherab kummen muos und durch sin usserliches Wort hie anzoeügt. Es koennend die menschen, dz2 usserlich Wort fürtragen, dz man aber dem selben glouben gebe, schafft alein der ziehend Gott. Dorumb so bitt [3r] nun Gott, dz er din hertz gegen minen anzühen uffschliesse, damitt du reght gloubtist, so will ich mich in miner leer flyssen, dz one Gottes wort nützid uberaal geleert oder anzogen werde.

Das ein Gott sye. Das nun ein ewiger Gott sye, bewaert S. Paulus in Actis 14[:15–​17]. sprechend: “Der laebendig Gott, der gmachet hat hymel und erden, der in vergangnen gezyten hat lassen alle heyden in iren eygnen waegen wandlen, der hat sich werlich nitt unbezüget gelassen, in dem er guots thon hat und uns von hymel gegeben raegen und fruchtbare zyt.” Usz woelchen worten Pauli wol zo vermercken ist, dz hymel erden ire zyerd, die gezyten, guothaeten und geschichten under den menschen zügen, dz ein Gott sye, wie noch haeller der Psalm sagt:3 [3v] “Diehymel sagend uns und leerend die Eer und gwalt Gottes und die veste siner henden werk.” Wie wol du abermols hie muestist lang4 laesen und dert den hymel angaffen ee dann du gloubtist einen Gott sin, dorumb hie abermals Gott leeren muosz, wie ouch Poulus selbs uswyst also:5 “Durch den glouben verstond wir, wie die gantz wellt und alles, dz man in iren sicht, usz nüt, durch das Wort Gottes geschaffen ist.”

Was Gott sye. Nitt anders ists ouch mitt dem waesen Gottes, wann als Paulus spricht:6 “So weyst niemands, wz Gott ist on alein der Geist Gottes”. Dorumb abermals soll für gottlosz gehalten werden, wz ussert dem Geist Gottes verwaent wirt, der Geist redt aber also:7 “Ich bin dz A und das Ω, der anfang und dz end, der erst und der letst.” Welches gar [4r] eigentlich lutet



1 marg.: Ioan. 6.

2 marg.: 1 Corin. 3.

3 marg.: Psal. 19[:2]. 4 lang] marg. add.

5 marg.: Ebrae. 11[:3]. 6 marg.: 1 Cor. 2[:11].

7 marg.: Apoc. ult. [22:13]

296 Appendix mitt disem spruch:8 Ich bin dz gantze waesen. “Der da ist, der hat mich gsandt”: dz hat nun dise meinung. Gott ist die einig, ewig kraafft, die da anhept, verwürckt, und endet alle ding, durch woelche alle ding sind und bestond, wie ouch Paulus sagt:9 “Von imm und durch imm und zuo imm sind alle ding.” Item:10 “In imm laeben, straebend und sind wir.” Davon gar schoen ding Mose schript Gen. 1.

Das alein ein Gott sye. Dises guot und dise ewige allmechtige kraafft ist nun einig, also11 dz gar niemands weder in himel noch erden ist der guot allmechtig, behilfflich und alles sye in allem kleinen und grossem sichtbaren und unsichtbaren dingen, dann alein der einig Gott. Und dz hat Mose also geleert:12 “Hoer Israel, der Herr unser Gott ist ein [4v] einiger Gott.” Item:13 “Du solt ghein froemd Götter vor mir haben.” Und:14 “Sehend ir ietzt, dz ich Ich bin, und ghein Gott naebend mir. Ich kan toeden und laebendig machen, wz ich verwundt hab, dz kan ich widerumb heylen, und ist niemands, der mir usz miner hand entgon moeg, dann ich will min hand in himel haben und wil sagen, ich wil laeben ewglich.” So spricht ouch Paulus:15 “Wie wol es sind, die man goetter heyst (sittenmal vil goett und herren), so habend wir doch nun einen Gott, den Vatter, von welchen alle ding sind, und wir durch in und einen Herren Iesum christum, durch welchen alle ding sind und wir durch inn.” So volgt ye, dz niemands guot, krefftig ewig und behulfflich sye, dann alein dz oberist ewig guot Gott, ouch dz die Gott16 sin eer staelend und Gott nitt lassend [5r] Gott sin, die yemands usset Gott uffwerffend für iro, trost und zuoflucht. Dann Iesus Christus selbs spricht:17 “Niemands ist guot dann alein der einig Gott.” So singt David:18 “Ich bin dir hold, Herr, min stercke, Herr, min faels, min burg, min erretter, min Gott, min hord, uff den ich vertruw, min schylt, und horn mines heyls, und min schutz, ich wil den Herren anrueffen und loben, so wirt ich von minen fyen den erloest.” Gottes waeg sind styff, des Herren reden sind durchlüteret, er ist ein schilt allen, die imm vertruwend, dann wo ist ein Gott on der Herr? Oder ein hord one unseren Gott?

Von der Tryfaltigheyt. Wie dann (sprichstu) ist Christus nitt ein Gott, ist der Heylig Geist nit ein Gott? So nun dz selbig, muosz volgen, dz dich Ch[5v]risten mee habin dann einen Gott? Nitt also. Wir veryaehend try personen und einen einigen Gott, diewyl19 Abrahe try underscheyden



8 marg.: Exodi. 3[:14]: “Ego nam ens sum.” 9 marg.: Rom. 11[:36].

10 marg.: Acto. 17[:28]. 11 marg.: MERCK.

12 marg.: Deute. 6[:4].

13 marg.: Exodi 20[:3].

14 marg.: Deut. 32[:39–​40]. 15 marg.: 1 Cor. 8[:6]. 16 marg.: Gottes eer.

17 marg.: Luce 19. [18:19]. 18 marg.: Psal. 18[:2–​4].

19 marg.: Gen. 18[:2–​3].

Appendix  297 menner erschynend, da Abraham sy all mitt einem naamen anspricht, Herr, und alein einen anbettet, oder vor einem niderfaalt. So spricht Christus selbs:20 “Ich und der Vatter sind eins.” Item:21 “Der hymel ist durch dz Wort desz Herren gmacht, und all sin heer, durch sines Geistes mund.” Darinn ye try underscheyden personen sichst: den Herren, dz Wort, den Geist. Und sind doch die trü ding an einanderen, also gar ouch einig in dem Herren. Und disers muosz abermols der einig gloub leeren, wann diewyl deren dingen der mensch nützid sicht, muosz er es empfinden innerlich, dann22 Gott von art unsicht[6r] bar ist und in einem liecht whonet (wie Paulus sagt) dazuo niemands kummen kan, und den ye niemands gsaehen hat, Ioan 1[:18].

Von Christo. Diewyl aber der laebendig Gott desz art und eigenschafft nutzid anders ist dann guotsthuon, unsichtbar ist, wir menschen aber23 von Adam haar von natur bloed, praesthafft und in sünden todt und deshalben ouch in desz einigen Gottes zorn und ungnaden, ist Gott von siner aart und natur bewegt, hat24 uns sinen einigen Sun gesandt, das der selbig uns sinen guoten willen, wie er sich unser erbarmet, ufschlusse, und die todten in sünden laebendig machte, also uns da ouch zum zeychen stuende an pfandschilligs statt, dz uns der Vatter, der ewig [6v] Gott25 usz gnaden one alles verdienen, so wyt wir ouch in den Sun vertruwend, begnadet habe, dann also geschryben stat: “Also hat Gott die welt geliebet, dz er sinen einigen Sun gab, uff dz alle, die in ynn vertruwend, nitt umckummend sunder ewigs laeben habend.”26 Dorumb27 hat er ouch, wie wol er warer Gott was, eines waesens mitt dem Vatter und Geist, an sich nemmen muessen menschliche28 natur. Erstlich, dz er uns predgete und zuo disem unsichtbaren Gott wyste, uns sinn vertruwen laarte, und ein liecht und laebend byspil für truege. Demnach, dz er oppffer hette und für die sünd oppfferen koende sin selbs lichnam, reingende mitt sinem bluot unser sünd. Sidmal29 one bluotvergiessen ghein verzyhung ist. Dorumb in Christo zwo naturen sind, die göttlich und die menschlich, und ist doch nitt mee [7r] dann ein Christus, ein person, nitt zwo, wie Nestorius sagt, und werdent doch die selben naturen30 nitt vermischlet, wie Praxeas vermeint, sunder yede blipt in irer art, und gadt nitt in die ander. Dyewyl er dann nun wz warer Gott, eines waesens mitt dem Vatter von ewigheit, kont er uns wol heyl machen. Sidmal er dann ouch ein mensch, kont er wol versuocht, gepinget, getoedt und geoppfferet werden. Wo er nun ein blosser mensch gewaesen were und nitt ouch ein Gott, wie ettwan Ebion und Arrius meintend, so hette er doch sünd gehept und praesten vom Adam, wie hette er31 dann koennen sin



20 marg.: Ioan. 10[:30].

21 marg.: Psalm. 33[:6].

22 marg.: 1 Timo. 6[:16] 23 marg.: Eph. 2[:1–​5.]. 24 marg.: Ioan. 3[:16].

25 marg.: Rom. 3[:21–​26]. 26 John 3:16.

27 marg.: Christus ist warer Gott, Ebre. 1., Col. 1., Ioan 1. 28 marg.: Christi menscheyt. 29 marg.: Ebrae. 9[:22].

30 marg.: Natura humana circumscribitur ab Athana., Ambrosio. 31 marg.: Ebrae. 7[:26].

298 Appendix obrister priester one sünd, wie hette er uns reingen koennen, oder wie hette er uns dz laeben wirdergaeben koennen, sidmal er selbs unreyn wz, und dz laeben selbs [7v] nit hat. Er ist aber warer Gott und nach der selben natur macht er uns rein und heyl, wo er aber nitt ouch gewaesen were ein warer mensch wie ettwan Martion32 und Photinus von imm ussgabind, hette er nitt sterben koennen, dann Gott unsterblich, unbegrifflich ist. Nun ist er aber ein warer mensch, der sin fleisch hat vom stammen David, dann er33 erboren ist von der reinen junckfrowen Marien und in der selben natur hat er hunger, hitz, froost, versuochung, verfolgung erlitten, in der selben natur ist er34 under Pontio Pilato ans crütz ghenckt, widerumb drab gnommen, in dz graab geleyt, ist in derselben natur sichtbarlich am tritten35 tag widerumb von todten ufferstanden36, durch die kraafft der goettlichen natur, ist er uffgfaren37 sichbarlich in dem [8r] hymel und sitzt38 zur grechten Gottes, daa ist er einiger eewiger priester und vertrytt uns. Derhalben wir nun wol saehend, wie uns Gott begnadet in Christo, und wie er denselben und zum pfandschillig ggeben hat, namlich in dem wir inn am crütz sehend in grossen noeten, doch imm fleisch widerumb ufferston, und imm selben zehymel faaren, wir gloubind dz er mit sinem todt und crütz goettlicher grechtigkeyt gnuogthon hab für unser sünd, dorumb wir yetzund in Christo kinder und erben Gottes sind, dz wie Christo von todten liblich ufferstanden39 ist und waesenlich dem hymel besessen hat, also ouch wir durch inn werdint liblich von todten ufferston und waesenlich ewigs laeben erben. Darvon Paulus 1 Cor. 15.

Vom Heyligen Geist. [8v] Der40 Heylig Geist ist ein warer einiger Gott, mitt dem Vatter und Sun, doch ouch in siner besonderen person, und wie der Vatter und Sun ewig, allmechtig, guot, unsichtbar sind also der Heylig Geist. Diwyl ouch der Vatter und Sun eins sind, so gadt41 der Heylig Geist vom Vatter und Sun. Dz sicht man alles imm evangelio Ioan., da stat also42: “Der Tröster aber der, der Heylig Geist ist, der Geist der warheit, den der Vatter in minem namen senden wird, üch zuo aller warheit fürren.” “Dann er nitt von imm selbs reden wirt, sunder wz er hören, dz wirt er üch sagen, und von künfftigen dingen wirt er üch berychten. Der wirt mich verruempt machen dann von dem minen wirt er es nemmen und es üch verkünden. Alle ding, die der vatter hat, die sind minen, dorumb ich geredt hab, er werde es von [9r] dem minen nemmen und es üch verkünden.” Merck hie zum ersten, der Geist43 ist heylig, er ist ein troester, er ist ein Geist der warheit, er weist künfftige ding. Worumb? Dz er heylget, troestet, in die warheyt leytet, alle ding weist. Nun so vermag aber dise ding niemands



32 marg.: Divina natura non circumscribitur. 33 marg.: Math. 1.

34 marg.: Luce 23.

35 marg.: Ioan. 20.

36 ufferstanden] foll. by del. in der selben natur 37 marg.: Acto 1.

38 marg.: Ebrae. 10.

39 marg.: Sich worumb Christus waesenlich alein in hymlen. 40 marg.: Der Geist ein Gott.

41 marg.: Procedit ex utroque.

42 marg.: Ioan. 14[:26]. und 16[:13–​15]. 43 marg.: Die kraafft dess Geists.

Appendix  299 dann alein Gott, dorumb ye volget, dz der Heylig Geist sye ein44 warer Gott. Ja sprichstu. Er empfacht es aber vom Vatter. Dz ist doch eben dz, das die einigheit desz Geists und Vatters anzoeugt, darzuo desz Suns, der da spricht: “Alles, dz desz Vatters, ist min.” So nimpts nun der Heilig Geist, nitt wie wir die gaaben empfahend, sunder wie er ist ein besondere person, welcher person würckung kraaft und gwalt eine ist mitt dem Vatter und Sun, von denen kumpt er, wie ouch hie stat: “den der vatter in minem naamen sen[9v]den wirt.” Dann diewyl desz Vatters und Suns namen ein kraafft ist, kumpt er von heyden und ist ein kraafft mitt inen. Wie man dannallerdingen wol in Actis45 Apostolorum sicht, welches buoch insonders vom Heiligen Geist und sinen krefften geschriben ist, glich wie die evangelisch history von Christo Iesu. Ds sye nun gnueg von personen gesagt, die ein einiger Gott sind.

Von Goetlicher kraafft und allmechtigheyt. Ietzund46 woellend wir anezoengen, wie Gott nitt ein todt unwürcksam oder schlefferig ding oder ouch laerrer naam sye, sunder ein ewige allwürckende krefftige kraafft, dz wir nun nitt baasz dann mitt dem fürsatz47 unsers ewigen Gottes erwysen koennend. Der fürsatz, latine propositum, ists der das vorsähen und verwürcken oder verordnen, latine praescientia48 et praedefenitio seu prae[10r]destinatio, in und verschlüst. Und ist dz vorsähen Gottes nützid anders, dann aller dingen ein gwüsse erkantnusz in Gott, durch welche er alle ding zuo vor, ee dann sy beschaehend, erckent, weyst und überschlecht, und vorgrifft und reicht uff den rattschlag49 Gottes. Kundschafft desz stat 1 Petri 1. und Ephe. 1. Verwürcken aber oder verordnen ist dz radtgschlaget zum end bringen, bekrefftigen oder also wie es vorsähen und gradtschlaget wz, verschaffen und mitt der that also verordnen. Kundschafft desz ist zuom Roemeren 8. und Acto 13[:48].: “Es habend also vil gloupt, so vil zum laeben verordnet warend”, dz ist so vil habend gloupt und alle, die, so zuo vor von ewigheit versahen warend, und aber ietzund da an der predge von Gott imm herzten gezogen wurdint. Ietzund aber so volgt darusz, das der fürsatz50 selbst nützid anders [10v] ist, dann ein ewige all wüssende in Gott erckantnusz, deren nützid verhalten, und die alle ding sicht, weyst und anschlecht ee dann sy beschaehend, und wann dann dise ding beschaehend durch sy bestond, sind, und beschaehend. Also stat Rom. 8[:28–​29].: “Wir wüssend, dz denen, die Gott liebend, alle ding zum besten beckert werdent, die nach dem fürsatz beruefft sind. Dann welche er zuo vor vorsaehen hat, die hat er ouch verordnet, etc.” Dz51 ist nun summarie dz gantz waesen, und die ewig allmechtig kraaft unsers Gottes, die wir ietzund woellend dieffer in die Gschrifft gründen, und rychlicher darvon reden. Und wo wir die oerter der Gschrifft nitt gar koennend anschryben, woellend wirs droch anzeichnen, dz du sy selbs laesist.



44 marg.: Non communientine [?]‌. 45 marg.: Geschichten der Botten. 46 marg.: Propon.

47 marg.: Von der vorordnung Gots.

48 marg.: Praescientia, praedestina[tio]. 49 marg.: Consilium Dei.

50 marg.: Propositum, providen[tia]. 51 marg.: Omnia Deus in omnibus.

300 Appendix Das52 Gott alle ding zuo vor, ee und sy beschähend, habe in sinem [11r] radtschlag beschlossen, und dz er alle ding heymlichs und noch ungeschaffes wüsse, züget der prophet53 und spricht: “Es ist ghein wort uff miner zungen dz du, Herr, nitt alles wüssist, hinden und vornen machest mich und halst din hand ob mir. Wo soll ich bringen vor dinem Geist. Wan ich schon spreche, die finsternusz moechte mich bedecken, so ist die nacht ouch liecht by dir, etc.” Item:54 “Der dz oor ingsetzt hat, solt der selb nitt hoeren? Der dz oug gemachet hat, solt der selb nitt saehen? Der die menschen leert alles, dz sy koennend und wüssend, solt dem neiswz verborgen sin, etc.” Besich Psal 44., Iesaiam am 29., Hiere 16., 17., 23., 32., etc. Das55Gott ouch alle ding geschaffen habe und noch regiere, alles alein, in allen elementen, wasseren, winden, ungwitteren, früchten, boeumen, thieren, samen, krüteren, kurtz, in allen gschoeppfften, alles alein thuege, [11v] wirt klaar usz dem propheten, der also spricht:56 “Du zertrenst dz meer durch din Kraafft und zebrichst die koepff der tracken uff dem wasser, du teylst usz brunnen und baech, du last versygen starck stramen, tag und nacht ist din, du bereitist liecht und sumer, der setzst allen landen machen, sumer und wynter machtestu.” Item: “Herr Gott Sebaoth57, wer ist wie du ein so mechtiger Gott? Und din trüw ist umb dich har, hymel und erden ist din, du hast gegrundt den erdboden, und wz darinnen ist, mitternacht und untentag hastu geschaffen. Thabor und Hermon werdent iuchsen in dinem naamen, du hast einen gewaltigen arm, starck ist din hand, und hoch ist din rechte.” Num besich Gene. 1., Psal. 104., Iesaie 40. und Iob 38., 39.; wirstu wunder schoen ding finden. Das58 Gott nitt alein das, sunder [12r] ouch aller wellt rych und gwallt fürre, künig, bürgermeister, Aman, voegt und raedt ouch von der den heyden setze und entsetze, bezüget Daniel also:59 “Hoch gelopt sye der naam desz Herren von ewigheit zuo ewigheit, dann er ist wys und starck und er verwandlet die zyten und iar, er verenderet und verordnet die rych60, gipt den wysen wysheyt und den verstendigen verstand.” Besich Iob 12., Isaie 3., Abacuck 1., 1 Corin. 2., Ephe. 4., dorumb schlüssend wir hie thüre, hunger, krieg, toedt, schlachten, und ander (als mans nempt) ungfell nitt usz. Darvon ouch me geschryben ist Deut. 28., Levit. 26. Dz61 ein yeder mensch für sich selbs mitt lib und seel sye under Gottes kraafft, welche alles gwalten glich imm menschen verwürckt, wirt kundt usz dem spruch Solomonis:62 “Des menschen hertz schlecht sinen waeg an, aber der Herr fart für mitt sinem gang.” Und: “Desz künigs hertz ist in der hand desz Herren wie wasserbaech, und er rychts, wohin wer wyl.” So gfallt einem yetlichen sin waeg am besten, als der Herr tript die hertzen. Und nun imm buoch der Psalmen:63 “Alle ougen wartend uff dich, und du gipst sinen ir spys zuo siner zyt, du thuost din hand uff und erfüllst alles, dz da laept.” Dahyn hoerend kanst, rychtuomb, heil, glück, crütz, kranckheyt, stercke, essen, trincken, kleydung, und alles,

52 marg.: Dz Gott alle ding verordne. 53 marg.: Psal. 139[:4–​5, 7, 11]. 54 marg.: Psal. 94[:9–​10].

55 marg.: Dz Gott alle ding geschaffen habe und alle ding regiere. 56 marg.: Psal. 74[:13, 15–​17]. 57 marg.: Psal. 89[:9., 12–​14]

58 marg.: Dz Gott alle rych regiere.

59 marg.: Daniel 2[:20–​21]; 2] corr. from 8 60 marg.: 2 Paral. 20.

61 marg.: Dz Gott alle menschen in siner hand habe. 62 marg.: Proverb. 16[:9]. et 21[:1]. 63 marg.: Psal. 145[:15–​16].

Appendix  301 wz dem menschen zuo vellig ist. Besich die history Bileam Numeri 23., Hiere. 10., Psalm. 23., 2 Cor. 3., Deut. 8., Math 6., Sapient. 7., item die Patriarchen imm 1. buoch Mose, und den krancken Ioben. In64 summa, dz Gott kleines und grosses, guots und boesz, allwaeg und in allen dingen nitt [13r] verhenge, sunder gwaltencklich verbringe und thuege, sicht man imm evang. Mathei, da also Christus spricht:65 “Koufft man nitt zwey spaerlin umb einen pfennig? Noch vallt der selben gheiner uff die erden, one üweren hymelschen Vatter, nun aber sind ouch üwere haar alle uff uwerem houpt gezellt.” Dz min ein haelle kundtschafft ist, dz ouch in minsten geschoeppfften und denen, so wir ettwan verachtend, Gott würckt. So züget Iesaias also:66 “Mitt den oren werdent irs hoeren, und werdents doch nitt verston, etc.” Item:67 “Ich bin der Herr und ists ghein anderer, der da macht dz liecht und schaafft die finsternusz, der da anrycht den fryden und thuot dz boesz.” So sagt Paulus:68 “Gott hat sy gegeben in schantlich lüst.” Dorumb ye volgt, das durch die kraafft Gottes ouch dz boesz beschicht, darüber be[13v]sich wyter Psal. 3., 34., 36., 59., 68., 145., Proverb. 16., Iesaie 29., 43., 63., Math. 13., Ioan. 12. und 13., Actorum 4., Roma. 9. Sich also ist unser Gott laebendig, ewig, allmechtig, einig und der warlichen alles thuet in allen.

Von waarem gotsdienst und früchten der erkanntnusz Gottes. So dann unser Gott darfür gehalten wirt, angeruefft und vereeret als der allmechtig guetig Vater, alls der eing Gott und oberist einigs guot und sich zuo imm versicht als zuo einem Vatter imm alein anhanget, inn zu allen zyten, in allen noeten durch einen stiffen glouben anruefft, kurz inn alein für einen Gott hat (wie69 er in dem pundt erforderet hat) sich so wirt er recht vereeret, und schlecht durch ghein ander usser ding nitt, wie [14r] ouch70 klarer imm buoch der Psalmen stat:71 “Ich kennen alles gevoegel und alle gschlecht der thieren uff dem veld, die nun alle habe ich in miner hand. Wo mich nun hungerte, woelte ich dirs nitt sagen, dann der erdboden minen ist und alles, wz daruff ist. Meinstu, das ich fleisch esse von ochsen oder bluot trincke von boecken?” Soeliche sichbare ding werdent ietz alle verworffen, wz wil dann Gott? Ietzt volgt: “Oppffer Gott dankckopffer und bezaal Gott din glübd72 und rueff mich an, wann es dir not thuot, so will ich dich erretten, und also soltu mich vereeren.” Dorumb jetzund volgt, dz obgemelts sye der waar recht gotsdienst, als, so wir stiff durch den glouben an Gott hangind, wie der pundt, den wir mitt imm haben, usswiist; und so uns not umgardt, dz wir zuo imm flü[14v]hend, und so es uns glücklich gadt, dz wir imm danckind und unser herz nimmer von imm zühind. Wz gloubens aber und was früchten die erkantnusz Gottes, siner kraafft, guete und allmechtigheit gebaere woellend wir fürden besähen.



64 marg: Das Gott alles, ouch ds bösz i[-​]‌ge. 65 marg.: Math. 10[:29–​30]. 66 marg.: Iesaie 6[:9].

67 marg.: Iesaie 45[:6–​7]. 68 marg.: Roma. 1[:26]. 69 marg.: Gene. 17.

70 ouch] prec. by del. Wir

71 marg.: Psal. 50[:11–​15].

72 marg.: Du darffst den heiligen ghein glübd zuo thuon.

302 Appendix Die erkantnusz, durch welche ich begriffen, das alle ding von Gott geschaffen sind und noch von imm geregyert werdent, gebirt ein grosse dancksagung73 der goettlichen guete und ein grosse uebung desz gloubens in allen wercken Gottes, zuo allen zyten und an allen orten. Welchs der Prophet in Psalmen also anezoeugt:74 “Ich will dich erhoehen min Gott, du künig, und dinen naamen loben immer und ewenglich, etc.” Wann der gantze Psalm hiehar hoert. Damitt werdent die heyligen ouch bewegt, dz sy der creaturen Gottes, die guot [15r] sind und zuo irem nütz geschaffen, nitt gern missbruchen75 woeltend, sunder ouch mitt lob und dancksagen niessen. Wann also macht die recht kunst der gloub den gloeubigen und dancksagen, den alle ding rein, Tit 1., 1 Timotheum 4. So leerend sy ouch fruchtbare gezyten, stille desz waetters, glückseligheyt imm vaech und gueteren, matten und aeckeren, Gott heimstellen und imm darumb dancksagen, in unfaal aber bitten dultenglichen76 alle ding uffnemmen, und spraechen:77 “Gott gibts, Gott nimpts, der naam desz Herren sye hoch gelopt.” Und sind deren byspilen allenthalben vil imm Psalter. Usz dem aber die gloeubigen erckennend, alle rych, fürsten, staed, stett und gwallt in Gottes hand ston, laerend sy umb guot fürsten Gott dancken, und by den boesen, die raach Gottes [15v] erckennen, daby gedult in der vervolgung, todt, thüre, uffruor und krieg, darzuo die vil grusamme krafft Gottes und versuochung78, der über die und gloeubigen ussgüst, und über die gloeubigen verhengt, dann leerend sy ouch den syg, Gott dem Herren zuogeben, darvon viel zuo sagen were, wo es die kürtze zuoliesse. Besich Deut. 9. So79 empfähend die usz der maassen grossen trost, so da erckant habend, dz Gott ire lychnam gar und gantz hat in siner gwalt. Wann sy also mitt dem propheten singend80: “Du hast mich usz muoter lib gezogen, du hast uff mich gesaehen, do ich noch an miner muoter brüsten soug, uff dich bin ich geworffen von der stund, dz ich erboren ward.” Sich also froewend sich die waren gloeubigen, und wüssend, das inen nützid gebresten wirt desz libs naarung halb. Die[16r]wyl81 Gott unser Vatter weist, dz wir deren dingen notwendig sind. Wann der mensch dann ouch sicht, dz er weder siner seel noch sines heyls selbst macht hat, sunder alles alein an dem zyehenden Gott stadt, erlernet82 er imm selbs nützid dann schmach und schand zuogeben sünd und laster, und Gott alein alle eer, ruempt sich deshalb gar gheiner dingen, dann alein gottes barmhertzigheit und der erloesung sines eingebornen Suns, zerbricht hiemitt alles verdienen83 und den hohen blaast menschlicher grechtigheit, wann er also mitt Paulo redt:84 “Wer hat vorhin Gott ettwas gegeben, dz er widerumb reichen koenne, oder dorumb man imm neiswz schuldig sye?” Also macht dise erckantnusz der kraaft Gottes die gnad85 Gottes verruempter, wie man in dem schoenen



73 marg.: Dancksagung. 74 marg.: Psal. 145.

75 marg.: Maessigheit. 76 marg.: Gedult.

77 marg.: Iob 1[:21]. 78 marg.: Frucht.

79 marg.: Zuoversycht.

80 marg.: Psal. 22[:10–​11]. 81 marg.: Math. 6[:8].

82 marg.: Sich selbs kennen. 83 marg.: Verdienst.

84 marg.: Rom. 11[:35]. 85 marg.: Gnad.

Appendix  303 cap. Ephe. 1. sicht. Und zuo letst [16v] versicheret86 soelichs den menschen nitt wenig, der yetzund erckendt, wo dz heyl in siner hand were, wie bald es moechte imm vom Tüfel und anderen anfechtungen abgschrentzt werden. Nun aber so es stat in Gottes handen sind sy desz gwüsz und versicheret, dz es inen in gheinen waeg mag abgeschrentzt werden, dann Christus spricht:87 “Ich kennen mine schaaf, ich setz für sy min laeben, ich fürren sy usz und yn und niemands wirt sy mir usz miner hand rouben.” Und hie hept sich der iubel wider die sünd, der tryumph wider den tüfel, das trutzen wider alle wellt, und die tieffe desz gloubens und Geists. Hie so schryend die gloeubigen:88 “Gott ist min hordt, und min heyl, min schutz, und zuoflucht, dorumb wirt ich wol bliben.” “By89 Gott ist min eer, er ist min schilt und der mich zuo eeren setzt, und min houpt uffrycht.” Oder:90 [17r] “Wer will uns scheyden von der liebe Gottes, hunger, not, ellend, füwr, schwert, hohes, dieffes.” In disem glouben überwindent die Gottseligen all überig91 sünd, so in dem fleisch überblybend. Sy überwindent ouch alle anfechtung und marter, sind dultig in allen lyden, louffen nitt zuo disem und yhenen heyligen zuo klagen und hülen, dann92 sy wüssend, dz sy vom Vatter alles lydent, der sy aber usz liebe pinget und nitt schlecht, dz er toedte, sunder wol und recht zühe. Dargegen93 sind die gottlosen unruewiger dann dz wuetend meer, louffend hin und wider und findent denocht ghein rüw, yhen habend in aller unruew ewige und stille ruow. In soelicher gloeubigen hertzen ist ietzund Gott also groosz, dz sy inen selbst sünd94 zuoschrybend, ob sy schon gwüsz wüssend, dz Gott dz boesz nitt alein verhengt, sunder krefftenglich [17v] thuot. Dz95 wirt kundt in Daviden, der ward vom Herren bewegt durch den tüfel, dz er dz volck zallt und daran sich übel vor Gott vergieng, dorumb er aber nitt widerbaeffert und spraach: “Herr, worumb hast mich fallen laassen, du bist schuldig an miner sünd”, sunder er spricht also: “Ich hab mich an deren thaat schwarlich versündet”96, und zellt also imm selbs und nitt Gott die sünd zuo. Also sind ouch alle heyligen gesinnet97, ob sy Gott sin verdammen woelt, sind sy bereyt, wie man imm Hely sicht, der sagt:98 “Er ist Herr, er mache, wie ers gern hat.” Und David:99 “Wann schon Gott redt, er woelle min nüt, so gfallts mir wol, er maches, wie es imm wolgfaalt.” Wyter wann die frommen innen werdent der sünd, buwend100 sy disterminder uff sich selbs, und erhebend sich nitt wider Gott, dorumb David sprach:101 “Herr, [18r] es ist mir nun guot, dz du mich gedemuetiget hast, damitt ich ouch dine recht erlernte.” Dz ist: Ich bin nun froo, dz du mich hast in die sünd faallen laasen, nitt dorumb, dz mich die sünd also wol froewe, sunder dz ich erlernet hab, wie gar bloed wir menschen sind und wie du alein fromm und grecht bist. So verschaffet ouch die erckantnusz von der verblendung Gottes, dz die

86

marg.: Die zeichen versicherend nitt. marg.: Ioan. 10[:14–​15, 28]. 88 marg.: Psal. 62[:8]. 89 marg.: Psal. 3[:4]. 90 marg.: Rom. 8[:35]. 91 marg.: Uberig sünd. 92 marg.: Ruew. 93 marg.: Unruew. 94 marg.: Sünd. 95 marg.: 2 Reg. 24., 1 Para. 21. 96 2 Sam 24:10., 1 Chr 21:8. 97 marg.: Ghorsamme. 98 marg.: 1 Reg. 3[:18]. 99 marg.: 2 Reg. 17. 100 marg.: Demuot. 101 marg.: Psal. 119[:71]. 87

304 Appendix frommen Gott fürchtend, dz verharren102 Gott gebend, und gar niemands rychtend noch verachtend, nach der leer Pauli, Rom 11. Uber103 alles erfroewt die frommen, dz sy Christum erckennend, wan diewyl sy gloubend, das er inen ggeben sye vom Vatter zum gnadenpfand, sündoppffer, erloeser, laeben, exempel, liecht, und einiges ewigs104 heyl, reden sy mitt Paulo:105 “Ist Gott uff unser syten, wer kan dann wyder uns sin? Welcher ouch sinen [18v] einigen106 Sun nitt verschonet sunder inn für uns all dahyn ggeben hat, wie solt er nicht uns mitt imm alles schenken. Wer will die usserwelten Gottes anklagen? Gott ists, der sy für fromm darstellt. Wer wils verdammen? Christus ist hie, der gstorben ist, ia vil mee der ouch ufferstanden ist, welcher ist zur grechten Gottes und scheydet uns.”, Rom. 8[31-​34]. Und usz disem grund volgenietz und die Unschuld107, dz ich mich in all waeg flyssen nach zuowandlen in aller grechtigheit dem waaaren108 liecht Christo, also mich gstallten nach der bildnusz109 Gottes, darnach der erste mensch gestalltet ist. Es volget ouch usz disem grund die liebe110 desz naechsten menschen, wie man in der epistel Ioan, sust ouch find: “Wann welcher spricht er liebe Gott, und hasset aber sinen naechsten, der ist [19r] ein lugner. Dann der sinen bruoder nitt liebet den er sicht, wie kan der selb Gott lieben, den er nitt sicht?”111 Der112 mensch ist Gottes bild und last sich Gott weder saehen noch verbilden, dorumb der recht gloeubig den menschen liebt, umb Gottes willen, radt113, hilfft, schützt, schirmpt, erneert, so wyt es imm müglich, ia offtmals mee dann imm müglich, troest eer inn und wz er dann sinem naechsten menschen thuot, dem bild Gottes, vertruwt, er thuege es dem laebendigen Gott, den er von hertzen liebet, und dorumb sin bild den armen menschen inbrünstig lieben muosz, darzuo bewegt inn ouch sines Gottes Wort nitt wenig:114 “Kummend har ir seligen, besitzed ewigs rych, dz üch von anfang bereyt ist. Ir habend mich gespyst, trenckt, beherbergt, beckleydt, heimgsuocht, und getroest. Dann ich üch in der warheit sag, [19v] wz ir thon habend einen under disen verworffnisten armen, dz haben ir mir gethon.” Also115 hat Christus alle usser zierd, allen usseren (als man spricht) gottes dienst abkündt und das selb guot gheysen an die armen verwenden, als do er spraach:116 “Die armen habend ir allwaeg bi mir, mich aber nitt allwaeg.” Als soelte er sprechen: “Nun wohin bisz in min grab soll und wirt ich disz usserlichen dienst dulden, so bald aber dz selb zo sinem end kumpt, wil ich, dz ir alles an die armen kerend.” Nun besich 1 Ioan 3., 4. Das117 ist nun der recht, waar, allmechtig, laebendig, einig, ewig Gott, und sind yhenes die recht gloeubigen, die den Gotsdienst nitt in ussere ding stellind, sunder in den Geist, die Gott anhangend, wie der pundt Gottes mitt uns usswyst in warem glouben



102

marg.: Verharren. marg.: Erckantnusz Christi. 104 ewigs] foll. by del. illegible word 105 marg.: Rom. 8[:31–​34]. 106 marg.: Gloub. 107 marg.: Unschuld. 108 marg.: 1 Joan. 2[:8]. 109 marg.: Ephes. 4[:24]. 110 marg.: Liebe. 111 1 John 4[:20]. 112 marg.: Hie luog wz die rechten bilder. 113 marg.: 2 Cor. 8. 114 marg.: Math. 25[:34–​36, 40]. 115 marg.: Gotszyerd. 116 marg.: Ioan. 12[:8]. 117 marg.: Epilogus. 103

Appendix  305 und rechter [20r] unschuld, die iren hertz immer von Gott wendent, Gott all stund und ougenplick imm hertzen tragend, zuo Gott in allen hendlen und noeten, als zuo einem Vatter, der guetig und alein allmechtig ist, der der einig trost, schirm, hilff, und dz oberist guot ist, alein louffend, die imm alle ding übergaebend, sines willens faarend, imm in noeten klagend, in froeuden danckend, die inn imm Geist alein anbettend und anrüffend, dorumb sy klaarlich erkant habend, dz in hymel und eerden gar ghein gott, ghein guot nitt ist, dann er alein, die ouch iren naechsten guots thuond und der einigheit sich flyssend. Und118 dz ist der uralt Gott mitt dem uralten glouben, und habend von ye welten har alle gloeubigen, also, Gott erckent und vereeret, und sich mitt allenthalben an die creaturen verhenckt, wie man aber ietzund will, [20v] vom alten Gott und glouben reeden. Darwyder wir yetzund in diesem unseren anderen teyl handlen woellend.

Der ander teyl, von vielen, falschen gemachten goettern [20v–​77v]



118

marg.: Der allt Got und der allt Gloub.

306 Appendix

B) VON WARER UND FALSCHER LEER (1527) Basis text: Msc No. 376 (Kantonsbibliothek Vadiana, St. Gallen) Transcription of relevant excerpts:

[1r] Von warer und falscher leer, altem und nuwem glouben, und bruch der eucharistien oder mesz, wie sy anfencklich gehalten, und mitt was mittel sy in in missbruch kummen sye, geschryben durch Heinrychen Bullinger. Das buechlin zum laeser. Nun lyssz mich ietzt, es grüwt dich nitt, In mir du findst allt brüch und sitt. Und wie die Mesz ist grychtet an, Ich dir all zyt, Baepst zellen kan. Und wie sy vormals sye gewaesen, Ee dann man hadt dSophisten glesen. Du wirst für war vernemmen hie, ein soelche brycht als vormals nie. Du wirst auch hoerren soelchen list, Als vormals nie hat ghoert ghein Christ. So lysz mich ietzt wilt brichtet sin, Und acht sy nitt ob ich klein schin.

Geschriben zuo Cappell imm 1527 iar. [1v] Vorred [1v] –​[2v]

Wie die Eucharistien sye von Christo ingesetzt, und welchs irer eelicher bruch sye. Es119 was in goettlichem gsatzt von Gott verheissen, dz er uns armen mitt der zyt ein so herrlichen somen geben woelte, in welchem alle menschen soeltend begnadet, gebenedyet, und früntlich angenommen werden, und durch den selben allsampt in [3r] einen lib gefasset, Gott dank zuosagen und unstrefflich vor imm zuo laeben.120 Wie121 dann Abrahamen versprochen, imm122 osternlamb ernüweret und Hiere. 23., Iesaie 43. und Osee 2. erklert wirt, zuo letst aber von S. Peter geandet, 1 Petri 2. Und sidmal soelchs durch den Gott gesprochen und verheyssen ist, der nitt liegen mag, und uff ein gwüsses zyt verheyssen ist, wie123 Daniel abzellt, und sich die selb zyt schon verlouffen, sandte



119

marg.: Anlasz der Eucharistien. See Gen 17:1. marg.: Gene. 17. 122 marg.: Exodi 12. 123 marg.: Daniel. 9. 120

121

Appendix  307 er uns sinen eingebornen allerliebsten Sun, unseren Herren Iesum, dz durch den selben alles, dz erfüllt wurde, dz von imm in dem gsatzt und propheten geschryben was, dann Iesus ist Christus, der ware Meschiah. Das aber alle welt erckante, das er were der gesegnet som, hat er sich in all waeg mitt worten und wercken geflissen, dz man inn Christum sin verstuende. Dannenhar124 er imm ouch junger usswallt, namlich dz die selben [3v] imm nach siner uffart in aller wellt kundschafft gebind, dz er Christus. Und dorumb empfalch er inen ouch am end und abscheyd die hoechst geheymnus125 (als dann ouch wir imm abscheid pflegend), fürnemlich worumb er uff dieses erterich erboren, mensch worden, und wz frucht darusz menschlichem gschlecht erwuechse. Also126 beschach nun, dz Iesus nach dem sin zyt hie darinn alle ding soeltind erfüllt werden, sine iunger vor imm sande, uff dz sy die osteren zuorustind one zwifel, dz er mitt der that nach sinem gwonlichen127 und aller propheten sitten, mitt ettwasz usserlichen, sichtbaren zeichen allen handel anzoeugte. Und zum 1., das er selbs were dz recht osternlamb,128 und yhenes nun ein figur und gsatztliche ceremonien. Dannenhar thuot er dz osternlamb hin, dan sprechende: “Ich sag üch in der warheit, dz ich da von [4r] nitt mee essen wird, bisz es erfüllt werde imm rych Gottes.”129 Welche red diesen sinn hat: Ich wird fürhin nitt mee essen von diesem lamb, und so min that üwer exempel,130 soellend ouch yr nitt mee davon essen. Dorumb will ich aber nitt mee davon essen, dz es alein ein figur gewaesen ist, welche aber yetzund in mir abgadt. Dann es yetzund uff dem waeg ist, dz min wares bluot vergossen alles131 figürlichs bluot abstelle, hierumb ich nun fürhin wil, dz ir dz figürlich bluoet lassind faren, und uff dz min habind ein uffsaehen. Und132 hie sicht man ietzund die ursach, worumb Christus ylends uff dises brot genommen hat. Namlich brot, dz one bluot ist. Damitt133 ein underscheid were zwüsschend unseren und der alten, zeichen, welche allesampt bedutend uff kunfftiges bluot. [4v] Und dorumb nimpt Christus brot und setzt dz selb an statt des osternlambs, dz glich wie Christus bedütet ward imm osternlamb, dz er lyden wurde, und dorumb ouch nitt one bluot wz. Also dz Brot dedüte, dz ietzund schon Christus gelitten habe, das bluot gestellt sye, und dorumb ouch brot one bluot, one fleisch. Und Christus redt also von kunftigen dingen samm sy schon syend beschaehen, und dz nach der prophetischen134 Heterosi. Das alles werdent die wort Christi selbs erkleren, die lutend also: “Er namm brot, reicht es inen dar, und sprach: Nemend, essend, dz ist min lib, der für üch hinggaeben wirt.”135 Da er zum ersten spricht: “Nemend”, one zwifel dz Brot an desz osternlambs statt. Zum anderen: “essend”, grad wir ir dz osternlamb zur gedaechtnusz geessen habend. Doch mitt disem underscheyd, dz136 dises brot nitt minen lichnam bedüten soll, wie dz osternlamb [5r] namlich, dz ich noch lyden werde, sunder es soll bedüten das min lib schon hinggeben sye in todt, dorumb auch ylends volgt: “der für üch hinggeben wirt.”

124

marg.: Ioan. 15., Acto. 1. marg.: Die Gheymnusz eucharistiae. marg.: Luce 22. 127 marg.: Similitudinem et cognationem habet cum chria. 128 marg.: 1 Cor. 5., Ioan. 19. 129 Luke 22:16. 130 marg.: Ioan. 13. 131 marg.: Ebrae. 9. 132 marg.: Insatz des brots. 133 marg.: Nulla dr[-​]‌quod illorum promittunt futurum, haec exhibitum docent. 134 marg.: Ennallage temporis. 135 Luke 22:19. 136 marg.: Dz ist min lib. 125 126

308 Appendix Und137 so vil von dem brot und sinem insatz, wie durch es bedütet wird, dz Christus dr ware Messias uns geleistet sye, all figuren und schatten habe abgethon, alles erfüllt, und waesenlich sye für uns ggeben in den todt desz crützes. Imm138 insatz aber des trancks wird haeller volgen, was die krafft sye desz todts Christi, und wie er imm habe ein volk zuo gerüst, dz vor imm wandle in unschuld, einigheit und dancksagung. So139 nimpt er ouch yetzund wyn, reicht den sinen iungeren dar, und heyst sy all darusz trincken, und zoeugt damitt desz trancks bedütnusz oder geheymnusz, sprechende: “Das140 tranck ist ein tranck desz nüwen testaments in minem bluot, welchs [5v] vergossen ist zuo verzyhung der sünden.”141 Darusz man zum ersten merckt, dz wir durch dz lyden Christi gereinget sind von sünden und durch sinen unschuldigen todt versoent dem Vatter, ouch dz das testament, dz in Abrahamen gemachet ist, mit allen gloeubigen, ietzund142 versiglet und bestaetet143 sye durch den todt Christi und sin rosenfarwes bluot, welches einist vergossen ewigwerdend ist, und dorumb ouch desz nuwen testa[ments] bluot ist, ia dz nitt offtmols muosz vergossen werden, sunder dz einist vergossen ewig krefftig ist zuo reingen all sünd. Darvon man laesen soll Ebrae. 7., 9., 10. Zum anderen so reinget imm nun Christus sin volk mitt sinem bluot, frydet zwüschen Gott und den menschen nitt alein, sunder die menschen selbs macht er eins. Wann hie zerbrycht er die [6r] mittelwand, fuert ouch die H eiden ein nüwes volck in dz ewig, dz ietzund Iuden und Heiden in einem testament einen Gott habend, einen erloeser, ein lib sind. Davon mee gehandlet wirt, Ephe. 2. Zum 3. Volgt: “Und soelichs thuond minen zuo gedencken.”144 Oder:145 “So dick ir dz thuond, soellend ir den todt desz Herren loben, und darumb dancken bisz er kumpt.” Sich hie dz soellend wir thuon, bisz er widerkumpt. Dorumb ye volget, dz dise ceremonien ewig sye, und nitt zytlich wie der Iuden. Was soellend wir aber thuon? Das brot essen und den wyn trincken, und imm brot gedencken desz libs Christi, wie er für uns ggeben, dem gsatzt und propheten gnuog thon habe. Und imm wyn gedencken desz bluots Christi, wie es für die gloeubigen vergossen ist, die sünd zuo [6v] verzyhen, dz testament zuo bestaeten, und alle gloeubigen in einen lichnam zuo bringen. Dorumb wir imm nun billichen dancken soellend von hertzen und in unschuld und einigheit mit allen denen laeben, so dz brot mitt uns brechend. Darvon Paulus haeller redt in der 1 Corinth. Cap. 10., 11. //​Es hat aber Christus disen bruch des brotessens und wintrinckens hargenommen von dem gmeinen bruch und loeuffiger gewonheit der voelckeren, welche146 wann sy woltend verpündtnussen oder fryden machen, so trunckend sy all usz einem gschyrr, die in der pflicht sin woltend. Und hatten ouch ein brot dar ab ein yeder einen mund voll beisz. Darvon ouch Erasmus in Adagiis Chil. 1. Cent. 1. Adag. 2. Panem ne frangito et Lodonitus Coelius Lectio. Antiqua. Lib. 15. Cap. 15. Und also hat uns Christus die [7r] Ceremonien hinder imm gelassen, ein summ147 des gantzen heils und gantzer christenlicher religion, in deren wir verstond, dz wir Gott durch



137

marg.: Epilogus. marg.: Insatz desz wins. 139 marg.: Math. 26. 140 marg.: Es ist nitt dz bluot selbs. 141 Matt. 26:28. 142 marg.: Kraaft des todts Christi. 143 bestaetet] corr. from verstaetet 144 Luke 22:19. 145 marg.: 1 Corin. 11. 146 marg.: Den fryden abtrincken per antiphrasum. 147 marg.: Summa. 138

Appendix  309 den todt sines Suns Christi Iesu gehuldet, und in einem lib kummen sind, darinn wir alls glieder Christi wandlen und zuo allen zyten dancksagen, in summa, dz volck Gottes sin soellend, wie dann dz alles zuo vor gemeldet ist usz dem gsatzt und propheten. Und das ist nun die waar recht uralt christenlich und apostolisch leer, glich wie die, die unchristenlich falsch leer ist, die usz dem brot fleisch macht und usz dem wyn dz bluot Iesu Christi, die man für laebend und todt taeglich uffopfere. Das doch der erst Insatz nitt erlyden, der gloub nitt ertragen, noch die apostlen und alten vaetter ye geleert habend. Welches148 wir ietzund stiff er[7v]wysen woellend, ia dz die apostlen gheinen anderen bruch dann den erstbeschribnen gefuert habind, darzuo ouch die alten vaetter ghein messen gehept, noch ander brüch geleert.

Wie die eucharistien von apostlen gebrucht, und wie lang der selb bruch gewaeret habe. [7v]–​[84r]

Wie und worumb ietzund erst sich Gott der wellt uffthuege und den yrrsal anzoeüge. [84r]–​[90v] [91r] gesyget hab mitt Gott. Dannenhar uns nun der selbig Gott, durch inn nitt alein ein grosse kraafft in einem so herten und grusammen volck, als149 bishar wir Eydgnossen gewaesen, erzoeugt hat, mitt dem er durch sin predgen, sy zuo der warheit meerenteyls beckeert, sunder er hat uns ouch die obristen stuck siner relligion, durch inn, haell, als vor gar nach in tusend iaren, durch gheinen nie, dargestellt als dz gantze waesen und gruntliche erckantnusz Gottes,150 den verstand sines einigen ewigen pundts,151 von welches waegen sich152 der mensch von allen creaturen wenden und an niemands dann am einigen Gott hanggen soelle, dardurch die goetzen153 und alles, dz daran gehanget, hin und verbrennt154 ist. Also habend ouch wir von imm erlernet, wie Christus der [91v] einig ewig mittler155 und die fürpitt der seeligen ein gedicht. Ouch wie der einig gloub in den Herren Christum Iesum vom Heiligen Geist unser gwüssninen156 alein heiliget, versicheret, und die unruow nem, ghein bicht,157 ghein usser zeychen,158 ghein absolution. Darzuo die schlüssel159 syend, wz die erbsünd,160 wz der gantz handel des touffs.161

148

marg.: Propositio. marg.: In ipsa Corinthiorum urbe Tiguro. 150 marg.: Deus. 151 marg.: Testamen[tum]. 152 marg.: Cultus Divorum. 153 marg.: Idololatria. 154 verbrennt] Staedtke, Die Theologie des jungen Bullinger, 50: verbrent. 155 marg.: Intercessio. 156 marg.: Conscientiarum pax. 157 marg.: Confessio. 158 marg.: Signa. 159 marg.: Claves. 160 marg.: Orig[inis] peccatum. 161 marg.: Baptismus. 149

310 Appendix Nun sind aber diste stuck warlichen die obristen in christenlicher religion. Und so nun Gott die selben uns hat durch inn geoffnet, als aber am tag ist, so ists nützid nüws noch wundergaebs, dz durch den selben uns wyderumb bracht ist, der allt gloub, die recht leer und war bruch der Eucharistie.162 Sidmal wir ouch saehend, dz diser alle die gaben hat, welche diwyl yhen Baepst nitt ge[92r]hept den alten bruch verkeert, die recht leer nitt gwüst, den waren glouben nitt troffen, und die Mesz uffgrychtet habend. Und ist also163 Zwingly unser Iosias164 von Gott gesendt, durch den dz excelsum maximum, die Mesz zerbrochen, und des Pascha, die widergedaechtnus ernüweret, durch den ouch die goetzen ussgerütet, dz Deuteronomium funden, und der pundt, den wir mitt Gott habend widerumb herfür bracht ist. Gott sye lob, der behalte den wolverdienten man in siner selbs beckantnusz und uff sinen waegen. Dann wir one Gott all sampt fleisch und bluot sind. [92r]–​[95r]



162

marg.: Eucharistia. marg.: Staedtke, Die Theologie des jungen Bullinger, 50: als 164 marg.: 2 Chronico. cap. 34., 35. 163

Appendix  311

C) LOCORUM COMMUNIUM INDEX PER D. HEN. BULLINGERUM (UNDATED)165 Basis text: MUE Klein g 235:3 (Universitätsbibliothek, Bern)

[1R] LOCORUM COMMUNIUM INDEX PER D. HEN. BULLINGERUM Deus. Deus et de Dei nomine. Deus unus est omniumque principium. Deus summum bonum respicit afflictum. Deus omnia sciens et providentia eius geruntur omnia. Deus noster est et nos populus eius. Dei voluntas implitur omnibus adversis oppresis. Deus ultor. Trinitas et ὑπωστασίς. Pater et paternus amor erga homines. Patris divini gratia, consolatio, auxilium, protectioque. Filius et filii nomina. Iesus Christus Deus est et ita salvator. [2]‌Iesus Christus homo est, exemplum et mortis nostrae. In Christo duae naturae et ideo mediator unius. Christus a Deo promissus, filius legis[ ?], lumen et perfectio est. Christus natus ex virgine passus et mortuus est. Christus sepultus, descendit ad inferos, resurrexit a mortuis. Christus ascendit ad caelos, sedet ad dextram Dei Patris. Christus est sacerdos et hostia perfecta. Christus regnat, caput est ecclesiae sanctae. Petra scandali reprobis Christus. Christus venturus est iudex ad iuditium. Spiritus Sanctus et nomina eius. Spiritus Sanctus est Deus ab utraque procedens. Spiritus Sanctus [–​].

[3]‌ Religio. Religio vera. Religio observata et neglecta. Cultus Dei verus et hic Deus solus adorandus. Scriptura a Deo inspirata, postea per homines Dei mandata litteris. Scriptura perfecta est et lydius lapis. Scripturae nihil adiicendum, nihil auferendum. Bibliotheca et linguarum studium.

165

A: MUE klein g 235:3 (Bern:Universitätsbibliothek).

312 Appendix Ratio Hebraicae linguae. Ratio Grecae linguae. Ratio Latinae linguae. Ratio Germanicae linguae. Librorum ordo et qui sint canonici. Eruditio. Docti. Ignorantia. Indocti. [4]‌Eloquentio a Domino. Ineloquentes. Testamentum vetus. Testamentum novum. Reiectio Iudeorum. Vocatio Gentium. Sapientia mundi plane confunditur. Stultitia in mundo est sapientia apud Deum. Miracula. Prodigia. Sacramentum. Circumcisio. Pascha. Baptismus. Eucharistia. Peccatum. Peccatum originale. Peccatum actuale. Peccati ultio. Peccatum ad mortem. Peccatum non ad mortem. [5]‌ Lex. Lex naturae. Lex Dei. Lex ceremonialis. Templum, tabernaculum, altare, vasa, arca, vestes. Festi dies. Sabbatum. Sacerdotum decimae. Sacrifitia. Mactatio pecudum. Supplicationes. Oblationes. Cibus. Purifficationes. Votum violabile. Votum inviolabile. Legis abrogatio. Gratia. Evangelium. Peccatorum remissio. Penitentia tempestiva. Penitentia sera.

Appendix  313 Contritio. Confessio. Absolutio. Claves. [6]‌ Excommunicatio. Ecclesia universalis. Ecclesia particularis. Ecclesia Christo nupta non errat. Fides vera. Fides simulata. Spes in divina. Spes in humana. Charitas erga Deum. Charitas erga homines. Prophetarum et apostolorum offitium. Prophetarum et apostolorum et conditiones et nomina. Prophetae et apostoli veri populum non perturbant, sed falsi. Prophetis et apostolis vera loquentibus obloqui quam malum. Verbi Dei contemptus. Christianus et Christianorum religio. Libertas christiana, sunt[ ?] non reges et sacerdotes. [7]‌De scandalo. Illuminatio piorum. Impiorum excaecatio. Liberum arbitrium nullum, est non miserentis Dei. De merito. Oratio. Ieiunium. Elemosinae et misericordiae opera. Immortalitas gaudium et vita aeterna. Religio falsa. Dii falsi et idolatria. Humanae traditiones. Simulachra et imagines. Superstitio. Signum postulat curiositas. Magica ars, auguria. Astrologia. Daemonum miracula. Antichristus. Spiritus mendatii. Pseudoprophetarum et pseudoapostolorum dogmata et nomina. Pseudoprophetae et pseudoapostoli non sunt audiendi. [8]‌Adversus pseudoprophetas et pseudoapostolos Dei comminatio. Blasphemiae et simonia. Desperatio et odium in adversis. Murmurare. Hereses. Angeli et demones. Infernus et damnatio aeterna.

314 Appendix

Homo. Homo. Hominis ingenium et debilitas. Humanae vitae brevitas et miser. Hominis dignitas et dispositio. Cria [ ?] Hominis conceptus et partus. Educatio bona. Educatio mala. Qui degenerarunt a parentibus. Viri et faeminae consyderatio. Viri clari et obscuri. Faeminae insignes et bonae. Faeminae ignobiles et malae. [9]‌Parentum offitium erga liberos. Liberorum offitium erga parentes. Offitium viri et mulieris erga invicem. Corporis consyderatio. Anima immortalis. Memoria et oblivio insignis. Intellectus et ratio. Voluntas. Nobilitas. Ignobilitas. Senium praeceps. Iuventa praeceps. Vetus et novus homo. Mortis consyderatio et unde sit. Omnes homines peccatores. Valitudo bona et mala. Insomnia. Sepultura et exequiae. Corporis seu carnis resurrectio.

Magistratus. Magistratus minister Dei. [10] Monarchia et Tyrannis. Aristocratia. Democratia. Seditio. Ultio maxima sumitur a malis, iuditium non Dei est. Senatus iudicis aut legum consyde[ratio]. Principes boni et nomina eorum. Exactiones, vectigal, tributum, census. Animadversio iusta et severa in legum violatores. Animadversio neglecta, malum impunitum. Integritas seu animus incorruptus. Acceptio personarum.

Appendix  315 Munerum corruptela. Tyrannus etiam servus Dei ad puniendos malos illorumque nomina. Vita cum imperio. Vita sine imperio. [11] Libertas. Servitus clemens. Servitus dura. Offitium heri et servi ad invicem. Iusiurandum. Periurium. Testimonia vera. Testimonia falsa. Contractus, mensura, pondus. Pactum prescitum et scissum. Bellum civile. Bellum hostile. Indutiae servatae et non servatae. Stratagema. Victoria insolens. Fuga foeda.

Virtutes et vitia. Pietas et reverentia erga Deum. Pietas et reverentia erga parentes. Pietas in patriam cognatos et benefactores. Pietas in domines, servos et hostes. [12] Impietas in patriam cognatos et benefactores. Impietas in dominos, servos et hostes. Iustitia divina. Iustitia humana. Iniustitia. Philautia, amor et fidutia sui, unde et verbi Dei contemptus. Carnis mortificatio sive abnegatio sui. Pax et concordia ex vera Dei cultura. Tumultus et discordia ex idololatria. Persecutio et persequentium arma. Fuga in persequutione. Iniuria illata et propulsata. Ferenda iniuria, improbanda tamen[?].‌ Patientia. Simplicitas. Hypocrisis. Timor Dei, dilectio. Dei odium. [13] Obedientia. Inobedientia. Divitiae bonae. Divitiae malae.

316 Appendix Pauperas laudata. Pauperas vituperata. Pauperas lata patienter et impatienter. Abstinentia. Sobrietas. Temperantia. Fames. Gula et crapula. Lauticiae et ebrietas. Hospitalitas. Humanitas. Rapina. Furtum. Fraus ab amico. Fraus ab Inimico. Labor. Ardor agendi. Solicitudo. Otium. [14] Ludus altae[?]‌et temporis iactura. Inertia. Liberalitas. Mutuum. Prodigalitas. Avaritia, sordes, usura. Libido, impudentia in verbis et in factis. Libido fera et detestanda. Continentia et pudicitia. Scortator carnalis et spiritualis. Matrimonium laudatum. Matrimonium vituperatum. Stuprum et incestus. Coniugii commoda et incommoda. Adulterium et divortium. Veritas Dei. Veritas hominum. Mendatium et vanitas. Affabilitas, adulatio. Tariturnitas, loquaritas. Ambitio, gloriae cupiditas, iact[-​]‌. [15] Modestia, mansuetudo, clementia. Amoris consyderatio. Insignes amatores. Amicitia honesta. Amicitia inhonesta. Inimicitia Dei, hominum, mundi. Ira, invidia. Odium, insidiae. Homicidium. Parricidium et fratricidium. Fortuna et infortunium.

Appendix  317 Gratitudo et ingratitudo. Mortem timere, contemnere, petere. Lugere mortem gentium more. Mors spontana et violenta. Mors subita et prodigiosa. Dolor et tristitia. Gaudium et laeticia. Vitae cupiditas et eiusdem taedium. Constantia, inconstantia. Pertinatia. Vigilantia et somnolentia. [16] Locum dare irae. Mali utaliatio. Pensatio aequa et inaequalis. Prudentia et consilium. Imprudentia et consiliorum inopia. Caelibatus, viduitas, virginitas. Fortitudo. Quae libere dicta et facta. Tentatio. Tempus. Concordia.

Finis.

318 Appendix

D) INSTITUTIONUM ΣΤΡΩΜΑΤΈΩΝ DE PHILOSOPHIA CHRISTI (1531)166 Basis text: Ms Car III 206d (Zentralbibliothek, Zurich)

[1]‌ Institutionum σρωματέων de philosophia Christiana libri XII per H[enricum] B[ullingerum] 1531 Prologus ad lectorem Protestatio, quod neminem a Scripturis abducere velim hoc opere. Tituli ratio et librorum dispositio. Clemens. Lactantius. Totum fidei negotium complexus. Potissima adscribam. Symbolum apostolicum ex Cypriano. Vulgare. Irenei. Tertulliani. Nicenum. Athansii. Alia ex Eusebio.

De Scripturarum absoluta veritate. Lib[er] 1. A Scriptura cur orsus. Nomen Scripturae. Nomen rei. Unde sit. Quid sit. Cap. 1. Authoritas eius Sabell[ius]. Vetustas eias Euseb[ius] in chronicis. Tertull[ianus] in apologet. cap. 19., 20.167 Qui libri canonici cap. 2. Verbum Dei Psal. 19.168 Negans principium quomodo ducendus. Non crederem euangelio etc. Quae maior authoritas. Cap. 3. De Spiritu Sancto et an per philosophos loqutos. An nulla veritas nisi per eum. Cap. 4 Omnia Scripturis exacte tradita. Vide fordus. Adversus etc. Cap. 5 De traditionib[us] non scriptis et humanis statutis. Tertull[ianus] Ego eis. Faber etc. Cap. 6. Nemo potest mutare quae ab apostolis semel ordinata. Cyprianus de anchar. 25. Ques. 2. Si ea. Amputato. Imperiali.169 De ratione consiliorum. Cap. 7. Distinct. 14. 15. De consuetudine.170 De philosophiae studio, quatenus christiano. Cap. 8. De interpretandis Sripturis et perspiscuitate. Regula August[ini] si non intelligas aut scanda[?]‌. Compendium theologiae.171 Cap. 9 De testamento. Cap. 10.

[2]‌De natura Dei et maiestate eius. Liber 2. Diversitas opinionum de Deo ex Plutar[co]. Esse Deum. Cap. 1. Quid sit Deus, essentia, unde, re[-​]‌ch. In Athana[sio]. Prudentius. Ca. 2.



166

A: Msc Car III 206d (Zürich: Zentralbibliothek). Tertull[ianus] . . . 20.] interl. add. Verbum . . . 19.] interl. add. 169 Nemo . . . Imperiali] interl. add. 170 Distinct . . . consuetudine] interl. add. 171 Regula . . . compendium] interl. add. 167 168

Appendix  319 Nomina Dei. Annota[iones] in Math[?]‌. Ca. 3. De unitate Dei, et Trinitate. Cap. 4. De virtute Dei et primum creatione. Cap. 5. De creaturarum pulchritudine. Cap. 6. Psal. 19., 24. Coelius ex Plato ne. Lactantius de opifitio Dei.172 Deum summum esse bonum, sapientia. Bonitas. Iustitia. Providentia. Dominus pascit me, Psal. 23.173 De libero arbitrio. De casu et fortuna.

De lege, peccato et gratia. Liber III. Lex voluntas Dei, apperit se. Quam varie capiatur. Cap. 1. Quomodo data sit, quanta magnificem. Unde. Quid. Cap. 2. De vi legis in varios usus. Cap. 3. De partibus legis. Cap. 4. Quomodo antiquata, et quid in lege antiquatum. Cap. 5. [3]‌De ortu et ratione hominis. Cap. 6. Originale peccatum De differentia[?]‌peccati. In Spiritum Sanctum. Scelus. Infirmitas. Etc. Cap. 7. Inde oritur gratia, de nomine gratiae et quid sit. Cap. 8. August[inus] de gratia et lege paedag. Milenentani Consilii capita. Gratia per praecedentia meretur. [-​]a‌ Luce 7. Centurio Acto. 10.174 Sed cognitio Christi haec omnia faciet clarius.

De Iesu Christo Domino nostro, Liber 4. Summa expositio ex Cypriano De Vanitate Idolorum. Cap. 1. Ipsum esse Messiam in lege et prophetis promissum. Loca Scrip. Cap. 2. De una persona et duabus naturis. Cap. 3. De incarnationis sacramento. Cap. 4. Adver[sus] Valentinianos. De virtute divina in Christo. Cap. 5. Adver[sus] Arrium. Natus ex virgine. De virgine Mariae prosapia. Cap. 6. De crepundiis Christi. Cap. 7. De Ioan[is] baptista. Cap. 8. De initiis Christi baptismo et tentatio. Cap. 9. De summa doctrinae Christi. Cap. 10. Electio apostolorum. De summa miraculorum et gesta Christi. Cap. 11. [4]‌ Passum esse et mortuum. Cap. 12. Lactan[tius]. Descendisse ad inferna. Cap. 13. Resurrexisse. Cap.14. et quomodo revelarit. De resurrectio[ne] peculiaris liber. Ascendit caelos.Cap 15. Omnia subdita. Emisit Spiritum Sanctum et de Spirito Sancto. Cap. 16. In orbem dimisit apostolos. Cap. 17. De evangelio et clavibus. Cap. 18. Collegerunt ecclesiam.

172

Cap. 6 . . . Dei] interl. add. Dominus . . . 23.] interl. add. 174 Milenentani . . . 10.] interl. add. 173

320 Appendix

De sancta Dei ecclesia. Liber V.175 Ecclesiae nomenclatura. Cap. 1. Nuptiae. Veterum ecclesia et religio. Cap. 2. Nostra[?]‌cui invitatur[?] caput corpus pastor cibus. Cap. 3. Prophetia. Electio. Offitium. 1 Corinth. 14. Vitia corripere. Quid erga magistratum, religionem, populum.176 Templa Christianorum. Prudentius. Cap. 5. Oratio Math[?]‌. Tertullia. Cap. 6. Magistratus. Ratio. Cap. 7. An possit. Qui. Electio. Offitium. Differentia [?]‌ . Roma. 13. Excommunicatio.

[5]‌De vera religione et vero Dei cultu. Lib[er] 6. Ecclesia novit [?]‌sola religionem. Religio quid Lactan. Quot cultus genera. Cui debeatur. Numini. Spiritus. Adorare. Invocare. Simulachra. An Christiani simulachra. An docendi causa.177 De divorum cultu. Qui cultus verus. An invocandi. An intercedant. De unico mediatore.178 Anathemata et Christianorum sacrifitia. Lactantius.

De sacramentorum ratione. Liber VII. Habent sacramenta suum cultum quis sit. Sacramenti nomenclatura et quod. Ad principes G[-​]‌. Veterum sacramenta. Quot sint sacramenta. De baptismo. Unde sit, quid sit. De parvulorum baptismo. De eucharistia et nomenclatura. Adversus errores. Quod [-​]‌sit corpus et sanguis. Obiectiones. Responsiones.179 Quod non panis nudus. Quod non fidem fatiat aut certificet. Rom. 4. Quod non sit sacrifitium advers[us] sceleratam missam. Adversario[rum] obiectiones. In mysteriis. De sacerdotio Christi. De sacrifitio Christi. Quid eucharistia et quomodo instituta.



175 V.] prec. by del. 6. 176

marg.: Quomodo examinandus episcopus. Dist. 23. Qui episcopus ord. An . . . causa.] interl. add. 178 An . . . mediatore.] interl. add. 179 marg.: Constituae certam corporis vocem [?]‌. Praestrue. Quomodo Scriptura interpretanda. 177

Appendix  321 De180 virtute sacramentorum. De reliquis sacramentis.

De disciplina Christianorum. Lib[er] VIII. Habet suum ritum. De ceremoniis et liberta[te] Christ[iana]. De matrimonio. Sacerd. Dist. 28 si quis.181 Ritus copulandi. Forma baptizand.i Catechismus. Caetus et conventio. Festa. [7]‌Praedicatio. Horae. Oratio Modus coenae. De mortui. Ornatus et eleemosina. Pruden[tius]. In Laurentio. Ingratus. [-​]l‌ita scelerum alea. Vestis. Libido. Adulterius. Luxus et ebrietas. Usura. Fraus. Obscenitas. Blasphemia. Excommunis modus super.

De iustitia fidei et virtutib[us] Christianis. Liber IX. Quomodo honestas in ea. Servilis. Filialis. De nomenclatura fidei. Unde quid. Sola iustificat. Unus [?]‌Christus iustitia satisfactio. Libertas Christ[iana].182 De merito. De operib[us] et vi fidei. Veritas. Iustitia. Charitas. Constantia. Temperan. Patientia. Castitas. Amb[rosius]. Prudentius. Vitia contraria.

[8]‌De Antichristi regno et errorib[us]. Lib[er] XI. Antichristi vox. Abusus. Loca Scripturae. 2 Thess. 2. Quomodo regnum adeptus. Luce 22. Quomodo authoritatem ecclesiarum. Impia dogmata. Tyrannis et cedes. Responsio ad obiecta. Math[ ?]. 16. Caput impietatis. Missa. Abusus. Luxus. Coelibatus. Num[-​]‌ine. Origo missae. Divorum cultus. Simulachra. Dona. Templa. Peregrinationes. Ornatus. Ceremoniae. Gstifft. Cantus. Horae praecesemptae[?]‌ .183 Organa. Vestitus. Sectae.184

180 De] prec. by. del. Cultus eius auro. Exuperius, Ambrosius, etc. 181

Sacerd . . . quis.] interl. add. Libertas Christ[iana].: interl. add. 183 Horae praecesemptae [?]‌.] interl. add. 184 marg.: Math. 23. 182

322 Appendix Universitates. Monachi. Vota. Indulgentiae confessio. Testamenta morien[tium]. Dispensationes. Constitutiones variae. Festa. Oblationes. Fundationes.

De resurrectione et vita aeterna. Liber X. 1. Divisio rerum aut corpus aut spiritus. Angeli. Demones 2. De duabus in homine naturis. 3. De anima et eius immorta[9]‌litate et perpetuitate. Non dormit. De corporis humani ratione. 8. De resurrectione carnis. 9. Quando. Quomodo. Qualis. 4. De statu eius post hanc vitam. 5. De purgatorio. 6. De spirituum apparitione. 7. De iuditio futuro. 10. Tractatur Paulus 1 Cor. 15. Oppifitum [ ?] Dei. De vita aeterna. Quid et qualis. De aeterna damnatione. Contra Chiliastas.

De haereticis et haeresib[us]. Liber 12. Capiti iungenda membro antichristo haeretici. Quis haereticus. Unde nascatur. Acto. 24. Nomen [?]‌rei. Essentia. Recensebimus aliquot genera et centurias. Imitati placita Plutarchi. Ut hic liber iure dici posset. Placita haereticorum. Sunt autem haec capita. [10] De Scriptura De Deo, eius unitate, Trinitate. De Iesu Christo. De Spiritu Sancto. De gratia, peccato, libero arbi[trio]. De creatione. De ecclesia. De sacramentis. De hominis salute et ratione. De ceremoniis. Remissione peccatorum. De spiritib[us]. De iuditio.

Peroratio Brevitas et miseria vitae humanae. Omnis homo mendax. Veritatis laus. Permitte, ut te veritas vincat ad salutem. Omnia mutantur. Quem fructum in quib[us] erubescinus [?]‌. Augustiss[ima], dele[c]ta. Acto. 19.

Appendix  323

E) QUOD IN ECCLESIA CHRISTI MAGISTRATUS SIT (1534). Basis text: Ms S 34 (Zentralbibliothek Zurich) [190] Donum nostrae clarissimi Breitingeri austri185 1. Unus est Deus, testamentum unum et spiritus unus utriusque populi tam veteris quam novi. 2. Proinde eadem quoque religio, fides et ecclesia est veterum et nostra demptis pauculis quibusdam typicis et pro ratione populi et temporum institutur. 3. Iam cum in ueteri fuerit magistratus, consequens est quod et in nostra non sit abrogatus. 4. Caeterum huius est blasphemiam cohercere, haereses ab ecclesia prohibere, et disciplinam custodire. 5. Huius est et evangelicam veritatem eiusque cultores armis, si ipsa poscat res, tueri, adversus impiorum iniurias. 6. Id si negligat, interim iustitiae civili et paci studiat, prophanus et imperfectior est. QUOD IN ECCLESIA CHRISTI MAGISTRATUS SIT, QUI IURE ILLAM ADVER-​ sus haereticorum seditiones, et tyrannorum incursio-​ nes defendat. 1534.



185

Donum . . . austri] not from Bullinger’s hand.

324 Appendix

F) LOCI COMMUNES (UNDATED, PROBABLY MID-​THIRTIES) Basis text: Ms Car I 152-​153 (Zentralbibliothek, Zurich) Transcription of the main articles headings and the chapter called “DE TESTA­MENTO”

[Ms Car I 152][1] ARTICULUS I. Omnia quae ad pietatem salutemque fidelium absolutam pertinere videntur, abunde satis tradita sunt Scripturis Canonicis, ut ecclesiae Dei non sit necesse ea aliunde petere. . . . [2]‌–[​ 56]

[57] ARTICULUS II. Ecclesia enim Dei sancta, verbo Dei nata, Verbum dei in omnibus duntaxat sequitur, et tum alienorum vocem non audiat, nullas praeter Verbum Dei leges concit, nec recipit conditas. . . . [58]–​[146]

[147] ARTICULUS III. Porro Scriptura divina tradit unum esse Deum substantia, personis trinum, aeternum beatissimum immensum, qui se solum adorari velit spiritu e veritate, agnosci fide, coli charitate; e in his (in quibus vera consistit religio) firma nos spe perseverare. . . . [148]–​[586]

[587] ARTICULUS IIII. Ideo falsa religio est quae deum effigiat imagine hominis corruptibilis rebusque corruptibilibus ; idololatria est quae creaturis etiam sanctissimis simulachra statuit et veneratur. . . . [588]–​[648]

[649] ARTICULUS V. Et ipse Dominus Iesus novi testamenti administrator abrogatis legalibus ecclesiam suam onerare noluit, sed his rebus mo utilibus, praedicatione euangelii, precatione, sancto usu sacramentorum et eleemosyna instruxit. Pendet hic articulus a 3, in quo totius Scriptura summa est exposita, quae ut pauca habet capita, ita confirmatur et dilucidius[ ?] demonstratur hoc 5 articulo quod paucissimis onerarit imo rebus utilibus donarit ecclesiam suam Dominus Iesus. Habet articulus hic aliquot partes. 1) Iesum Christum novi testamenti administratorem esse. 2) Abrogata esse legalia. 3) Non oneratam ecclesiam, sed paucis quibusdam et utilibus quidem instructam.

Appendix  325

DE TESTAMENTO. Testamentum dictum volunt Latini [650] quasi voluntatis nostrae testimonium. Ulpianus definit, testamentum est voluntatis nostrae iusta sententia de eo quod post mortem nostram fieri volumus. Ponitur pro promissione et ordinatione sive pacto solenni. Unde Zacharias cecivit[?]‌: “Erexit nobis cornu salutis in domo David pueri sui, sicut loqutus est per os sanctorum qui a saeculo fuerunt prophetarum, fore ut uteretur misericordia erga patres nostros ac memor esset testamenti sui sancti, iusiurandum quod iuravit ad Abraham patrem nostrum ac daret nobis”,186 Lucae 1. cap. Graece dicitur διαθήκη καὶ διαθῆκας et pluraliter quidem per testamentum. Apostoli ea more usi sunt. Hebraei utuntur duob[us] morib[us] ‫ ְּב ִרית‬quod nostri vertunt foedus pactum ac testamentum et ‫ עֵ ָדת‬sive ‫ עֵ דוּת‬quod nostri verterunt testimonium et testificationem. Pactum vero ac foedus iniit Deus cum Adam, Noë, Abraham et semine eius in saeculum. Capita foederis sunt: Deus summus vult esse Deus seminis Abrahae, vult illi benefacere, copiae [651] cornu esse ac Filium complementum in quo simus completi et perfecti dare. Rursus, debet semen Abrahae Deum illum unicum et solum colere pro Deo suo, et recipere Christum veram lucem et satisfactionem et in huius viis ac institutis ambulare. A teste fit testor quod est testimonium dico, item iuro. Iurant enim testes. Testimonium sive testificatio, quod summa cum fide ac religione est proditum. Et Zacharias dicit quod testamentum Deus iuraverit etc.

QUID? TESTAMENTUM est solennis illa Dei ordinatio et pactum sanctum, quo se ille hominib[us] obstrinxit et interveniente Filii sui morte187 illos in gratiam recipit, testimonium insuper quo quid ipse velit summa fide exponit. DUO habet membra haec descriptio. Prius, solemne pactum est quo se Deus obstrinxit mortalib[us]. Posterius, testimonium quo exponit quid velit Deus. De solemni pacto iam iam obiter quae[652]da annotavi. Huc pertinent divinae promissiones Gene. 3., 17. et 22. Ieremiae 7[:23].: “Ero Deus et vos eritis mihi populus.” Deus et homo sive semen Abrahae conveniunt et uniuntur. Conditiones quib[us] uniuntur a parte Dei: Deus summum bonum totus vult esse noster et dare Filium. A parte hominis: hic debet in via Dei ambulare et a Deo pendere, etc. HIC media intervenit mors Christi, Hebr. 9[:16].: “Ubi testamentum est mors intercedat, necesse est testatoris, etc.”188



186

Luke 1:69–​74. interveniente . . . morte] marg. add. 188 HIC . . . etc.] interl. add. 187

326 Appendix

UNICUM. et189 aeternum est hoc testamentum. Nam unica et perpetua est ratio qua se Deus nobis iungit. Gratia sua nos recipit. Misericordia sua nos sibi desponsat. Solus sufficiens est, et amat nos, quos salvos vult et consortes benedictudinis. Ab homine requirit timorem, fidem ac charitatem, ut obedient et faciant quod Deo placitum est.190 Hoc ab omnibus saeculorum omnium hominibus exigit. UNA est et eadem ratio salutis, ergo unicum testamentum. Veteres gratia salvi facti sunt per Christum, etc. Testimo[653]nia. Ioan. 8[:56].: “Abraham vidit diem meum et gavisus est, etc.” Acto. 15[:11].: “Credimus gratia salvari nos quemadmodum et illos, etc.”, ait Petrus. Roman. 4., 1 Cor. 10., Hebrae. 11., 2 Cor. 4. Matth. 8[:11].: “Multi ab oriente et occidente venient et accumbent cum Abraham, Isaac et Iakob. Etc.” Matth. 20., 21. et 22. parabolae de Nuptiis, de vinea ac colonis huc pertinent. Pauli quoque Roman. 11. de olea., etc. August[inus], Tractat. 45 idem dicit.

DIFFERENTIA. ex administratione ducitur. Ac dicitur vetus et novum. Vetus ratio antiqua qua egit cum veteri populo ante Filii incarnationem. Novum ratio qua egit cum novo populo. Et in veteri testamento pactum continebat populum tuum Israëlis. Novum testamentum omnes gentes comprehendit, quod sero tandem. S. Petrus intellexit, Acto. 10.191 Vetus habuit figuras et fuit immolatum adeoque oneratum ceremoniis.192 Novum sine figuris ac cereomniis legalib[us]193 res omnes in Christo habet. Vetus pollicebatur. Novum praestat. Unde Paulus illud dixit antiquari [154] ad Hebrae. 8. cap. Est et differentia in modo, effectu et fine legis. Vetus testa[mentum] comprehenditur in tabulis lapiderism, novum autem inscribitur cordib[us], Hebr 8.; 2 Cor. 3. Effectus item fuit imperfectus. Neminem enim proficiebat, sed erat introductio ad spem potiorem, Hebrae. 7. et 10. Novum testa[mentum] omnino proficit, et illis externis caret. Nam hic est plenaria peccatorum remissio, Hebrae. 10. Habuit et intenta fuit lex in conditionem terrenam ex parte, in terram promissionis. Si obedieritis, manebitis in terra; sin secus eiiciemini. In novo nulla singularis terra hic promittitur.194 Posterius membrum testimonium quoque exponit Deus nobis quid velit et quid cupiat a nobis. Ita Scriptura, Verbum Dei frequenter appellatur testimonium, iungitur ei et pactum quumque. Psal. 132[:12].: “Si custiodierint filii tui pactum meum et testimonia mea, quae docuero eos, etc.” ‫יתי֮וְ עֵ ד ִֹת ֥י‬ ִ ‫ב ִר‬. ְּ Psal. 89[:35].: “Non prophanabo pactum meum (‫ית ֗י‬ ִ ‫ )בְ ִר‬et quod egressum est de labiis meis non mutabo.”



189

marg.: Unum est substantia, diversum propter circumstantias. ut . . . est.] marg. add. 191 Et . . . 10.] marg. add. 192 Vetus . . . ceremoniis] marg. add. 193 ac . . . legalib[us]marg. add. 194 Est et . . . promittitur] interl. add. 190

Appendix  327 Psal. 78[:5].: “Ipse suscitavit testimonium (‫ )עֵ ד֨וּת‬in Iakob et legem posuit in Izraël.” Psal. 119[:129].: “Mirabilia testimonia tua, iccirco custodivit ea anima mea.” 2 Paralip. 23[:11].: “Eduxerunt filium regis et dederunt super eum coronam et testimonium et fecerunt eum regem.” Sumptum id est ex Deut. 17[:18]. ubi iubetur regi dari liber legis, qui hic dicitur testimonium etc.

[655] CHRISTUS ADMINISTRATOR NOVI TESTAMENTI. Administrator exequtor est qui paravit adeoque et consummavit testamentum novum, quod est aperta gratiae praedicatio, quod omnibus inquam credentibus per Christum remissa sint peccata, per sanguinem inquam Christi. Hebrae. 8[:1–​2].: “Habemus talem pontificem qui consedit ad dexteram throni maiestatis in coelis, sanctorum administrator ac veri tabernaculi quod fixit Deus et non homo.” Excellentius Levitico sacerdotium Christus sortitus est, qu[-​]m ‌ praestantioris est testamenti mediator vel intercessor, quod in praestantiorib[us] promissis sancitum est. Hebr. 9[:15].: “Ob id novi testamenti mediator vel conciliator est, ut morte intercedente ad redemptionem earum praevaricationum quae fueruant sub priori testamento, hi qui vocati sunt, promissionem accipiant aeternae haereditatis.” Sacrifitia testa[menti] veteris non potuerant auferre peccata, sed acta est in illis peccatorum commemoratio. Hebrae. 10[:4].

[656] ABROGAVIT LEGALIA. . . . [657] . . .

[658] NON ONERAVIT. ... [659]–​[664]

[665] PRIMA PARS. DE DOCTRINA.

Exponemus articulis aliquot quae pertinent ad doctrinam evangelicam, ea tametsi varia sint, sunt tum haec potissima regeneratio, iustificatio, meritum, bona opera. Remissio peccatorum, poenitentia, intercessio, sacerdotium, sacrifitium, purgatio. Ecclesiae caput, ministerium ecclesiae, claves et clavium potestas, magistratus et quae hunc connexa sunt.195 Addam quae his adversa docentur in papismo.



195

Magistratus . . . sunt.] marg. add.

328 Appendix

ARTICULUS VI. Euangelii summa haec est, quod Deus missi Filium suum iuxta promissiones suas in mundum perditum atque damnatum saluandis peccatoribus, et quod per Filium suum credentes plene absoluit, in uno conferens nobis omnia. [666]–​[680]

[681] ARTICULUS VII. Omnes enim homines natura filii irae, per se boni nihil possunt, neque sui liberi arbitrii seruantur uiribus, sed opus est omnibus regeneratione, qua intelligant Christi meritum, bonaque per spiritum Christi velint ac faciant. . . . [682]–​[809]

[810] ARTICULUS VIII. CHRISTUS IESUS factus est nobis a Deo iustitia satisfactio et redemptio, nec est in quoque alio salus, ergo qui iustificationem aut satisfactionem nostris operibus aut meritis tribuunt Christum negant. . . . [810]–​[906]

[Ms Car I 153][1] ARTICULUS IX. Praesertim illi qui monachismum pro statu perfectionis uenditant, cum alioqui in multis cum sana religione et salute reipublicae pugnet, atque ideo totus abolendus sit. . . . [2]‌–[​ 50]

[51] ARTICULUS X. Solus Deus remittit peccata fidelibus, idque per mortem Filii sui; impii ergo sunt in meritum passionis Christi. Qui largiuntur et vendunt indulgentias et confessionem praedicant papisticam. . . . [52]–​[92]

[93] ARTICULUS XI. Et poenitentia aliud non est quam conversio ad Deum, qua ex eius timore syncero peccata nostra agnoscimus humiliati, vitamque nostram totam innouamus. . . . [94]–​[118]

Appendix  329

[119] ARTICULUS XII. Christus Iesus unicus est mediator et fidelis ac misericors aduocatus apud patrem. Per ipsum ergo solum preces suas Deo offerunt pii; divos in coelis non invocant. . . . [120]–​[152]

[153] ARTICULUS XIII. Christus Iesus verus et unicus est sacerdos ecclesiae fidelis. Hostia ergo pro peccatis totius mundi unica et perpetua. Cadit ergo in ecclesia Christi missa et missale sacerdotium. . . . [154]–​[178]

[179] ARTICULUS XIIII. Christus Iesus purgat et ad plenum lustrat sanguine suo fideles, ita ut animae ipsorum mox a morte corporea, recta ad vitam transeant. Inefficax ergo et mendax est ignis ille purgatorius. . . . [180]–​[200]

[201] ARTICULUS XV. Christus Iesus nusquam absens ubique autem et semper praesens est ecclesiae suae, utpote unicum et vivificans ecclesiae caput. Haec ergo non agnoscit PAPAM esse, vel vicarium Christi vel militantis ac generalis ecclesiae caput. . . . [202]–​[234]

[235] ARTICULUS XVI. Agnoscit autem Christum Dominum sibi dedisse doctores et pastores, qui legittime vocati, hominibus coelum clavibus aperiant et occludant, qui curam gerant gregis dominici, qui inquam doctrina sacramentis et vita sancta ministrent ecclesiae. Non dominentur, quique omne incrementum ministerii sui Domino Deo suo tribuant. . . . [236]–​[312]

[313] ARTICULUS XVII. Porro claves sunt ministerium aperiendi et claudendi coelum. Quod fit euangelii praedicatione, nempe cum credentibus et obsequentibus remissio peccatorum per Christum promittitur; infidelibus autem et rebellibus aeterna damnatio interminatur. Papa ergo claves suas aliunde quam ex evangelio petiit. . . . [314]–​[348]

330 Appendix

[349] ARTICULUS XVIII. Agnoscit item ecclesia Christi magistratum esse ordinationem Dei ad defensionem boni atque mali vindictam institutum, cui iure obedient omnes homines. . . . [350]–​[428]

[429] SECUNDA PARS. DE PRECIBUS.

NON minimum divina cultus momentum in precib[us] fidelium est situm, nec parva inde ad homines utilitas redit. Hinc[?]‌toties illas exigunt et urgant sacrae litterae. Praecepta Dei quid agamus praescribunt, fides vires praestat faciendi, at oratione fides postulatur. Diligentur itaque agendum de oratione.

ARTICULUS XIX. Deprecationes vero et gratiarumactiones, quas apostolus in ecclesia celebrare iubat, ex fide, lingua vulgari, non peregrina, iuxta institutum Dei, a tota ecclesia, et non pro precio a solis clericis, fieri debent. . . . [430]–​[477]

[478] ARTICULUS XX. Sacramenta vero ecclesiae christianae a Domino instituta baptismus et coena Domini signa sunt verbo addita sive symbola divinae erga nos gratiae donorumque Dei, quae ipse quidem Dominus interne confert fidelib[us] externe vero sensib[us] repraesentat, fidem exercet, in unum corpus colligit, et singulos sui commonet offitii. Sacrilegi sunt qui illis abutuntur ad quaestum.

[479] TERTIA PARS.

... [480]–​[659]

DE SACRAMENTIS SIVE SIGNIS.

Appendix  331

G) PREDIGTSKIZZEN (23RD APRIL 1536 UNTIL 4TH NOVEMBER 1537) Basis texts (A): Ms Car III 203 (Zentralbibliothek, Zurich 1536) Collated text (B): Cod. B 26 (Burgerbibliothek, Bern 1545) Transcripition of c­ hapters 1–​3, 9, 12, 15, 17.

[1r] IN GENESIM DOMINI BULLINGERI MEMORALIA.196 APR. XXIII 1536197 MAGNUM apud homines aestimatur, si quis admittatur ad secreta principis, si copia privilegio factorum fiat. Maximum ergo, quod Deus ipse sua nobis revelat. //​Parantur homines. Reverentes sunt. Quanto magis decet nos ad Verbum Domini parari? Exodi 3. praeparatur Moses nobis in exemplum. Simus humiles, accedamus cum fide, sobrie, imitemus exempla. Cibus est animae. Non prodest cib[us] misus sed traiectus in stomachum. Sic Verbum Dei nisi transformemur in illud. ET HACTENUS quidem admissi audivimus gesta et doctrinam Christi, deinde apostolorum, et quae de Christo testati, item prophetarum quorundam. In his tamen omnib[us] semper omnia relata ad Mosen ad Legem ut principium. Dignum ergo, ut illa quoque cognoscamus. Nos certi Genesim enarrare statuimus. NEMO putet ista ad se nil pertinere. Sunt principia, sunt optima. Sathan oculit. Novit quantum ex his damnum acceperit. //​Audite quis MOSES. //​NUMERI XII[:6–​8].: “Si fuerit vobiscum propheta Domini, cognoscet me in visione et in somno loquar cum eo. Non talis est servus meus. Moses198 in universa domo mea est fidelis. Ore ad os loquutus sum ei, et visione nec in aenigmata, sed formam Domini vidit.” Haec199 pertinent Exod. 19[:9].: “Ecce, ego veniam ad te loquar tibi, credat tibi populus in perpetuum.” Quod 40 dies fuit, illuxit facies. Exod. 34., 24. //​Deut. 34[:10].: “Non surrexit talis in Israel.” //​Ecclesiastici[?]‌ 45. IOSEPHUS in 2 contra Appionem. Item, de Antiq. Lib. 12. cap. 2. EUSEB[IUS] in Praefat. Chron. Ante omnes fuisse ait. Ante Orpheum Linum Museum. Ante 500 ante Troianum bell., ante Homerum, Hesiodum. Unde didicerunt omnes philosophi, etc. Ptol., Philadelphus, Demetrius, Theosoctus200. Ioan. 5., Math. 17., Luce 16. et 24., Acto. 7. Apostoli praecipue Paulus. Scriptura, Chore, Datan, Numeri 16. Maria. 12. [1v] DE MATERIA dicemus postquam de authore disseruimus. Vidit Mose Moses in Agypto magnam Dei ignorantiam, coli idola. Voluit ergo ostendere, quis Deus verus, quae principia omnium rerum.201 Quomodo homo conditus et omnia propter hominem. Quomodo sua culpa lapsus, restitutus. Quae primordia mundi, quae malitia. Poena. Foedus. Quomodo veteres coluerunt Deum. Habebimus quae antiquissima fides. Quis verus Dei cultus; quae vere bona opera. EXEMPLA omnis generis. Institutionem reipub[licae].

196

IN . . . MEMORALIA] A: om. APR . . . 1536] B: XXIII APRIL 1536 198 Moses] B: foll. by qui 199 Haec] B: Huc 200 Ptol . . . Theodoctus] A,B: marg. add. 201 principia . . . rerum] B: omnium rerum principia. 197

332 Appendix HAEC simplicissimo stilo. Ordine perspicuo conscripsit, sine pigmentis. Simplex veritatis oratio. Simplicitas, perspicuitas maxima laus orationis. Affectatio, garrulitas, innovatio, maxima vitia. Plane et simpliciter exponemus. Initium tale.

CAP[UT] I. “IN PRINCIPIO CREAVIT DEUS COELUM ET TERRAM.”202 DEUM constituit ante omnia. Quicquid alias est principium accepit et203 creatura est. Omnia iam Deo204 inferiora. Deus summus, increatus, aeternus. Ante hoc principium creationis aeternitas. De his non est, quod disputemus. Nil205 enim prodidit Scriptura. DEUS quis? Exod. 33., 34. Ex operib[us] cognoscitus. Centrum ponit et circumferentiam complectens206 omnia. Nulla materia autem. Nullum hyle. Nullum chaos. Ex nihilo condidit omnia. Articulus fidei huic respondet. Materiam paravit. Deinde digessit. [2r] CONDIDIT207 omnia Deus, et distinxit quaelibet, item in sua loca reposuit. Coelum, aërem, aquam terram. Deinde ornavit etiam. HABUIMUS208 hodie ornatum terrae, eumque mirabilem. Gramen, flores, herbae, arbores. In his omnib[us] post delectationem est medicamen et fructus suavissimus. AD ORNAtum209 coeli festinamus. Ut terram ita coelum ornavit. Ornatus terrae terrestris crassior. Sed coeli lumini propior igneus. Sunt autem sol, luna, stellae. CONFUTANtur, qui Deos credunt et illa et colunt et adorant. Non est ex illis praecipue terrae fructificatio.210 Germen ante solem fuit. Lumen non ex sole, sed sol ex lumine. Prius lumen fuit supra spheram lunae, obscurior in inferiori parte. Parat infundibula et acceptabula. Instrumenta Meoros211 quib[us] lux infunditur. Stellae, crassior lucis coagulatio. CONSYDEREMUS solem. Nemo sufficit ad laudem eius. Forma, substantia, vis et effectus. Nemo satis laudavit. Maximum in orbe miraculum. Excitat. Laetificat. Canunt aves. Psal. 18.: “Soli posuit in eis tabernaculum, e212 quo velut sponsus e thalamo suo procedit, et velut gigas absoluit cursum suum. A termino coelorum egreditur uno, et ad alterum terminum eorum contendit, et nemo se abscondit a calore.”213 LUNA crescens, color, etc. Stellae monentes. USUS sequitur: 1) Ut luceant. 2) Ut distinguant inter noctem et diem. 3) Ut in signa tempora, dies, annos. Hoc est agriculturae serviunt. Quando serendum, putandum. Medicinae. Distinguunt tempora, menses, ver, aestas, autumnus, Hyems. Haec vicissitudo consyderanda. NON SIGNA ut mathematici. Omnia regna sub manu Dei, Daniel 3., Ierem. 10., 18. Duo aspectus. GRATI SIMUS.



202

Gen 1:1.

204

iam Deo] B: Deo iam

203 et] B: om.

205 Nil] B: Nihil

206 complectens] B: complectem. 207

See Gen 1:6–​10. See Gen 1:11–​13. 209 See Gen 1:14–​19. 210 fructificatio] B: sanctificatio 211 See Gen 1:14: ‫ ְמאֹר ֹת‬. 212 e] B: a 213 Ps. 19:5–​7. 208

Appendix  333 [2v] ORIGINEM et progressum rerum describit, ut intelligemus Deum authorem universi, cui omnia serviunt, cui merito et nos servimus. IN GENERE dicit: “Deus condidit coelum et terram.”214 Infinum nominat et supremum et comprehendit omnia. Intelligit materiam, ex qua omnia, quam vocat, etiam terram, abyssum, aquas. Parat sibi materiam primo, qui vult aedificare. Accipe215 massam mineri aeris, illa aurum, plumbum et tamen confuse216. Haec materia ex nihilo condita. DIGERIT217 hanc indigestam molem, primoque lucem producit. Potuisset uno momento condere, sed non facit. Ordine omnia agit. Docens nos ordinem. Sapiens non omnia semel effundit. Deinde inperfecta permittit, ut sequantur perfectiora. //​Sequitur quomodo digesserit. SPIRITUS218 Dei alii mentum219, sed naturalis vis Dei. Monitabat animo, quomodo absolveret, digereret opus. Ut solet prudens architectus. Ut sol effundit et fovet220 omnia. Sic Deus. PRIMO221 ergo conditur lux. Ex massa producitur lux. Notabis Dei potentiam. Dixit et facta sunt. Mandavit et creata sunt. Omnipotens est, cui tuto fidimus. Liberare potest. Excitare, etc. LUX illa dici lux est, nondum solis. Deus lux, consyderemus puritatem, 1 Ioan. 1., 2.

“VIDIT quod bonum.222”223 DISTINGUITUR.224 Dies labori servit. Nox quieti. Quod caret alterna requie, etc.225 Praecium temporis mobile. [3r] IN CONditione rerum spectandus per omnia Deus potens, bonus, sapiens. Cognoscamus conditorem omnium, fidamus ei, grati simus. POTENTIA ex eo elucescit, quod condidit omnia ex nihilo. BONITAS, quod propter nos. SAPIENT[IA], quia omnia pulchre digessit. ORDO conditionis omnium: 1)226 conditur materia affunditurque lux et dies distinguitur. 2)227 Interstitium coelum et aer ponuntur. 3)228 Terra et Maria //​Haec substantialia, quae ornantur deinde. Et terra primam herbis et arboribus. 4)229 Coelum stellis et luminarib[us] 5)230 Mare piscibus. 6)231 Terra animalib[us] et homine.

214

Gen. 1:1. marg. A, B: Informis confusum sine vi. Inanis torpida. 216 et . . . confuse] B: argentum habebit, confuse tamen 217 See Gen 1:2. 218 See Gen 1:2. 219 mentum] B: foll. by volunt 220 fovet] A: prec. by del. dige. 221 See Gen. 1:3. 222 VIDIT . . . bonum] A: interl. add. 223 Gen. 1:4. 224 marg. A, B: Deus coelo vim indidit, ut se moveat. 225 etc.] B: durabile non est 226 See Gen. 1:1–​5. 227 See Gen. 1:6–​8. 228 See Gen. 1:9–​13. 229 See Gen. 1:14–​19. 230 See Gen. 1:20–​23. 231 See Gen. 1:24–​31. 215

334 Appendix CONSYderemus haec plene et simpliciter. In his est vera philosophia et sapientia. Omnes philosophi sudarunt in hoc campo. Psal. 18.: “Coeli enarrant . . . ”232. Assuetudo fecit nobis haec vilia, quae vere maxima. CONDITI primum coelum et terra.233 Terra et materia indigesta, inculta, producta lux. Interim moles illa indigesta.234 Ergo secundo die digerit.235 Extendit coelum. Interstitium facit inter aquas et aquas. Inter aquas inquam, in quib[us] adhuc latebat terra, et aquas vel coelum cristallinum, sub quo 7 spherae, vel regionem illam superiorem aeris, unde aquae in nos decidunt. Et si coelum spectes, putes te lacum contueri colore. Superiora ergo vulgo loquens aquas dixit. Itaque secundo die conditi sunt coeli aërque. Et aves coeli dicuntur, qui agunt in aëre. Underschlacht/​usstennung[?]‌. SUPRA coelum et aërem hunc est sedes beatorum. De qua dicemus 3. cap. In illud ascendit Christus supra omnes scilicet coelos. CONSYderemus nos interim mirabilia aeris. Quomodo omnia vivunt aere, sonus illo fit. Aves in hoc suspensae. VENTUS consyderandi. Substantia, vis, effectus, positio. Item quae generantur in aëre et decidunt in nos: Ros, pluvia, pruina, nix, grando, fulmina, tonitrua, fulgura, nubes. HAEC nondum absoluta, ergo non dicit bonum, sed postea bis repetit, ubi terra et aqua accedit.236 GRATI237 SIMUS PRO OMNIB[US].238 [3v] III. DIES239 Cum superiora constitua et ordinata, nondum emerserat terra, sed latebat in aquis. Iam ergo discernit. Iubet aquam recedere. Recedit in locum suum, aparet arida. Hic240 aquas ‘maria’ vocavit, aridam ‘terram’. Haec valde bona. Aer scilicet terra, aqua, etc. CONSYDERemus haec propius. Magnum est, quod terra subsistit sine fundamento in aquis potentia Dei, quod non transit terminatos. Transit aliquando sed ob peccata. Ut in Diluvio. Situs terrae in mari mirabilis. Hoc interfluit, ad navigia aptum. CONSYDErandi hic sunt lacus, fluvii, fontes. In TERRA montes, campi, valles, gemmae, metalla. //​ SEQUITUR241 iam conditam rerum substantiam mirabilis ornatus.242 Primo terrae. Nihil vult inornatum. Ornemur et nos virtutibus. SUA sponte nihil profert sed iussa. Ita per praeceptum et vim Dei omnia crescunt. Ante solem, ut videremus vanam esse Macrobii243 disputationem de sole Deo. SPECIES duae:244 1) Herba. 2) Arbores. In his prolifica vis. Semen, quod decidens in terram generat sibi simile. HERBAE tam hominib[us] ad cibum, ad medicinam, quam beluis ad victum conditae. Flores.245 ARBORES fructus, et aedificia hominum. Vide cui feras acceptum medicinam et fructus.



232

Ps. 19:1. See Gen. 1:1. See Gen. 1:2–​5. 235 See Gen. 6–​8. 236 See Gen. 1:10.12. 237 GRATI] A: marg. add. 238 SIMUS . . . OMNIB[US].: A: om. 239 See Gen. 1:9–​13. 240 Hic] B: Hinc 241 See Gen. 1:11-​12. 242 mirabilis ornatus] B: ornatus mirabilis 243 Macrobius Ambrosius Theodosius (385/​390–​after 430). 244 See Gen. 1:11. 245 Flores] A: interl. add. 233 234

Appendix  335 Consydera speciem, saporem, colorem, odorem. Sic pascit Deus. Grati simus. Fructificemus. [4r]246 Cognitio, ratio seperat eros a brutis. Ex Verbo Domini cognitio et ratio vera. Maxime spectandum, ut tui habeant. Propagare rem bonam et utilem. Ubi non licet, ne removeris. Nemo cogendus, sed ad perfidiam. Cur illi cogunt in adversum, ad fidem malam. Non inuare est summa contumelia, et negatio fidei.

CALENDES MAII. [4v] DEUS condidit omnia visibilia et visibilia per se et sapienter. Imperfectiora primum, deinde perfectiora. Hactenus inanimata, nunc animata. In animatis quaedam motum habent, quaedam non habent. Omnia in Deo. ORNAVIT, fructificavit, utilia fecit. Hactenus de terra. Item de coelo, propter hoc quod pulchra astra, milia quoque, insignia, etc. NUNC quomodo aquam, aerem, terram impleverit et fructificavit, non ornavit tantum. EX AQUA pisces duplices. Sunt cete grandia. Iis utit ad gloriam suam. Ionas. Sunt delphynes. Creavit alios pisces in cibos hominum. STULTI QUI COLUNT. AVES ex aëre et aqua. Sunt enim amphibia animalia, quae non sunt sine aqua. Sunt aves cicures. Sunt ferae[?]‌. Leniunt curas hominum. Serviunt medicinis. -​APES: Iob, David. Consyderanda species animalium. -​ pavo: -​ Philomela: FRUCTIFICATE: Augmentum ex Deo. Benedixit. Virtutem manendi[?]‌dedit. VI. DIES:247 Animalia. Cognationem cum homine habent. Ergo hoc die condentur, quae creari pterant 5. Die. Tria genera: -​Iumenta, voch[?]‌, porci, boves, oves, vacce, equi, muli. -​Reptilia: serpentes. -​Ferae: cervi. Non nocent sanctis, Dan. 6., Act. 28. Homo excellentior cunctis. BONUM 1 Timoth. 4.



246 247

4r–​v are missing in A. See Gen. 1:24–​31.

336 Appendix [5r] BREVIA sunt hic verba,248 sed magnus est in his latens thesaurus. Iam ut non superficialiter fodiunt, sed penitius. Sic omnia penitius expendenda. Hic stamus in conspectu Dei, audiemus de origine et dignitate nostra. HACTENUS parata domus, ornata repleta omnibus bonis et fructibus. Nil deest, quod pertinet ad summam absolutionem. Inducitur nunc inquilinus. Hoc249 est Homo. //​ Summatim hic perstringitur, quae eius dignitas. Ad quid sit conditus. Quod imago Dei. Quod omnib[us] praelatus, ipsi subiecta omnia. “FACIAMUS”:250 Loquitur, Deus qui trius est. Non ait ut supra. Fiat, sed consultans magno cum molimine. Idemque bis repetitur.251 Ut ostendatur nostra dignitas. Non creamur ut alia, sed maiori vi. IN QUEM FINEM? Prius ostendit ad quid sol, luna, stellae conditae, quis usus. Intelligimus herbas, animalia ad alimentum252 hominis condita. Iam dicit ad quid conditus homo. Ad imaginem et similitudinem. Hoc est, ut sanctus, iustus, verax esset, dominaretur omnib[us].253 IMAGO haec non in corpore, sed in animo et dignitate. Huc pertinent loca Ephe. 4., Colloss. 3. “Vos non sic didicistis Christum, siquidem illum audistis et in illo docti estis, quemadmodum est veritas in Iesu, deponere iuxta priorem conversationem veterem hominem, qui corrumpitur iuxta concupiscentias erroris, renovari vero spiritu mentis vestrae et induere novum hominem qui secundum Deum conditus est per iustitiam et sanctitatem veritatis.”254 FONTES hic oriuntur verae religionis. Haec enim absolvitur vero numinis cultu, et proximi studio. At haec duo capita hic comprehenduntur, sic. [5v] Homo super omnia est. Soli deo subest. Huius imago secundum spiritum. Confit, quod uni adhaerere, ut summo bono debet. Hunc colere solum. Omnia enim inferiora. Item, “Deus spiritus est.”255 Ergo spiritualib[us] coli vult iustitia, pietate, non externis. Cadunt item idola. Aut Deus effigiatur. At hic non corpus sed spiritus. Hic autem non potest exprimi simulachro. Aut Homo. Hic proximus est, et non secundum corpus, sed spiritu imago Dei est. Aut beluae. Hae inferiores, quam ut colas. II) Dignitas hominis. Ad imaginem conditus. Eben mensch. Perinde ac tu. Huic tamen debes,256 quantum tibi. Honoremus imaginem. Propellitur. 1) Tyrannis. Ordo est non, ut praesis sed ordine servias, ut sis utilis. 2) Homocidium maximum peccatum. 3) Imunditia Spiritus Sanctus conturbatur in nobis. SACRILEGI non qui idola vastant, sed homicidae, incestuosi, polluentes templum Sancti Spiritus.257 AD QUID conditus homo auditum, et quanta eius dignitas. Imago Dei est. Ad haec pertinent illa duo. 1) Quod benedixit. 2) Quod subiecit omnia. Daniel. 1. 1) SANITAS quam de[-​].‌ 258 2) NON INVITAT ut plus.



248

See Gen. 1:26.

249 Hoc] B: Hic. 250

See Gen. 1:26. See Gen. 1:27. 252 alimentum] B: usum. 253 marg. A: Postea plenius copiosius de hominis dignitate et conditione [-​].‌ 254 Eph. 4:20–​24. 255 John 4:24. 256 debes] B: dans 257 Sancti Spiritus] B: Spiritus Sancti; SACRILEGI . . . spiritus.] marg. add. 258 quam de[-​]‌] B: om. 251

Appendix  337 3) UT POST HAC HABEAS. 4) Ut ad opera bona prompti.259 1) “BENEDIXIT”.260 Benevult nobis, ut crescamus. Benevult et posteris nostris. Vide Psal. 128. Non curandum ut multos quam ut bonos, ut crescat iustitia. 2) “SUBIICITE”,261 dominamini. Haec maxima est dignitas. Nos nobis debemus servire elementis. 1 Cor. 3. Vide Psal. 8. IAM de Alimonia.262 Non deserit, quod condidit. Haec consolari debent, ne diffidens anxietas nos urgeat. Matth. 6. Fructuum meminit et herbarum. Animalium non meminit.263 Commendat frugalitatem victus.264 Satis instructum quod necessarium. Castigandum corpus. 1 Cor 9.265 OMNIA quae Deus condidit bona.266 1. Timoth. 4[:4]. Etiam homo bonus. Vidiamus,267 ne impura mente contaminemus.

[6r] CAP[UT] II. Ut figuret altius, repetit quod a Deo sint condita omnia.268 Duo termini 1. et 6. dies. //​Cum omni exercitu, vi, ornatum, aller macht und zierd. Hinc Deus exercitum269. Quod exercitus est imperatori, id coelum et terra Deo. Per quae maxima patrat. “CESSAT”270 a creando, non fovendo. Quae enim semel condidit, conservat perpetuo. Ioan. 5[:17].: “Pater meus usquemodo”.271 Quievit autem in exemplum nobis. “BENEDIXIT”,272 consecravit, separavit, privilegio donavit, eximium fecit. Docens, quod et nos benedicendi simus, si separaverimus nos deo. DE SABBATO.273 Diligenter dicendum. Primum, quod homini condito obvenit. Sabbatum est, post dominium.274 Significans ad quid conditus homo. Quod intelligemus cum mysteria exposuerimus sabbati. DISCRIMEN dierum a religione esse non potest. Et omnes gentes habuerunt discrimen. Sancti quoque ante legem latam nobis per omnia similes. Opertet igitur et inter nos esse. CAUSSAE et Mysteria. Typum habet rerum magnarum. Deus 6. Die hominem condidit, 7, quievit. Christus 6. Passus, 7. Quievit.275 Dixerat consummatum. N. Aeterna quies, quae dabitur post labores. Conditus ad quietem, vitam aeternam homo.



259

Daniel . . . prompti.] A: marg. add. Gen. 1:28. Gen. 1:28. 262 See Gen. 1:29–​30. 263 marg. A: Antea sancta nondum odia inter animalia, sed erat summa omnium concordia et pax. 264 victus] B: iustus 265 1 Cor. 9.] interl. add. 266 See Gen. 1:31. 267 Vidiamus] B: Videamus. 268 See Gen. 2:1. 269 exercitum] B: exercitium. 270 Gen. 2:2. 271 usquemodo] B: ad hoc usque temporis operatur. 272 Gen. 2:3. 273 See Gen. 2:3. 274 post dominium] B: quod dominicum 275 Christus . . . quievit] B: om. 260 261

338 Appendix 2) Cessandum a malis operibus. Sic perpetuum. Isaiae 66. Quiescamus in conscientiis nostris. Fiet, ubi intellexerimus Christum ita passum, ut plene absoluerit, ubi intellexerimus Deum nobis beneficum. Id ex 3.276 3) Memoriale. Cogitemus, quid per 6277 dies fecerit. Hoc est, expendamus omnia dei beneficia. Quomodo redemerit. Id fit per predicationem verbi Dei. Orationes.278 Colloquia sancta. Sic erimus Deo grati. Conditus, ut sit gratus,279 contempletur280 opera Dei.281 4) Respiremus a laborib[us]. Marci 2. Quod caret, aeterna requie durabile non est. Ne turbemus avaritia omnia. [6v] QUOMODO PECCEMUS. Cum impie vivimus ut porci. Non sumus grati. Negligimus Verbum Dei. //​Sunt, qui satis putent.282 si audierint, deinde bibant. Totum diem impendant //​Pueri283 vestri. //​Ancillae et advenae. //​Mandatum nostrum. //​ Avaritia quorundam. August. Melius in sabbato arare quam saltare. TESTIMONIA De his omnibus, Exodi 16., 20. et 31., Levit. 24.,284 Numeri 15., Isaiae 58., Ieremiae 17., Matth. XII., Actorum285 17., 1 Cor. 16. 1) Ipsi non veniunt. 2) Qui veniunt, postea voluptantur. 3)Pueri. Ancillae. Servi [7r] SABBATUM insitutum antiquissimum plurimum habet utilitatis. 1) Cessandum ab operib[us] malis. 2) Consyderanda beneficia Dei. Hac facit verbi Dei auditio. 3) Cessandum a laboribus. Nil amare agendum contra charitatem proximini. //​ MELIUS ARARE QUAM SALTARE.286 Sequuntur terstimonia, ex quib[us] ingenium discemus sabbati. Primum est praesens. Secundum est Exodi XVI. Restinguens avaritiam nostram, et quod pascit Deus287 sabbato. Tertium est Exodi 20. Ad cultum Dei288 pertinens est tabula prior. Quartum est Exodi 31. Decernens poenam. Et Numeri 15. sumitur poena de quodam. Quintum est Levit. 24. Quid maxime oriatur ex otio, si non adsit sanctificatio. Iurgium, blasphemia.

276

Id ex 3] B: om. 6] B: sex 278 Hoc . . . Orationes] B: om. 279 sit gratus] B: gratus sit; gratus] A: interl. add. 280 contempletur] B: contemplatur 281 contempletur . . . Dei] A: interl. add. 282 satis putent] B: putent satis. 283 Pueri] B: pred. by del. Manda. August. 284 24] B: 23. 285 Actorum] B: Actuum. 286 MELIUS . . . SALTARE] A: interl. add. 287 pascit Deus] B: Deus pascit. 288 Dei] B: om. 277

Appendix  339 Isaiae 56., Ierem. 17., Matth. 12., Luce 6., 1 Cor. 6., Acto. 13. Pertinent haec ad epilogum superiorem.289 Occupatio. Unde herba fructus? Ex Deo. Non pluvia. Non cultu. Deus vaporem indidit. Postea cultus incoepit et pluvia data. His respicit ad superiorem. Ut explanet quaedam copiosius. [7v] SCRIPTURA similis aromatib[us] thymiamati. Nigra videtur abiecta, sed quo plus atteritur, hoc suavior. Tractemus, cogitemus, quae de condito homine saepe. Nil pigeat. Inde fructus,290 ut norimus nos. //​Hactenus audivimus conditum, ad quid? 1). Ad imaginem. 2). Ad quietem. Ubi de sabbato. Iam copiosius de partib[us] hominis. De aliis dixit et facta sunt. Hic homo mire conditur, in quo dogmata salutaria. HOMO constat duab[us] partib[us]. Anima et Corpore. Ex infino et summo crassiss[imo] et subtiliss[imo]. Uniuntur, fiunt unus homo. Utrumque retinet suam originem, naturam, substantiam. CORPUS primo conditum,291 ut hactenus omnia imperfectiora primum. Format, diducit ut figulus argillam. Origo: Non terra sed minutissimum terrae, pulvis. Fit caro, osia, nervus, cutis. Caro ornat. Ossa stabiliunt, portant, crates defendunt. Sunt inferiora membra. Nervi compingunt. Cutis tegit. Forma erecta ad coelum. Caput regia. Aula pectus. Rationi omnia subiiciuntur, in aula affectus. ANIMA inspiratur.292 Hic aliud verbum. Anima spiritus est, a Deo conditus non elementaris, quae293 animat, vivificat, regit. Origo coelestis non e terra, aëre, libera, sublimis, semper agens. Non moritur. Illam non habemus communem cum animalibus. DOGMATA: 1)294 Quam nihil sit homo sine anima et spiritu Dei. Si nescis contemplare corpus separatum ab anima, quomodo horribilis aspectus et foetor eius. Psal. 5[:9]: “Sepulchrum patens”. Foedum cum permittimus dominium carni. Non secus ac si turpissimis nebulonib[us] committis imperium. LUTUM impurat omnia. VERBUM DEI serenat.295 2) Ut memores simus nostrae fragilitatis. Sumus samia vasa, quib[us] nihil imbecillius. Et homine nil296 infirmius. Brevis vita, Iacobi 4. Aetatum incommoditas. Morbi varii. 3) Ut memores originis nostrae simus humiles. Quid superbis civis. Cogita, unde sis. Una massa omnium. Non plures sed unus pater omnium. Ubique calcas matrem. Ubi cadis, matri in gremium condis. Nobilitas, qualis olim et hodie. 4) Ut per facilitatem istam docti non dubitemus de resurrectione mortuorum. Adam non infans sed perfectus. Sic perfecta erit resurrectio. [8r] HOMO constat corpore et anima, diversis naturis. Corpus e terra. Anima est e coelo.297 UNA terra ex qua omnes. Nulla differentia, nisi quam facit virtus et vitium. Impiae sunt discriminationes et odia regionum, Coloss. 3[:11]., Deut. 10[:19]. Impia est constitutio de suevis.



289

See [5v].

290 fructus] B: foll. by narens. 291

See Gen. 2:7. See Gen. 2:7. 293 elementaris, quae] B: elementarius, qui 294 1] B: om. 295 LUTUM . . . serenat] A: interl. add. 296 nil] B: nihil. 297 est e coleo] B: e coleo est 292

340 Appendix CONDITO homine ostenditur iam locus, in quo ante lapsum egit.298 Hortus voluptatis. Hunc describit. Ad ortum, “in Eden”.299 Fuit autem Edenna300 Edessa, sacra civitas in Mesopotamia ad Taurum montem. Meminere Isai. 37. et Ezech. in 27. Mesopotamia semper fertilis et media in amnibus. Fluvius quoque ostendit hoc.301 Nam Euphrates est. Hic dividitur in 4 capita et diversa sortitur nomina. Oritur Euphrates in Armenia, egreditur Eden ratione aliarum regionum. Phrat ob latitudinem. Pison absorbetur Abilene. Hidaekael Tygris, ubi miscetur Euphrati. In terra Cusch apud Elamitas, Gihon evolutio. Exonerat se in sinum Persicum. Locus in terra non in aere. CURA hominis singularis, qua Deus commendatum habet. Aurum. Bdellium. Arbor vitae.302 Postea vocata. Sic. Aqua contradictionis. Fons iuramenti. Aqua regenerationis. [8v] HOMO nunc ponitur in paradysum ut in gymnasium, in quo obedientia eius exerceatur.303 Studium animae304 2 loco305, corporis306 exercitatio primo.307 OCIOSUM esse noluit. Otia pernitiosa semper. Voluit ergo ut coleret.308 Id fuit sine molestia et angustia, sed delectatio. Viri magni cultum agri per delectatione habuerunt, ut Cyrus. Custodiret non tam ab animalib[us], quam ut seipsum servaret custodiendo, ne excideret tanta foelicitate. //​QUID nos faciat beatos. Non esse ociosus. Colere, custodire. EXEMPLA patriarcharum, Mosis, Davidis, Pauli, apostolorum, Ioan. 20. Frugalitas. Parsimonia.309 //​ Studium animae sequitur.310 LEGE instruit.311 Dominus fuit, ergo creaturae praecipere potuit. 2) Aequum fuit, dotib[us] instruxit. Gratitudinem explorare voluit. 3) Facile. Si rex omnib[us] privilegiis instructae civitati imponeret assem, signum Dominii. LEX qualis. Obedentia tantum. In hoc omnes leges. Ne homo plus superet, quam opertet. Ne abundaret proprio sensu. Ne a se peteret formulam boni et mali sed a Deo. Rom 12. PER SACRAmentum adumbratum. Arbor non fuit scientia, sed admonebat. Sic sacramenta, reb[us] magnis addita. Percipiuntur fide. N. OBEDIENTIA quanta, 1 Regum XV. POENA generalis omnium qui transgrediuntur leges Dei. Erunt infoelices.



298 299

See Gen. 2:8. Gen. 2:8.

300 Edenna] B: ab Eden 301

See Gen. 2:10–​14. See Gen. 2:9. 303 See Gen. 2:15. 304 animae] A: foll. by del. praescribitur. 305 2 loco] A: add. 306 corporis] A: prec. by del. Deinde. 307 Exercitio primo] A: add. 308 See Gen. 2:15. 309 marg. A: Romani [-​]‌res filias Larcedemonii. Deus. Massiliionem[?]. Corinthii. 310 Studium . . . sequitur] A: interl. add. 311 See Gen. 2:16–​17. 302

Appendix  341 Mortem animae sequuta corporis nos. OBEDIAMUS deo. Vos ipsi obedite, qui tuemini obedientiam. [9r] MATRIMONIUM312 in omni vita plurimum momenti habet ad partem utramlibet foelicitatis et infoelicitatis, ideoque de hoc a sapientib[us] multa eaque varia de hoc sunt praecepta. Hic nos originem habemus, quomodo contrahendum, quomodo colendum. Si diligentes hic fuerimus multum inde utilitatis ad nos redibit. ORIGO. Non homo, non angelus, non propheta instituit sed Deus ipse. Hic copulavit. Pleraque omnia alia instituta ab hominib[us]. LOCUS: Reliqua omnia extra paradysum, hoc in paradyso, et ante peccatum, et in foelicitate. COLLIGITUR quod non sit peccatum. Quod honestatem non minuat, foelicitatem non auferat, nisi ipsi velimus bono Dei instituto abuti. Honestum inde indicatum apud omnes gentes. “NON BONUM”, “AUXILIUM”.313 QUOMODO314 contrahenda,315 qui coniungendi. 1)316 Immisit soporem. 2)317 Aedificavit. 3)318 Adduxit ad Adam. 4)319 Una caro. Haec diligenter consyderanda. 1) Potuisset vigilitante viro illam condere, sed e dormiente aedificavit. Duplex causa.320 1) Est mysterium Christi, Ephes. 5[:32]. 2) Doceret321 quis daret uxorem quo animo ducenda. Solus respiciatur Deus. Dormiant affectus. Alii opes spectant. Alii voluptates. 1) Animus iustus timens Deum. Vera bona spectans. Genius. Ne rogatur. Ne libido.322 2) Secundum Leges coeant iuste. Palam, cum parentum consensum. CLANDES. VIRGIN. 3) Una caro, non plures ducantur uxores. Matth. 19[:1–​12]. Fides data. ADULTerium. UXO-​res deserere in bellum erumpere. DESERERE patrem matrem.323 4) Confirmentur precibus honeste. Honeste incipiantur. OFFITIA. Quid utriuque faciant, patet324 ex iis, quae sic ponuntur. Accepit costam. Ex latere. “Caro de carne, os de ossibus.”325 “Deseret homo patrem ac326 matrem”.327 Haec omnia diligentissime consyderan da sunt.



312

See Gen. 2:18ff. Gen. 2:18. 314 See Gen. 2:21–​24. 315 contrahenda] B: contrahendum. 316 1] B: om. 317 2] B: om. 318 3] B: om. 319 4] B: om. 320 causa] B: foll. by est 321 Doceret] B: prec. by Ut 322 Genius . . . libido] B: om. 323 DESERERE . . . matrem] A: interl. add., B: Desere patrem et matrem 324 patet] B: patent 325 Gen. 2:23. 326 ac] B: et 327 Gen. 2:24. 313

342 Appendix HINC LEGES CONVIVENDI.328 [9v] VIR Fons est mulieris prima constitutione, sed ex muliere. Ex latere non pedibus aut dorso.329 Collateralis. Redempta per Christum etiam. Tu caput propter administrationem. 2) Caro tua propria.330 Infirmum masculum. 3) Non sui iuris. Deseret patrem.331 Tantum debes. MULIER. Ex viro. Ex latere, non capite. Costa viri.332 Omne robur ex viro. 2) Quod viro facis, tibi facis. 3) Non sui iuris. Deseret patrem.333 “Uxores propriis viris subditae sitis velut Domino. Quum334 vir est caput uxoris, quemadmodum Christus caput est ecclesiae et idem qui salutem dat corpori. Itaque quum335 ecclesia subdita est Christo, sic uxores subditae sint in omnibus. Viri diligite uxores vestras, ut Christus dilexit ecclesiam et sese exposuit pro ea, ut illam sanctificaret, etc. Sic debent viri suas diligere uxores, ut sua ipsorum corpora. Qui diligit uxorem, seipsum diligit. Nullus nunquam suam ipsius carnem odio habuit, sed enutrit et fovet, ut Christus ecclesiam. Membra sumus corporis eiusdem ex carne eius et ex ossibus eius. Huius causa reliquat homo etc., et e duob[us] fiet una caro. Mysterium hoc magnum, loquor de Christo et ecclesia.”336 Caro Christi nostra. Ex mortuo aedificata. Purgat, alit, docet. [10r] BONITAS et sapientia Dei apperit se in omnibus reb[us] conditis, in homine autem potissimum. Non tantum in constitutione, sed administratione. Primo condit prudenter.337 Deinde prospicit illi, ut non honeste non sed commode338 agat. Nam ponit in hortum, ut laboret et custodiet.339 Deinde adiutricem addit, eamque nobilissimam.340 Ex omnib[us] animantibus non fuit, quod illi responderet.341 “NON est BONUM”,342 commodum, ut vir agat sine uxore. Hoc Verbum Domini aeternum manet, nisi privilegium et gratia singularis animum hominis edonet, 1 Corint. 7. et Matth. 19. MATRIMOnium ergo bonum pronunciatum a Deo, non potest culpari a Tacianis, Eucratitis et Papistis. In paradyso institutum. Hinc Paulus HEBRaeos XIII343. ADIUTRICEM:344 1) Praeoccupatio. Non dedit, ut in ruinam traheret virum, sed adiutrix esset. 2) Finis ob quem condita mulier. Non ut perderet, turbaret virum, sed345 auxiliaretur.



328

HINC . . . CONVIVIENDI] A: interl. add. See Gen. 2:22. See Gen. 2:24. 331 See Gen. 2:24. 332 See Gen. 2:22. 333 See Gen. 2:24. 334 Quum] B: Quoniam. 335 quum] B: quemadmodum. 336 Eph. 5:24–​32. 337 Gen. 2:7. 338 commode] B: commodi 339 Gen. 2:15ff. 340 See Gen. 2:18ff. 341 See Gen. 2:20. 342 Gen. 2:18. 343 XIII] B: 13: “Honorabile, etc.” 344 See Gen. 2:18ff. 345 sed] B: foll. by ut. 329 330

Appendix  343 NULLUM animal illi respondit.346 Inde Lex, quod cremantur igne, qui miscent se347 animalib[us]. Indigni, quos terra ferat. SUBDUNTUR omnia per obedientiam et instinctum Dei. Omnis obedentia ex Deo. Omnium dominus homo. Indit nomina, ut solent domini servis. Apparet sapientia Adae, qui potuit hoc. Ab eo manent nomina.348 Domini factis sumus rerum omnium per Christum Iesum. [10b] ORIGO Matrimonii. 1) A deo. 2) Ad bonum homini. 3) In loco foelici et paradyso. Honestum apud omnes. CONTRAhendum in timore Dei. Uxor est a Deo. Dormiant affectus, vigilet mens. 2) Secundum Leges coeant. 3) Una non plures, servetur fides, obedientia. 4)349 Cum precibus. Honeste incipiatur. SEQU[U]‌NTUR iam unde leges petuntur350 convivendi, offitia utrorumque. 1) Accepit costam. 2) Ex latere. 3) Profert ipse “Hoc os ex ossibus, caro ex carne.”351 4) “Deseret homo etc.”352 EX HIS formabit tale indicium MARITUS. Tu primo conditus es. CAPUT es ratione. Debes instituere. Caput tuum Deus est. Ex hoc sanitas in corpus. 2) Ex latere non dorso aut pedibus.353 Collateralis redempta et haec per Christum. 3) Caro tua. Deseres.354 Amabis, ex animo condonabis. Laborabis, ut avicula circum volitans adferens cibos. Haec ordinatio Dei. Haec servitia placent. MULIER cogitabit. Caput est maritus. Non es sumpta ex capite. Costa viri. Omnia ergo consilia, omne praesidium in viro. Ne contemnas dominum tuum, a Deo datum. 2) Ex latere, domestica, fides. Non discedat a latere viri. Sic auxilium.355 Ne sit sumptuosa, loquax, sed frugalis. Dominum diligat. 3) Quod viro facis, tibi facis, caro tua est. Adhaerebis.356 Ephe. 5[:24–​32]. “Fuerunt ambo nudi Adam et uxor eius nec erubescebant.”357 Innocentia. Nuditas in pueris et si quis faciem358 inspiciat.

[11r] CAP[UT] III. HACTENUS audivimus, quomodo homo conditus et in foelicitate constitutus praeceptum acceperit externo symbolo quoque commendatum. Audiemus nunc, quomodo transgressus hoc, lapsus sit. Hoc est, de peccato, poena, restitutione. Egregius locus. Unde omnis philosophia manat christiana.

346

See Gen. 2:20. miscent se] B: se miscent. See Gen. 2:20. 349 4] A: 3 350 petuntur] B: petantur 351 Gen. 2:23. 352 Gen. 2:24. 353 See Gen. 2:21. 354 See Gen. 2:24. 355 See Gen. 2:18. 356 See Gen. 2:24. 357 Gen 2:25. 358 faciem] B: foll. by nostram 347 348

344 Appendix DE TENTAtione primo lapsu et peccato. Materia digna, quae expendatur. Oramus: “Ne inducas nos in tentationem, etc.”359 Omnis ratio tentationis hic proponitur non in verbis sed exemplo etiam. TENTARE est periculum sumere, explorare, gustare, versuochen den wiin, cuius valoris, erfaaren. Sic Gene. 22. Sic aggredi rem. //​Item, impellere, facere, corruere. Sic Deus non tentat, Iacobi 1[:13–​15].: “Ne quis cum tentatur dicat se a Deo tentari. Nam Deus ut malis tentari non potest, ita nec ipse tentat quemquem, imo unusquisque tentatur dum a propria concupiscentia360 abstrahitur et inescatur. Deinde concupiscentia postea quam concepit, parit peccatum, peccatum vero perfectum gignit mortem.” INSTRUMENTUM361 primo describitur per quod operatur Sathan. Deinde colloquium et modus quo decipit. Deligit serpentem ex omnib[us] animalibus. Operatur in serpente daemon. Et tantem vocatur serpens, ne quis impingat Sathanae peccatum, cum se praebet ei ministrum. Punitur animus impellens et corpus obsequens. Sic postea serpens et Sathan. //​Ab initio loquutus per statuas. Per homines Acto. 13., 16. observanda haec. 1) Prudens est astutos eligit.362 2) Lubricus levis. Adulatores apti ad decipiendum. 3) Spiras habent torquetur sic imposturas. Nescis ubi caput aut363 cauda. 4) Colores varios. 5) Seductores in omnem se vertunt speciem. INFIRmius aggreditur. Infirmiora primum petit. Sic dona kram hodie mulierib[us] dantur, ut Heva decipiat Adam.364 COLLOQUIUM365 imprimis petit, ergo rogat. Fingit se dubitare. Amicum esse dolere vicem, indignitate rei moneri. Wenn man dem tüfel guoten bscheid gibt, billich macht er wiiter. [11v] PECCATUM366 iam sequitur et initium peccati auscultare.Principiis obsta. Opertebat referre ad virum367, non corruptis sermonib[us] praebere aurem. 1 Cor. 15. Qui aperit fenestram, non quaeratur, si avolet avis. Ubi colloquium assensum. N DUOBUS arietibus animum pulsat. 1) In dubium vocat ingenium Dei. Quasi invideat. Non sit verax. Hoc vult timorem Dei ex corde tollere et verbum, ne credamus. Huius generis sunt. Es ist nie man so böss, etc.368 2) Pollicetur augusta, usuveniunt contraria.369 3) Accedit sensus visus, odoratus. Vidit bonum.370 Vincitur ergo, sequitur mors.371 //​ Omnes impostores hoc solent. 1) Adulterant verbum, tollunt metum. 2372) Promittunt. 3) Accedit sensus. Nemo sibi fidat, si hoc usuvenit in paradyso. Hodie maxime, 2 Pet. 5. 1)373 Opus gratia Dei, 2 Cor. 12.

359

The sixth petition of the Lord’s prayer, Matt. 6:13.

361

See Gen. 3:1.

360 concupiscentia] B: conscientia 362 eligit] B: deligit 363 aut] B: et 364

See Gen. 3:6. See Gen. 3:1. See Gen. 3:2ff. 367 virum] B: maritum 368 See Gen. 3:1. 369 See Gen. 3:4–​5. 370 See Gen. 3:6. 371 See Gen. 3:7. 372 2] A: corr. from 3. 373 1] B: prec. by Quomodo resistendum 365 366

Appendix  345 2) Vigilia attentio. Audiamus Scripturas, non discedamus, Matth. 4. 3) Oratio diligens, Math. 26.374 [12r]375 BREVI compendio describitur in hoc 3. Cap. Tota ratio salutis nostris. Quid peccatum. Qui gradus peccati. Quae poena peccati, mors, desperatio, nulla quies. Quomodo restitutio. PECCATUM ex pravo affectu contra voluntatem Dei tendit. Excitatur variis modis, ut patet in tentatione. MORS peccatum sequitur et pudor. Fugiunt, partent, folia texunt, nullibi requiem inveniunt. Haec est universa omnium hominum conditio. Hic in hoc speculo, quid simus, vides. RESTITUTIO sequitur per vocationem Dei. Haec gratuita. VOCAT. Peccatum statuit ob oculos. Non agnoscit. Urget Reiicit in Deum et mulierem. Haec in serpentem. Ibi nullum meritum. AD SERPENTEM venitur. Damnatur non interrogatus nec auditus. Causae: 1) Non condiderat, ut loqueretur. 2) Aperta causa, decepit. 3) Mendax erat. Damnatur hospitium propter hospitem, corpus propter animum inhabitatem. Confirmatur et damnatio Sathanae, qui terrae addictus perpetuo. DEUS verax est. Mutari non potest. Dixerat: “Quaecumque die ederes, moriendo morieris.”376 Edet, ergo mortuus est. Hanc anime mortem non potuit refigere. Hic ergo bonitas et iustitia Dei medium invenere. Iustitia urget poenam. Bonitas intercadit. Oportuit ergo medium invenire, quo delectaretur bonitas et iustitia. Hic alius esse non potuit quam Filius Dei. 1) Non angelus, quia non erat Deus. Deinde confirmatus in beatudine. 2) Non homo, omnes enim de eadem massa peccatores. 3) Non novus homo condendus. Lex lata, crescite. Ergo Filius Dei, qui hominem indueret et liberaret, ratione aequa. Inobedient[ia], obedienti[a]‌. Superbia, humilitas. Lignum utriuque[?]‌ [12v] SUBLATA est ergo mors, sublatum est peccatum iis, qui credunt, non iis qui non credunt, Ioan. 3. Nec parsum interim homini. Temporaria poena est mulctatus. Perfectio corporis mutata. Iuditium obtusum. Voluntas prava. Vives null[-​]‌. Affectiones, dolor, tristitia, frigus, esuries, metus, mors. Haec patienter feramus. “INTER TE et illam foeminam”377: Per foeminam decepisti. Foeminam liberabit. Sed ibi naturarum repugnantia. Tu superbus, luxuriosus; illa humilis, modesta. SEMEN mulieris est Christus. Huius fili semen Abrahae. Inter hos et filios diaboli inimitia perpetua, Io. 8. SEMEN dicitur, quod verum habeat corpus, Heb. 2. Non viri, sed mulieris. Christus de virgine natus puer. Hoc nomen mansit usque ad tempora Davidis, 2890 an[nos], et in hunc usquediem. CAPUT regimen potestas, mors, peccatum, damnatio tollitur Christum, Col. 1., 2., Heb. 2. Serpens contundet calcaneum. Afflig[-​]‌Christi humanitatem, caput manet salvum. SIC persequitur serpens in impiis pios, quorum corpora calcan[-​], ai[-​] non item.



374

26] A: corr. from 27. 12r–​v are missing in A. 376 Gen. 2:17. 377 Gen. 3:15. 375

346 Appendix HAEC VERA ANTIQUA FIDES Duravit 5510 Iar. Posteaquam pueri commercium cum carne et sanguine habent, etc. IPSE non ipsa conteret caput Sic Ieron. Quoque in traditi omnib[us][?]‌ Hebraicis [13r] PECCATUM378 primi hominis perfidia, ingratitudo, inobedentia, amor sui. Non credidit Deo. Volui Deo fieri similis.379 Peccat, fit miser. Amittit innocentiam.380Nuditas enim innocentiae argumentum. Mors animae, quod ab originali iustitia defecit. EXEMPLO381 Evae edit Adam. Videt non corruisse ergo mitius exponit Verbum Dei. Sic decipimur impunitate et alieno exemplo. DESCRIBITUR382 conatus hominis peccatoris, per se volentis sua opera tegere nuditatem. Consuit folia ficulneae. Volumus operibus nostris tegere. Hypocrisis sancta. Praetextus carnis. Pulchra folia. Deinde fundatur hic lex naturae, ut tegamus nos, velemur. Honesti simus. FUGIUNT383 non tegunt cinctoria. Deus loquitur in corde, conscientia accusat. Abscondunt se stulti coram Deo, quem nihil latet. HACTENUS typum habuisti territae conscentiae et consternatae.384 RESTITUTIO385 iam sequitur. Deus ex libera et vera gratia vocat eum. Haec vocatio Dei non est ex operib[us] sed clementia. VOCATIO habet ordinem. Primo, statuit peccatum ob oculos, obiurgat, oprobrat. In cognitionem ducit. Elicit confessionem.386 “Ubi es?”,387 quo loco? TARDUS est ad confitendum. Horret tamen ad vocem Dei,388 ad quam primus non horruit. Nondum plane confitetur. Nescit quid dicat. URGET389, ut peccatum fateatur. Sed culpam reiicit in aliam. Haec in daemonem. Hoc solet fieri Adam reiicit in Deum. Sociam dedisti. Agnosce peccatum. [13v] PRIMA390 promissio comprehendit salutis negotium. Promittitur Christus, qui sit conculcaturus caput serpentis. In nobis mors. SEMEN391 dicitur propter veram incarnationem non est phantasma. Et semen non viri sed illius mulieris, Isaiae 7.



378

See Gen. 3:6. See Gen. 3:5. See Gen. 3:7. 381 See Gen. 3:6. 382 See Gen. 3:7. 383 See Gen. 3:8. 384 conscentiae et consternatae] B: et consternatae conscentiae 385 See Gen. 3:9. 386 Elicit confessionem] B: Confessionem elicit 387 Gen. 3:9. 388 See Gen. 3:10. 389 See Gen. 3:11–​12. 390 See Gen. 3:15. 391 See Gen. 3:15. 379 380

Appendix  347 Posteaquam392 pueri commertium habent cum carne et sanguine, et ipse similiter particeps factus est eorundem, ut per mortem aboleret eum, qui mortis habebat imperium, hoc est, diabolum, et liberos redderet eos, quicumque metu mortis per aeternam vitam obnoxii erant servituti. Nuspiam enim angelos assumit, sed semen Abrahae393 assumit. Unde debuit per omnia fratrib[us] similis reddi, ut misericors esset et fidelis pontifex, in his quae apud Deum forent agenda ad expiandum peccata populi. Nam ex hoc, quod tentatus est, potest iis, qui tentatur, succurrere. INFLIGIT iam sublata morte temporaria, quaedam et mulieri imprimis. “Multiplicans multiplicabo dolorem tuum et conceptum tuum, in dolore paries filium.”394 //​Dominus infligit, Dominum agnoscite vindicem. Non homo facit. Dolores. Morbi. Gravidarum tristitia. Partus. Aeducatio. Hic cogitandum, ut patientes sint. HONORA parentes. “Et ad virum tuum erit conversio tua, et ipse dominabitur tibi.”395 //​Male cessit dominium. Eripitur. Nil396 facies marito inconsulto. Ipse caput tuum. //​Haec moneant, ut diligentiores sint in servando mandato. “Authoritatem in viros non permitto mulierib[us] sed esse397 in silentio. Adam prior formatus est deinde Eva. Et Adam non fuit deceptus, sed mulier seducta fuit per praevaricationem. Salva tamen fiet per generationem liberorum, si manserit in fide dilectione in sanctificatione et castitate.”398 [14r] CONFIRMATUS Adam promissione se non periturum. In rei memoriam certam mutat uxori nomen et vocat Hevam, hoc est, vinam et vitalem.399 Prius dictum400. Haec vocabitur Ischa virago, quia de viro sumpta est.401 Et veteres personis et locis402 indiderunt nomina memoracula Dei bonitatis. Hinc liquet Adamum fide403 salvatum. Nam credidit. Non mortuorum sed vivorum mater. DE VICTU404 dictum, quod terra proferet. Iam de amictu. Pelles pecorum tergorib[us] detractas accipit et vestit.405 VESTIS. Ut tegat et muniat. Non potest omnibus eadem vestis forma prescribi. Cogitet quilibet locum, personam, decorum, modum, simplicitate. Non dat sericum dominus, etc. Tegat, ornet vestis.406 Luxus absit, absint407 sordes. CONSOLATUR familiariter verbis homines eiiciendos. Hactenus contra intemperiem aeris munivit. Iam dicit, Adam sentiet bonum et malum, dulce et amarum, er muoss allerley versuochen.408 Hoc est varia iactabitur fortuna.409 Verum hoc consoletur, quod usuveniet



392 Posteaquam] B: prec. by. Heb. 2 393

See Gen. 12:7, 17:7; Gal. 3:16. See Gen. 3:16. See Gen. 3:16. 396 Nil] B: Nihil 397 esse] B: om. 398 1 Tim. 2:12–​15. 399 See Gen. 3:20. 400 dictum] B: prec. by del. vocabitur 401 See Gen. 2:23. 402 personis et locis] B: et locis et personis 403 fide] B: fuisse 404 See Gen. 3:17–​18. 405 See Gen. 3:21. 406 Tegat . . . vestis] B: Vestis tegat ornet 407 absint] B: absit 408 See Gen. 3:22. 409 See Gen. 3:23. 394 395

348 Appendix ei, quod uni ex nobis. Loquitur trinitas unus deus. Praedicit Filii incarnationem et passionem. Hac consolatur. Ipse vir dolorum, Isaiae 53. Hoc se consolarunt omnes sancti. 9. Julii 1536. SATIS410 instructum eiicit ex paradyso.411 Et planis verbis indicat amplius non esse in manu et potestate hominis, ut vivat, sed eius benefitio412 contingere qui ianua et via est. Salus et Vita non est amplius in terra, id est, aeternitas posthac erit supra coelos. Munivit duplici custodia exercitu angelico, plurib[us] Cherubim, et coruscatione413 aut flamma ignea, quae micat ut gladius se vertens. [14v] TENETIS quod in hoc cap[ite] praecipuum est, nempe quod de peccato et remissione peccatorum disseritur. Solus Christus condonat in hunc posita peccata nostra, Isa. 53. Deinde temporaria imposita poena, quae per fidem sanctis fit414 medela. Non expiat peccatum. Sed exercet in disciplina, ut humiliemur, agnoscamus et nos et Deum. Mulier suam accepit. Sequitur de Viro. LABOR415 cura, anxietas, sudor, sollicitudo viri est. Caussa:416 “Quia audisti vocem, etc.”417 Grande peccatum praeterito verbo Dei audire humana figmenta. Hinc ruina. Non dicit: Maledictus, sed: “maledicta terra propter te.”418 Benedicta erat, sponte proferebat fructum.419 Nunc culta proferet sentes tribulos.420 Erit tibi inobediens, ut tu mihi factus es. LEX omnibus hic421 imponitur laborandi. Laborat qui aliquid422 honesti et utilis operatur. Mille sunt laborum species. Hinc artes sumpserunt originem. 1 Thess. 4[:6, 11–​12].: “Ne quis fraudet et opprimat fratrem suum in negotio..., incumbite magis ut quieti sitis, et agatis res proprias et operemini propriis manib[us] vestris, sicuti praecepimus vobis, ut geratis vos honeste erga extraneos et nulla re vobis sit opus.” Ephe. 4[:25.28].: “Deposito mendatio loquimini veritatem quisque cum proximo suo... Qui furabatur non amplius furetur, magis autem laboret manibus, quod bonum est, ut possit, impartiri ei, qui opus habet.” Similia habes 2 Thess. 3. 1383. 153. MORS423 corporea infligitur utrisque. Si autem corpori mors intentatur, debetur eidem et vita. Hic fundatur corporum resurrectio. MONEmur et miseriae nostra. Quid superbimus? Si nescis pulvis et membra sumus. Haec de poena et conditione hominis. Erigamur ad clementiem patrem, patientes simus. [15r] HACTENUS de initiis rerum de homine, huius lapsu, reparatione et conditione,religione vera omnibus praescripta.424 Omnia condita a Deo propter hominem. Hic sua culpa erumnosus et mortalis factus. Restituta tamen illi vita per Christum ex gratia. Donec moriatur pati et laborare debet, Deum colere.

410

See Gen. 3:24.

411 paradyso] B: paradiso

412 benefitio] B: beneficio

413 coruscatione] B: corruscatione 414 fit] B: fuit 415

See Gen. 3:19.

416 Caussa] B: Causa 417

Gen. 3:17. Gen. 3:17. 419 fructum] B: prec. by terra 420 See Gen. 3:17–​18. 421 omnibus hic] B: hic omnibus 422 qui aliquid] B: pred. by autem 423 See Gen. 3:19. 424 religione . . . praescripta] A: interl. add. 418

Appendix  349

CAPUT IIII.425 IAM de procreatione successione generis humani de studiis et religione quomodo ad perscriptum[praescriptum?] facta omnia. Habebimus iam fundamenta duarum urbium, et cives alterius semen Christi, alterius semen serpentis. Hic titulus. In hoc ceu speculo omnia mundi studia contemplabimur. PROCREATIO describitur.426 Nascuntur homines non fiunt,idque ex matrimonio. 1) Sitem caste loquitur de coitu, caste loquamur nos. 2) Agit gratias filium acceptum Deo refert. 3) Nomen hinc vidit. Meminerimus horum, et educemus ad gloriam Dei liberos nostros, qui alias a feris nil different. STUDIA iam et religionem eorum describit.427 Primo studia. Praeceperat Deus laborem super 3 cap. Laborat uterque. Deus inventor artium. Non unum negotium exercent sed diversum. Nemo sit ociosus. Qui serviunt, sint fideles. TITUM II[:9-​10]. “Pareant. In omnibus placeant, non responsatores, non suffurantes sed fidem bonam ostendant, ornant doctrinam Christi.”428 RELIGIO et cultus Dei iis non defuit. Omnes in terra homines volunt videri cultores, sed multi sunt hypocritae. CULTUS Dei in animo et spiritu est, nam Deus spiritus est. Recte ergo alii capita cultus Dei constituerant fidem et charitatem. //​Ubi fides erumpit in externa opera testatur sese. Roma. 10[:10].: “Corde creditur ad iustitiam, etc.” Veteres sacramenta testarunt fidem suam. Nempe sacrifitiis. Non praecepta hic, sed inscripta cordib[us] Iam haec aestimantur ex animo. Et aliqua pertu referunt animum. Exempli. [15v–​21r]

[22v] CAPUT VII.429 DUO dicuntur praecipua in hoc textu. 1) Quomodo mundus perimendus[?]‌. 2) Quomodo Noë servandus a Deo. 1) PECCATA audivimus hactenus, qualia et quanta fuerint, et quanta Dei longanimitas. Tertio consultat. Quarto fert sententiam. 1) Non rixabitur, concedam 120 an[nos].430 2) Videns, quod omnis cogitatio. 3) Vidit Deus et ecce corrupta. Infert. Finis venit. IAM quomodo perdendi. EGO: “Ego, inquam, adducam, etc.”431 Cum poena irrogatur, non est, quod astris imputemus aut hominib[us] culpam tribuamus. Deus punit et punit peccata. HIC diluvio eluit veluti purgaturus terram. DILUVIUM: Quod Deus punit peccata, etsi dissimulet diu. 2) Typus est futuri iuditii, 2 Pet. 3. 3) Figuram praefert baptismi. Diluvium carnem suffocavit. 2) NOE432 servatur per arcam, hoc est per lignum et aquam. Arca ista Christus est. Non servatus est nisi iustitia Christi. Et filii non servati per iustitiam Noë. Est manifestus locus, Ezech. 14. Ut in dubiis rebus confirmatior esset: “Erigam ait pactum”.433

425

CAPUT IIII.] A: om. See Gen. 4:1-​2. See Gen. 4:2. 428 Pareant . . . Christi] A: interl. add. 429 CAPUT VII.] A: om. 430 See Gen. 6:3. 431 See Gen. 6:17. 432 See Gen. 6:15–​16. 433 See Gen. 6:18. 426 427

350 Appendix FOEDUS unicum et aeternum, Gene 3[:15].: Contundam caput serpentis. Pater ero. Crescite et mulitplicam[ini]. Iam renovat Gene. 17. sub Abraham. Sub David confirmato regno, ne putarent illud regnum verum esse. Multa mentio germinis. Sub Iechonia et in captiv[itate] Babylon[ica]. SEMPER omnib[us] hominibus idem foedus, Christus caput, salvator. NIHILO434 minus iubetur parare cibos. Seminarium futuris animalib[us] servatur, cum Deus potuisset miraculose. Discamus.435 FECIT omnia. Hoc faciant confoederati. Faciant omnia436. Quae iubet Deus, non quae videntur nobis.437 Risit mundus cum 100 anis. Perrexit. Ridet nos. Pergamus. Ista via salvus est factus. Salvabit et nos Dominus. [23r] PER VII. cap. Integrum habuimus miseram pereuntium faciem, voluptatum et violentiae iniuriariumque finem. Crevit aqua dieb[us] 40. Stetit438 150 dieb[us]. Monemur, vigilemus,439 temperemus nobis a scelerib[us], quib[us] isti dederunt operam. Nemo fretus opib[us] virib[us] sapientia securus siti. Vigilemus,440 Matth. 24., Luce 21. CAP. VIII. restitutionem habet, eamque per intervalla, non . . . [23v]

[24r] CAPUT IX. PERIIT diluvio propter peccata vetus mundus, qui steterat annos 1656, sequitur novus mundus, qui a Noe est propagatus. Servatus est Dei clementia. Cum hoc iniit foedus, se mundo fore placatum, nimirum per sacrifitium Christi. Statuit diem et vicissitudines rerum in signum. N SEQUITUR441 quomodo novum hunc mundum instruxerit legibus. Hic consideranda tria: 1) Benedictio Domini. 2) Quod omnia homini subdita. 3) Quod sanguis prohibitus. Nil novi in his. Restaurantur tantum vetera.442 1) BENEDICTIO443 illa Domini vis est prolificandi, et restauratio sancti matrimonii, de quo audivimus cap. 2.444 Iam iam profligarat luxum et libidinem effrenem diluvio. Non ergo iubet aut permittit, ut turpiter vivant. DEINDE monet omne fortunium, omnem benedictionem, omnia augmenta uni Deo accepta referri debere. Haec habuimus 1. quoque cap. 2) SUBDUNTUR445 homini omnia animalia. Quod si aliquando rebellant, id peccati est. Saepe enim minatur Deus se immissurum bestias. Omnia permittuntur in cibum.



434

See Gen. 6:21.

436

Faciant omnia] B: Omnia faciant Quae . . . nobis.] A: interl. add., B: om.

435 Discamus.] B: foll. by Quae iubet Deus, non quae videntur nobis. 437

438 Stetit] B: Stat

439 vigilemus] B: pred. by vigilemus 440 Vigilemus] B: om. 441

See Gen. 9:1–​6. Nil . . . vetera.] A: interl. add. 443 See Gen. 9:1. 444 cap. 2] B: Gen. 2. 445 See Gen. 9:2–​3. 442

Appendix  351 Istis primo constituitur homo Deus omnium. Turpe, si subiiciat se aliis. Turpe, si sibi non imperitet, Psal. 8., 1 Cor. 3. Tollitur ciborum delectus. Omnia permittuntur, si cum moderatione sumantur, 1 Timoth. 4. Quod enim postea quaedam inhibita sunt, factum est propter figuram. Symbolica enim sunt ut Pythagorae multa. 3) SANGUINIS446 esus prohibetur symbolice. Symbola usum habent suum et egregium. Quoties sunt in usu significatarum monent. Videntes ergo beluinum sanguinem fundi, vesci non licere, cogitabant minus licet hominis vivere sanguine. IN hac lege per contrarium praecipitur charitas. Haec est legis perfectio, Roma. 13. Vides in uno symbolo comprehendi omnes leges et tradi antiquitati, imo instaurari cum novo hoc mundo. [24v] 1) Odium prohibetur, 1 Joan. 3. 2) Percussio, calumnia,447 iurgium, Math. 5. 3) Laesio in fortuna et vita. MILITES fundentes sanguinem, ut ex eo vivant. PENSIONARII et proditores patriae numera accipientes et non obsistentes. USURARII et pupillorum oppressores, vel qui vivunt ex alienis. POENA: Requiram ego.448 Cain exemplum. Requiret magistratus. Qui occideret propter rationem, occidetur ipse a magistratu, Roma. 13. CAUSSA: Homo ad imaginem Dei factus est.449 Violatur ergo et leditur maiestas Dei. Si signum violatur, putatur ineluibile, et verae Dei imaginis non habetur cura. CAVETE a sanguine. Fidite Deo. Constantes este. ORATE. [25r] INSTRUXIT450 Dominus Noe et semen eius legibus. 1) De matrimonio et propagatione liberorum. 2) De dominio hominis et cibo victusque ratione. 3) De conversatione vitae incom[m]‌odemus. In his versatur optima pars vitae. RESTABAT adhuc unum, ut eximeret generi humano metum. Poterat illud pluviam sic aestimare, quasi iterum esset perditurus terram. Et Noë cum filiis senserant maxima tormenta in calalysmo. Tollitur metus. FOEDUS451 sive pactio erigitur. Certa Dei promissio foedus dicitur. Assimulatio ad res humanas. //​QUI conveniunt? Deus et omnes homines, non Iudaei tantum. //​QUID? Deus non vult delere terram diluvio.452 Non dicit, quod velit parcere scelerib[us], sed quod totam delere nolit. Homines agnoscere debent hoc benefitium et Deum glorificare. SIGNUM453 additur externum pro more foederum. Accipit signum a naturalib[us]. Prius fuit irs. Hanc accipit et consecrat in signum. Non amittit naturam, non mutatur, sed in institutione et significatione vis est omnis. Sic panis et aqua manent, institutione454 et significatione sunt corpus Christi.455



446

See Gen. 9:4–​6.

447 calumnia] interl. add. 448

See Gen. 9.5. See Gen. 9:6. 450 See Gen. 9:1–​6. 451 See Gen. 9:8ff. 452 See Gen. 9:11. 453 See Gen. 9:12ff. 454 institutione] B: prec. by in 455 Christi] B: foll. by et remissio peccatorum 449

352 Appendix [25v] DIFFERT a sacramentalib[us] signis. Quod haec sunt in arbitris hominum. Hoc est in Dei arbitrio. QUOTIES autem visitur aut proponitur in coelo, renovatur foedus. Nam Deus testatur suam gratiam externe. Nos ita aestimare debemus. Perdere poterat Deus,456 sed ecce servavit gratia. Gratias agas.457 TORPOR humanus est damnandus, qui haec sacra negligit symbola. Intenti enim picturis et stultitiis humanis negligimus divina. SAEPE et multis repetitur atque describitur signum foederis, ne eius unquam obliviscamur.458 TENEAMUS Deum nobis propitium. GRATULEMUR et simus grati. [26r]DILIGENTER expendenda et servanda nobis sunt, quaecumque de Noë scribuntur. Invenimus enim egregia documenta in hoc sapiente, quib[us] vitam instituamus nostram. Hactenus de iustitia et misericordia Dei, de foedere et religione, de legib[us] item, de matrimonio, dominio, sanguine. SEQUITUR459 utilis nunc historia de ebrietate et servitute. Oportuit primum patrem novi munid ab initio exemplum fieri, ut a foeditate caveremus, et alta nobis mente resideret. Ut revereremur parentes, et ne simus calumniatores.460 ANTE omnia tamen monet diligenter, a tribus adeoque uno agricola descendisse omne genus hominum. Sumus ergo omnes fratres. Nemo se efferat nil461 alios contemnat. Nativitas, opes, fortuna, conditio, etc. DESCENDIT nunc ad ebrietatis malum. Laudis tamen hoc praemittit quod vixerit labore manum, et quod invenerit vinum. VINUM quidem est bonum. Ex Deo est donum pulcherrimum. Usus bonus, abusus est malum. Mirabilia quaedam in hac creatura relucent, virtus Dei. NEC EST quod quisquam patronum ebrietatis Noë faciat. Semel id factum legimus. //​Ut indignitas et periculum rei appareat, expendamus, qualis fuerit Noë, senex prudentiss[imus], inculpabilis, Deo gratus. Si hic non potuit nisi cum damno potare, quid nos? CONSIDEremus, quae ei acciderint. Eripitur sibi. Exuit pudorem. Iacet nudus. Quid poterat de sene, de viro tanto vel cogitari foedius? Ex hoc exemplo ducemus vires. HYPOTYPOSIS:462 ebrietatis et proprietates. [26v] ERIPITUR ratio per consequens verecundia et omnes animi dotes. Efficimur beluae. SECRETA produntur. Terta reteguntur. Indecora et pudenda dictis et factis fiunt. Ne committas ebriis nullam dignitatem, nullum silentium, nulla prudentia fortitudo463. MACULAm inelibilem[?]‌464 inurimus[?] nobis, quae apud gentes multos notavit et gloriam eorum obscuravit. SCANDALUM prebes pueris tuis et omnibus hominibus.



456

Perdere poterat Deus] B: Deus perdere potuit

457 agas] B: agamus 458

SAEPE . . . obliviscamur.] A: interl. add. See Gen. 9:21ff. 460 Ut . . . calumniatores] A: add. 461 nil] B: vel 462 HYPOTYPOSIS] B: om. 463 Ne . . . fortitudo] A: interl. add. 464 inelibilem[?]‌] B: inevitabilem 459

Appendix  353 SEQUUNTUR homicidia, blasphemiae, periuria, calumniae, stupra, domestica mala, agmen malorum. SERVITUS maxima oboritur ex impignoratione.465 LIBERI debitum honorem deferant parentibus. Non sint contemptores. Huius fundamenta hic ponuntur. NE SIMUS calumniatores et ad aliorum scelera Lyncei. SERVITUS466 hic initium habet. Ingenitas virtutis est. Serviunt tamen boni et mali. PROPHETIA467 quoque hic contexitur. Sem, Iudaei; Iaphet, gentes. Hae habitant in ecclesia cum Iudaeis.468 “Ne inebriemini vino, in quo469 luxus est, sed impleamini Spiritu Sancto, loquentes de reb[us] [-​]‌ib[us], caventes in cordibus gratias agentes Patri.”470 [27r]–​[27v]

[28r] CAP[UT] XII. Ad cap[ut] usque XII. egit Moses de rerum principiis et progressu rerum, praecipue autem de religione vera et falsa, et quae circa hanc contingunt. Falsa religio diffusa est, praecipue ex Babylone idololatria manavit. Vera religio mansit per patriarchas XX ab Adam ad Abraham annis 2019 usque scilicet excitum Abrahae ex Chaldea. SEQUITUR iam egregia sanctorum patrum Abr[aham], Is[aac] et Iacob descriptio fidei et pietatis ipsorum. Nemo putet haec non pertinere ad se. Abraham pater omnium nostrum est. Luce 19., Christus vocavit domum Zachei filiam Abrahae. Luce 13. Apertus locus, Matth. 8. Item, Ioannis 8. Nota, quae de sinu Abrahae dicta Luce 16. Item, Roma. 4., Galat. 3[:29].: “Quod si estis Christi igitur et semen Abrahae”. Ad christianos ergo haec pertinet quib[us] semper proponuntur opera et fides Abrahae immittanda. Discant hic qualia sint. VOCATIO471 praecedit omnia. Ergo praecedit gratia, per quam peccatores vocantur472 ad consortium Dei. Vocatio qualis? Non ad impuritates, sed ab impuritatibus ad sanctimoniam fidei et vitae. Avocatur Abram ex patria idololatra. E domo patris e cognatione. Omnia semel reliquenda. Solus Deus ante omnia diligendus. Psal. 45[:11–​ 12].: “Audi filia et vide, ausculta mihi, et obliviscere populum tuum et domum patris tui. Rex enim delectatur venustate tua, ipse est Dominus tuus et adorabis ipsum.” [B:28v] PROMISSIO473 sequitur maximarum rerum, quib[us] [A:28v] excitet. 1) Temporalia. Regnum assequutus est, ut sequetur in Iosue. Deinde victoriam, Gene. 14. Hodie magnus est apud Iudos, Turcas, Tartaros, Iudaeos, Christianos. 2) In Christo data benedictio, Galat. 3. MALEDicuntur, qui Christus reiicunt vel incomodant Christianis. DEUS tutor sibi inferri putat, quod suis infertur, Acto. 9. OBEDIENTIA474 fides Abrahae non responsat. Propter Deum relinquit omnia. Nil tam charum, quod non amittat. UBI sumus, qui non relinquimus scelera, luxum, avaritiam? Non repudiat uxorem, non affines.



465 impignoratione] B: corr. from nini ignoratione 466

See Gen. 9:25. See Gen. 9:26–​27. Sem . . . Iudaeis] A: interl. add. 469 quo] A: qua 470 Eph. 5:18–​20. 471 See Gen. 12:1. 472 peccatores vocantur] B: vocantur peccatores 473 See Gen. 12:2–​3. 474 See Gen. 12:4–​5. 467 468

354 Appendix Non abiicit substantiam, sed utitur recte. UBI Catabaptistae? PATIENTES475 simus in peregrinatione nostra. [29r] IN ABRAM habemus maximum et absolutum in religione et politica. Sunt multa alia exempla sanctorum in novo testa[mento], sed de conditione, etc. VOCATIO praecedit, sequitur obedientia. Vaiis iacatur casibus, tentatur. Subiungitur consolatio. Apparet Deus, pollicetur ut servet.476 Vides Deum ubique suis esse praesentem. GRATUS477 est Abram. Aedificat aram, convocat suos. Praedicat Deum, invocat et colit in mediis malis. Simus grati, conveniamus. Invocemus etiam Dominum. DUO478 maxima mala sequuntur, quib[us] afflictus est et tentatus479 Abram: fames, ereptio uxoris. Eduxerat, erat peregrinus, ibi fame affligitur.480 Locus egregius de temporariis maliis et quod Deus non dat promissiones suas sine cruce. Deinde quod boni et mali affliguntur. Hi illos putant authores. Illi confitentur sua mala. 1) De civit[ate] Dei, cap. 9. IN RAPTU481 uxoris Abram primo consyderandum quam periculosa sit forma. Apud gentes Virginea, Lucretia; Hic, Sara et Ioseph. Non orandum pro forma, sed pro mente sana. Si sit, ne noceat. Ne irritemus alios. 2) Humanum consilium. Propter res temporales ob vitam conmittit se tanto periculo. Passus aliquid humani. 3) Peccatum Pharaonis. Aulici commendat,482 sunt Ienones. Qualis princeps tales servi. Rapit peregrino. Luxus intemperantia notatur. Aliae regiones fame augebantur. Aegyptii libidinabantur. [29v] 4) Quantum peccatum adulterium. Observatum inter gentes a prima adhuc institutione. Hic Paulus Hebr. 13. //​Non permisit pollui pudicitiam uxoris servi sui Deus. Et tamen ita flagellatur. Quid de operibus? Math. 5. 5) Castigatus resipiscit utinam, hoc disceremus. Multa aversa vestigia, adversa nulla. AURUM massa est, qua pollicimur. Homicidia. Quanta. Aureo piscantur hamo. Quid prodest pisci, quod hamus aureus.483 Perdimur.

CAP[UT] XIII. [30r]–​[33r]

[33v] CAP[UT] XV. Sequitur promissio Dei, et quod illa recipiatur fide. Quod Deus copiscorum sit et fides iustitia, non meritum aut opus. QU[A]‌ECUMQUE hactenus egit Abram, Dei virtute egit, attamen remunerat. Deus ergo sua dona coronat in nobis.

475

See Gen. 12:6. See Gen. 12:7. 477 See Gen. 12:7–​8. 478 See Gen. 12:10ff. 479 est et tentatus] B: et tentatus est 480 See Gen. 12:9–​10. 481 See Gen. 12:11–​13. 482 commendat] B: om. 483 hamus aureus] B: aureus sit hamus 476

Appendix  355 DUO erant, quae Abram poterant affligere. Terror regnum et quod oblatam respuisset praedam. Dominus utrumque profligat. “Ego sum clypeus”484, protector contra reges. 2) “Merces”485, id est thesaurus et remunerator. OMNIBUS sese talem proponit defensorem et remuneratorem, non cum fide ad exemplum accedamus Abrahae. DEFENSOR est, licet minis omnia sint plena. Regum arma intententur, multorum odia premant. Tu, fac iustitiam. Deus aderit tibi praesens. Coepisti, perge. Si incorrectos admiseris: 1) Sacramentum vilescet. 2) Decrescet obedientia486. 3) Malum exemplum. 4) Leges turbabuntur. 5) Ubi iam 60, postea 6000. In religione non est, quod metuas, etc. MERCES apud Deum omnia bona, omnia invenies. Hunc ut thesaurum accede. Non omnibus dat in hoc seculo bona. Vide Luce 16. Recepisti bona. Quae propter Deum amisimus, restituet. PENSIONES principum respuisti. Reddet Dominus. Omnia sperne numera. “Excaecant487 oculos sapientum et pervertunt verba iustorum”,488 Deut. 16[:19].489 Hell[-​]u ‌ echy490. Nec est quod sanctos divos appelles, etc. Abram accepta promissione insigni, deprehenda Dei benevolentia, reliqua animi exponit, docens libere, quae angunt clementi patri exponenda. Quid iuvant opes? Cum deest haeres et servus accepturus sit omnia?491 PROMITTIT492 Dominus semen, deinde terram. Gloriosum quod instar stellarum futurum sit fulgidum. In his maiora spectavit Abram Christum et aeternam Patriam. //​ Res externas obiicit Deus ob imbellicitatem nostram. RECIPIT493 ABram fide promissiones. Fides reputatur per iustitia. Vide Rom. 4[:3–​ 4].: “Ei, qui operatur merces non imputatur ex gratia sed ex debito. Qui vero non operatur, sed credit in eum, qui iustificat impium imputatur fides sua ad iustitiam.” [34r] DEI NAtura est benefitiis velle iuvare, vide Dei nomen sortitus est. Agit autem nobiscum promissionib[us], quib[us] aellicit nos. Nos recipimus promissiones eius per fidem. FIDES494 habet sua augmenta. Apostoli enim dixerunt: “Domine, auge nobis fidem.”495 Est exemplum aliud Marci cap. 9[:24]. Abraham hic de modo sciscitatur, etsi fidem haberet. Sic diva virgo, Luce 1. HABENT496 ergo apud fideles locum ampliores promissiones, exhortationes et signa externa. 1) Amplior promissio est et consolatio: “Ego Deus, qui eduxi te de Ur”497. Q. d.: Ex anteanctis aestima me. Hactenus te defendi. Deinde expende meritatem coniliorum Dei. Ideo eduxi, ut darem. Certo ergo dabo. Sic priora expendamus, spectemus et finem coniliorum Dei omnium.



484

Gen. 15:1. Gen. 15:1. 486 obedientia] A: corr. from illegible word. 487 Excaecant] B: foll. by Deut. 16 488 oculos . . . iustorum] interl. add. 489 Deut. 16] B: om. 490 hell[-​]u ‌ echly] A: interl. add. 491 See Gen. 15:2–​3. 492 See Gen. 15:4–​5. 493 See Gen. 15:6. 494 See Gen. 15:8. 495 Luke 17:5. 496 See Gen. 15:7. 497 See Gen. 15:7. 485

356 Appendix SIGNIS498 erigimur in spem ac fidem. Ita litterae testes, sigilla adduntur promissis, ita ceremoniae foederib[us]. Allusit ad ritum humanum. Macedones pane faciebant foedera. Carmani sanguine elicito e facie. Romani caesa porca. Chaldaei divisis animalibus. Illum ritum receperunt et Hebraei, Ieremiae 34. DIVIDEBANT499 ergo, deinde transibant per partes. Hic Abram et ignis species Dei.500 Nisi servaro, dividat me Deus. Acceperunt terrena animalia et coelestia, quia foedus est inter Deum et hominem. SACRAMENTUM: Ne imponas temere. Vide serves tranquillitatem. Vide futuro malo praevenias. [34v] SOLUS Deus spiritu suo confirmat corda hominum et operatur interius, et propter imbellicitatem nostram, condescendit nobis et per res visibiles confirmat nos, ut ceremonia foederis Abrahamum. FIGURAM tamen haberunt ceremonialia illa rerum coelestium et futurarum. Foedus init cum mortalibus Deus. Summa foederis Ierem. 31. condonat peccata. In expeditionem et testimonium illius dat Filium. FILIUS501 figuratur per vitulam, arietem, capram. Iugum carnis accepit servus factus est et hostia pro peccatis. Animalia illa sacrifitiis destinabantur. DIVIDITUR502, occiditur Christu. Ponitur in duas partes. Duae partes, duo populi per medium eunt omnes. Unica via ad coelum, unica est hostia Christus Dominus. AVES503 turtur et columba divinitas et spiritus est Christi, non dividitur. Nil passa est divinitas, secundum carnem mortuus est Dominus. AVES504 descundunt in cadavera. Aves Matth.13[:4] spiritus aërii, impuri homines haeretici, polluere volunt meritum Christi, sed ipsus Abraham typus fidelium abigit aves. Fidelis manet in veri confessione. TENEAMUS fidem Christum pro nobis esse datum in vitam et peccatorum remissionem. [35r] CAP XV totum agit de ratione promissionum Dei et quod percipiantur fide. //​ Summa promissionum omnium est, Deus vult noster esse Deus, merces, protector, dare Filium et vitam. Singularia sunt: Dabo semen gloriosum et terram Chanaan. Additur obsignatio. EX PROMISSIOnib[us] plerique colligunt nihil adversi se habituros, sed ad considerationem promissionum pertinet etiam illud, quod promissiones non sunt sine afflictione. Hoc praeceptum plurimum innabit in omni vita. EXEMPLO Abrahae hoc proponit et seminis. Accipit promissionem maximam, sed horror oboritur maximus.505 Canitur miserabile seminis fatum. Fuerunt exules Isaac, Iacob. In Aegypto maxima fuit angustia.506 Duraverunt haec CCCC anis, quatuor saeculis.507 Tempus auget haec.

498

See Gen. 15:9ff. See Gen. 15:9–​10. See Gen. 15:17. 501 See Gen. 15:9. 502 See Gen. 15:10. 503 See Gen. 15:9–​10. 504 See Gen. 15:11. 505 See Gen. 15:12. 506 See Gen. 15:13. 507 See Gen. 15:16. 499 500

Appendix  357 PROMITitur et nobis vita et omne bonum in Christo, sed additur. 2 Timoth 3[:12].: “Omnes qui pie volunt . . . ”. Acto. 14[:21].: “Per multas afflictiones opertet ingredi in gloriam”. 1 Pet. 2[:21].: “Christus passus reliquit exemplum”Math. 16[:4].: “Qui vult me sequi . . . ”. Math. 5[:10].: “Beati qui persequtio . . . ” Ioan. 15., 16[:33].: “In mundo afflictionem habetis, etc.” Sic Paulus, martyres. SPEM508 tamen et recreationem etiam habuerunt. Optimum, quod hic ad Abram dicitur: “Ibis ad patres.”509 Notatur animae imortalitas Adam, Abel, Enoch, Seth, Noe. Corpus sepelitur. Sed animus in bona pace quiescit. Luce 2[:29].: “Nunc dimittis, etc.” Haec spes reposita, quod finis omnium iminet[?]‌et salus certa. NON AUTEM510 impune sanctos affligunt mali. Exemplo sunt Aegypticii, Exodi 7., 13. Deinde Amorrei. Deus longanimis est. Ideo terminos prorogat. Ubi nulla poenitentia. Ibi excidium internecium. 2. Thess 1. [35v] SERVAT vindictam Dominus etsi diu[?]‌dissimulet. Amalechitae 420, Izraelitae, Babylonii LXX ani, Perse, Greci, Romani. Quid de nobis. Agamus poenitentiam. Simus fidi etsi alii infideles erga nos.

CAP[UT] XVI. [36r]–​[36v]

[37r]CAP[UT] XVII. SUNT in sacris litteris certi loci, qui compendio comprehendunt religionis substansiam omnem. Ex praecipuis et fundamentum omnium hic locus est. DESCRIBItur foedus illud aeternum inter Deum et hominem. Variae sunt similitudines in sacris [litteris] adumbrantes amicitiam cum homine Dei511. Nuptiae: servorum et Domini, Patris et Filii, hic foederis.512. NEMO existimet, foedus nunc primum feriri novum, sed vetus renovatur et in compendium trahitur propter imbecillitatem nostram. Hoc ipsum foedus est, quod Deus iniit cum Adam, Noe, nunc cum Abram. Repetit promissiones, colligit.513 FOEDERA humana multa habent. Eundem hic servat ordinem: 1) Inter quos fiat. 2) Quib[us] conditionibus. 3. Quam diu durare debeat. In praesenti: 1) Inter Deum et Abram semenque ipsius.514 2) Ipse Deus vult esse Deus.515 Abram debet coram ipso ambulare.516 3) In sempiternum.517



508

See Gen. 15:15. Gen. 15:15. 510 See Gen. 15:14. 511 cum . . . Dei] B: Dei cum homine 512 foederis] B: foedus 513 promissiones colligit] A: interl. add. 514 See Gen. 17:7. 515 See Gen. 17:7. 516 See Gen. 17:1. 517 See Gen. 17:7. 509

358 Appendix NOSTRA igitur res geritur in praesenti. Nobiscum ferit foedus. Cogitamus, quod Deus apparuit visibili specie in tanto negotio,518 ut nobis satisfiat. Procidamus in faciem cum Abram reverentes numen,519 sicut Petrus, Lucae 5. CONDITIONES foederis exponuntur in duobus cap[itibus]. In primo cap[ite] exposuit Deus sua, in secundo hominis offitia. “EGO EL SCHADAI”.520 Varia sunt Dei nomina. Iehovah ab essentia. Adonai, ob dominium. EL, ob robur. Elohim, praesentia. Schadai, saturnus. Sum fortis Deus, ad omnia mihi sufficiens, nullius opera indigens, cupiens omnia, quae necessaria, tibi largiter impartiri. Nos dicimus paucis: “Credo in Deum patrem omnipotentem.”521 [37v] GENUS hoc per species exponit. Repetit priores promissiones: Multiplicabo, dabo semen, etiam regium,522 in quo summus rex Messias. Protegam, praesens ero.523 Dabo terram.524 Sic ostendam, quoniam Deus sufficiens, Exod. 20. NOS omnia habemus in Christo. “AMBULA coram me”:525 Secundum caput ad hominem pertinet. Vitam institue, ut mihi placeas. Ex animo integro, Deut. 6., 13., Mich. 6. Invocandus, in omnibus colendus. Innocentia. Haec est religio vera. FOEDERIBUS solent addi litterae, sigilla, ceremoniae, sacramenta. Deus ergo hic confirmat circumcisione foedus.526 SIGILLIS et litteris solet explicari, qui in foedere, quae ratio foederis, quomodo servandum. Ita circumcisio ducet, qui sint in foedere, quae ratio foederis. SACRAMENTA nomina non naturam indunt rerum, quarum signa sunt. Id patet de agno, baptismo, coena. Tamen nomina habent. Ideo non contendendum.527 Externa corpore, interna percipiuntur animo tantum. SUNT in foedere, qui mentem habent circumcisam. Significatur item, quae ratio circumcisionis, et quomodo servetur. Si separemur ab aliis gentibus, item sensus et corda circumcidamus. Exteri quoque in foedere,528 Eph. 2.529 MASCULO530 datur. Non excluditur foemina, sed mysterium Christi notatur. QUI531 ex contemptu non accipit, is extra foedus est. Secus si mortis nessitate aliquis praeveniatur. Ita habet cum baptismo. [38r] PACTUM532 Dei cum homine nunquam oblivioni dandum bina habet capita. Ero Deus omni sufficiensia tuus et seminis. 2) Ambula coram me.533 EXPO[SITIO]: 1) Dabo



518

See Gen. 17:1. See Gen. 17:3. 520 Gen. 17:1: ‫די‬ ּ ֔ ַ ַ‫אֲ נִי־אֵ ֣ל ׁש‬. 521 First article of the Apostles’ Creed. 522 See Gen17:6. 523 See Gen. 17:7. 524 See Gen. 17:8. 525 Gen. 17:1. 526 See Gen. 17:10ff. 527 contendendum] B: contemnendum 528 See Gen. 17:12. 529 Exteri . . . Eph.2.] A: interl. add. 530 See Gen. 17:10ff. 531 See Gen. 17:14 532 See Gen. 17:15ff. 533 Gen. 17:1. 519

Appendix  359 semen, et in hoc benedi[cti]onem omnem. 2) Circumcidetis carnem, eritis repurgati. //​IAM de semine sequitur clarior expositio, praevenit, ne quis de Ismaële semen expectaret et534 de Isaac propagat. ISAAC risus et gaudium. Christus gaudium est orbis. Risus impiorum. In hoc vera exaltatio, Joan. 6. Isaiae 55[:1–​3]: “Omnes Sitientes venite ad aquas, et qui non habetis argentum, properate emite et comedite. Venite emite absque argento, absque ulla commutatione vinum et lac. Quare appenditis argentum non ad cibandum et laborem vestram non in saturgitate? Audite audientes me535 et comedite bonum, et delectabitur in crassitudine anima vestra. Inclinate autem vestram et venite ad me, audite et vivet anima vestra, et erigam vobis pactum sempiternum, misericordias David fideles.” MODESTI536 ingenii Abraham cadit in terram. Putat abunde sibi satisfactum, si vivat Izmaël. Ridet, exultat, in animo miratur, si Deus tantum conferat benefitium. Non dubitat, Rom. 4. DIScimus contenti esse reb[us] praesentibus, et grati537 Deo. DEUS538 firmus est in consilio suo. Per Isaac ergo promittit salutem, Eph. 1. HABET Deus quoque bona externa. Illa pollicetur Izmaëlitis. Temporalia dantur et sanctis, sed non vere bona. Ex parto aeterno et reb[us] coelistib[us] oia aestimant. “ASCENDIT Deus ab Abraham his peractis.”539 Visibili enim specie apparuerat. Typus est Christi, qui absoluto et confirmato foedere coelos ascendit, Act. 1. cap. [38v]EXPENDE quanta sancti accipiant praemia, qui in iustitia ambulant. Eadem sunt etiam nobis proposita. QUOT540 annis541 probarit cogita 24. Accepit promissionem annos natus 75, iam erat542 annorum 99. UNIVERsorum curam gerens medicus est. Non sinit nos semper in tribulationib[us] nec in prosperitatib[us]. Adhaeremus ei semper. POSTQUAM543

omnia Deus cum Abraham absolvisset, ascendit. Ita Christus quoque. Ascendit, non deserturus, sed speciem visibilem ablaturus. Sic Christus carnem depositum negotii regni Dei in coelos collocat, spiritu operatur in sanctis suis. QUID nos interim? Quod Abraham, obediens fuit. 1) Non distulit. Ea ipsa die facit.544 Ne simus procrastinatores. 2) Dolore et humilitate rei non est territus. Spectanda Domini voluntas. 3) Senex non responsat ut nostri. Hac re carni, hactenus ergo. 4) Suorum curam habet, omnes Deo consecrat. Sic nos faciamus. 5) Non iustificant sacramenta, sed fides. Illa sunt visibilia verba. BAPTISmo separati sumus ab alliis, incorporati Domino, in quo purgatio. Non vivamus ut gentes, sed ut sancti.



534 et] B: sed

535 me] B: om. 536

See Gen. 17:18

537 grati] B: foll. by esse 538

See Gen. 17:19ff. Gen. 17:22. 540 See Gen. 17:24. 541 annis] B: ammis 542 erat] B: erant 543 See Gen. 17:22. 544 See Gen. 17:23ff. 539

360 Appendix

H) LATEINISCHE HOMILIEN ZUM 1. BUCH MOSE (UNDATED)

Appendix  361

362 Appendix Basis text: Ms Car III 195a (Zentralbibliothek, Zurich) Transcription545 of c­ hapters 1–​3, 12, 15, 17. [1]‌[Br1]546 In altera parte 3 diei discribitur, quomodo ornata fructifera sit terra facta, fructificandi vi indita. Quibus terrae in aquis. Forma non exprimitur. Usus terrae exponitur, qui est in germinando. Principia sunt instrumenta, per quae operat Deus. Non ipsa per se efficiunt quicquam. Calore solis vegetantur res et proferuntur in lucem. Sed sol est 2. causa. Ascendendunt ad 1. causam. Sed pauci hoc faciunt. Plerique inhaeremus causis secundis. Dum 2. causae non efficaces desperant, quia animos non attollunt ad Dominum omnium. Annon omnia effecit priusquam solem crearet. Antea herbas condidit et alia. Sic revocat a 2 causis ad primas. Re[-​]tis aquis viditur vis terrae progignendi. Domini vocabula tenerae herrbae, alterum adultiores tertio sequuntur547 arbores. Sunt varia genera herbae, frutices, plantae, arbores. Omnia haec a Deo. Non omnia e semine. Radix aliubi vim habet seminificandi. Usus varius extendit se ad medicinam quoque. Ornatus pulcherrimus adeo, ut Dominus dixerit, Solomonem omni gloria sua non habuisse simile lilio. Omnia bona. Venena bene uti possunt a magistratu puniende, a Meditis. Abusus mala facit per se et ut a Deo sunt, bona sunt. Petuntur[?]‌hinc doctrinae. Granem[?] perit sic gloria mundi. Ut semen reminiscit sic corpora nostra resurgunt. IIII Dies condita duo luminaria magna et stella. Usus eorum paucis sed eleganter notatur. Supra lux condita. Luminaria vehicula instrumenta lucem hanc ad nos diffundentia. Or548 lux. Meor549 luminaria. Instrumentorum. [2]‌[B1v] Lux a lucendo luminare vehiculum lucis 5 errantes stellae et quae numerari non possunt. Infixae uni et eidem spherae. Sunt, qui maiora putant sydera altiora sole et luna, quomodo ergo haec maiora? Dicit magna, quia nobis apparent maiora. Nec loquitur de corporum mole sed lucis magnitudine, quam fundit sol in terram. Dicit diserte magna luminaria, loquens secundum sensum hominum, sicut lucem percipimus. Usus luminarium additur. 4 dicuntur. 1) condita, ut distinguant inter diem et noctem. Diem artificialem intelligimus, quo sol super hemispherium illuminat. An non supra haec facta est distinctio?550 Sed tamen quod supra constitutum, ut lux et tenebrae sibi succederent, id nunc clarius est factum, ut suo splendore sol diem faceret. Noctum luceret luna cum stellis. 2) Usus, ut sint in signa. Signa rerum variarum serenitatis, pluviarum551 tempestatum, ventorum, caloris, humorum, siccitatum. Quae sequuntur552

545 With the precious help of Dr. phil. Judith Steiniger. 546 There is here a twofold page numbering, namely, the original foliation as far as it can be inferred with certitude, which is preceded by my own paging, as some folios have been lost. 547 sequuntur] corr. from sequitur] 548 See Gen. 1:3: ‫א ֹור‬. 549 See Gen. 1:14: ‫ מָ א ֹור‬. 550 marg.: Ministri veluti Dei sunt ad illam distinctionem 551 serenitatis pluviarum] interl. add. 552 Quae sequuntur] interl. add.

Appendix  363 ubertas, morbum,553 calamitates. Sunt554 signa irae Dei significantes nobis Deum iratum. Nunquam impune[?]‌nisi555. Cometae, elypses, cruenta luna et sol, terni soles. Signa item morum et ingeniorum. Non quod voluntas sit syderib[us] subiecta. Mores ferre sequuntur temperaturam corporis. Sequuntur illam affectiones. Indi in regione habitates in siccitate calore sunt molles. Ad septentrionem duriores bellicosi. //​Non probamus Chaldeorum sententia, qui actiones consilia homini gubernacioni syderum subiiciunt. Signa ad agriculturam naturam, piscatores, venatores. Sunt certa tempora serendi. //​Incrementa lunae observant. //​Sic natae. [3]‌[B2r]Fabri ligna caedunt observant senescentem lunam. Arbores tunc sicciores. Medici incrementa observant lunae, ut inde indicent de corporib[us] repletis flegmatibus. Superstitione carent. 3) Ut sint in tempora dies, menses et annos. Tempus certum et statuum. Sunt festa, Novilunia, Paesa, Pentecostae, Tabern[acula] composita ad motum lunae. Civili usui serviunt annorum, mensium, dierum supputationi. Quae singulis gerenda temporibus. Luna mensem absolvit, solis conversio constituit annum. Luna crescendo et decrescendo quadripartito ordine distinguit mensem. Nundinae formantur. Vicissitudines veris aestatis, autumni et hyemis sol constituit. 4 Usus ad illuminandum terras. Calore sol excoquat. Lux cum vivitur et augetur, frigus et calor se vertunt. 4) Ut terras illuminet, lucem prebet, recreans animos, cuncta fovet. Luna obscuram noctem illuminat. Humore humectat terram et alit, ut apparet in canris et chonchiliis. Lucet ad operas interdium. Hic est usus quadripartitus. Doctores conferuntur stellis Danielis 12. Ut diversa magnitudo stellarum et splendor. Sic sunt doctorum diversa dona. Omnes tamen luceant. Sol quod appellatur iustitiae Christus. Luna lucem praebet sed obscuram. Humana est iustitia. Divina sole adumbratur iustitia, quae infunditur a sole. Papa. Duo luminaria Papa et Imperator. Hic lunae confertur, quia reb[us] inferioribus praeest. Sol praestat et dat lumen lunae, sic Papa omnem potestatem Imperat[oris]. Sed turbant omnia, quia utrumque sibi usurpant, cum distincta sint sol et luna. –​Bapst wils alles haben. //​Et omnia gubernare. [4]‌[B2v]V. Dies556 Volantia in aere natantiaque in aquis et repentia utrobique animalia conduntur. Non exprimit ex qua materia conditae aves. Satis constat creatas. Verisimile ex aquis et aves et pisces conditas. Aqua proxima transitione in aerem abit. In aere sunt aves. Verisimile ergo ex aquis. In insulis fungi nascuntur, inde nascuntur aves.557 Elegans ordo creationis. 1) condita imperfectiora. Plantas fecit[?]‌animam habentes vegetantem. Deinde sydera quae luce calore regerent et vivificarent animantia. Sequuntur558 animalia viventia, pisces, aves, quadrupedia. Ova generant non animalia. Ex ovis prodeunt pisces et aves.559 Eadem origo piscum et avium. Pinnis natant pisces cauda ut temone regunt gressum. Sic aves alis volant caudis regunt volatum. Idem ergo prope motus utrisque. Iussit Deus ex aquis ebullire et pisces et aves. Huic simpliciter credendum. Creavit, dixit hic iterum. Bara560 non tantum quae ex nihilo, ut supra, sed quae etiam ex



553 Morbum] interl. add. 554

marg.: Lucae 21 erunt signa in sole et luna. Nunquam . . . nisi] interl. add. 556 marg.: Duo genera aquatilium et avium. 557 marg.: Aërem et aquas replet et ornat. 558 marg.: 6 demum die animalium creatio sequitur. 559 marg.: In piscibus praedominatur natura aquae, in avibus aëris. 560 ‫[ ברא‬see Gen. 1:21]. 555

364 Appendix praeiacente materia, ut hic creantur pisces et avec ex aqua materia.561 //​Si dicamus ex nihilo creatos, bene dicemus quia ex ma teria quae ex nihilo. Distinguit pisces in magnos et parvos. Magni sunt bal[la]enae, cet[a]e, immensae magnitudinis. Thanim,562 Unde Thunni. Plinius563 captum ait Thunnum 15 talentorum. Magnis piscibus declarat suam potentiam. In mari condidit, ne nocerent hominib[us] et ut abunde facerentur alimento. Falso culpant Manichaei Deum conditorem maximorum piscium. //​Fabulae Iudaicae de cete abominandae. Imperfectiora pulchro ordine praemittuntur aves et pisces, quae oriuntur ovis. Sequuntur vivipara perfectiora. Ultimo ponitur origo hominum. [5]‌[B3r] Creandi Verbum hic repetitur. Et pisces ex aquis non ex nihilo facti, sed cum aquae non haberet vim, deus in sua creavit. Caeterum videtur vocabulum creationis spectare principium. Semina in informi condita sunt materia, postea distincta sunt per ipsum. Qui ex nihilo aquam condidit, idem nunc ex aqua creavit pisces. Thanim refert Thunnum. Sunt cete portentosae magnitudinis. Eiiciuntur cete in litora, suspenduntur costae pro miraculis ab hominibus. Superant animalia terrestria, quantum superat vastitate oceanus. Celebrantur in Iob ad Dei gloriam belluae.564 In minimis animalculis apparet gloria Dei. Pisciculi parvi sistunt navem. Torpedo piscatori iniicit torpedinem. Aves volitant super faciem coelorum et terrae vel expansionem coelorum. Quod intelligitur de aëre. Ergo per superiores aquas565 intelligimus nubes. Aquas inhabitant pisces, aves aërem. Benedicit non imprecando tantum, sed cum vim indit eis crescendi. Benedictio ergo ad propagationem pertinet animalium. Quare non additur plantis quoque benedictio cum habeant animam vegentantem? Collata est benedictio per illa. Preducat terra producente semen. Vi ergo Dei, crescunt semina. Respondunt alii, benedictionem hanc 5 diem pertinere ad omnia alia animalia. Negant hoc alii propter serpentem. Alii putant benedictum piscibus, quia non perierunt in diluvio. Quid dicent de avibus? Perierunt ne illa? //​Dic, sicut 5 die benedictionem dedit piscib[us], sic etiam data animalib[us] in 6 die. Conservantur, crescunt opera Dei. Natura nil aliud quam vis divina singulis indita. //​ [6]‌[B3v] A piscatoribus pisces capiuntur. Apostoli piscatores capiunt homines. Ab avibus petitur doctrina, ab Aquilis a Gallina. VI Dies. Hac condidit animalia. 3 genera terrestrium: Iumenta, reptilia, bestiae agri. Non oratio[?]‌eodem non[?]. Hebraea intelligunt. Behemah566 alii alitur exponunt. Haiah567 carnivora intelligunt lupos, leones. //​Sed haec nomina confunduntur in sacris [litteris]. Behemah im[m]ensa ve[he]menta pecora omnia homini domestica, utitur ad servicium, ad victum568 hominum, ad vehendum. Sunt boves, equi, oves. Bestiae ferae. Repentia sunt minora. Duo scribuntur 6 die condita:1) animalia terrestria irrationalia. 2) Homo. Animalia 3 ponuntur irrationalia. Iumenta sunt omnia, quae vescuntur herbis et seminibus. Bestiae ferae carnibus vescentes. Reptilia, quae repunt, serpentes. //​Alii lumenta vocant armenta



561

marg.: Origo ex Verbo dei petenda non ex naturis animalium, quae creata sunt Verbo Dei. ‫[ ּ ַת ִנּינִם‬see Gen. 1:21]. 563 Gaius Plinius Secundus (AD 23–​August 25, 79 AD). 564 See Job. 565 See Gen. 1:7. 566 See Gen. 1:24: ‫בהֵ מָ ה‬. ְּ 567 See Gen. 1:24: ‫חַ ָּיה‬. 568 victum] foll. by victum 562

Appendix  365 et pecora a iuvando[?]‌. Bestiae, quae in sjlvis, agris extra consuetudinem hominum vivunt. Certe ut cumque sit omnia animalia comprehenduntur sive degant in terra vel sub terranea. Annumera[?] his amphibia, ut fiber, lutra, respirationem utentia. Pauca de his scribit. Vocat animam inventem, ut supra pasces appellavit. A respirando anima dicitur ΨIΧΗ a refrigeratione respirationis. Terra iubetur proferre animalia viventia. Ergo eadem origo corporum et animarum. In homine: 1) corpus conditur 2) anima inspiratur. Mirum ergo non est, quod animalia simul proeunt anima et corpus. [7]‌[B4r] Animae im[m]ortales sunt. Varie disputatur de hac. Plato habet argumenta quaedam non solida. Argumenta talia veritatem in dubium nerunt. Scriptura solida suppeditat. Terra produxit secundum speciem suam. An ex putredine produxerit, ut quaedam adhuc nascuntur, an ex vivida terra, an alia ratione, cum non explicetur, satis esto Dei imperio, e terra nata esse animalia. Ex quibus postea alia secundum speciem suam. Non fuit vis naturae sed imperium Dei. Vidit quod bona. Deus approbat opus suum et dicit bonum. Voluit enim hominibus notum[?]‌esse. Bonitas in eo, quod alia cibum, vellera alia dant. Alia iuvant homines. Ab illis petuntur exempla a ciconia, a columba, a turture, a serpente, a formica. Isaias: asinis et bubus stupidiores estis, qui norunt Dominum.569 Cogitemus quam turpe sit nimi[?] ab irrationabilibus. Actiones illorum proponunt nobis etiam in contrarium, ne imitemus canes et sues, etc. Quomodo omnia bona, cum multa sint fera et venenata? Manichaei accusarunt Deum. Si quid vicii accidit homini ex animalibus vicio non Dei, sed hominis fuit et factus est. Noxia fiunt propter peccata nostra. Damnum ergo nobis debemus. Pauli naturam[?]‌ vipera innasit[?] sed non nocuit.570 Leones non nocuerunt innocuis. Non spectemus animalium naturam ex nostri comodo, sed ad gloriam Dei et usum universitatis. Ne dicamus [8][B4v] nobis non prodest ergo inutile. Videmus multa instrumenta in officina artificis nescimus usum nobis non prosunt sed non ideo inutilia. Novit artifex. HOMINIS creatio. Differt quia animalia ex aquis et ex terra. Hic Deus inducitur qui novo mode condit hominem. Consultat Deus secum: “Faciamus”.571 Oratio deliberativa. Cur vero Deus deliberat? Cur plurali numero utitur? Consultatio Dei hominis ostendit excellentiam. Prius nulla habita consultatio. Iubet simpliciter existere res. Et licet homo ex terrea sit, tamen animalia ex nulla datur praeiacente materia. Nulla cadit in Deum deliberatio. Anthropopathωs haec dicuntur. In reb[us] magnis deliberamus. Plurali numero utitur: “Faciamus”.572 Iudei dicunt, Deum alloqutum angelos. Alii Hebraerorum aiunt, Deum seipsum alloqutum numero plurali more principum. Alii aiunt conversum sermonem ad 4 elementa, unde compositus homo. Hae opiniones. Non est disputandum de his operosius. Angelos vocasse perticipatum creationis absurdum est. Alioqui eos col[-​]‌operteret.573 Deus per filium omnia condidit, non per angelos. Neque factus homo ad imaginem non angelorum sed Dei. Ergo non fit sermo ad angelos. Absurdiss[imus] est fieri sermonem ad elementa. Quasi Deus alloquutur inanimata. //​Deus nec quaerit extra se consilium //​Non deliberavit cum aliquo qui extra



569

See Isa. 1:3. See Acts 28:3–​5. Gen. 1:26. 572 Gen. 1:26. 573 Alioqui . . . operteret] interl. add. 570 571

366 Appendix ipsum. Sunt ergo verba Dei prius alloquentis Filium et Spiritum Sanctum. Verbo enim Dei creata sunt et spiritu oris eius omnis virtus eorum. Unitas et distinctio ostendit etiam postea: “Faciamus ad nostram imaginem.”574 [9]‌[B5r] In essentia Dei quaerendum est id cum quo consultare. In Deo est sapientia virtus coaeterna, Proverb. 8[:23]. Illam sapientiam vocat Scriptura Verbum, Filium. Sunt personae distinctae, non essentia. Deus Pater, Filius et Spiritus. Confirmantur haec aliis certis rationibus et testimoniis Scripturarum. Adumbratur hic a Mose, quo exponitur Ioan. 1[:1]. Deliberat Pater cum Filio et Spiritu suo. Ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei. Imago refert alicuius rei formam. Similitudo accidentia exprimit. Sed non est necessaria illa distinctio. Sequitur posterius ad expositionem prioris. Imago est similitudo. Postea alterum ex his duntaxat repetitur solum. In quo posita imago Dei.575 Quae illa similitudo? Tot sententiae quot interpretes. 1) Anthropomorphitae putant, Deum habere effigiam[?]‌humanam, quod membra ei hominum attribuuntur. Cum usus est a patribus, cum nos videbimus illum in patria, certe est aspectabilis. Nulla magis imago congruit quam hominis, utpote excellentiss. Vide Epiphanium. Vi conati sunt turri[?].576 Negotium fecerunt Chrysost. Gentium philosophi idem docuerunt hominem conditum ad imaginem Dei, Sibylla, Proclus, Marcilius. Alii dixerunt divinum esse hominem, Cicero de legibus.577 2) Internam imaginem volunt inaspectabilem. Deus spiritus infinitus est, ergo non potuit ulla formari invisibili imagine. Sed obiicitur. Oculis visum Deum patribus? Respondunt. Deus exhibuit se non qualis natura sed quo578 homines ferre potuerunt. Ergo alibi recte dici, Deum non visum unquam scilicet natura suam[?]. Et visum in assumpta specie, qua videri potuit. Videtur coelum et non videtur. Vide ipsum Epiphan[ium]. Alii exponunt visionem dei per Christum, qui exhibit se videndum ea forma quam postea assumpsit. [10][B5v] Ideo non conficitur Deum sua natura visum. Anthropopatos tribuuntur membra Deo propter nostram infirmitatem. Accomodat se captui nostra, ut intelligamus res. Certe optima admiranda structura corporis humani. In qua relucet divina sapientia. Dici ergo volunt hominem imaginem Dei. Extat Liber Galeni laudatissimi scriptus ceu hymnus Deo, De usu partium corporis humani. Sed imago Dei in alia re quaerenda est. Alii dicunt, imaginem respicere Christum, qui nostram imaginem assumpsit, qui alias dicitur imago Dei. Tertullianus sic videtur sensisse in Lib[ro] De Resurr[ectione] carnis. Linum[?]‌tractans Deus respexit in Christum incarnandum. Licet ergo ex lino[?] formatus in formando tamen lino[?] respexit Deus in Christum, ad cuius ideam respexit. Pia sententia quidem sed non exacta. Partem tantum exprimit. Nam imago ad totum corporus refertur. Epiphanius contra Anthropomorph[os]. varias exponit sententias doctorum de imagine. Vide ipsum net.[?]‌ Imago non potest omnibus partib[us] imagini respondere, cuius imago est. Deus enim est immensus, omnia penetrans, nihil vero tale est in homine. August[inus] in anima collocat imaginem Dei. Qua trinitatis species typus relucet in anima. Una est essentia. D[-​]‌tes tamen facultates habet: memoriam, intelligentiam



574

Gen. 1:26; Non deliberavit . . . imaginem.] marg. add. Postea . . . Dei] interl. add. 576 Vi . . . turri[?]‌] interl. add. 577 Gentium . . . legibus] marg. add. 578 quo] foll. by del. illegible word. 575

Appendix  367 et voluntatem. Memorans intelligit et quae intelligit vult. Adumbratur Pater, Filius et Spiritus Sanctus. Lege [11][B6r] De Trin[itate], Lib[rum] 10., De civitate, Lib[rum] 11. Quo ad dominium gerit imaginem Dei homo. Ut dominetur volucribus coeli. Imagini ergo subiicit dominium in animalia et res creatas. Ut sit in mundo veluti vicarius. Et 1 Cor. 11[:3–​16]. Paulus in principatum ponit imaginem. Vir ad imaginem Dei conditus gloria Dei est. Gloria et imperium ei datum, ut et uxores subsint. In testimonium subiectionis velentur. Deinde ex restitutione imaginis colligenda est vera sententia. Coloss. 3[:10].: Renovemur ad imaginem eius qui condidit. Subiicienda est nostra voluntas divina. Ephes. 4[:24].: Ponit conformationem imaginis in iustitia et sanctificatione. 2 Cor. 4[:16].: Dum progredimur a claritate in claritatis. Non semel restauramur sed per intervalla, donec fiamus Filio conformes. 1 Cor. 15[:49].: Imaginem coelestem oportet portare. Rom. 8[:29].: De restauratione multa hac dicunt. Reparatio fit per Christum, cuius imagini oportet fieri conformes. Is oportet reformit nos, qui est vera Dei imago, quia coaequalis est divinitate patri579 Colos. 1[:15]., coessentiali. Si est imago ergo non idem cum Patre. Imago differt ab eo qui est imago. Sic Christus inferior patre sicut nos sumus inferiores Christo, qui sumus eius imago. Sed, cum ait “Faciamus imaginem” refertur ad Patrem et Filium. Cumque relatio fit personae inter se conferuntur. Imago est ergo alius quo ad personam non quo ad substantiam. Naturae substantiae nulla est diversitas. [12][B6v] Deinde Filius imago Dei quo ad assumptam humanam naturam. Deus transfudit in eum omnia dona, ergo perfectissima est imago Dei Patris. Purae aliis ornatus est ditatus de plenitudine eius accipiamus. Mentem oportet illustrari agnitione nostri Dei. Ut voluntas menti subiiciatur. Sensus item580 consentiat et in corpore sit obedientia, imo ut corpus ipsum corruptibile exuat hanc et induat incorruptibilitatem et glorificetur. Haec est imago Dei, ad quam sumus conditi. Haec imago melior prima. Nam homo conditus, ut cadere possit. Nostra restitutio talis erit, ut non possimus labi ex beatitudine. Colligitur hinc praestantia humanae naturae. Nulla creatura dicitur condita ad imaginem Dei. Conditurus consultat cum Filio et Spiritu. Videmus item in hoc Dei amorem, quod tam praeclara conditione dignitateque condidit. Valet in reb[us] adversis, et consolari nos possunt. Rursus apparet quaedam in homine divinitas, accepta a Deo qui mentem indidit. Admonemur nostri officii. Si conditi sumus ad imaginem, non debemus polluere viciis sed sanctificare. Perfecti esti, quia Pater vester sanctus et perfectus est.581 Apostolus colligit argumenta contra scelera. Colligamus etiam Imago Dei homo ergo non destruenda homicidio. Theodosius propter Placillae imaginem saeviit[?]‌in Antiochenoss. Vir Dei corripit eum. Vide Eccles. hist. A libidinibus dehortatur illa imago, ne polluamus eam. [13][B7r] Excitant, ut grati simus Deo pro tanto honore. Philosophus augebat gratias, quod homo et Athenis non inter barbaros esset natus. Quanto magis nos? Dicitur. Dominetur universae terrae. Indicat dominum collatum in omnes res, quae oriuntur ex terra, et quae sunt supra terram in aëre. Dominandi voce utitur. Gubernationem intelligimus. Qui gubernat, imperio utitur in rem et usum eius, quod gubernat. Dominatio respicit usum eius qui dominus. Omnia ergo in usum hominis condita. Non tamen tyrannice utatur, sed iusta ratione. Nam hominem condidit ratione



579 patri] interl. add.

580 item] corr. from itus. 581

See Matt. 5:48.

368 Appendix praeditum. Sabbati lex constringit homines et iumenta. Humanitas ergo requiritur erga animantia. Sic multae leges eadem praecipiunt. Quomodo habet dominium in animalia, cum plurima sint fera, ita ut ne cicurari non possint, sed insidie [-​-​-​] vitae hominum? Animalia ut coete grandia non subsunt? Respondunt. Dominium amissum per peccatum, primum tamen hominem illa habuisse imperium. Potest tantum sic responderi. Magna parte hominem peccato spoliatum, sed reliquam esse bonam partem imperii. Ad hominis conspectum obstupescunt et fugiunt. Elephas, si in solitudine vestigium hominis cernat, tremit. Ergo agnoscit dominatum. Ratione item ingenioque hominum582 dominantur fortiss[ima] animalia etiam monstra. Capiuntur. Ut moles maximas arte[?]‌movemus[?], ita maxima alimalia fugantur Dominum maxime positum in ratione. [14][B7v] Veteres dixere Deum sapientia gubernare non corporaliter mundum. Rursus dicitur in Psal. “Super basiliscum et draconem ambulabis”.583 //​Quia usui piorum sunt destinata. Omnia sunt piorum et iis subiecta. Mors et vita. Omnes dominationes piis cedit authoritate Dei. Videmus tamen l[a]‌edi homines a bestiis in corpore proprio, in pecoribus, in vineis. Cogitemus id consequtum peccatum. Si peccatum non esset, bestiae non nocerent. Sic sunt instrumenta irae Dei. Quidam inferunt, si homo dominus, ergo omnibus licet venari. Sed sic communia oporteret esse et pecora, iumenta agri, fundi et arbores. Platonici de comunione multa absurda. Anabaptiste quoque renovarunt, sed inepti sunt. Benedixit eis, marem et foeminam fecit eos. Quo ordine hoc factum 2. cap[ite] copiosius describetur. Hic generatim tantum attingitur. Inepti quidam putant virum factum androgenum. Idem f[-​]‌re Plato. Sed quis credat primo monstrum conditum a Deo? Figmenta sunt Platonica et fabulae turpes. Benedicto fons est coniungii. lubet crescere. Non probat mago et concubitus sicut postea in 2. cap[ite] copiosius dicitur. Potuisset ab initio turbam homini condidisse ingentem sed a duob[us] nasci voluit, ut commendaret concordiam, quod ex uno sunt omnes. [15][B8r] Confundatur Romanensis Syritius. De quo postea. Duo tractantur benedictio generis humani conjungii, Item cibus, holera et fructus arborum. Sed quid cibo corpus[?]‌imortali? Imortalitas consideratur bifariam: 1) Qualis angelorum et corporum resuscitarorum. 2) Ex hypotisi cum conditum, ut possit mori, sed tantum servatur. Helias mortalis ut nos, sed non mortuus ut nos, sed translatus. Accepit conditionem a Deo Adam, ut potuerit esse imortalis. Quaestiones moventur hic plurimae curiosae: si imortales homines mansissent, ubi locus omnibus futurus? Relinquamus ociosus. Cibus praeparatus ante conditum hominem, quia vidit Deus ad conservationem esse necessarium. Providentia mirabilis. Domus extenitur[?]‌ornatiiss. et instructiss, deinde in hanc inducitur homo. Communis cibus cum animantib[us] quo[?] ad victum caeteris par., ut disceret non superbire. Sed cum sint carnivorae, quomodo herbae communes? Respondet. Olim fuisse sic ab initio non fuerunt carnivorae. Nec ab initio tam multa erant animalia. Ergo non oportuit laniari inter se. Noë omnis generis animalia conclusit in arcam. Cibum paravit. Si carnivorae non potuisset satis carnium comparare. Praeterea carnivora nescuntur herbis cum carnes habere non licet.



582 hominum] interl. add. 583

See Ps. 91:13.

Appendix  369 Post diluvium concessae carnes. C[aus]ae duae. 1) Infirmitas nostra. 2) Imperfectio in reb[us] divinitas[?]‌. Prima aetas fuit robusta. Iudicatur ex longaevitate. Quae oriebantur e terra salubruor[?] a meliora. Per diluvium ea beatitudo [-​]rrepta. [16][B8v] Sed tamen [-​]‌tum an abstinuerint a carnibus.584 Sacrificavit enim Abel et epulae institutae sunt. Tergora animalium induebant.585 Ergo detrahentes mactarunt. Postea cum manifeste concedit, ostendit usum liberum. Superstitiosi Pythagorei et monachi qui sequntur Pythagoreos. Dominus, Math. 15[:11].: “Non coinquinat, quod ingreditur per eos.” 1 Timoth. 4[:4–​5]. simile dicitur. Oportuit carnem singulari concedi concessione, ut sciret homo se hoc a Deo habere. Distinguitur inter munda et immunda animalia. Sacrificia fiebant ex animalibus mundis. Ex plantis non sacrificabatur ergo distinctione non opus. Vidit et fuit bonum. Non quod latuerit quicquam, sed indicatur approbatio operum Dei contra Manichaeos accusantes opera Dei imperfectionis. Vident in orbe ataxi[-​],‌ non cernentes mali originem, fingunt duos deos, bonum et saevum. Sed contra, unus Deus est, qui omnia condidit et omnia bona. Deus bonus per se summum bonum, a quo omne bonum quod bonum est. Nil bonum quod non ex eo. Res creatae bonae quatenus capiunt bonitatem a summo bono. Item cum bonum nobis communicant. Naturale bonum, cum res a Deo perfectae condita et destinata ad usus bonos hominum. Unde bonum percipit bono. Universali sententia hac comprehenditur et homo. Si omnia bona ergo et homo. Alii dicunt. Vidit Deus hominem casurum, ergo non additur “Bonus est.” Sed haec curiosa. Sed et homo conditus est ad imaginem Dei. [17][C1r] Conditus homo, ut praesit omnibus viventibus et terrae, quam sibi subiicat. Dati sunt omnes fructus terrae. Cum dominium accepit homo, colligunt quidam omnia, dicitur[?]‌est esse iure naturae communia. Philosophi Plato Academici sequuntur. Anabaptistae idem negent communitatem rerum. Philosophi. Natura geniti ad societatem homines, spectandum ergo max[-​] quomodo societas conservetur. Non fieri commodius quam rerum communione, et ex aequo sint haeredes bonorum. Si pater liberos habeat multos, omnes sunt haeredes. Sumus naturae matris nostrae fili. In politia maxime[?] coniunctio servatur etiam in privata amicitia, si omnia bona sint communia. Plato in 5. lib. De repub[lica] tollenda ex civitate quae causae dissidiorum, si concors esse, debet[?]. Nil potius tollit consensionem quam privata possessio Meum et Tuum. Monachi Platonicum amplexi, tollendam proprietarium possessionem. Anabaptistae renovarunt communionem omnium rerum indivisa. 1) probant. Omnia bona liberorum communia. Deus parens omnium, ergo bona, quae dedit, sunt Dei data filiis. Domini est coelum et terra. Respondio[?]‌. Haereditas liberis est communis, nisi ex parto et divisione facta. Cum divisio autem[?] facta sit, quaelibet pars manet propria suo possessori. Distincta fuerunt bona ab initio. Abel et Cain distributa singularia bona. Dicitur. Obtulit de fructibus suis. Suis[?] ait. [18][C1v] Noë dicitur postea etiam divisisse terram. Accedunt Leges, quae dominia statuunt. 2) ratio Platonicorum prius exposita. Meum Tuum causae rixarum dissentionum. //​Respondio[?]‌ . Assumptum nego[?]. Bona effuci[?] in repub. communione. Tolli proprietatem[?]. Communio uxorum et bonorum tollit concordiam. Proprietas non est

584 585

marg.: An carnis esus ante diluvium concessus. marg.: Tergora induebant, ergo mactabant.

370 Appendix causa discordiae, sed malitia hominum. Argumentum sophisticum. Causa non causa. Per accidens consequuntur mala illa consequta. Quare non recitant mala, quae sequuntur ex earum communione? Tolluntur virtutes liberalitas temperancia communione. Aristot[eles] ait duplicem esse communionem: 1) generalem ut non[?] fundus et fructus communia; 2) specialem quem[?] proprietas manet possidenti sed possessa distribuit et pro sua voluntate administrat. Et haec sententia Arist[otelis] melior est Platonis. 3) Putant verbo Dei principi communiorum etiam uxorum. Nicolaitae tales. Sed damnantur a Ioane evang. in Apocal. Anabap[tistae] confingunt spiritualia matrimonia. Per se absurdum impurum. Gen. 3. magus[?]‌concubitus non est admissus. Proprietas convenit cum naturae iure. Ius gentium congruit cum Iure naturae. Docetur certa coniungia ergo certae aedes familiae, facultates item nude[?] vinatur[?]. Iure Gentium et legib[us] civilibus probatur. Evangelium non damnat leges civiles. Decalogus est compendium legis naturae insculptae naturae, menti, //​Non concupisces alterius uxorem aedes. Quomodo furtum committitur? [19][C2r] Attrectando, usurpando res alienas. Sancti vet[eris] test[amenti] habuerunt opes amplas et proprias et placuerunt Deo. Pater credentium Abraham habuit opes. Sufficit eius exemplum. Rom. 4. eiusdem fidei nobiscum facit. Loth discedit propter proprietatem. Diviserunt inter se recte.586 Anabapt[istae] aiunt eccles[iam] novi test[amenti] perfectiorem, ergo apostolos habuisse omnia communia, Act. 2[:44]. Addunt exemplum Ananiae.587 Communio non ita instituta, ut necesse fuerit omnib[us] omnia vendere. Ditiores vendiderunt et sese spoliarunt et pauperes iuvarunt. Non tamen iis adempta omnis proprietas. Dividebant prout unique opus. Divisio ergo manente proprietate. Alioqui accepisset quisque quantum voluisset. Alii aliis pauperiores. Pro eo fiebat divisio. Item. Nemo eorum quae possidebat dicebat suum. Habentes erant quasi non habentes, liberales. Ioses singulare argumentum et exemplum nobis dat.588 Alii non ita fecerunt. Si omnes, quid necessaria singulare hoc referre. Sed et Ananias non dicitur peccasse quod possedit, sed quod hypocrisis eius. “An non tibi manebat (ait Petrus), sed quia vis videri qui non es et mentiris[?]‌Deo dabis poenis.”589 Sed fuerit talis communio in Hierusalem, non tamen omnib[us] aliis obtenta ecclesiis. Qu[-​]‌potius manebat proprietas. Ephes. 4. et 1 Thess. 4., 1 Timoth. 6. Eleemosynas contulerunt ecclesiae, 2 Cor. 8., 9., 1 Cor. 16. Non ferunt haec communionem. [20][C2v] Apostoli magistratus et politicus approbant. Habent hae ordinem non confusionem. Imo servitutem approbant apostoli. 1 Timoth. 6. Destruitur communio. Servitus videtur magis adversa Iuri naturae. Semper tenendum, ne declinemus ad anabapt., rursus ne ita proprietatem asseramus, ut non condemnemus liberalitatem in communicando. Existimant se iustos si nemini rapiant aut inferant iniuriuam. Oportet esse etiam beneficos. Monachi paupertatem faciunt consilium. Imponunt huic[?]‌sua coenobia. Qualis communio monachorum et qualis paupertas notum universo mundo. Quaerunt Scholasti An homo in mortali peccato positus sit iustus possessor et dominus rerum? Negant. Bonus princeps non dat foeudum perduelli. Peccatores sunt perduelles. Ergo non iuste



586

See Gen. 13:8–​9. See Acts 5:1–​5. 588 See Acts 4:36–​37. 589 See Acts 5:4. 587

Appendix  371 possident. Dominium est in imagine Dei. Imago Dei est eversa in sceleratis ergo iniusti possessores. Adam et Eva positi in paradyso, eiecti sunt ex paradyso. Ergo in mortali peccato positi non sunt iusti domini. [21]590 CAP. II. Epilogus rerum conditarum. Sanctificatio sabbati. 2) Quomodo homo conditus sit a Deo. Item, quam ex latere hominis condita sit uxor. Ibi matrimonii lex sancitur. Perfecti sunt coeli et terra. Universa mundi machina comprehenditur duob[us] illis[?]‌maria quoque complectens coelum et aerem, significat et syderum positionem. Comprehenditur enim omnis ornatus. Moses dicit: “Omnis eorum exercitus”.591 Id quod alii vertunt ornatum. Alii copias. Mundus ob ornatu dicitur. Duo exercitus, unus coeli alter terrae. Coeli duplex, coeli aspectabiles cum syderib[us]. Sydera militia dicuntur in Scripturis. Israelitae dicuntur adorasse exerc. solem et lunam. Alii coeli invisibiles, locus [-​]rum spirituum. Exercitus horum sunt angeli. 3 Reg. 22[:19].: Vidit Micheas exercitus coelestes, angelos. Exercitus terrae arbores, fontes, fulmina, animalia, herbae, pisces. Haec omnia exercitum nomina habent ideo, quod omnia pulchre sunt distincta, ut exercitus in centurias et signa. Exercitus principum robora. Ita Deus per illa declarat suam potentia[m] sine iuvando suos sine puniendo hostes. Deut. 28. ostenditur quomodo omnes creaturae res serviant Deo in maledicendo vel benedicendo. Haec omnia perfecit intra 6 dies. //​ [22] Perfecta dicuntur omnia a Deo. Perfectio dupliciter consideranda. 1) Per se condita perfecte. Si habent corruptelam, id non ex creatione est, sed ex hominis vitio, Rom. 8. Item, si suos fines attingunt et in ordine manent perfectissima omnia. Sic Sydera pulchre progrediuntur. Tempus procedit pulchre per ver, aestatem, autumnum et hyemem. 2) Alia perfectio, quando Deus nova factures est ea, quae nunquam mutabuntur. Prima perfectio temporaria, secunda aeterna. De qua tamen nondum hic dicitur. Homine condito dicitur coelum et terra perfecta, quasi homine condito demum omnia perfecta. Nam ob hominem omnia condita. Deerat ergo caput rebus homo. Principatum inter creaturas homo obtinet. Initium perfectionis in Christo habemus habituri plenissimam in resurrectione quum habebimus corpus spirituale. Tunc et coeli et terra reparabuntur. “Consummavit die 7 opus suum deinde quievit592 cessavit.”593 Ergo verum non est momento omnia esse condita. Nam creatio antea distincta in 6 dies. Quomodo absolvit 7. die opus suum594, cum 7. die nil fecerit sed quierit? Fingunt ergo eodem die mulierem ex latere conditam. Sed pugnat cum precedentib[us]. In 6. die condita est. “Marem et foeminam fecit eos.”595 LXX verterunt 6. die. [23] 7. die perfecta omnia, quia cessante in illa die apparuit omnia perfecta et quod nihil voluit addere. “Quievit”. Manichaei quaerunt, an defatigatus creando? Cavillatio impiorum. Quies non est refocillatio virium tantum et defatigatio, sed et cessatio. Finem creandis reb[us] imposuit. Quomodo cessavit, cum Ioan. 5. dicitur aperari adhuc? Epicurei fingunt ociosum. Non quod prorsus nil operetur, hoc dicitur, sed quod a nemis reb[us] creatis596 adiectrit[?]‌.

590

Between [C2v] and [Er1] eight pages are missing. Gen. 2:1. 592 quievit] interl. add. 593 Gen. 2:2. 594 opus suum] interl. add. 595 Gen. 1:27. 596 creatis] corr. from creandis. 591

372 Appendix Interim non cessavit a gubernandis et conservandis. Sustentat omnia manu sua. Hebr. 1., Act. 17. Loquitur ergo cessatio de creatione, non conservatione et gubernatione. Damnatur a Mose opinio philosophorum, qui constituunt plures esse mundos, aut hoc mutato plures facturos. Moses dicit hunc unum perfecte esse creatorem. Excludit Democrates.597 Cum dicit C[-​]‌excludit eos, qui creandos fore plures. Repugnat cum fide Christi. Unus est sequester missus in unum mundum. Non in plures missus. Vel qui in plurib[us] mundis sunt aliunde quam ex Christo salvantur. Aut quis dicat in plurib[us] mundis homines damnari omnes? Absurda multa sequuntur. Quid? An non a 7. die aliquid novi conditum? An non tribulae et spinae postea [24] conditae quae ante non fuerunt? An non iris a diluvio condita? Ergo aliquas formas novas produxit a 7. die. Respondio: 6 dieb[us] omnia facta sunt, quae ad perfectionem coeli et terrae pertinebant. At postea terra produxit spinas non tamen ad perfectionem et ornatum, sed in poenam humani generis propter lapsum hominis, ob quem et terra corrupta. Sequtae multae calamitates ob peccata. Item infecta et multa exorta in damnum hominis. At Moses non describit ab initio mundum corruptum sed perfectum et ornatum. Nil ergo tum defuit perfectioni. Iris non habet propriam substantiam, sed est visus reflexio colorum. Et ut sit substantia, iris ante diluvium fuit, sed qui ante fuit a Deo, ordinatus est in signum gratiae, additus promissioni. Quae miraculose fiunt non semper manent, transeunt, ut species semel conditae ab initio. “Benedixit diei 7. et sanctificavit.”598 Duo dicit de die 7., “bened[ixit]”, “sanctif[icavit]”. Alii volunt “benedixit”, id est “sanctificavit” separavit ab aliis dieb[us]. Benedictio est favor. Benedictus Dei chanus[?]‌Deo est, et domis beneficique ornatus. Honore ergo extulit, ornavit 7 diem, in quo apparet favor Dei, in quo vult beneficiis ornare. Hebraei putant arcanam vim a Deo datam sabbato. Sabbatum dat robur omnibus. Sic illi [25] Sabbati certe multa sunt apud antiquos encomia, sed spirituale considerandum non est ociosum, sed quo homines se dant contemplationi rerum divinarum. Subiicitur sanctificatus. Ad sacrum usum et cultum Dei separatus. Sanctificatae urbes ad asyla, id est separatae. Destinata ad usum sacrorum. Debemus omni tempore feri [-​]‌ ab operibus carnis, colere Deum, meditari divina. Sed quia oportet homines ordine fieri et certo tempore, Deus destinavit sabbatum homini. Sequitur sabbatum aeternum, Heb. 4. Discamus quotidie mortificare veterem Adamum, cogitemus divina. //​ Mosaica lege repetitum sabbatum et plura ceremonialia addita. Substantia manet, ut colamus Deum, celebremus memoriam. //​Alligati non sumus tempori. 8 licet agere sabbatum. Resurrexit a mortuis Christus 8 die. Reparatio humanae naturae absoluta in resurrectione, ut olim creatio. //​ Numerus septenarius reb[us] sacris et sapientia sacer est. 7. luna peragitur paesa septies septina pentecoste. 7. annus remissionis. Sequitur. Iubilemus. Omnia terminantur septimo numero. //​ Incipit paucis repetere, creationem repetere. Istae sunt generationes. Generationes novem[?]‌active et passive accipiunt. [26] Sic condita. Vel condita produxerunt herbam[?]‌. //​ Plenius de hominis creatione quam attingit tamen[?]‌1. cap. plenius agit. 1) Ostendit quis author et opifex. 2) Materia unum pulvis et lutum Aphar599 utrumque significat. Origo haec admonet humilitatem, ne superbimus, si quae sunt dona in nobis.

597

Democrates, Pythagorean philosopher. Gen. 2:3. 599 ‫[ עָ פָ ר‬see Gen. 2:7]. 598

Appendix  373 Exterius illa macti[?]‌. “Pulvis et umbra sumus.”600 Modesti simus in vita civili, sed maxime subiiciamus manui Dei. Sumus semper in manu Dei ut latum in manu figuli. Item decemur[?] libenter ignoscere furibus[?] cogitando ex eadem vasta[?] formatos paribus, infirmitatibus subditos. Alia similia colligi possunt. 3) Formatio hominis indicatur. Ex luto formavit corpus. Inspiravit in faciem //​Formare proprium est figulorum fingentium opus. Figuli instar ex lutu formavit hominem. Diabolus Promethei fabulum effinxit contra haec. Dicunt tamen lopatho natum et generis tamen humani authorem Prometheum scilicet. Sed pugnat secum et ex diabolo est fabula. Singulari Dei consilio e limo formatus601 homo est. Quaerunt an haec creatio hominis differet ab aliorum animalium creatione? Sed per Verbum omnia condita. Quo tantum ad modum conditionis discrimen est. Nec mandatur terrae, ut proferat hominem, sed Dei [27] consilio certo opificioque formatur ex limo terrae. Conditus item[?]‌est ad immortalitatem homo. Inditum homini “spiraculum vitarum”602. Pluraliter vel dualiter dicitur “vitarum” tam animae quam corporis. “Spiraculum” significat coelestem originem esse animae, derivatur ab Schamaim,603 coeli. //​Ita notatur im[m]ortalitas. Alibi aperte ostenditur imortalitas. Duas partes constituit hominis Moses. Corpus ex limo terrae. Artificis [-​]‌prudentia. Galenus604 De usu partium: Altera pars est animus hominis. In faciem inspiravit corpori spiraculum vitae. Vita ergo a Deo indita. Aliud est principium corporis ex elementis, in quae dissolvitur. Animae est coelestis origo divina in infusa homini. Ezech. 37[:5]., vitam recipiunt ossa inspiratione Dei. Sic hic fit. Flatus saepe mentio fit. Aer, quem haurimus, et motus in ventis sunt vehicula vitae. Quidam collegerunt hinc animam esse partem Dei. Sic Manichaei. Sed in Deum nulla cadit particio. Nulla effluxio ex Dei substantia. Apertum animas pollui peccatis certum. Ergo peccata in Deum caderent, qui puritas est. Turpis opinio. Vide Prudentium.605 De origine animae disserunt non tantum Adami sed omnium quotidie hominum. [28] Quidam putant ab initio conditos omnes et contineri ceu carcere donec in funduntur corporib[us]. Alii volunt ex traduce esse, animam ex anima. Sicut leo generat non corpus leonis, sed leonem vivum. Nisi sic fiat in homine inferior est animalibus. Item. Adam genuit ad imaginem suam, non scilicet inanime corpus sed vivum et rationale. Putant originale peccatum certius exponi cum e viciato animo animus viciatus nascitur. Alioqui iniuria fit animae, quae maculatur corpore. Liberi referunt parentes morib[us]. //​Tertull[ianus] in hac sententia fuit, et fere Augustinus. Nam[?]‌voluit assererre. Magis recepta opinio, ut anima infusa Adae corpori, sic in utero inspirari animam. Favent huic sententiae Physici. Nos hanc quaestionum in medio reliquimus. “Factus est in animam viventem.”606: Animalem vitam cum aliis animalibus corporum habet, sed praestante ratione. Est et ingens discrimen in ipsa vita. 1 Cor. 15[:44]. Paulus vocat corpus animale et spirituale. Primus homo de terra terrenus anima vivens. Spirituale607 corpus perpetuum. Primus animali vita vivens, opus habens cibo et potu. Et hic iubetur de fructibus edere. //​Secundus homo non vivit [29] vita mortali, sed perpetua.

600

Horatius, Carmina 4, 7, 16.

601 formatus] corr. from fortus 602

Gen. 2:7: ‫ִש ַ מ֣ת חַ ִ ּי ֑ים‬ ְ ׁ ‫נ‬. ‫[ ׁשָ ַ מיִם‬see Gen. 1:1]. 604 Galen of Pergamon (129–​200/​216 AD), Greek physician. 605 Aurelius Prudentius Clemens (348–​405–​413 AD). 606 Gen. 2:7. 607 marg.: Habet spiritum vivificantem a Deo. Habet motus spirituales. 603

374 Appendix Corpus spirituales motus habent, non opus habent cibo. //​Utraque vita cernitur in Christo. Vixit ante mortus vita animali. A608 morte post resurrect[ionem] non habuit animale, id est mortale, quod indignum fuit temporalium. Porro609 ostendit locum in quem collocatus homo a Deo. In hortum ad Eden, quem plantaverat. Eden exponunt delitiarum et voluptatum. Paradysus vocatur. Vox est Persica, cuius meminit Xenophon. Vocarunt regios hortos. 3 opiniones de paradyso sunt. 1) Allegorice intelligunt et referunt ad mentes hominis, quae ab initio bene conditae, postea misere pellibus vestitae. Non probamus huiusmodi allegorias maxime, ut Chrysost. ait violentas. Et in historia retinenda veritas historiae. Ea tollitur per allegoriam. Platonicorum fabulae sunt. In Phoedone meminit Regionis felicis. [-​]‌Veterum multi fuerunt platonici. “Plantavit hortum Deus.”610 Loquitur de Deo more humano. Prius ornavit terram, nunc pro omnibus locis ornat paradysum. Propter elegantiam hortus dicitur. Graeci vocant paradysum, usurpant et Latini. Ecclesiastes 2[,5]. dicitur, “hortus”, “paradysus”. Vox est persica. Regales horti amoenissimi dicunt paradysae. Prima opinio allegorisans prius est exposita. [30] 2) Alii putant haec omnia ad literam esse accipienda, ut historiae veritas servetur. Sed crasse hic errarunt Iudaei et Mahumedani. Felicitatem hominum fingunt adhuc crassam, locum adhuc esse corporum, in quo corporiis voluptatib[us] fruantur. Extant illa in Alcorano et Thalmud. Qui corporem locum putant, non conveniunt. Alii aeditum locum ad lunae globum pertinentem putant. Sententia haec ex Platone quoque sumpta. Plato in Phoedone inducit Socratem disputandem priusquam cicutam biberet, dicentem:611 “Puram esse terram et altiorem aëre circumfundi. Aerem puriss[imam].” Vide ipsum Platonem. Aiunt haec Platonem accepisse ex Moses, qui fuit in Aegypto. Tertull[ianus] in Apolog. huius est sententiae. Aliqui mediae aetatis, putant fuisse paradysum altiorem nubibus, dirimi a terra ignea zona. Opinio haec non videtur convenire Mosi, qui certum locum paradyso tribuit in Eden in Oriente. Postea 4. cap. ostendit prope Eden habitasse Cain. Dominus item constituit homo super universum mundum. Dominus terrae, ergo non in aëre, sed in terra quaerendus locus. Adducta sunt omnia animalia ad Adam, ut nomina imponeret. Illa non fuerunt in aere. Fluvium fit mentio[?]‌. Non fuerunt in aëre. Locus ergo investigandius in terra, non in nubibus. [31] Thomas Aquinas solidioris doctrinae inter scholasticos mitigavit sententiam aliorum theologorum. Vide ipsum. Et qui in terra paradys[um] ponunt, totam terram intelligunt. Nam totam datam Adamo. Totam fuisse cultam. Negari non potest id, sed tamen quamvis sic, non prohibet, quo unius certus locus prae caeteris ornatus sit et datus homini ad habitandum. Dicitur in Oriente, in Eden. Eden quidem delitias significat, tantum nomen proprium loci est. Ut Genesis 4. et Isaiae 37. Quo loco terrarum fuerit, dicimus cum venerimus ad explicanda flumina. 3) Putant corporeum locum cum arboribus. Has habuisse figuras rerum inaspectabilium. Conciliat superiores duas opiniones. Defendit veritatem historiae, sed



608

marg.: August[inus], De civitate Dei, lib. 13, cap. ult. marg.: Quis status, quae conditio hominis conditi. 610 Gen. 2:8. 611 dicentem] corr. from: diceantem. 609

Appendix  375 admittit mysterium et allegoriam aliquam. Significari aliquid spiritualium rerum. Verae historiae Abrahae et uxorum, et petrae percussae, sed exponitur spiritualiter, Galat. 4. et 1 Corinth. 10. Paradysus ergo vere corporeus locus, sed typus rerum spiritualium. Placuit haec sententia Augustino. Plantavit Deus omnem arborem iucundum visu et suavem ad edendem. Plantavit item arborem scientiae boni et mali. Aliae ergo et suavitate fructum et elegantia oculos pascerent. Duplex beneficium, necessitas et iucunditas. Pavit et delectavit. [32] Breviter. Tractatio paradysi iuxta historiam intelligenda. Locus certus in terra plantatus, in quo omnis amoenitas. Ubi situs alias dicetur. Arbores scientiae boni et mali. Philo vult arbores non germinasse ex terra, sed res mente perceptibiles, diversos habitus animorum. Arbor vitae pietas. Scientiae prudentia. Sed philosophica et inania haec. Epiphanius eleganter confutat per fluvia. Vide ipsum. Possent et ea, quae de Adam dicuntur allegorice tentari. Item omnia redderentur dubia. Arbor vitae dicta a Deo quod divinitus indita vis conservandae vitae hominis et prerogandae. Vita servatur calor naturalis et humidum, in quo calor opus suum exercet. In lampade ignis et oleum. Si alterum desit, extinguitur. Fructus arboris humiditatem reparavit, confirmavit, roboravit calorem naturalem. Propter hunc effectum arbor vitae dicta. Deinde ita dicta est ratione symboli. Si homo aspectaret arborem, cogitaret non in ipse esse vitam, sed aliunde a Deo peti. “In quo vivimus, movemus.”612 Hoc symbolo docuit haec arbor. Erat item symbolum servatoris Christi. Sapientia dicitur Proverb. 3[:18]. arbor vitae. Christus est sapientia, ipse est vita, Ioan. 1., Ioan. 6. Non tantum corporeae ergo vitae sed animae quoque symbolum. Colligimus, si ab initio vita non quaerenda quam in Deo per Christum antequam laberetur homo, nunc magis vita expectanda ex Christo. [33] Si a Christo recesserimus, mors nos manet. Discimus infirmitati nostre symbola esse necessaria. Nam symbola data sunt Adamo ante lapsum. Ne contemnamus ergo symbola. Necessarius tunc fuit ad hominem erudiendum. Altera arbor est scientiae boni et mali. Quaerunt, una ne arbor numero haec, et alia vitae. Non magni momenti. De forma arboris quaeritur. Fuerit ne ficus vitis malus. //​ Nomen impositum ab eventu, impositum inquam per anticipationem. Nam gustato fructu sensit homo bonum et malum, quam in bono statum fuit et quam praecipitarit se in malum. Cum praecipit, ne de hoc edat,613 videtur nomen impositum ante lapsum arbori. Concessit omnes alias arbores, ut de iis ederet, hanc vetuit. Alii ratione probabili, sic vocata arbor, quod lex addita, ne ederet. Lex adferet scientiam boni et mali. Ratione legis dicitur arbor scientiae boni et mali. Praecipuum in legib[us] obedientia, quod iustum et iniustum homo non indicet ex suo arbitrio, sed petat ex lege, verbo Dei. Mandavit obedientiam et ut legem respicerent homines. Vere fuit arbor illa posita in medio horti.614 Praeceptum fuit additum.615 Additum in hunc finem, ut non deligeret sibi boni et mali formam, sed a praecepto Dei. Iudaei crasse impuer hic loquuntur exponentes de libidine. Cognoscere alibi sumitur pro coire. //​Turpe. [34] Non in arbore fuit vis corrumpendi, sed in inobedentia. Cum non paruit praecepto mortuus est, culpa peccati.



612

Acts 17:28. See Gen. 2:17. 614 See Gen. 2:9. 615 See Gen. 2:17. 613

376 Appendix Quaeritur an homo haberit cognitionem boni et mali ante lapsum. Varie accipitur bonum et malum. Si de intelligentia loquaris, homo habuit cognitionem boni et mali virtutum. //​Alioqui nil praestantior bestiis. Sed conditus est ad imaginem Dei, ergo intelligentia indiciumque rerumque bonarum et malarum in homine. Sed et616 cum peccavit, habuit indicium. Ubi lex, ibi indicium aliquod in non renatis[?]‌quoque in multis rebus. Et conscientia eos damnat cum contra legem faciunt. Libertini repudiandi. Adimunt homini rerum delectum primo. Beluinam doctrinam habent illi. Multae ergo arbores positae ad usum, inter illas duae illae symbolice. Inde617 ex horto flumina egrediebantur. Eden locus certus in Oriente. In eo loco fuit paradysus. Variae sententiae de fluminibus paradysi. Ego nil certi affirmare audeo. Recito praecipuas. Probabiliter disserere possumus, non item asserere debemus. Qui paradysum diffundunt per orbem universum, sentiunt variis irrigari paradysum terram scilicet, sed praecipuis et maioribus his 4. Oceanum pre[-​]‌faciunt fluviorum qui per meatus terrae redeunt ad fontes. Qui existimant non per universum sparsum618 paradysum sed certum locum[?] [-​-​-​].[35] sentiunt ex illis finibus oriri Edenis. Gihon, Gangem et Nilum exponunt. Quomodo 4 flumina ex uno fonte derivantur. In Armeniae montib[us] Tigris et Euphrates oriuntur diversis fontib[us]. Ganges in India. Nili fontes incogniti. Alii aiunt sub montib[us] lunae in Aphrica oriri. Sed fingunt terram mutatam post lapsum. Non respondit ergo forma postea. Successisse diluvium per quod multo magis omnia mutata et deformata. Ergo mirum non est, si fontes fluminum mutati. Deinde saepe fluunt sub terra per meatus erumpentes ubi tamen non oriuntur. Alii aiunt flumina quaerenda ubi Tigris et Euphrates.619 Sunt haec flumina Mesopotamia, quae accepit nomen quasi inter amnis. Non dicit Moses oriri ex uno fonte, sed quod dividatur in 4 capita. Licet ergo dissita. //​Supra Seleuciam coniunguntur. Tigris dicitur All[-​ ]‌ t ad Phison. Dividuntur postea, proprium ostium habet Tigris. Strabo620 et Ammiamus Marcell[inus]621 qui militavit in regionib[us] tria ostia faciunt Tigridis. De duob[us] nulla controversia Tigris et Euphrate. De Pison et Gion controversia. Non dicit unum fontem habere. Duo fontes Tigridis et Euphratis. Confluunt et interum scinduntur. [36] Curtius622 Phasin nominat qui hic dicitur Pison. Ita haberet duo flumina. Antequam mare ingreditur in ostia dividitur. Tres eruptiones Euphratis. Adiungatur Tigris. Sic unum flumen in 4 capita divisum. Sed dicitur Pison circire[?]‌terram Havilas.623 Putant Indiam ergo Pison Gangem. Non satis firma esse. Nomen habet a filio Ieotam, Havilas.624 Habitatio eius in Arabia. Havilas ergo in Arabia. Quod dicitur de auro. Arabicum semper praestantissimum. Turcici[?] muni[?] in precio. Bdellium625 margaritam[?]. Berillus qui onychius[?]. Doctiss. quiquam nil certi de germinis[?]. Bdellium aromata significat etc.[?] Per terram Christus. Significat Aethiopes. Sed hi



616 et] interl add. 617

marg.: Ex Edene oritur et dividitur in 4 capita [see Gen. 2:10].

618 sparsum] corr. from sparsus 619

marg.: In Armenia Tigris et Euphrates. Ibidem alii duo fluvii, sed non eodem nomine. Strabo (64/​63 BC–​after 23 AD). 621 Ammianus Marcellinus (325–​330–​after 391 AD). 622 Quintus Curtius Rufus (probably first century AD), Roman historian. 623 See Gen. 2:11. 624 See 1 Chr. 1:8. 625 marg.: Bdellium et Soham [ ‫ש ֹהַ ם‬ ֽ ּ ׁ ַ‫וְ אֶ ֥בֶ ן ה‬, see Gen. 2:12]. 620

Appendix  377 sunt duplices orientales et occidentales.626 De orientalib[us] loquitur quia paradysus in Oriente. Sunt ergo qui circa rubrum mare habitant Madianitae et Ismaelitae. Mosis uxor filia Iethronis et dicitur Aethiopissa.627 Nam Madianitae Aethiopes. Mercatores Eden Arabiae dicit Ezechiel.628 Paradysus ergo in Eden. Oritur Tigris et Euphrates scinduntur in 4 capita ostia. Transeunt terras ut dictum est. Dicimus ut esse probabilem, nihil temere affirmamus. Strabo incredibilia tradit de regione illa orientali Edena. De Seleucia et Babylone mira refert, ut appareant vestigiae antiquae benedictionis. “Deus tulit Adamum et posuit in hortum, ut cole[37]ret et custodiret.”629 Ergo extra paradysum fuit conditus, non in paradyso. Sic confutantur, qui putant totum terrae esse paradysum. Tulit enim et induxit Adamum in illum hortum. Finis, ut custodiret et coleret. Vide Augustinum In Genesim. Referunt enim[?]‌quidam ad Deum ut is custodiret Adamo hortum. Colendum posuit ut Deum coleret. Violenta expositio. Sed quomodo in felicitate labor imponitur cultus? Et quid opus cultura, si sponte omnia crescebant? Quid custodia, cum nulla impetitio. Caeterum in labore delectatio. Reges aliquando agrum coluerunt. Cyrus iunior excoluit paradysum. Lysandrum induxit et ostendit quina[-​].‌ 630 Athenieum[?] ostendit se sua manu plantasse arbores. Beatum[?] praedicavit Lysander. Vide Augustinum. Non molestiam lassitudinem percepit. Nihil metuendum ex tempestatibus. In hoc studio exercuit opera Dei et opificem contemplatus est. Omnes arbores, omnes herbae quo[?] damno[?] Deum praedicabant. Ita custodivit. Non omnia in horto im[m]ortalia. Postea per diluvium sublatus. Animalia imperio hominis subiecta. Oportuit cohercere animalia. Facile potuit. Nunc non item cum recalcitrant et lacerant. Damnant[?]‌haec ocium. Homo non ad ocium conditus. Peccant[?] in finem hominis qui nil aliud quam [-​]e[-​]tres pigri nil faciunt. //​ Homo rebus dicit uti, non profundere. Diligens sit et custodiat beneficia, quae accepit. Peccant, [38] qui beneficia profundunt ignavia perire sinunt. Deo reddenda est ratio. Subiicitur lex data homini. Praecepit: “Ex omni arbore).”631 Apostolus ait: “Iusto lex non est posita.”632 Quare ergo Adamo, qui iustus fuit? Ergo non ponenda lex Adamo. Vel non recte datur lex. Vel Paulus male loquutus est. Sed nulla hic est contradictio.633 Apostolus ait, qui sponte incitantur ad bene agendum non cohercendi lege. Deinde ex malis morib[us] bonae leges conditae. Qualis lex Adamo data? Lex duas habet partes. 1) Quae iubet aut vetat. 2) Sanctio, qua contra transgressores poena sumitur[?]‌ . Talis haec est: “Ne ederis, alioqui morieris.”634 Concedit usum liberaliter omnium fructum. Excitare debuisset ad obedientiam. Blanda ergo est invitatio ad obedientiam. In ipsa lege vis legis est spectanda. In fructu nil mali inerat. Malum

626 marg.: Apud Homerum quoque duae Aethiopiae. 627 marg.: A[-​]‌rum 3 cap. Tabernaculum coniunguntur Christus. //​ 628 See Ezek. 27:23. 629 Gen. 2:15. 630 marg.: Frisius. Pflantzung [-​-​-]​ also gemacht. 631 Gen. 2:16–​17. 632 1 Tim. 1:9. 633 marg.: Loquitur non universaliter de lege. Est enim lex naturae, charitatis item. Apostolus loquitur de lege, quae lata contra caedes, adulteria. //​ 634 See Gen. 2:16–​17.

378 Appendix non est substantia sed privatio. Si non vetuisset, nil peccasset. Accessit praeceptum et commendavit obedientiam, quam alioqui debuit Deo. Vide hic quae635 mala sit inobedientia et neglectus praeceptorum Dei. Voluit Deus hominem non ex suo arbitrio, sed ex verbo Dei peteret iudicium de bonis et malis. Petivit Deus fine legis, ut homo se subiiceret. Peccatum ergo non aestimandum ex poena[?]‌sed ex lege et voluntate Dei, quam violat homo, qui praeponit suam voluntatem Dei voluntati. In qua [39] sola bonum. Aversio est a Deo uno et solo bono peccatum. Tale peccatum Saulis, 1 Sam. 15. Servavit ad celebria sacrificia. Samuel non respicit Saulis intentionem sed obiicit preceptum Dei et inobedientiam. Peccatum non ex re subiecta aestimandum sed ex inobedientia. Cultus electisii[?] talia peccata sunt. Tertull. in lib. De Ieiunio referet ad gulam vel crapulam, sed perperam. Observandum hic et illud, levia aliquum videtur praecepta, sed sacrosancta fuit propter voluntatem Dei. Levis est tinctio pueri in aqua. Sed si spectemus Verbum institutum voluntatis Dei sacrosanctum. Sic fractio panis in coena non est communis sed sacrosancta. Semper non ad res, sed ad Dei voluntutatem spectandum et aestimandum ex voluntate Dei. Altera legis parte facitur poena: “Moriendo morieris, cum scilicet transgressus fueris.”636 Certo et absque dubio. Anadiplosis habet et emphasim et accelerationem. De qua morte loquitur? An de animae vel corporis, an de utroque? Probabile hoc quod ab utroque. Nam[?]‌peccatum commune animae et corpori est. Ergo poena utrique iure[?] irrogatur. Anima et corpore peccatur. Hebraei dant simile. Princeps dat custodiendum hortum claudo et caeco ederunt fructus ducente caecum claudo ad arbores. Sic anima movet corporis organa. Sic totus homo peccati fit reus. Ita utrique irrogatur poena. Mors autem peccatum est. [40] Aversio enim est peccatum a Deo. Deus lux est et vita. Si quis avertat oculos a sole in tenebris versatur. Sed quomodo corpore mortuus est statim? Expendenda prima conditio hominis. Antea, non fuit mortalis. Apostolus ait: “Per unum intrasse mortem in mundum”637. Antea ergo non morbis, infirmitatibus obnoxius, nulla necessitas in eo moriendi. Si mansisset in integro statu voluntate dei, fuisset im[m]‌ortalis. Triplex status. 1) Ante lapsum. Potuit mori, sed nulla necessitate. 2) A lapsu necessario morimur. 3) A resurrectione non poterimus mori. Iam apparet quomodo mortuus? Subiectus necessitati moriendi, amisit illam im[m]ortalitatem, morbis omnibus obnoxium fecit.638 Natura facta est corruptior, infirmior. Ergo sic spoliatus beatitudine, adobrutus morte. Abutuntur Dormitantii hoc loco. Sicut Adam post multos annos mortuus, animae vivunt a morte, interim dormiunt. //​Sed Adam ilico moritur, imposita neccessitate moriendi, coepit mors regnare per morbos. Plenius moritur post 900 annos. Sic animae ilico fruuntur vita a morte corporea. Progressus habet vita haec cum resucitata corpora. Plene fruuntur vita. Socrates dicit vitam nostram potius mortem esse, et mortem transgressionem ad vitam. Quaeritur an utrique praeceptum hoc sit datum? [41][E1r]639 Paulus fugit saepe. Oraculo divino ecclesia admonita Hieros. in Pellam fugit. Si640 licet fugere, semper ergo fugiendum. Non semper. Ieremias damnat Iudeos

635 quae] corr. from qua[-​]‌ 636

Gen. 2:17. Rom. 5:12. 638 marg.: Certe status lapsi hominis nil quam mors. Viderunt philosophi hoc. //​ 639 Immediately preceding pages are missing. The following exposition refers probably to Gen. 3:8. 640 marg.: Licet fugere quidem, sed non semper. 637

Appendix  379 fugientes in Aegyptum. Christus, qui saepe fugit tamen641 noluit fugere cum tempus mortis adesset. Sic Paulus voluit fugere, Act. 21. Fugere voluit Petrus a fratribus persuasus. In fuga vidit spectrum Christi dicentem: “Vado Romam iterum642 crucifigi.” Vidit sibi redeundum. Sequitur licere643 aliqu[u]‌m, aliqu[u]m non licere. Unde discrimen petendum. An ex re subjecta?644 Minime.645 In bello ne? At vir fortis non faciet. Si dicamus in persequt. non646 fugiendum, sunt exempla contraria. Si dicas in morbis non esse separationem faciendam, obiiciuntur laeprosi. An[?] ergo a causa petendum discrimen. Tertull[ianus] ait a Deo immitti persequt.647 At quae a Deo sunt, bona sunt, ergo bonum non fugiendum. Fuga alioqui accusamus Deum quasi authorem mali. Verum haec ratio non est firma.648 Dependent quidem omnia a Deo, sed tamen mediis utendum. Math. 10[:23].: “Fugite in aliam.” Tertull. damnatur propter hunc librum. Unum ergo discrimen? Spectandae649 causae monentes nos ab internis non externis. Illae actiones sunt certae, quae non pugnant cum fide et dilectione. Contra viciosum quod contrarium. Fides donat Deum authorem omnium.650 Plaga Dei est pestis, bellum. [42][E1v] 28. Deut.651 omnia genera malorum exponentur, quae immittuntur a Deo ut maledictiones. Deinde652 statuendum illas plagas certas non fortuitas. Isaias [65:12].: “Numerabo vos ad gladium.” Assyrius non omnes consumet, sed eos, qui destinati sunt. Sic Jerem. 15[:2].: “Qui ad gladium, ad gladium.” In Ezechiele consignantur cap. 9.653 ab angelo servandi. Deo sumus ita curae, ut non tantum membra vel vita sed capilli sunt numerati, Math. 10[:30]. Omnia reguntur divina providentia.654 Haec fides in Deum omnia gubernantem est maxime necessaria. Efficit fides ut655 subiiciamus nos Deo. Parati omnia ferre, quae immiseruit, cogitantes Deum ut patrem contra nos agere. Ubi haec fides est, in singularibus facile videmus, quid agamus, imprimis veram agamus poenitentiam. Quia agnoscimus pestem propter peccata immitti. In tuto sumus, si convertamus ad Deum. Deinde salva sit charitas.656 Evidens sit ita, sunt leges notae generales657, ut parati simus animas ponere per fratribus. Esse membra eiusdem corporis. Diligendos alios, ut nos ipsos. Debere condolere, iuvare. Hae sunt universales rationes, leges658. Sunt certa efficia quorum ratio habenda. Sunt659 obstricti alii singulariter. Ministri non debent fugere

641 qui . . . tamen] interl. add. 642 iterum] interl. add. 643 licere] corr. from liceret. 644 marg.: Non ex re subiecta, quia ex acie fugientes, alii laudati, alii sunt propterea vituperati. 645 Minime] interl. add. 646 non] interl. add. 647 marg.: Non est discrimen petitum ex causis. 648 marg.: Sic omnis excluderetur [-​]‌rantus defensio. 649 marg.: Actiones indicantur ex internis et cum[?]‌externis. Ergo causae interiores et circumstantiae spectandae. Quae causae interiores? Fides et charitas, quod contra haec malum est. 650 Fides . . . omnium] interl. add. 651 marg.: A Deo malum non est peccati sed poenae. 652 marg.: Reguntur a Deo. Non longius progrediuntur et ad alios quam destinati. 653 cap. 9] interl. add. 654 marg.: Ubique in scriptura testimonia et exempla haec[?]‌providentia. In eodem domo alius morbo perit, alius aegrotus non perit. Tertius non attingitur, Psal. 91. 655 Efficit . . . ut] interl. add. 656 marg.: Principium actionum nostrarum alterum[?]‌dilectio. 657 sunt . . . generales] marg. add. 658 leges] interl. add. 659 certa . . . Sunt] marg. add.

380 Appendix ab omnibus. Sunt publici homines660, senatores, medici, pharmacopeni. Sunt officia domestica. Debet dominus servo. Pater filio. Uxor marito. Sancta necessaria officia.661 [43][E2r] Iam quae media afferunt desertionem et neglectum officiorum, non sunt licita. Maneat quisque in ea vocatione, in qua est vocatus. De singularib[us] non possunt dari regulae662 singulares sed generales! Sive quis fugiat sive maneat absque fide veritatique improbatur. Qui putat, divinam providentiam non agnoscit. Aut putat loci non vitae mutatione se servare posse, peccat. Est sine fide. Temeritas quoque et securitas carnis dominanda[?]‌. Potest discrimen statui inter morbes, bella et persequt. In fame et bellis, Deus utitur ministerio homini. In morbis magis agit manus Domini. Unde David mavult incidere in manus Dei per pestem. Veteres dixerunt fugiendum in persequ[u]‌t. ne dicitur occasiones peccandi persequ[u]toribus. In charitatem peccant qui deserunt officium. Antea dictum: “Maneat quisquam in ea vocatione, in qua est vocatus.” Distinguunt alii alios liberos ab officiis et astrictos. His non licere fugere. Mercenarii sunt fugientes pastores, Ioan. 10[:12–​13]. Ubi tamen dicitur, periculum aliud personae aliud commune. Athanasio fuerunt inimicitiores item. Aliis non item. Fugit ille, alii presbyterii manserunt. Paulus deteriorem ait infideli, qui non habet rationem suorum, 1 Timoth. 5. Imprimis pericula declinemus poenitentia. Poenitent[ia] fide et charitate constat. [44][E2v] Irato patre et volente punire liberos, si hi fugiant et magis irritant patrem. Si sponte se subiiciant, citius absolvuntur. Magis subiiciamus Deo patri, Hebr. 12. An vero liberi possunt fugere? Aliqum licitum, aliqum non licet iuxta superiores regulas. Si scandalum detrimentum adferant, peccant. Maiore cum laude agunt, si maneant. Sic Pontificii decerunt[?]‌. Nolunt fugientes damnari et rursus manentes non damnari. Illi dicunt: Tentatem Deum. Alii: Vos fugitis patris disciplinam. Benignitas bonitasque Dei apparet in eo, quod tam amice perduellem defectorem humaniter vocat et recicipit.663 Principes vix alloquuntur alios. Vix auro redimitur aditus. Adam dissimulat peccatum suum, dicit: “Nudus sum”664. Nudatus iustitia metuit et pudet ipsum sui. Nuditas externum argumentum internae corruptionis. Mos hominum tegere peccata, dissimulare, negare. Instat Deus: “Quis id tibi ostendit?”665 “An non edisti?”666 Arguit peccati et revincit ostendes causam nuditatis transgressionem. Nec agnoscimus peccatum, nisi luce divina illuminatur. Est in nobis aliquis sensus boni et mali, sed agnitio peccati non est ex luce naturae, sed ex lege et [45][E3r] Spiritu Dei. Adam hic impellitur a Deo ad agnoscendum peccatum. Utitur Adam translatione, culpam referens ad uxoram. Deum quo da[-​ ]‌ do suggillans: “Tu illam mihi dedisti”.667 Alii aliter accipiunt. Caput uxoris fuit, ergo vidit caluam fore. Malitia non feci [-​] instinctus ab uxore. Priore sensus melior. Sunt inutiles vanae excusationes.



660 homines] interl. add. 661

marg.: Vicinia in parte officii quoque ponitur.

662 regulae] interl. add. 663

See Gen. 3:9. Gen. 3:10. 665 Gen. 3:11. 666 Gen. 3:12. 667 Gen. 3:12. 664

Appendix  381 Mulierem aloquens[?]‌: “Quare, quomodo ausa es facere, ut decerperes, ederes, dares marito.”668 Duo intendit ei. 1) Quod ipsa pecca[ve]rit. 2) Maritum seduxerit. Haec etiam translatione utitur, referens ad serpentem. Iterum ingenium hominis describitur. Dissimulamus, tergiversamur, in alios detorquemus culpam. Sunt qui dicunt: Gratia destituor. Deum culpantes. Sed mentiuntur. Non bene utuntur gratia. Per versitas et pravitas est in nobis omnibus ad hunc. Habemus hic processum indicii Dei. Sequ[u]‌ntur indices h[-​]. Scivit Deus omniam[?], sed citat prius. Interrogat. Revincit. Deinde pronunciat sententiam. Sic faciant indices non ex rumore et calumniis indices. Et Adamum primo citavit, deinde mulierem. Sed nunc alio utitur ordine in sententia ferenda. In serpentem dicit primo, deinde ad Evam, postremo ad Adam[um]. Serpens significat et animal et Sathanam. [46][E3v] Qui serpente usus est organo. Ergo primum damnat animal, deinde Sathanam. Absurdum iniqu[u]‌m videtur animal damnari. Non. Nam omnia in usus hominum condita, ergo poenam merentur, quae ordinem hanc Dei invertunt et nocent homini. Vel per se, vel incitata ab aliis. In Lege bos cornupeta damnatur, Exodi 22. Sic Achan669, Amalechitae670, Core, Dathan671 anathema fiunt cum omnib[us] suis. Poena progreditur non tantum ad animalia sed et ad res alias inanimatas, suppellectilem, vestem. //​Sic in Prytaneo instrumenta caedis vocabantur in iudicium lapis, trabs, gladius. Quod hominum vocet dignum quod damnetur. Magis obnoxius damnationi Sathan, causa mali. Vide quid verearis, si sis causam aliis peccandi. 1) “Maledictus tum per omnib[us] iumentis et bestiis agri.”672 Maledictio omne malum comprehendit. Benedictio omnia bona animi et corporis. Contra maledictio est temporarii et aeterni mali fons et copia. Separati a luce versamur in tenebris. 2) Prae omnib[us] animantibus. An ergo alia quoque maledicta? Rom. 8. Omnis creatura propter hominis lapsum vana. Non ita quidem alia ut serpens misera. Sathan prae omnibus maledictus, abiectior omnibus creaturis, quamvis sit nulle artifex, non vera ratione utitur. [47][E4r] Omnibus abutitur. Vult omnia invertere. Reliquae creaturae etsi ledant aliqu[u]‌m, tamen multiplicis usus. Diabolus nunquam prodest, si prodest, ideo iuvat ut noceat. Hic discrimen apparet maledictionis imo ponae. Diabolus maledicitur, non parentes, terra tamen sub manu Adami. Postea benedicitur parentibus. Alia [-​ -​ -​ ] sathanae. Aspernatur cum suis Christum, agnoscentes ipsum, persequuntur et odiunt, ergo inexpiabile peccatum. Quamvis in hominem etiam sit odium Dei. Spiritu tamen Christi extinguitur in sanctis ne errumpat et flagret. 3) “Super ventrem gradieris. Pulverem comedes.”673 Ad serpentem. Vel primus erectus incessit. Vel erexit Sathan cum eo uteretur. Diabolus caret cibo spirituali, caret pedibus et manib[us] bene operandi. Pulvis vilissimum quidlibet. Saginatur sceleribus. Serpens abdit se in cavernas. Et daemon lucifuga inferos incolit. Quaeritur quare hic mulieris nomen ponatur.//​“Inimicitias ponam”.674 Alii exponunt allegorice et alii ecclesiam intelligant. Sed ad mulierem refertur. Videris victor mulieris propter infirmitatem. Aliquam tamen experieris mulierem tibi restitu[tu]ram et

668

See Gen. 3:13. See Josh. 7. 670 See 1 Sam. 15. 671 See Num. 16. 672 Gen. 3:14. 673 Gen. 3:14. 674 Gen. 3:15. 669

382 Appendix opposituram, ut te vincat. Falsa amicitiae spem decepit. Inimicitia ex opposito vincet. Summa discordia inter semen Dei et Sathanae, [48][E4v] semen Dei et Christi electi. Diaboli semen reprobi et impii. Bellum inter hos implacabili. Coepit ab exordio mundi in Caino. Finietur fine mundi. Abel semen Dei ut et Seth. Inimicitiae inter posteres. Ismael Isaac, Esau Iacob, Saul, David, Prophetae Baal cum veris prophetis haberunt inimicitias. Apostoli et pharisaei. Inimicitiae ille in Sathana et membris eius considerantur. Aliquum in castris impiorum aliquamdiu sunt electi ut Paulus, postea veniunt in ecclesiam. Sed Sathan est perpetuus hostis. Quis finis huius certaminis. Refertur ab omnib[us] veteribus ad Messiam. Recentiores Iudaei non de Messia intelligunt. Veteres Iudaei de Christo. Paulus interpres Galat. 3. per semen intelligitur Christum, qui sit in Christo. In semine ait non in seminibus. Alii exponunt de ecclesia, quae sit unum semen sublata maceria[?]‌. Unus sunt omnes in ecclesia. Nullus Scytha aut Iudeus. //​Promissiones in Mose aliquantulum obscurae. Clariores in prophetis. Lux est in evangelio. Sed propter Christum omnia beneficia accipiuntur omnis generis multo magis spiritualia. Tyrannus princeps mundi fortis dominatus est in orbe, sed fortior venit et depraedatus est ipsum. Vicit. Destruxit potestatem eius. Sanguinem fundit deditque remissionem peccatorem. Contulit spiritu quo fideles renovantur, et h[-​]us in ipso resurrectionem corporum. [49][E5r] Sic contusum est caput serpentis. Conteritur etiam a fidelib[us], Psal. 91. Sed omnem vim in pugna a Christo habent. Egregia haec promissio, quae primi parentes in sua miseria se consolati sunt. Semen mulieris. Quia non ex viri semine sed ex sponsato conceptus est, ex virgine natus. Proprie ergo dicitur semen mulieris. Quomodo calcat, vulnerat calcaneum? Calx infima pars corporis. Christus enim iuxta carnem traditus est. Attentio haec calcanei. Sic vulnerat electos in corporib[us]. Deinde in tentationib[us] prosternens ad tempus breve. Qui lotus est, totus est mundus, nec opus nisi ut pedes lavet. //​Exercentur pii tamen in externis, in animam nil potest. Iam convertit orationem ad Hevam.675 Non redarguit excusationem eius, sed simpliciter pronunciat sententiam. Nulla excusatio valet cum transgreditur praeceptum Dei. Nec convenit maiestati Dei, ut respondeat excusationibus. Liberationem promisit et tamen crux imponitur. Nam etsi condonentur peccata, tamen poenae temporariae imponuntur. Sic fit cum Davide, 2 Sam. 12. Inde colligitur pravitas peccati. Ab aeternis poenis sunt liberati, temporariis exercentur. Complectitur varia genera calamitatum: dolores conceptum sequentes varii, fastidium, deliquium animi, morbiturae animi. In educando labores molestiae. Innumera haec sunt. [50][E5v] Labores, dolores, infirmitates poenae peccati. Cogitemus haec orta ex origine peccati. Agamus poenitentiam. In sententia contra Adam676 1) maledicitur terra qualis ex benedictione colligitur.677 Benedicta est cum fertilio est et profert salubres, ergo maledicta quum non profert fructus aut immaturos unde nascuntur morbi cum est stecilis et incommoda. Hac pertinet expositio maledictionis, Deut. 28. Terra maledicitur, quia ruina hominis attraxit orbem. Omnia enim propter hominem condita. Sicut ergo 1) sphera rapit omnes circulos. Ita cum homo lapsus est, traxit secum omnes creaturas in vanitatem, Rom. 8.



675

See Gen. 3:16. See Gen. 3:17–​19. 677 See Gen. 3:17. 676

Appendix  383 Quid iam de restitutione sentiendum hominis? In sacris litteris promittuntur coeli novi et terra nova. Omnes creaturae expectant reparationem, Rom. 8. Maledictio refertur in hominem non in terram, quia fructus non sibi profert sed homini. 2) M[-​ ]‌labor cum dolore et fatigatione coniunctus.678 Antea iussus est colere paradysum, sed discrimen est inter laborem ante lapsum. Fuerit cum delectatione. Sponte terra ferebat omnia. Sciebat singularum naturas ita excitabatur ad laudem Dei. Post lapsum molestus labor. Non intelligit naturas rerum. Vix coniecturis aliquid assequitur. Labor ergo poena. [51][E6r] Non contentus priore vita voluptuosa merito ergo sic punitur. 3) “Terra proferet spinas.”679 Ante lapsum omnia sponte proferebat. A lapsu utiles herbas non nisi culta profert. Et [-​]‌colitur nihilominus vepreta680 profert. Agricola evertat semel iterum terram, sed lolium semper felicius provenit. Et fertilitas terrae magis magisque imminuitur. Sunt qui putent senescere terram et vires amittere. Sed verior causa Dei maledictio. Peccata accumulantur nova veterib[us]. Manus ergo Dei aggravatur contra ingratos. 4) “Comedes herbas agris.”681 Sed quomodo hoc dicitur, cum antea dictum: “Edes de omni fructu.”682 Aiunt fructibus arborum vixisse, non opus frumento, et leguminibus opus fuisse ut postea. Alii distinguunt inter nomen herbarum. 1) datae in cibum. Sed tunc herbae significabant et arborum. 2) Agrestes nunc significat. Idem cibus hominem et bestiarum. Quia excidit dignitate sua. Interim frugalitas commendatur. Delitias non dat, sed parabilem victum. Poenitentia est exercitium non poena. Commendatur labor, damnatur ocium. Si videt sterilitatem, cogitet se propter peccata sic tractari, et moneatur ad poenitentiam. [52][E6v] 5) “In Sudore etc.”683. Sudor labor dicitur durus cum fatigatione, qui sudorem excutit. Mediocre exercitium confert ad sanitatem. Quae est iustitia huius sententiae? Non enim videtur poena respondere peccata. Divites ociosi. Pauperes laboriosi. Non in omnes peccatores subsidit. Si ita libet cavillari, ne omnib[us] mulieres obnoxiae sunt. Sunt infoecundas. Summa poenarum omnium est obnoxios facere omnibus calamitatibus. Species aliquot enumerantur sed non omnia mala exponuntur. Omnia incommoda ad laborem pertinet coelum inclemens, grando. //​ Cum mors nominatur, intelliguntur dolores et morbi varii. Ante lapsum illis liber. ergo in lapsum omnia incommoda intelligenda. Hesiodus684 et Horatius685 eadem ostendunt [-​]‌longaevi[?], nunc brevis vita et multis obnoxia malis. Itaque [-​] neque pauperum neque divitum eximitur. Dives qui exemptus videtur vel fidelis est vel infidelis. Si fidelis ignavus non est sed omnib[us] inservit. Quam vis ociosus videtur, oppressus curis sum. Si infidelis et desidiosus tamen torquetur curis. Testatur Dionysius Siculus,686 qui suspendit gladium in caput eius, qui putabat Dionysium felicem. //​[53][E7r] Talis est vita tyrannorum. Exempti, qui in Christo sunt, qui tamen etsi premantur omnibus malis, sciunt se reconciliabos, et per haec mortificari veterem Adamum et inovari.



678 679

See Gen. 3:17. Gen. 3:18.

680 vepreta] A: vepetra 681

Gen. 3:18. Gen. 2:16. 683 Gen. 3:19. 684 Hesiod (c. 750–​c. 650 BC). 685 Quintus Horatius Flaccus (65–​8 BC). 686 Dionysius I or Dionysius the Elder (c. 430–​367 BC). 682

384 Appendix An ergo manuarius labor omnibus imponitur? Anabapt[istae] sic sentiunt. Sed ita oportebit omnes esse agricolas. Nam de hoc687 hic dicitur, quod si lex hic poneretur, oporteret omnes esse agricolas. Oportet ergo intelligi et alia artificia, ad qua homines vocantur. Recte ocium damnatur. Ocium est non non libidinis, sed multorum malorum incitamentum. 6) et postremum est[?]‌. Durabunt haec donec resolvaris in pulvereum. “Pulvis es et in pulverem etc.”688 Fabulantur hic Iudaei. //​Durabunt haec mala in omnibus hominibus, quoad vixerint. Sequetur mors. Videtur mors naturalis. Naturale solvi rem in res [-​] composita. Quomodo ergo poena? Etsi principia hic quaedam, tamen poena. Adam audita Domini sententia imposuit nomen uxore Heva.689 Volunt alii ante lapsum hoc factum dum formata fuit, ut illuc redierat. Et quidem non semper servat Moses ordinem rerum. Alii post lapsum nomen datum volunt. Et non male. Prius dicta est Ischa690, vira. Nunc aliud viditur Heva. In etymol[og]ia dissentiunt. [54][E7v] Quidam a Chaldeio derivant a loquacitati quod loqu[u]‌ta sit cum serpente, sed alia hic traditur. A vita. Non quod instabilis vita sit, sed “quod mater esset omnium viventium.”691 Ut hoc nomine suam spem et consolationem, quam acceperat, gestaretur et exprimeret. Ante dictum “Morierimini”692. Interim audierat liberationem per semen mulieris. Dicit ergo: “Posthac non moriemur, sed erit propagatio generis humani.” Praeterea semen promissum aeternam conculcabit mortem. Respexit ad promissionem et Dei beneficium. Alioqui mater erat morientium. Sed et Dominum se ostendit, quia nomen imponit. “Vestes pellis induit eos.”693 Factae e pellibus, vel fact[a]‌e ad cutem humanam corpus inquam. Eiiciendus in tempestates, Deus ergo summa benignitate misere prospicit de vestitui. Non nudum eiicit, sed instruit contra iniuriam coeli. Commendatur nobis clementia, ut qui indicio Dei damnati sunt. Damnantur Iudaaei //​qui Iudaees calamitosos malis affecerunt. Beneficentia exercenda qui patiuntur propter Christum. Vestiendi sunt nudi. Id discamus Dei exemplo. Simplices, frugales non operosas pelliceas. Admonebant peccati. Antea [55][E8r] nullis usi vestibus. Nunc e corio animalium habet. Admonentur beluinae, cupiditatis, peccati. Praeterea per peccatum mundi pudet nos apparere in conspectu Dei. Ut nuditas tegatur oportet, ut Deus induat. Beatus cui obtegit peccata Christus agnus dat vestem. Induimur Christo. Quid in vestitu praecipue spectandum. 1) Honestas. 2) Utilitas. Honestas tegit corpus. Damnentur Cynici et similes disputantes nullum membrum inhonestum inhoneste posse conspici. Utilitas, ut contra iniuriam coeli muniat. Ergo formae, quae non tegunt aut tegenda proferunt. Nimius laxus quoque damnatur. Nocet, non est utilis. Si damnatur in foeminis, 1 Timoth. 2., 1 Petri 3., magis in viris. Non tamen adigimus ad pallium Diogenis694. In veteri Testam[ento] sacerdotatis vestis aliena a vulgo. Iubetur lege, ut distinctae sint a virorum vestes mullierum. Sit ergo decorum. Ne novis peccatis vetera multiplicata.



687 hoc] corr. from hic 688

Gen. 3:19. See Gen. 3:20. 690 ‫[ ִא ּׁשָ ה‬see Gen. 2:23]. 691 Gen. 3:20. 692 See Gen. 2:17. 693 Gen. 3:21. 694 Diogenes of Sinope (404–​323 BC), Cynic philosopher. 689

Appendix  385 Unde petitae vestaes. An coriarium pelli ficium[?]‌695 aut sanctorem faciemus Deum? Alii dicunt inditum parentib[us] artem[?], ut mactarum[?] omnib[us] tergora induerunt. Alii respiciunt ad Dei potentiam. [56][E8v] Curiosae sunt quaestiones. Qui iubendo terram cespite induit et hominem induere potuit. Iulius Cassanius696 author [-​]‌tarum docens Christum non veram sumpsisse carnem697. Vide Clementem698 in 3 Stromateων, et Ephiphanium699 in Haeresi Origenis700. Proclus quoque habet suam sententiam. Nullo modo ferendum, ut haec historia detorqueatur in allegoriam. Cherubim generatim species alatarum imaginum facie humana tegentes arcam. In Ezechiele Cherubim nominantur animalia, 1. cap. Angeli proprie dicuntur Cherubim, quod specie humana appareant. Alati apparent Isaiae 6. In apoc. apparet angelus volans. Celeritas ministerii significatur. Angelica custodia posita est ab ante[?]‌paradyso, quacumque voluit homo ingredi volebat, arcebatur.701 “Gladius splendens”702. Varie intelligitur loco esse paradysum. Quidam exponunt de zona torrida. Excludimur coeli ardore. Sed multis rationibus confutari possunt. Falsum torridam habitari non posse. Cum paradysus fuerit[?]‌in hisce terris, angelus vel plures angeli positi cum gladiis splendentibus ad custodiam paradysi. Non hic tantum, sed Numeri 22 apparet Balaamo703 ang[elus] stricto gla[57][F1r]dio. Sic Davidi Paral.704 circa finem apparuit angelus stricto gladio. Ita hic testatur Deus iram suam contra peccatum. Graeci dicunt quod Adam ostenderit filiis et docuerit timere Dominum. An manet, an duravit ad tempus? Greci aiunt Adamo vivente durasse. Sed cum Scripturae nil dicant de hoc, certi nihil dicere possumus. Verisimile. Paulatim disparuisse amoenitatem paradysi, et cum tempore cum alia terra redactam in squalorem. Tunc sublatam custodiam. Sic videmus terram sanctam benedictam squalorem abiisse. Hierosol. urbs celeberrima, sed tandem non mansit lapis super lapidem. Nil ergo mirum si paradysus fuit vastatus. Certe diluvio adobruta fuit aquis et destructa. Sed et maledictio terrae comprehendit paradysum. Cessavit propter peccatum singularis locus et ornatus. Nec ratio omni[?]‌potest cur paradysus retineri debuit. Corporalia salus non requirit. Corpora non substantia sed qualitate angelis similia. Chiliastae fingunt delitias corporeas, sed dudum est explosa sententia illa.

CAP. IIII

I nitio describit primos liberos Adami facta et studia, posteritatem Caini et prolem Adami Seth. In paradyso non cognovit Adam uxorem . . . [58][F1v] –​[77][M3r]705 [78][M3v] Ex Cap. XV.



695

ficium[?]‌] corr. from ficis. Julius Cassanius (?–​c. 170), Roman Gnostic. 697 carnem] corr. from illegible word. 698 Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–​c. 215). 699 Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 315–​403). 700 Origen (183/​184–​253/​254). 701 See Gen. 3:24. 702 Gen. 3:24. 703 Balaamo] interl. add. 704 Paral.] prec. by del. [-​]‌ 705 Between [F1v] and [M1r] 96 pages are missing, corresponding approximately to ­chapter 5–​13. 696

386 Appendix 2. parte promissio proponitur de numeroso semine. Prius oravit. Abraham Deum [-​]‌ quaestus est se carere liberis et cogi se substituere Eliezaer, qui rederet in familiam Abrahe. Lothum non recepit quia scivit ipsum [-​] cupidum proprii generis nec transiturum in nomen Abrahae. An non habuit antea promissionem seminis? Affectu humano praeditus petit. Sed et videbat promissiones omnes spectare in semen benedictum. Voluit ergo habere filium, ex quo nascatur filius ille benedictus. Et Deus approbavit petitionem. Respondet enim Eliezer non futurum haeredem. Forte petivit: An accepturus filium ex natura, an ex adoptione? Respondet: non adoptione. Syrus et servus ille irat. Voluit nasci ex ingenio. Licet affectus in Abrahamo humanus, tamen simul respectus in semen benedictum. Unde grata petitio. Sin[?]‌fide non fuisset grata. Quale semen futurum ostenditur similitudine elegant[-​]‌. Educit[ur]. Iubetur spectare stellae coeli.706 Quidam putant facta haec per visionem interius non quod egressus sit tabernaculum. Sed nil obstat quo minus ad litteram intelligamus, corporeis sensibus obiectum. Genius usus similitudinis. 1) Deo facile dare subolem qualem promittebat innumerum, quia orbus senex Sara [79][M4r] sterilis. Suspice cogita Verbo coelum esse creatum et repletum stellis. An dubitabis posse Deum ut natum[?]‌coelum stellis replere, ita domum tuam liberis. 2) Stellae innumerae, arena innumerabilis. Ergo posteritas erit innumerabilis. Duplex item conditio filiorum Abrahae. In ignominia arena. In gloria stellae. Sed et pii sunt arena conculcati cruce. Sed eriunt[?] in gloria stellae, Danielis 12., 1 Cor. 15. Duplex scilicet status sic illustratur. Hilar. 138. ostendit duplicem ordinem ait ostendit. Servorum per arenas, ingeniorum per stellas. Ad quos refertur promissio numerositatis? Perfectissime ad filios promissionis. Triplex ordo fil[iorum] Abr[ahae]. 1) Secundum carnem geniti. Ad eos non pertinent promissiones. Tales Ismaelitae, Idumei, ab Esau Madianitae. Non habuerunt oracula et cultum. 2) Secundum carnem et qui promissiones habent, sed adulterini filii, qui non insistunt Abr. vestigiis. Iudaei, Joan 8.707 3) Secundum Spiritum fidei et promissionis filii. Legitimi hi sunt. Ex lapidib[us] fili hi possunt excitari, Math. 3., Rom. 4. Etsi numerosus populus Iudaeorum, tamen haec promissio corporaliter praestita, praestita plenissime in ecclesia diffusa per orbem terrarum. Ignoramus fines et terminos ecclesiae. Sunt et sub Mahometanis. //​ [80][M4v] Ecclesia quoque gloria superat Iudaeos quanto magis spiritualia temporalia. Non quod inter Iudaeos non fuerint vere filii, sed comparamus cum ecclesia. Argumentum hinc petuntur ad confutandam astrologiam. Infiniti non potest haberi certa scientia. Et stellae sunt innumerae. Non sunt quidem stellae ociosae. Nec omnis ars astronomiae tollitur. Innumerae herbae, sed id[-​]‌non nulla est medica. Motus planetarum observatus. Alia ratio de effectibus. De influxibus nil certi possumus. Rursus si contempleris stellas quo diutius eo plures videbis, si coelum serenum. Item si purum coelum et aterrima nox plures nihilo minus videbis. Sic in tribulationibus apparent magis et splendent fideles. Item plures electos, non pauculos. 3 pars huius cap[it is]. “Credidit Abr[aham] Deo et id imputatum ad iustitiam.”708 Gemma[?]‌est haec sententia, licet brevis. Ex hac Paulus Rom. 4. argumenta aliquot



706

See Gen. 15:5. Joan. 8.] interl. add. 708 Gen. 15:6. 707

Appendix  387 contexit, probans nos iustificandos fide in Christum. Non curemus hic pseudochr. et Iudaeos, ut exactius intelligatur locus hic, obscurus. 1) Fides Abr[ahae], quae et qualis. 2) Quid sit imputare ad iustitiam. 1) Fides Abrahae respexit in Christum et credidit in Christum.709 Nulla est fides alia710 iustificans nisi in Christum. Abr[aham] habuit fidem711 iustificantem, ergo credidit [81] [M5r] in Christum. Principio[?]‌quod nulla sit iustificatio712 nisi per fidem, probatur Rom. 3[:22].: “Iustitia Dei per fidem”.713 Idem dicit: “Christus propitiatio per fidem propositus”.714 Idem: “Deus iustus et iustificans illum qui fidei est in Jesum Christum.”715 Cap. 4.: Pater Abrah[am]716 credentium.717 Quorum? Qui fidem habent Abrahae, “qui incedunt vestigiis fidei”.718 Qualis? In fine dicitur qui credunt in Christum.719 Ergo Abraham credidit in Christum. Cap. 10[:9]. iustificans fides describitur720: “Si confessus fueris ore, credideris corde”. //​Quid confitendum, quid credendum? In Christum quod resurrexit. //​Cap. 11 repudiatio describitur, gentes insitae in olivam, Iudaei effracti per incred[ulitatem]. Quae fides gentium? Quod crediderunt in Christum. Quae infid[elitas] Iudaeorum? Non crediderunt in Christum. Ergo si in oleam inserimur, fide Christi. Abraham cred[idit] in Christum. Item, Galat. 2[:15].: “Nos natura Iudaei”. //​Fidei diserte ascribit iustificationem,721 ergo nulla alia fide quam Christi iustificari.722 Dicis, Paulum scribere illa sic, sed non poni hic exlusivam.723 Caeterum apostolus praedicat unam fidem. Si haec aliud haberet obiectum quam Christum, non esset una, sed multiplex.724 Et in fine cap[itis] 4 aperte dicit nobis fidem imputandum ut Abrahae. Ergo Abrahae fides in Christum imputata est. Nam nobis iustificatio obtingit per Christum. Fides et promissio mutuum[?]‌respiciunt. Fides nititur promissioni et amplectitur. Promissio Abr[a]h facta de Christo, ergo credidit in Christum. Minor probatur ex 3. cap. ad Galat[as]: “In semine tuo”.725 //​ [82][M5v] Item: “Cui facta est promissio”,726 in quo scilicet promiss[-​]‌benedictio. Alia argumenta petitur ex eodem cap[ite]. Promissiones reliquae datae patribus respiciunt primam in paradyso. Posteriores illustrant primam. Licet addita quaedam cultus mosaicus. Promissio terrae, sed umbrae fuerunt futuri Christi. Prima promissio data est de semine.727 Repetita Abrahae. Benedicentur. In Paradyso. Conculcabit caput serpentis. Deligitur Abraham inde Isaac, Iacob, Iudas, David. Multa de Christo explicantur hic de nati vitate, de morte et reb[us]

709

marg.: Abr[aham] credidisse in Christum.

711

marg.: fide iustificatum.

710 alia] interl. add.

712 iustificatio] A: iustificantio. 713

Iustitia . . . fidem] marg. add. Rom. 3:25. 715 Rom. 3:26; in . . . Christum”: interl. add. 716 Abrah[am]] interl. add. 717 See Rom. 4:11. 718 Rom. 4:12; “qui . . . fidei”] interl.add. 719 See Rom. 4:24. 720 iustificans . . . describitur] interl. add. 721 iustificationem] prec. by del. fidei 722 ergo . . . iustificari] interl. add. 723 exclusivam] corr. from exclud 724 sed multiplex] interl. add. 725 Gal. 3:16. 726 Gal. 3:16. 727 See Gen. 3:15. 714

388 Appendix Christi omnibus. In omnib[us] seminis fit mentio. Ita in mediis promissionib[us] per semen intelligamus Christum. Semper ad caput redeundum. Omnium beneficiorum Dei caput Christus est. Omnes promissiones respiciunt ad Christum. Omnia dona oblata a Deo vel irato vel placido offerrunt? Ab irato nil boni misi ad poenam, ergo a propitio. Est autem propitius propter filium, in quo omnia nobis dat. Ergo terrae promissio et omnium rerum terrenarum respicit in Christum. Christo omni promissionem Abrahae caput est. Abraham ea fide pater est qua sumus filii. Relatio est inter patrem et filium. Credentes fili Abrahae per fidem filii sunt, ergo Abraham credidit in Christum. Galat., qui ex fide filii sunt. Item [83][M6r] Christi sunt semen et filii sunt. Rom. 4. Pater credentium. Qui? Qui ambulant in fide Abrahae.728 Sequitur Abraham credidisse in Christum, ambulasse fide. Non respexit fides Abrahae tantum temporarias res. Ioan. 8[:56]. Gavisus quia vidit diem Christi, non sensu nec ex lumine natura. Caro et sanguis non revelat. Sequitur ergo, quod supernaturali luce id est fide cognoverit. Plena fuit fides, quia genuit gaudium. Ex fide pax et gaudium, Rom. 5[:1]. Patres veteres testantur Abrah[am] credididisse in Christum, visum in apparitionib[us], qui tamen nondum carne assumpta apparuit Christus, praeludens incarnationi. Viderunt et adorarunt. Iustus Ireneus et Tertull[ianus] hoc ostendunt. Si adoravit ergo credidit Abraham.729 Nisi idolelatra fuerit. Aiunt credidisse Abr[a]‌h[am] se habiturum semen et non in semen.730 Nam Rom. 4[:18]: “In spe contra spem credidit”. Lege reliqua, sed robustus factus fide. //​Obiectum fidei, se fore patrem multarum gentium, ergo a simili arguementatur Paulus, ut Abraham iustificatus sua fide in semen multiplex731 ita nos nostra fide in Christum.732. //​Respondemus. Non excludit Christum, in quo pater est multarum gentium. Ibidem, ex fide est hereditas, ut firma sit hereditas. //​ [84][M6v] Et illa promissio de copioso semine irrita est sine Christo. Alia multitudo spectanda splendida fidelium. Alias ex Hagar Hagareni, copiosissimi fuerunt. Ioan. 8 dicit fideles in Christum filios.733 Multitudinem seminis Math. 8[:11]. exponit Christo: “Ab oriente et occidente”. //​Manet firma promissio in Christo. Quod apostolus addit die spe firma non pugnant nobiscum. Credidit per Christum et propter Christum se accepturum semen. Contra spem sub spe credimus etiam expectare vitam a crucifixo. //​Respiciamus totam promissionem non partem. Ireneus 4. cap. 13., Ambros[ius] De Abrah[am] cap. 3, Hilarius lib. 4. De Trinit[ate], lib. 5. quoque testatur. August[inus] in Exposit. ad Galat. Omnes aiunt fide in Christum esse iustificatum, et visum Christum et agnitum a patribus. 2) Quomodo fides imputata Abrahae ad iustitiam? Quidam exponunt: Credidit Deum terram Chanaan fore clypeum daturum subolem. Abrahamus imputavit Deo ad iustitiam quod scilicet Deus iustus sit. Sed haec expositio inepta. Potest refelli ex textu hebraica. Imputatio refertur ad Iehovah, qui Abrahae imputavit ad iustitiam. Apostolus diserte exponit Roman. 4. de Abraham. //​ Quae interpretationis ratio indagandum. [85][M7r] Fides pro iustitia habetur vel est loco iustitiae. Imputatio acceptilatio est. In iure fit imaginaria solutio debitum. Haec est

728 Abrahae] A: Abraham. 729

marg.: Si adoravit ergo credidit. et . . . semen] interl. add. 731 fide . . . multiplex] interl. add. 732 in Christum] interl. add. 733 marg.: Galat. 4. Isaiae 66. 730

Appendix  389 acceptilatio. Habet ille quasi sit salutum. Nos cum non simus solvendo propter peccatum. Christus satisfacit. Illa imputatur nobis. Levit. 7. Expiatione facta non imputatur peccatum. 19. cap. 2 lib. Samuel. Se[-​]‌Davidem maledictem apparuerat muniam[?] pelens. Ne imputet nisi rex iniquitatem. Ne velit meminisse vel poenam sumere. 2 Reg. 12. Non imputabant virus quib[us] dederunt pecuniam. Non exigebant rationem huius pecuniae. 2 Timoth. 4. Non imputet eis Deus quod ne deseruerunt, ne poenas poscat. Non imputare est non exigere rationem rei. Censeri loco iustitiae. Fides habetur loco iustitiae. Petitum a creditoribus et debitoribus. Creditor Deus qui omni rerum rationem exigit. Nos sumus ei obstricti propter peccata ad poenam ni fiat satisfactio. Alii volunt relationem esse ad iudicium Dei. Ubi non imputantur peccata. Utrumque non alienum a Paulo. Distiguendum inter imputat. Fidei ad iustitiam et imputat. Christi meriti. Dicitur imputari Christi iustitia nobis. Dicitur item fidem imputari ad iustitiam. Iustitia Christi imputatur quum fit translatio in nos iustitia Christi et nostra fit. [86][M7v] Rursus non est translatio sed imputatio quum dicitur fides imputari, id est loco haberi iustitiae. Ex apostolo colligitur hic sensus. Rom. 4. Imputatio habet significationem gratuitae iustitiae, non operum. Imputare non est ex vi operum sed gratis per fidem iustum censeri. Confirmat hoc testimonio Davidis. “Benedici quorum remissa.”734 //​Paria fidem reputari et peccata remittere, non imputare, non intrare in iudicium. //​ Translatio peccaturum facta in Christum, non quod peccator fuerit, sed quod poena translata, et ille satisfecit. Ut peccata nostra in ipsum, ita ipsum adeoque iustitia eius in nos transfertur, nostra fit et sumus iusti in Christo et remissa peccata. Deus ne iniustus iudex? Ergo non imputaret, quod re in nobis est, et imputare, quod non in nobis. Absurdissima ergo haec sunt. Respondemus. Quod nos Scriptura docet id non putabimus absurdum. Rom. 7., 1 Joan. 1. testatur Scriptura in hominib[us] esse peccata, et interim dicitur in eadem nos esse iustos. Cedat ergo ratio absurditatis. Peccatum dicimus in sanctis non absolute sed quodam modo. Manet viciositas in finem, manet ergo peccatum, non quod delecteantur, quod oderunt. Pugna est [87][M8r] et mortificatio perpetua. Dicimus qui alieni a Deo impoenitentes non illa habere. Qui illuminati sunt, oderunt peccatum. Imputatio non est ociosa. In humanis imputationib[us] nil constans cum hominum voluntates mutabiles. Dei voluntas immutabilis. Fides tamen apprehendit, non lenitur, sed firmitur. Hic est firma imputatio, et sequuntur ampliss[ima] dona sanctificationis //​Non quod per illa iustificetur, prius est iustificatus. Plena et perfecta iustitia Christi est, cui possumus confidere. Fuerunt egregia facta Dei quod reliquit patriam et alia inumera, non tamen illa ei imputantur ad iustitiam. Ne restringamus ad hoc tantum tempus, quasi antea non iustificatus. Fidem ab initio in Christum habuit, et fuit iustus, et postea refutatus est iustus sed ex fide. Sunt qui volunt fidem esse incohationem opera esse perfectionem iustitiae. Sed non ita Scriptura. Continuatur iustificatio fidei per totam vitam. Repetitur promissio Terra factae. Insignit Dominus se liberatione ex Ura.735 Sic in lege: “Ego Dominus, qui te eduxi ex Aegypto.”736 Revocantur beneficia Dei in memoriam ad instaurandam fidem et confirmandam.



734

Ps. 32:1. See Gen. 15:7. 736 Exod. 20:2. 735

390 Appendix Idem ego qui benefeci porra benefaciam. [88][M8v] Sic Deus perpetuo adest ecclesiae suae. Abraham petit signum aliquod.737 Dicunt aliqui, qui petit signum infirmae est fidei. Abraham petit, ergo infirma habuit fidem. Nego maiorem. Nam signum petunt et impii, Math. 12. Petunt et bonae fidei, signum in Scriptura. Petitur signum et pignus promissionis propter posteros. Cum Verbum habemus, quid opus signis? Verbum quidem praestantius, sed nihilo minus animi significantur, moventur signis. Et signa non separanda a Verba. Iubet Deus sumere vitulam, capram.738 //​Alii triplicant haec, 3 vitulas, 3 capras. //​Iulianus carpit hunc locum. Cyrillus confutat. Est confirmatio foederis. Ritus fuit orientalium sic pangere foedera. Producit Sophoclem. Ierem. 34. ostendit et Iudaeis hanc esse consuetudinem. Ritum non carpit Ieremias, sed quod non steterint foede[r]‌i. Non assedit, ut aitent LXX. Haberet respectum ad augurium. Hebraeus habet. Abegit aves,739 ergo non observavit. Usus Abraham hoc rito ad confirmandam posteritatem. Exprimitur ratio quomodo danda terra.740 Praecedet servitus. Sequetur liberatio. Mactantur animalia, a morte initium fit. Dividuntur, ex opposito ponuntur veluti coniungendi rursus.741 Custos Abraham abigit rapaces aves.742 Deus defendit suos adversus vim[?]‌omni hostium. Oraculo sequenti melius omnia exponuntur. Cum occumberet sol, dormit Abraham.743 [89][N1r] In somnio apparet Deus. Visio et somnium genera revelationis. Horror significat divinam esse revelationem. Partes orandi. 1) Semen erit peregrinum in terra non sua per 400 anos. Incipiendum non a peregrinatione Aegypti sed a Chananae.744 Sic numerandum decet[?]‌Paulus Galat. 3. A prima promissione facta. Diuturnum erit exilium. 2) Servient et tyrannide prementur.745 Ita initia sunt admodum trista. A morte tamen itur in vitam. 3) Praeclara consolatio. Ego, ait Deus, non deseram meos, sed de hostibus sumam supplicium. Pertinent haec ad universam ecclesiam. Nam perpetuo vindicat ecclesiae vires. Dicit se futurum iudicem.746 Dat iustum praemium cuique. 4) Egredientur magis cum opib[us].747 Ditati spoliis Aegyptiorum Israëlitae. Semper ecclesia ex persequientib[us] exit multo cum spolio. Convertuntur multi. Fides fidelium fit illustrior. 5) Fiet quarta generatione. Alii alitur numerant 4 generationes.748 Sed significat quarto saeculo revertentur. Totum tempus inter medium a promissione 1 ad exitur comprehenditur. 6) Propria singularis consolatio Abrahae. Etsi multa mala maneant, tamen t[-​ ]‌ vives in pace et malis illis eris immunis. Morieris in pace,749 id est non violenta morte

737

See Gen. 15:8. See Gen. 15:9. 739 See. Gen. 15:11. 740 See Gen. 15:13–​14. 741 See Gen. 15:10. 742 See Gen. 15:11. 743 See Gen. 15:12. 744 See Gen. 15:13. 745 See Gen. 15:13. 746 See Gen. 15:14. 747 See Gen. 15:14. 748 See Gen. 15:16. 749 See Gen. 15:15. 738

Appendix  391 non occideris. Item mori morte facile cum sine magno dolore exceditur. Sed et altius significatur pax. [90][N1v] In pace mori est mori morte iustorum. Impii cum moriendum horrent et[?] spe vitae destituuntur. Sentiunt veras poenas, quas per fabulis habuerunt. Pii bona et[?] scientia praediti acquiescunt in fide Deo, scientes se certe victuros cum Deo. Cui commendant spiritum suum. Spes bona altrix senuum[?]. Habent qui Christo credunt. Impare moriuntur credentes in Christum. 7) Nondum introducemini in terram quia nondum adest tempus quo Deus Amorrheos puniet.750 Non voluit Deus eos statui pellere nisi prius appareret iustitia. Commeruerant eiici. Dat poenitentiam, ut agant anos 400, cum non poeniterent gens universa deleta et pulsa ex hac terra. Errones per Aphricam aiunt posteros esse Amorrheorum Non inquiramus curiose, cur Deus tam diu sustinuerit, quos scivit non emendandos. Colligimus universale. Manent populi in suis regionib[us], nisi se sceleribus eiiciant. Sic manent hi Amorrei. Iudaei per Babylonios et postea per Romanos. Antea tamen admoniti sunt. Cum nil efficeretur tandem poenas dederunt Iudaei. Israelitis brevius spacium datum poentitentiae tempus, quia quotidianam habuerunt praedicationem. Curemus ergo ne spernamus praedicationem Verbi, sed agamus mature poenitentiam. [91][N2r] Postremo loco cap. huius, visus furnus ardens Abrahamo. //​Hoc modo sancitum foedus a Deo.751 Volunt igne consumptas partes alium. Fuit symbolum obiectum visui Abrahae. Furnus fumus caligo magna. Symbola rerum tristium et durissimarum. Adfertur tristia. Sed subito lampas erumpit. E morte vita et e tenebris lux liberatio. Gentes iam enumerantur.752 Ponuntur Euphrates et Nilues termini. Assequuti demum David et Salomon. Expectemus ergo patienter, quae promittit Deus, licet non mox praestemur.

EX CAP XVI

... [92][N2v]–​[94][N3v] [95][N4r] . . .

EX CAP. XVII Commemoratio foederis sanciti cum Abraham. 1) Tempus sanctionis ostenditur. “Erat annorum 99”.753 Annus 24. ab exitu e terra Charrantis,754 annus 13. a nato Ismaele. Non exprimuntur hi quid egerit Abr[aham].755 Illis tamen 13 annis multa pie fecit Abraham. Excelluit virtutib[us] omnibus. Omittuntur tamen. Satis Spirituisancto ea generare, quae videbantur maxime cognitu necessaria. Acquievit Abraham in Ismaele, putans se aliqua ratione promissionem accepisse. Sed alia erant consilia Dei. Admiranda ratio Dei consiliorum. Apparitio ostendit ostentabilem oblatam sp[-​]‌Abrahamo.756 Oraculum ei coniunctum fuit. Ratio foederis primo brevi sententia comprehenditur Deinde copiosius explicatur. Summa est: “Ego Deus”.757 In pactis sunt duo capita paciscentis et eius cum quo sit pacendum. Deus paciscitur. Cum Abrahame fit pactum.

750

See Gen. 15:16. See Gen. 15:17–​18. 752 See Gen. 15:19–​21. 753 Gen. 17:1. 754 See Gen. 12:4. 755 quid . . . Abr[aham]]marg. add. 756 See Gen. 17:1. 757 Gen. 17:1. 751

392 Appendix “Ani El Schadai.”758 Ego, emphasice scilicet solus nec ullus alius. El, a robore datus est. Schadai, ad potentiam et vastationem[?]‌referunt. Potentiam exerit in punitione. Alii volunt significari sufficientiam. Qui sibi ipsi sufficit nec aliunde pendet et omnibus sufficit conservandis. Hebraei multa dicunt, quod sit conservatio mundi. [96][N4v] Non est meditatio sola et speculatio, sed Dei promissio. Vole uti potentia, sufficientia erga nos. Tanto spem collocabant in me. Altera pars foederis ad eum pertinet, cum quo pactus est Deus.759 Ambulare cum Deo est Deum colere, Chaldaeus sic vertit. Ambulandi voce significatur tota vita et omnes actiones. //​Ambulat coram Deo qui vitam instituit ad voluntatem Dei, quasi coram videamus Deum praesentem, ut inspectorem nostrorum operum. Qui nos respiciunt creaturas. Alia conditio: “Esto perfectus.”760 Animi integritas intelligitur et opponitur hypocrisi. Interni animi motus intelligitur. Nil simulate cum Deo agendum. Vir perfectionis, qui nil fucate agit, sed synceriter. Simus sancti et irrepraehensibile coram Deo. Ephes. 1[:4].: “Electi autem mundum, ut inculpati sumus.” Fundamentum foederis est gratuita receptio. Requirit tamen fidem, et ut ex fide perfecti simus. Comprehendamus perfectionem Christi absolutam, quae imputetur nobis. Deinde renovemur per omnem vitam in integritate. Plenissimum absolvitur in alio mundo, cum exuti fuerimus vetustate. Eadem capita sunt in novo foedere. Non audiendi, qui vetus foedus contendunt externa cum promisisse. Inter quos sancitum sit foedus sequitur. [97][N5r] Uberius enim summam consequenter exponuit. “Ponam foedus inter me et te.”761 Statuam, non nunc primum. Statuere est renovare, confirmare et sancire foedus. Antea quoque foedus fecit etiam solemni ceremonia, Genesis 15. Item 12. cap. est etiam pactum factum. Promittit ibi se Deum futurum. Et stipulatur, ut exeat e patria. Iteratur ergo hic foedus et novum apponitur signum circumcisionis. Repetit caput de multiplicando semine supra modum.762 Promissio haec superius quoque posita. Ergo hic iteratur et charius exponitur, quia valde desiderabat semen. Sed et promissio haec seminis protinebat ad ecclesiam, quae est semen spirituale. Vocatio gentium hic praedicitur. Ritu adorandi declarat suam reverentiam et obedentiam.763 Debuit pendere totus a Deo. Iam promittit se hoc futurum. Procidit in faciem. Silet et sancite adorat. Simul se promittit obediturum. Dixit multiplicandum, nunc clarius: “Eris pater multarum gentium.”764 Ego Iehova hoc promitto, qui praestare possum. Pater multarum gentium varie exponitur a Iudaeis. Praestita in Isaaco. Sed alia ratione spiritualiter impletum. Gentes credentes erunt, filii Goii dicuntur. Non dicit multorum populorum sed Gojim765.

758

Gen. 17:1: ‫אֲ נִי־אֵ ֣ל ׁשַ ַ ֔ ּדי‬. See Gen. 17:1. 760 Gen. 17:1. 761 Gen. 17:2. 762 See Gen. 17:4. 763 See Gen. 17:3. 764 Gen. 17:4. 765 ‫[גֹּו ִי ֖ם‬see Gen. 17:4]. 759

Appendix  393 [98][N5v] Renovatio fit foederis. Mutatur nomen Abrahae eo, quod futurus sit pater multarum gentium.766 Nomen admonet divinae promissionibus et excitat fidem. Aiunt nomen componi ex quatuor pater multitudinis excelsus gentium. Prima mutatio nominis, quam habemus in sacris literis. Mutatum postea Sara, Iacob, Iosua, Petrus boanerges. In omnibus iis mutationibus ratio certa, gratiae Dei novae et officii admonitio. Isaaco non est mutatus nomen. Quia quod habuit, a Deo habuit. Abraham et Iacob a parentibus nomina data. Mutant nomina Pontifices, Monachi, quia abiiciunt nomina baptismi et transeunt in aliam religionem. Semen quale?767 Iudaei principio, quia illorum est adoptio, Rom. 9. Horum minister Christus dicitur, Rom. 15. Solis Iudaeis ab initio praedicatum. Peculiariter pertinet circumcisio et Terra Chanaan ad Iudaeos. Pertinet ergo foedus primo ad Iudeos. Deinde reiectis Iudaeis nos sumus semen et sumus in foedere. Et ad nos pertinet foedus. Dicitur aeternum est foedus.768 Quia decurrit a Iudaeis ad gentes, quae receptae sunt a Deo. Continatur foedus. Liberi quoque pertinent ad ecclesiam ratione foederis vel promissionis. Psal. 89. scriptus de firmitate foederis. Si increduli parentes non vacat liberis. Conditio foederis, ut sui tibi in Deum,769 ergo non tantum temporarium foedus. Deus est eorum Deus. Quid sit esse Deum ostendit [99][N6r] Christus. Si Deus est, Abraham ergo vivit. Deus est, ergo vita est omne bonum servator. Servat animam et corpus plene. Si Deus veterum Deus fuit, ergo servator fuit non corporum tantum, sed et animarum. Errant ergo qui petant patres tantum terrenas habuisse promissiones. Promissio Chanaan770 est auctarium, potissimum est: “Sum Deus tuus”771. Sed et terra promissa fuit typus aeternae patriae. Habemus in novo foedere temporales promissiones sed non alligamur loco, quod velit Romae vel alibi servator esse. Subiungitur solemnis confirmatio pacti. Foedera solent tabulis inscribi et proponi. Hic voluit inscribi corpori Abrahae. Circumcisio est symbolum foederis.772 Circumcisio dicitur foedus, et non erat foedus nisi figurate.773 Nec nuda tessera fuit. Habuit adiunctam promissionem. Erat visibile Verbum. Offerebat visui hominum res. Signum non est a Verbo seiungendum, sed fide recipiendum. Turpiter errant qui sine Verbo signa proponunt. Item, qui non intelligibili lingua proponunt. Mares iubentur circumcidi, et tamen foeminae quoque in foedere, et tamen masculis solis datur foederis symbolum.774 Mysterium, admonemur in veteri homine circumcidenda praecipua et praestantia non crassae cupicidates sed sapientia nostra. //​ Caro praeputii circumcidenda est. Ridiculum [100][N6v] videtur contumeliose dicti “Recutiti”775. Membrum generationi destinatum circumciditur, quia nativitas impurum. Semen promissum praestat legem et circumcidit vere.



766

See Gen. 17:5. See Gen. 17:7. 768 See Gen. 17:7. 769 See Gen. 17:7. 770 See Gen. 17:8. 771 Gen. 17:7. 772 See Gen. 17:10–​11. 773 See Gen. 17:10. 774 See Gen. 17:12–​13. 775 See Gen. 17:11. 767

394 Appendix Circumcisio signum foederis. Fundamentum Christus, quia promittitur semen. Semen est Christus, Galat. 3. Eadem ratio circumcis[ionis] et baptismi. Substantia utriusque eadem est. Circumcis[io] in locum successit baptis[mum], sicut novum sequitur foedus vetus. Ut foedera sibi successerunt, sic signa. Quod autem foedera sunt sequuta, testantur apostoli. Populus vetus est arbor, non penitus excisa sed rami amputati, insiti alii rami in excisorum locum. Novum foedus in locum veteris substitutum itaque. Idem foedus quo ad substantiam, externa variant. Circumcisio obsignatio iustitia fidei. Ita et baptismus. Coloss. 2[:11]. baptismus vocatur Christi circumcisio: “Circumcisi sine manibus circumcisione per baptismum.” Non necessaria legalia, quia in Christo estis completi et iniciati Christo non per initiationem sed per spirituralem, quae est baptismus. Locum non habet circumcis[io] externa. Complementum Christus per quem perficitur, quod significatum est circumc[isio]. Si successit eadem, est utriusque ratio communis bapt[ismi] antiquis et puellis. Anabapt[istae] aiunt circumcisio fuit in sexui mandata Genesis 17., sed baptismus communis sexibus. Ergo non successit in locum circ[umcisionis]. Respondio: Ex adiuncto concluditur ad substantiam. Non convenit mulieribus circumcis[endio]. Sed substantia pertinet ad mulieres. Sunt semen Abrahae. [101][N7r]Si res communis simile commune non fuit, inde non sequitur non successisse. Quia uberior gratia novi testamenti. Adiunctum, ergo latius paret. Sed in substantia non mutatum. Item, circumcisio 8 die fiebat. Baptismus semper datur. //​Ergo non successit. Eadem ratio. Pertinet tempus ad accidens non ad substantiam. Diei observatio ad legalem paedagogiam pertinet. Item, circumcisio non habet formam verborum. Bapt[ismus] certis conceptis Verbis datur. Sed unde antecedens probant? Et ut concedamus, non sequitur inde differentia in substantia. Item, circumcisio non iteratur, data foemina, ut Zepora.776 At baptismus iteratur Actorum 19., ergo diversa ratio. Dicerent circumcisio recte data non iteratur, baptismus iteratur. //​Iam nego hanc assumptionem. Non iteratur baptismus. Act. 19. aqua non fuerunt baptisati, sed baptismo Spiritus, dono linguarum. Alii intelligunt de doctrina. Erant instituti in doctrina Ioannis. Sed et legitimus non erat baptismus. Quia nesciebant, an sit Spiritus. At baptis[mus] datur in nomine Spiritus. Non ergo rite baptisati. Sed et dicunt Bapt[ismum] Ioan[nis] et Christi differe. Quid ergo hic probant? Item, diluvium signum baptismi. Sed si eadem symbola fuit, 2 circumcisionis. Sed ita falsum ergo. Non sequitur debuisse diluvium esse signum circumcisionis. Mana non fuit typus Paschatis, utrumque christi. [102][N7v] Item, circumcisi Israelitae, ergo et baptisati. Sane quo ad substantiam, non quo ad ritum. Tribuit apostolus, 1 Cor. 10. Ergo qui ex Iudaeis baptizati, bis sunt baptisati. Dicimus rem significatum idem, symbola differere. Ergo non sunt bis baptisati. Sed in eadem rem obsignati diversis signis. Non licet ab infirmiori ad firmius argumentari. Quia a Mana, non licet argumentari ad coenam. Sic daretur pueris. Propositionem neque, quia a veterib[us] sacramentis argumentatus est Paulus ad nova. Sed et infantibus olim data est eucharistia. Sed et mana non fuit ritorum sacramentium. Dissimilis ratio, quia Paulus ait: “Diudicet se homo”.777



776 777

See Exod. 4:24. 1 Cor. 11:28.

Appendix  395 Item, circumcisio astringit legi, Galat. 5. Nil est. Ergo. Loquitur de circumcisione ut pseudoapostoli. Secundum quod ad simpliciter. Sophistica haec. Item, circumcisio abolita ergo baptis[mus] non est substituta. Quia ita non abolita, sed mutata. Respondio. Foedus antiquum abolitum quantum ad externa et exacrationem. Sic non ita ut promissio sit abolita. Habent et alia argumenta. Omnis eorum error oritur, contraria, putant, esse foedera, quasi veteribus externa non aeterna promissa. //​[103][N8r] Sed falsum. Indignum sanctes patres sic facere Epicuros. Non spectarunt tantum corporalia, sed et aeterna. Et ponuntur exempla fidei spiritique in novo testam[ento].

EX CAP. XVIII ...

Bibliography Primary Sources Aktenstücke zur ersten Zürcher Disputation: II. Das Ausschreiben der Disputation, in Z 1, 466–​468. Aktenstücke zur ersten Zürcher Disputation: III. Der Abschied der Disputation, in Z 1, 469–​471. Aurelius Augustinus, De baptismo libri septem, in CSEL 51, 143–​376. Aurelius Augustinus, De gratia Christi et de peccato originali libri duo, in CSEL 42, 123–​206. Aurelius Augustinus, De peccatorum meritis et remissione et de baptismo parvulorum ad Marcellinum libri tres, in CSEL 60, 1–​152. Aurelius Augustinus, Sancti Aurelii Augustini Quaestionum in Heptateuchum libri VII, in CCSL 33. Biblia Sacrosancta Testamenti Veteris et Novi, ed. Conrad Pellican et al. (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1543). Pierre Boquin, Exegesis divinae atque humanae κοινονίας (Heidelberg, 1561). Martin Bucer, Martin Bucer an Bullinger: [Strassburg] 25. September [1534], in HBBW 4, 325–​328, no. 443. Guillaume Budé, Commentarius linguae Graecae, in Omnia opera Gulielmi Budaei Parisiensis, vol. 4 (Basel: Nikolaus Episcopius the Younger, 1557). Heinrich Bullinger, A Brief Exposition of the One and Eternal Testament or Covenant of God, in MacCoy and Baker, Fountainhead of Federalism, 101–​138. Heinrich Bullinger, A Hundred Sermons upon the Apocalips of Iesu Christe, trans. John Daus (London: John Day, 1561). Heinrich Bullinger, Absoluta de Christi Domini et catholicae eius ecclesiae sacramentis tractatio, ed. Jan Łaski (London: Stephen Myerdmann, 1551). Heinrich Bullinger, Heinrich Brennwald and Heinrich Utinger, Anklag und ernstliches ermanen Gottes allmächtigen (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1528). Heinrich Bullinger, Anklage und Mahnrede, in BS 6, 39–​79. Heinrich Bullinger, Annotationes in sermones clarissimi prophetae Isaiae (Zentralbibliothek, Zurich: Msc Car III 195e, undated). Heinrich Bullinger, Antiquissima fides et vera religio, trans. Diethelm Keller (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1544). Heinrich Bullinger, Antwort an Burchard, in HBTS 2, 140–​172. Heinrich Bullinger, Apologetica expositio (Zurich: Andrea Gesner and Jacob Gesner, 1556). Heinrich Bullinger, Bericht wie die, so von wägen unsers Herren Jesu Christi und sines heiligen evangeliums ires glaubens ersuocht unnd mit allerley fragen versuocht werdend, antworten und sich halten mögind (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1559). Heinrich Bullinger, Brevis antibole sive responsio secunda Heinrychi Bullingeri ad maledicam implicatamque Ioannis Cochlei de scripturae et ecclesiae authoritate

398 Bibliography replicam: Una cum expositione de sancta Christi catholica ecclesia, ad illustrissimum principem et dominum D. Ottonem Heinrychum Palatinum Rheni et utriusque Bavariae Ducem etc. (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1544). Heinrich Bullinger, [Bullinger] an Anna Adlischwyler: [Kappel], 24. Februar 1528, in HBBW 1, 150–​176, no 27. Heinrich Bullinger, Bullinger an Joachim Vadian: Zürich, 27. August 1534, in HBBW 4, 291–​292, no. 429 Heinrich Bullinger, Bullinger an Martin Bucer: Zürich, 28. Oktober 1534, in HBBW 4, 377–​382, no. 466. Heinrich Bullinger, Bullinger an Mathias [Schmid]: Kappel, 8. Februar 1526, in HBBW 1, 92–​99, no. 15. Heinrich Bullinger, Bullinger an [Nikolaus Müller gen. Maier]: Zürich, 22. Juli 1541, in HBBW 11, 245–​262, no. 1548. Heinrich Bullinger, Bullinger an Ottheinrich I. von der Pfalz: Zürich, 10. November 1544, in HBBW 14, 521–​545, no. 2033. Heinrich Bullinger, Bullinger an Philipp von Hessen: Zürich, 17. August 1532, in HBBW 2, 181–​186, no. 124. Heinrich Bullinger, Bullinger und Johannes Enzlin an Christoph Stilz: Kappel, 27. Februar 1526, in HBBW 1, 100–​112, no. 16. Heinrich Bullinger, Bullingerus Calvino, in CO 11, no. 568, 743. Heinrich Bullinger, Bullingerus Calvino, in CO 13, no. 1046, 6–​7. Heinrich Bullinger, Bullingerus Calvino, in CO 13, no. 1104, 115–​118. Heinrich Bullinger, Bullingerus Traheroni, in CO 14, no. 1707, 480–​490. Heinrich Bullinger, Catechesis pro adultioribus scripta (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1559). Heinrich Bullinger, Compendium christianae religionis, trans. Josias Simler (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1556) Heinrich Bullinger, Conciones XXXXIIII. Heinrychi Bullingeri in Ieremiae capita XVI. nempe a XIIII. usque ad XXX.: continentes orationes Ieremiae VII. et narrationes historicas V. epistolam vero unam (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1559). Heinrich Bullinger, Confessio helvetica posterior, in RB 2:2, 268–​329. Heinrich Bullinger, Daniel sapientissimus Dei propheta qui a vetustis polyhistor, id est, multiscius est dictus, expositus homiliis LXVI (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer the Younger, 1565). Heinrich Bullinger, Das Amt des Propheten, in BS 1, 11–​48. Heinrich Bullinger, Das höchste Gut, ed. Joachim Staedtke (Zurich: Zwingli-​Verlag, 1955), 7–​30. Heinrich Bullinger, Das Testament oder der Bund, in BS 1, 57–​101. Heinrich Bullinger, De articulo fidei “Descendit ad inferna,” in HBTS 2, 174–​180. Heinrich Bullinger, De gratia Dei iustificante nos propter Christum, per solam fidem absque operibus bonis, fide interim exuberante in opera bona, libri IIII (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1554). Heinrich Bullinger, De institutione eucharistiae, in HBTS 2, 88–​107. Heinrich Bullinger, De omnibus Sanctae Scripturae libris eorumque praestantia et dignitate, in Biblia sacra utriusque Testamenti, ed. Sebastian Münster et al. (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1539), fol. A2r-​B7v. Heinrich Bullinger, De origine erroris in divorum et simulachrum cultu (Basel: Thomas Wolff, 1529).

Bibliography  399 Heinrich Bullinger, De origine erroris in negocio eucharistiae ac missae (Basel: Thomas Wolff, 1528). Heinrich Bullinger, De origine erroris libri duo Heinrychi Bullingeri (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1539). Heinrich Bullinger, De pane eucharistiae declamationes, in HBTS 2, 110–​126. Heinrich Bullinger, De propheta libri duo (Zentralbibliothek, Zurich: Car I 166, 1525). Heinrich Bullinger, De prophetae officio et quomodo digne administrari possit, oratio (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1532). Heinrich Bullinger, De sacrifitio missae, in HBTS 2, 38–​45. Heinrich Bullinger, De sacro sancta coena Domini nostri Iesu Christi (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1553). Heinrich Bullinger, De scripturae negotio, in HBTS 2, 21–​31. Heinrich Bullinger, De Scripturae Sanctae authoritate, certitudine, firmitate et absoluta perfectione (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1538). Heinrich Bullinger, De testamento seu foedere dei unico et aeterno, Heinrychi Bullingeri brevis expositio (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1534). Heinrich Bullinger, Dekaden, in BS 3–​5. Heinrich Bullinger, Dem christlichen Laeser embüt, in Leo Jud, Catechismus: christliche klare und einfalte ynleytung in den willenn unnd in die gnad Gottes (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1534), A2–​r. Heinrich Bullinger, Der alte Glaube, in BS 1, 179–​257. Heinrich Bullinger, Der alt gloub (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1539). Heinrich Bullinger, Der christlich eestand, in HBTS 5, 79–​190. Heinrich Bullinger, Der christliche Ehestand, in BS 1, 425–​575. Heinrich Bullinger, Der Ursprung des Irrglaubens, in BS 1, 269–​415. Heinrich Bullinger, Der Widertöufferen ursprung (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1560). Heinrich Bullinger, Diarium (Annales vitae), in Heinrich Bullingers Diarium (Annales vitae) der Jahre 1504–​1574, 1–​124. Heinrich Bullinger, Die Autorität der Heiligen Schrift, in BS 2, 13-​416. Heinrich Bullinger, Ecclesias evangelicas neque haereticas neque schismaticas, sed plane orthodoxas et catholicas esse Iesu Christi ecclesias, apodixis (Zurich: Andrea Gessner and Rudolf Wyssenbach, 1552). Heinrich Bullinger, Epitome temporum et rerum (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer the Younger, 1565), 1–​4. Heinrich Bullinger, Ermunterung zum Bekenntnis, in BS 6, 7–​14. Heinrich Bullinger, Festorum dierum Domini et servatoris nostri Iesu Christi sermones ecclesiastici (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1558). Heinrich Bullinger, Heinrich Bullingers Reformationsgeschichte, vol. 1, ed. Johann J. Hottinger and Hans H. Vögeli (Frauenfeld: Ch. Beyel, 1838). Heinrich Bullinger, Heinrychi Bullingeri epistola ad ecclesias Hungaricas earumque pastores scripta MDLI: Heinrich Bullingers Sendschreiben an die ungarischen Kirchen und Pastoren 1551, trans. Barnabas Nagy (Budapest: Verlag der Presseabteilung der Synodalkanzlei der reformierten Kirche von Ungarn, 1968). Heinrich Bullinger, In Acta Apostolorum Heinrychi Bullingeri commentariorum libri VI (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1533). Heinrich Bullinger, In Apocalypsim Iesu Christi: revelatam quidem per angelum Domini, visam vero vel exceptam atque conscriptam a Ioanne apostolo et evangelista, conciones centum (Basel: Johannes Oporin, 1557).

400 Bibliography Heinrich Bullinger, In divinum Iesu Christi Domini nostri Evangelium secundum Ioannem commentariorum libri X (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1543). Heinrich Bullinger, In Ieremiae prophetae sermonem vel orationem primam, sex primis capitibus comprehensam: Heinrychi Bullingeri conciones XXVI, nunc primum aeditae (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1557). Heinrich Bullinger, In luculentum et sacrosanctum Evangelium Domini nostri Iesu Christi secundum Lucam commentariorum lib[ri] IX (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1546). Heinrich Bullinger, In omnes apostolicas epistolas, divi videlicet Pauli XIIII. et VII. canonicas, commentarii Heinrychi Bullingeri, ab ipso iam recogniti et nonnullis in locis aucti: accessit operi index copiosus, accesserunt ad finem quoque duo libelli, alter de testamento dei unico et aeterno, alter vero de utraque in Christo natura (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1537). Heinrich Bullinger, In sacrosanctum Evangelium Domini nostri Iesu Christi secundum Marcum commentariorum lib. VI (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1545). Heinrich Bullinger, In sacrosanctum Iesu Christi Domini nostri Evangelium secundum Matthaeum commentariorum libri XII (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1542). Heinrich Bullinger, In sermones et historicas expositiones Ieremiae Prophetae, a capite XXX. usque ad finem operis: conciones Heinrychi Bullingeri LXXIIII. (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1561). Heinrich Bullinger, Institutionum στρωματέων de philosophia Christiana libri XII (Zentralbibliothek, Zurich: Ms Car III 206d, 1531). Heinrich Bullinger, Isaias (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer the Younger, 1567). Heinrich Bullinger, Kommentar zum Epheserbrief, in HBTS 7, 125–​208. Heinrich Bullinger, Kommentar zum Ersten Johannesbrief, in HBTS 9, 307–​370. Heinrich Bullinger, Kommentar zum Ersten Korintherbrief, in HBTS 6, 227–​464. Heinrich Bullinger, Kommentar zum ersten Petrusbrief, in HBTS 9, 177–​272. Heinrich Bullinger, Kommentar zum Galaterbrief, in HBTS 7, 9–​124. Heinrich Bullinger, Kommentar zum Hebräerbrief, in HBTS 9, 1–​172. Heinrich Bullinger, Kommentar zum Kolosserbrief, in HBTS 7, 251–​294. Heinrich Bullinger, Kommentar zum Philipperbrief, in HBTS 7, 209–​250. Heinrich Bullinger, Kommentar zum Römerbrief, in HBTS 6, 13–​226. Heinrich Bullinger, Kommentar zum Zweiten Korintherbrief, in HBTS 6, 465–​591. Heinrich Bullinger, Kommentar zum zweiten Petrusbrief, in HBTS 9, 273–​306. Heinrich Bullinger, Lateinische Homilien zum 1. Buch Mose, (Zentralbibliothek, Zurich: Ms Car III 195a, undated). Heinrich Bullinger, Loci communes (Zentralbibliothek, Zurich: Ms Car I 152-​ 153, undated). Heinrich Bullinger, Locorum communium index (Universitätsbibliothek, Bern: MUE Klein g 235:3, undated). Heinrich Bullinger, Pastor ecclesiae: domino Heinricho Bullingero authore, theologicum examen continens praecipuos locos doctrinae christianae per quaestiones breviter et ordine explicatos, omnibus sacris literis incumbentibus summe utile et necessarium, (Zentralbibliothek, Zurich: Msc D 216, 1571). Heinrich Bullinger, Predigtskizzen (Zentralbibliothek, Zurich: Ms Car III 203, 1536–​1537). Heinrich Bullinger, Quod animae non dormiant,” in HBTS 2, 128–​133. Heinrich Bullinger, QUOD IN ECCLESIA CHRISTI MAGISTRATUS SIT (Zentralbibliothek, Zurich: Ms S 34, 1534).

Bibliography  401 Heinrich Bullinger, Scholia in Esaiam prophetam ex ore D[omini] Henrici Bullingeri (Zentralbibliothek, Zurich: Msc D 43, 1537). Heinrich Bullinger, Scholion in Evangelion Matthaei (Zentralbibliothek, Zurich: MS F 11, 1529). Heinrich Bullinger, Scholion in Lucam (Zentralbibliothek, Zurich: MS F 11, 1530). Heinrich Bullinger, Sermones Ieremiae prophetae quatuor, nempe secundus, tertius, quartus et quintus, comprehensi septem capitibus, a VII. videlicet ad XIIII. usque caput XXVI.: Heinrychi Bullingeri concionibus expositi (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1558). Heinrich Bullinger, Sermonum decades quinque de potissimis Christianae religionis capitibus (1552), in HBTS 3, 1–​2. Heinrich Bullinger, Studiorum ratio -​Studienanleitung, in HBW Sdb. 1:1. Heinrich Bullinger, Summa christenlicher religion (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1556). Heinrich Bullinger, The Christen state of matrimonye, trans. Miles Coverdales (Antwerp: J. Hoochstraten(?), 1541). Heinrich Bullinger, The Decades of Henry Bullinger, 4 vols., trans. Thomas Harding (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1849–​1852). Heinrich Bullinger, The olde fayth, trans. Miles Coverdale (London: W. Hill, 1547). Heinrich Bullinger, The Second Helvetic Confession, A.D. 1566, in The Creeds of Christendom: With a History and Critical Notes, ed. Philip Schaff and David S. Schaff (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books House, 1983), 390–​420. Heinrich Bullinger, Utriusque in Christo naturae tam divinae quam humanae, contra varias haereses, pro confessione Christi catholica assertio orthodoxa (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1534). Heinrich Bullinger, Verglichung der uralten und unser zyten kaetzeryen: zuo warnen die einfaltigen Christen (Zurich: Hans Hager, 1526). Heinrich Bullinger, Vervolgung (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer the Younger, 1573). Heinrich Bullinger, Vester grund: uff den ein yetlicher glöubiger sicher buwen und sich verlassen mag in diser gefaarlichen zwyträchtigen zyt, in deren so vil spaltungen sind und die geleerten wider einanderen kämpffend (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1563). Heinrich Bullinger, Vita Henrici Bullingeri usque ad annum 1560, in Heinrich Bullingers Diarium (Annales vitae) der Jahre 1504–​1574: Zum 400. Geburtstag Bullingers am 18. Juli 1904, ed. Emil Egli (Basel: Basler Buch-​und Antiquariats-​Handlung, 1904), 125–​128. Heinrich Bullinger, Volkommne underrichtung desz christenlichen eestands, in HBTS 5, 1–​78. Heinrich Bullinger, Von dem einigen unnd ewigen testament oder pundt Gottes (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1534). Heinrich Bullinger, Vom einigen, waren, laebenden, ewigen GOTT (Kantonsbibliothek Vadiana, St. Gallen: VadSlg Ms 376, 1525). Heinrich Bullinger, Von dem heiligen nachtmal unsers Herrenn Jesu Christi (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1553). Heinrich Bullinger, Von dem Touff, in HBTS 2, 71–​85. Heinrich Bullinger, Von dem unverschampten fräfel (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1531). Heinrich Bullinger, Von der bekerung dess Menschen zuo Gott und dem waaren Glouben (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer the Younger, 1569). Heinrich Bullinger, Von der verklärung Jesu Christi, unsers Herren: ouch von unserer verklärung, unserem stand und wäsen in ewiger fröud und säligkeit, das ouch unser Herr Jesus Christus der waar Messias, der rächt frid unnd der einig aller wält leerer sye, uss dem 17. cap. Matthei (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1552).

402 Bibliography Heinrich Bullinger, Von rächter hilff und errettung in nöten: ein predig uss dem heiligen Evangelio Matthei XIIII. cap. zuo Zürych des XII. tags julii gethon (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1552). Heinrich Bullinger, Von warer und falscher leer, altem und nuwem glouben, und bruch der eucharistien oder mesz, wie sy anfencklich gehalten, und mitt was mittel sy in in missbruch kummen sye (Kantonsbibliothek Vadiana, St. Gallen: Msc No. 376, 1527). Heinrich Bullinger, Vorlesung über den Hebräerbrief (1526/​1527), in HBTS 1, 133–​268. Heinrich Bullinger, Warhaffte bekanntnuss der dieneren der Kirchen zuo Zürych (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1545). Heinrich Bullinger, Welches das einig unbetrogen vollkommen und oberist guot sye (Zentralbibliothek Zurich: Msc D 200, 1528). Heinrich Bullinger, Wider das Götzenbrot, in HBTS 2, 49–​65. Henry Bullinger, Of the One and Eternal Testament or Covenant of God: A Brief Exposition, in Thy Word Is Still Truth: Essential Writings on the Doctrine of Scripture from the Reformation to Today, ed. Peter A. Lillback and Richard B. Gaffin (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 2013), 245–​270. Jean Calvin, Calvinus Bullingero, in CO 12, no. 880, 480. Jean Calvin, Calvinus Frederico Electori Palatino, in CO 20, no. 3986, 72–​79. Jean Calvin, Calvinus Grynaeo, in CO 10, no. 191, 402–​406. Jean Calvin, Commentarius in Acta apostolorum, in CO 48, 1–​574. Jean Calvin, Commentarii in librum Psalmorum pars prior: Ps. I ad XC., in CO 31. Jean Calvin, Commentarii in quinque libros Mosis: pars I, in CO 23, 1–​622. Jean Calvin, Commentarius in epist. Iohannis, in CO 55, 293–​376. Jean Calvin, Commentarius in epistolam Pauli ad Corinthios I, in CO 49, 293–​574. Jean Calvin, Commentarius in epistolam ad Galatas, in CO 50, 157–​268. Jean Calvin, Commentarius in epistolam ad Hebraeos, in CO 55, 1–​198. Jean Calvin, Commentarius in epistolam Pauli ad Romanos, in Ioannis Calvini Opera Exegetica, vol. 13, ed. T. H. L. Parker and D. C. Parker (Geneva: Dorz, 1999). Jean Calvin, Commentarius in epistolam Pauli ad Timotheum II, in CO 52, 337–​396. Jean Calvin, Commentarius in epistolam secundam ad Corinthos, in CO 50, 1–​156. Jean Calvin, Commentarius in harmoniam evangelicam, in CO 45. Jean Calvin, Épître à tous amateurs de Jésus-​Christ, in La vraie piété: Divers traités de Jean Calvin et Confession de foi de Guillaume Farel, ed. Irena Backus and Claire Chimelli, Histoire et sociétés 12 (Genève: Labor et Fides, 1986), 25–​38. Jean Calvin, Institutio Christianae religionis: In libros quatuor nunc primum digesta certisque distincta capitibus, in CO 2, 1–​1118. Jean Calvin, Institution de la religion chrétienne, in CO 3–​4. Jean Calvin, Institution de la religion chrestienne (Geneva: Michel du Bois, 1541). Jean Calvin, Ioannis Calvini commentariorum in Isaiam prophetam pars prior cap. I. ad XXXIX., in CO 36. Jean Calvin, Ioannis Calvini institutio religionis Christianae, in CO 1, 802–​830. Jean Calvin, Mosis reliqui libri quatuor in formam harmoniae digesti a Ioanne Calvino. Cum eiusdem comentariis. Pars I, in CO 24. Jean Calvin, Mosis reliqui libri quatuor in formam harmoniae digesti a Ioanne Calvino. Cum eiusdem commentariis: pars II, in CO 25, 1–​416 Jean Calvin, Praelectiones in duodecim prophetas minores: pars prior: Hoseas-​Ioel, in CO 42, 197–​600. Jean Calvin, Praelectiones in Ezechielis prophetae: viginti capita priore, in CO 40, 1–​516.

Bibliography  403 Jean Calvin, Praelectionum in Ieremiam prophetam: pars altera cap. VIII–​XXXI, in CO 38. Jean Calvin, Praelectionum in Ieremiam prophetam: pars ultima cap. XXXII–​LII, in CO 39, 1–​504. Jean Calvin, Sermons sur la genèse, 2 vols., ed. Max Engammare, Supplementa Calviniana 11 (Neukirchen-​Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2000). John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, in CTS 1:1. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, transl. by F. L. Battles and edited by J. T. McNeill, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press 1960). John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, in CTS 7:1. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews, in CTS 22:1. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, in CTS 21:1, 11–​188. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Prophet Jeremiah and the Lamentations: Vol. 4, in CTS 10:2 John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke: Vol. I, in CTS 16:1. John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke: Vol. II, in CTS 16:2. John Calvin, Harmony of the Evangelists: Vol. III, in CTS 17:1. John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. 2, in CTS 5:1. John Calvin, The Commentaries of John Calvin on the Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, in CTS 20:2, 85–​404. John Calvin, The Four Last Books of Moses arranged in the Form of a Harmony, with commentaries, in CTS 2:1. John Calvin, The Four Last Books of Moses arranged in the Form of a Harmony, with commentaries, in CTS 3:1. Cicero, On the Republic. On the Laws, in LCL 213, trans. Clinton W. Keye (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1928). Cicero, Philippics 1–​6, in LCL 189, ed. D. R. Shackleton and rev. John T. Ramsey et al. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009). Cicero, Speech in Defence of Aulus Caecina, in Cicero, Pro Lege Manilia. Pro Caecina. Pro Cluentio. Pro Rabirio Perduellionis Reo, in LCL 198, trans. H. Grose Hodge (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927), 96–​206. Consensus Tigurinus (1549): Die Einigung zwischen Heinrich Bullinger und Johannes Calvin über das Abendmahl, ed. Emidio Campi et al. (Zurich: TVZ, 2009), 125–​139. Dekrete der ökumenischen Konzilien: Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta, vol. 3, ed. Giuseppe Alberigo et al. (Paderborn, Zurich: Schöningh, 2002). Desiderius Erasmus, Novum Instrumentum omne (Basel: Johannes Froben, 1516). Heinrich Bullinger, Heinrychi Bullingeri epistola ad ecclesias Hungaricas earumque pastores scripta MDLI: Heinrich Bullingers Sendschreiben an die ungarischen Kirchen und Pastoren 1551, trans. Barnabas Nagy (Budapest: Verlag der Presseabteilung der Synodalkanzlei der reformierten Kirche von Ungarn, 1968). Balthasar Hubmaier, Von der christlichen Taufe der Gläubigen, in Balthasar Hubmaier Schriften, ed. Gunnar Westin and Torsten Bergsten, Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte 29:9 (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1962), 118–​163. Leo Jud, Der kürtzer catechismus (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1537). Leo Jud, Katechismen, ed. Oskar Farner (Zurich: Niehans, 1955). Leo Jud, Leo Jud an Bullinger: Zürich, 1. Dezember 1525, in HBBW 1, 81–​82, no. 11.

404 Bibliography Justinianus, Digesta, in Corpus Iuris Civilis, vol. 1 repr., ed. Theodor Mommsen and Paul Krueger (Hildesheim: Weidmann, 1993). Livy, History of Rome, vol. 1, books 1–​2, in LCL 114, trans. B. O. Foster (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1919). Martin Luther, De captivitate Babylonica ecclesiae praeludium, in WA 6, 497–​573. Martin Luther, Ein Sermon von dem neuen Testament, das ist von der heiligen Messe, in WA 6, 353–​378. Martin Luther, Kurzes Bekenntnis vom heiligen Sakrament. 1544, in WA 54, 141–​167. Philipp Melanchthon, Loci communes, 1521: Lateinisch-​deutsch, ed. Horst G. Pöhlmann (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn, 1993). Philipp Melanchton, Loci communes theologici (Wittenberg: Iosephus Clug, 1535). George Emery Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Pittsburgh, PA: Biblical Colloquium, 1955). Oswald Myconius, Briefwechsel 1515–​1552: Regesten, vol. 1, ed. Rainer Henrich (Zurich: TVZ, 2017). Caspar Olevian, A Firm Foundation: An Aid to Interpreting the Heidelberg Catechism, ed. Lyle D. Bierma (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995). Caspar Olevian, De substantia foederis gratuiti inter Deum et electos: Itemque de mediis, quibus ea ipsa substantia nobis communicator libri duo (Geneva: Eustace Vignon, 1585). Caspar Olevian, Der gnadenbund Gottes: erkläret in den artickeln unsers allgemeynen, ungezweifelten christlichen glaubens und in den angehengten zeichen und sigeln, welche man die h[eiligen] sacramente nennet (Herborn: Christoff Raben, 1590). Caspar Olevian, Vester grundt, das ist, die artickel des alten, waren, ungezweiffelten glaubens: den Christen, die in diesen gefährlichen, trübseligen zeiten einen gewissen trost aus Gottes Wort suchen, zu gutem erkleret und zugeschrieben (Heidelberg: Michel Schirat, 1567). Novum Testamentum Graece, ed. Eberhard Nestle et al., 27th. rev. ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001). Conrad Pellican, commentaria bibliorum, 5 vols. (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1532–​1535) Urbanus Rhegius, Urbanus Rhegius an Zwingli: Augsburg, 28. September 1526, in Z 8, 726–​ 728, no. 532. Caspar Schwenckfeld, Letters and Treatises of Caspar Schwenckfeld von Ossig, ed. Chester D. Hartranft, Corpus Schwenckfeldianorum 4 (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1914). Zacharias Ursinus, Catechesis, hoc est, rudimenta religionis Christianae, in Zachariae Ursini Uratislaviensis, theologi summi, sacrarumque literarum in Heidelbergensi et Neustadiana schola professoris celeberrimi, et de ecclesia Dei atque scholis optime meriti, volumen tractationum theologicarum, ed. Johannes Ursinus (Neustadt 1584). Zacharias Ursinus, Die zwei Vorarbeiten Ursins, in Der Heidelberger Katechismus und vier verwandte Katechismen (Leo Jud’s und Micron’s kleine Katechismen, sowie die zwei Vorarbeiten Ursins), ed. August Lang, Quellenschriften zur Geschichte des Protestantismus 3 (Leipzig: A. Deichert’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1907), 151–​218. Zacharias Ursinus, Doctrinae christianae compendium, seu, commentarii catechetici (Geneva: Eustace Vignon, 1584). Zacharias Ursinus, The Larger Catechism, in Bierma, An Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism, 163–​223. Huldreich Zwingli, Ad illustrissimum Cattorum principem Philippum sermonis de providentia dei anamnema, in Z 6:3, 64–​230.

Bibliography  405 Huldreich Zwingli, Ad Leonhardum Fontanum contra Suenckfefeldium, in Z 6:4, 26–​74. Huldreich Zwingli, Ad Matthaeum Alberum de coena dominica epistola, in Z 3, 335–​354. Huldreich Zwingli, Aktion oder Brauch des Nachtmahls, in Z 4, 13–​24. Huldreich Zwingli, Amica exegesis, in Z 5, 562–​758. Huldreich Zwingli, An Account of the Faith of Huldreich Zwingli, in LWZ 2, 33–​61. Huldreich Zwingli, Antwort über Balthasar Hubmaiers Taufbüchlein, in Z 4, 585–​642. Huldreich Zwingli, Antwort über Straussens Büchlein, in Z 5, 464–​547. Huldreich Zwingli, Apologeticus Architeles, in Z 1, 263–​70. Huldreich Zwingli, A Short and Clear Exposition of the Christian Faith, in LWZ 2, 235–​293. Huldreich Zwingli, Auslegen und Gründe der Schlussreden, in Z 2, 14–​457. Huldreich Zwingli, Brief an Myconius (04.01.1520), in Z 7, 250–​252. Huldreich Zwingli, Concerning Choice and Liberty Respecting Food, in LWZ 1, 70–​112. Huldreich Zwingli, Christliche Antwort Zürichs an Bischof Hugo, in Z 3, 153–​229. Huldreich Zwingli, Christianae fidei brevis et clara expositio ad regem Christianum, in Z 6:5, 50–​163. Huldreich Zwingli, Declaration of Huldreich Zwingli Regarding Original Sin, in LWZ 2, 1–​32. Huldreich Zwingli, Defence Called Archeteles, in LWZ 1, 197–​292. Huldreich Zwingli, De peccato originali declaratio ad Urbanum Rhegium, in Z 5, 369–​396. Huldreich Zwingli, De vera et falsa religione commentarius, in Z 3, 628–​911. Huldreich Zwingli, Eine klare Unterrichtung vom Nachtmahl Christi, in Z 4, 789–​862. Huldreich Zwingli, Eine kurze christliche Einleitung, in Z 2, 630–​663. Huldreich Zwingli, Erklärungen zu den Propheten Ezechiel und Daniel sowie den zwölf Kleinen Propheten: Scholia H.Z. in Ezechielem, Danielem et in 12 prophetas minores, in Z 14, 683–​867. Huldreich Zwingli, Erklärungen zum Brief an die Hebräer: In epistolam Beati Pauli ad Hebraeos expositio brevis, in Z 21, 305–​355. Huldreich Zwingli, Erklärungen zum 1. Brief an die Korinther: In Priorem ad Corinthios annotationes, in Z 21, 97–​186. Huldreich Zwingli, Erklärungen zum 2. Brief an die Korinther: In Secundam ad Corinthios annotationes, in Z 21, 187–​221. Huldreich Zwingli, Erklärungen zum Brief an die Römer: In epistolam ad Romanos annotationes, in Z 21, 1–​96. Huldreich Zwingli, Erklärungen zum Evangelium nach Lukas: Annotationes in Evangelium Lucae, in Z 18, 1–​219. Huldreich Zwingli, Erklärungen zum Propheten Jeremia (zweite Parallelüberlieferung): In Ieremiam prophe[tam] ser[mones], in Z 15, 247–​407. Huldreich Zwingli, Farrago annotationum in Genesim: ex ore Hulryci Zuinglii per Leonem Iudae et Casparem Megandrum exceptarum, in Z 13, 1–​290. Huldreich Zwingli, Fidei ratio, in Z 6:2, 790–​817. Huldreich Zwingli, Freundliche Bitte, in Z 1, 214–​248. Huldreich Zwingli, Handlung der Versammlung in der Stadt Zürich auf den 29. Januar 1523 (Erste Zürcher Disputation), in Z 1, 479–​569. Huldreich Zwingli, Homilien zum Propheten Jesaja (zweite Parallelüberlieferung): Sermones populares ac vulgares ex propheta Esaia, in Z 15, 1–​228. Huldreich Zwingli, Erklärungen zum Propheten Jeremia (dritte Parallelüberlieferung): Ieremias Propheta, in Z 16, 1–​276. Huldreich Zwingli, In catabaptistarum strophas elenchus, in Z 6:1, 21–​196.

406 Bibliography Huldreich Zwingli, In Exodum alia farraginis annotationum particula, in Z 13, 291–​427. Huldreich Zwingli, Petition of Certain Preachers of Switzerland to the Most Reverend Lord Hugo, Bishop of Constance, in LWZ 1, 150–​165. Huldreich Zwingli, Refutation of the Tricks of the Catabaptists, in SWZ, 123–​258. Huldreich Zwingli, Reproduction from Memory of a Sermon on the Providence of God, in LWZ 2, 128–​234. Huldreich Zwingli, Responsio ad epistolam Ioannis Bugenhagii, in Z 4, 558–​576. Huldreich Zwingli, Subsidium sive coronis de eucharistia, in Z 4, 458–​504. Huldreich Zwingli, Supplicatio ad Hugonem episcopum Constantiensem, in Z 1, 197–​209. Huldreich Zwingli, Übersetzungen der Psalmen und Erläuterungen zu einzelnen Stellen, in Z 13, 467–​827. Huldreich Zwingli, Von dem Predigtamt, in Z 4, 382–​433. Huldreich Zwingli, Von der Taufe, von der Wiedertaufe und von der Kindertaufe, in Z 4, 206–​337. Huldreich Zwingli, Von Erkiesen und Freiheit der Speisen, in Z 1, 88–​136. Huldreich Zwingli, Vorschlag wegen der Bilder und der Messe, in Z 3, 115–​131. Huldreich Zwingli, Wer Ursach gebe zur Aufruhr, in Z 3, 374–​469. Huldrych Zwingli, Commentary on True and False Religion, in LWZ 3. Huldrych Zwingli, Exposition and Basis of the Conclusions or Articles, in HZW 1, 1–​374. Huldrych Zwingli, Friendly Exegesis, in HWZ 2, 238–​385. Huldrych Zwingli, Letter to Matthew Alber Concerning the Lord’s Supper, in HZW 2, 131–​144. Huldrych Zwingli, Of Baptism, in Bromiley, 129–​175. Huldrych Zwingli, Short Christian Instruction, in HZW 2, 48–​76. Huldrych Zwingli, Subsidiary Essay on the Eucharist, in HWZ 2, 191–​231.

Secondary Sources N. Scott Amos, “Exegesis and Theological Method,” in A Companion to Peter Martyr Vermigli, ed W. J. T. Kirby et al., Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 16 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 175–​194. Irena Backus, Reformation Readings of the Apocalypse: Geneva, Zurich, and Wittenberg (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) Irena Backus and Claire Chimelli, “Introduction à ‘Épître à tous amateurs de Jésus-​ Christ’,” in La vraie piété: Divers traités de Jean Calvin et Confession de foi de Guillaume Farel, ed. Irena Backus and Claire Chimelli, Histoire et sociétés 12 (Genève: Labor et Fides, 1986), 17–​23. J. Wayne Baker, “Das Datum von Bullingers ‘Antwort an Johannes Burchard,’ ” Zwa 14:5 (1976): 274–​275. J. Wayne Baker, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1980). J. Wayne Baker, “Heinrich Bullinger, the Covenant, and the Reformed Tradition in Retrospect,” SCJ 29:2 (1998): 359–​76 Jordan J. Ballor, Covenant, Casuality and Law: A Study in the Theology of Wolfgang Musculus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012). Luca Baschera, “Pneumatologie in der Confessio Helvetica posterior,” in “ . . . zu dieser dauernden Reformation berufen”: Das Zweite Helvetische Bekenntnis: Geschichte

Bibliography  407 und Aktualität, vol. 8, ed. Martin Ernst Hirzel and Frank Mathwig, Reformiert (Zurich: TVZ, 2020), 59–​74. Andreas Beriger et al., “Einleitung Kommentar über die wahre und falsche Religion,” in ZS 3, 33–​36. J. Mark Beach, Christ and the Covenant: Francis Turretin’s Federal Theology as a Defense of the Doctrine of Grace, Reformed Historical Theology 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007). Pier Franco Beatrice, The Transmission of Sin: Augustine and the Pre-​Augustinian Sources, trans. Adam Kamesar (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI/​Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1996). Lyle D. Bierma, German Calvinism in the Confessional Age: The Covenant Theology of Caspar Olevianus (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996). Lyle D. Bierma, “Introduction to ‘Translations of Ursinus’s Catechisms,’” in An Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism: Sources, History, and Theology with a Translation of the Smaller and Larger Catechisms of Zacharias Ursinus, ed. Liyle D. Bierma (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 137–​140. Lyle D. Bierma, “The Purpose and Authorship of the Heidelberg Catechism,” in Bierma, An Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism, 49–​74. Lyle D. Bierma, “Ursinus and the Theological Landscape of the Heidelberg Catechism,” in The Spirituality of the Heidelberg Catechism: Papers of the International Conference on the Heidelberg Catechism Held in Apeldoorn 2013, ed. Arnold Huijgen, Refo500 Academic Studies 24 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 9–​24. J. Todd Billing, Calvin, Participation and the Gift: The Activity of Believers in Union with Christ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). Johann Jakob Blumer, Staats-​und Rechtsgeschichte der schweizerischen Demokratien oder der Kantone Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden, Glarus, Zug und Appenzell, vol. 1: Das Mittelalter (St. Gallen: Scheitlin und Zollikofer, 1850). Daniel Bolliger, Nachwort, in Z 21, 503–​566. Emidio Campi, “Einleitung Confessio helvetica posterior,” in RB 2:2, 243–​267. Johann Caspar Bluntschli, Staats-​und Rechtsgeschichte der Stadt und Landschaft Zürich, 2nd ed. (Zurich: Orell-​Füssli, 1856). Fritz Büsser, “Calvin und Bullinger,” in Die Prophezei: Humanismus und Reformation in Zürich; ausgewählte Aufsätze und Vorträge zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 12. Februar 1993, ed. Alfred Schindler, Zürcher Beiträge zur Reformationsgeschichte 17 (Bern: Peter Lang, 1994), 200–​222. Fritz Büsser, “Elements of Zwingli’s Thought in Calvin’s Institutes,” in In Honor of John Calvin, 1509–​ 64: Papers from the 1986 International Calvin Symposium, McGill University, ed. Edward J. Furcha, Arc supplement vol. 3 (Montreal: Faculty of Religious Studies McGill University, 1987), 1–​27. Fritz Büsser, “H. Bullingers 100 Predigten über die Apokalypse,” Zwa no. 27 (2000): 117–​131 Fritz Büsser, Heinrich Bullinger (1504–​ 1575): Leben, Werk und Wirkung, 2 vols. (Zurich: TVZ, 2004-​2005). Fritz Büsser, Wurzeln der Reformation in Zürich: Zum 500. Geburtstag des Reformators Huldrych Zwingli, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought 31 (Leiden: Brill, 1985). R. Scott Clark, Caspar Olevian and the Substance of the Covenant: The Double Benefit of Christ (Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 2005).

408 Bibliography Claus Peter Clasen, The Palatinate in European History, 1559–​1660 (Oxford: B. Blackwell, 1963). Jack W. Cottrell, Covenant and Baptism in the Theology of Huldreich Zwingli (Doctoral Thesis, Princeton, 1971). Jack W. Cottrell, “Is Bullinger the Source for Zwingli’s Doctrine of the Covenant?,” in Heinrich Bullinger 1504–​1575: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum 400. Todestag, 2 vols., ed. Ulrich Gäbler and Erland Herkenrath, Zürcher Beiträge zur Reformationsgeschichte 7 (Zurich: TVZ, 1975), 45–​83. Klaus Depperman, “Schwenckfeld and Leo Jud on the Advantages and Disadvantages of the State Church,” in Schwenckfeld and Early Schwenckfeldianism: Papers Presented at the Colloquium on Schwenckfeld and the Schwenckfelders, Pennsburg, Pa., September 17–​22, 1984, ed. Peter C. Erb (Pennsburg, PA: Schwenckfelder Library, 1986), 211–​236. Achim Detmers, Reformation und Judentum: Israel -​Lehren und Einstellungen zum Judentum von Luther bis zum frühen Calvin, Judentum und Christentum Band 7 (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2001). Die Eidgenössischen Abschiede aus dem Zeitraum von 1521 bis 1528, vol. 4:1a, ed. Johannes Strickler (Brugg: Fisch und Wild, 1873), 194. Roland Diethelm, “Bullinger and Worship: ‘Thereby Does One Plant and Sow the True Faith,’” in Gordon, Architect of Reformation, 135–​157. Edward Dowey, “Der theologische Aufbau des Zweiten Helvetischen Bekenntnisses,” Glauben und Bekennen: Vierhundert Jahre Confessio Helvetica posterior, ed. Joachim Staedtke (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1966), 205–​234. Edward Dowey, “Heinrich Bullinger as Theologian: Thematic, Comprehensive, and Schematic,” in Gordon, Architect of Reformation, 35–​65. Emil Egli, “Einleitung Acta Tiguri 7. 8. 9. diebus aprilis 1522,” in Z 1, 137–​139. Emil Egli, “Einleitung Von Erkiesen und Freiheit der Speisen,” in Z 1, 74–​80. Walther Eisinger, Gesetz und Evangelium bei Huldrych Zwingli (PhD Dissertation: Universität Heidelberg, 1957). Max Engammare, Prêcher au XVIe siècle (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2018). Elton M. Eenigenburg, “The Place of the Covenant in Calvin’s Thinking,” RR no. 10 (1957): 1–​22. Ulrich Ernst, Geschichte des Zürcherischen Schulwesens bis gegen das Ende des sechzehnten Jahrhunderts (Winterthur: Bleuler-​Hausheer & Cie, 1879). Carrie Euler, “Heinrich Bullinger, Marriage, and the English Reformation: ‘The Christen State of Matrimonye’ in England, 1540-​53,” SCJ 34:2 (2003), 367–​393. Oskar Farner, Nachwort zu den Erläuterungen zur Genesis, in Z 13, 289–​290. Oskar Farner, Huldrych Zwingli: Seine Verkündigung und Ihre Ersten Früchte, 1520-​1525 (Zurich: Zwingli-​Verlag, 1954). Heinold Fast, Heinrich Bullinger und die Täufer (Weierhof, Pfalz: Mennonitischer Geschichtsverein, 1959). J.V. Fesko, The Covenant of Works: The Origins, Development, and Reception of the Doctrine (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020). Alexandre Ganoczy, La bibliothèque de l’académie de Calvin: Le catalogue de 1572 et ses enseignements, Etudes de philologie et d’histoire 13 (Geneva: Droz, 1969). François Louis Ganshof, Qu’est-​ce que la féodalité?, 2nd ed. (Neuchâtel: Baconnière, 1947). Aurelio A. Garcia, “Bullinger’s De testamento: The Amply Biblical Basis of Reformed Origins,” in Heinrich Bullinger: Life—​Thought—​Influence, 2 vols., ed. Emidio Campi

Bibliography  409 and Peter Opitz, Zürcher Beiträge zur Reformationsgeschichte 24 (Zurich: TVZ, 2007), 671–​692. Aurelio A. Garcia, The Theology of History and Apologetic Historiography in Heinrich Bullinger: Truth in History (San Francisco: Mellen Research University Press, 1992). Scott A. Gillies, “Zwingli and the Origin of the Reformed Covenant 1524–​7,” Scottish Journal of Theology 54:1 (2001): 21–​50. Rebecca A. Giselbrecht, “Myths and Reality about Heinrich Bullinger’s Wife Anna,” Zwa no. 38 (2011): 53–​66. Gerhard J. F. Goeters, “Caspar Olevianus als Theologe,” Monatshefte für Evangelische Kirchengeschichte des Rheinlandes no. 37–​38 (1988–​1989): 287–​319. Maurits A. Gooszen, “Bijdrage tot de kennis van het gereformeerd Protestantisme,” Geloof en Vrijheid 21 (1887), 505–​54. Bruce Gordon, Calvin (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009). Bruce Gordon et al., eds., Architect of Reformation: An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–​1575 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004), 35–​65. Bruce Gordon, “Introduction: Architect of Reformation,” in Architect of Reformation, 17–​32. Bruce Gordon, “‘Our Philosophy’: Heinrich Bullinger’s Preface to the 1539 Latin Bible,” in Bewegung und Beharrung: Aspekte des reformierten Protestantismus, 1520–​1650, ed. Peter Opitz et al., Studies in the History of Christian Traditions 144 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 283–​293. Bruce Gordon, Zwingli: God’s Armed Prophet (New Haven/​London: Yale University Press, 2021). Martin Greschat, “Der Bundesgedanke in der Theologie des späten Mittelalters,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte no. 81 (1970): 44–​63. Eberhard Grötzinger, Luther und Zwingli: Die Kritik an der mittelalterlichen Lehre von der Messe als Wurzel des Abendmahlsstreites, Ökumenische Theologie 5 (Zurich: Benzinger, 1980). Kenneth Hagen, “From Testament to Covenant in the Early Sixteenth Century,” SCJ 3:1 (1972): 1–​24. Kenneth Hagen, A Theology of Testament in the Young Luther: The Lectures on Hebrews (Leiden: Brill, 1974). Berndt Hamm, Promissio, pactum, ordinatio: Freiheit und Selbstbindung Gottes in der scholastischen Gnadenlehre, Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 54 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1977). Berndt Hamm, Zwinglis Reformation der Freiheit (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988). Heinrich Heppe, Dogmatik des deutschen Protestantismus im sechzehnten Jahrhundert, vol. 1 (Gotha: Verlag von Friedrich Andreas Perthes, 1857). Heinrich Heppe, Geschichte des Pietismus und der Mystik in der reformirten Kirche, namentlich der Niederlande (Leiden: Brill, 1879). Arthur Hermann and Wilhelm Kahle, eds., Die reformatorischen Kirchen Litauens: Ein historischer Abriss (Erlangen: Martin-​Luther-​Verlag, 1998). John Hesselink, On Being Reformed: Distinctive Characteristics and Common Misunderstandings (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1983). Christian Hild, Die Reformatoren übersetzen: Theologisch-​politische Dimensionen bei Leo Juds (1482–​1542) Übersetzungen von Zwinglis und Bullingers Schriften ins Lateinische (Zurich: TVZ, 2016).

410 Bibliography Pierrick Hildebrand, “Bullinger and Calvin on Genesis 17: The Covenant Conditions,” in Calvinus Pastor Ecclesiae: Papers of the Eleventh International Congress on Calvin Research, ed. H. J. Selderhuis et al., Reformed Historical Theology 39 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016), 297–​304. Pierrick Hildebrand, “Calvin and the Covenant: The Reception of Zurich Theology,” in The Oxford Handbook of Calvin and Calvinism, ed. Bruce Gordon and Carl R. Trueman (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021), 57–​73. Pierrick Hildebrand, “Der Testamentsbegriff bei Zwingli und Luther—​oder warum Luther kein Bundestheologe wurde,” Zwa no. 48 (2021): 1–​13. Pierrick Hildebrand, “Geist und Buchstabe bei Zwingli: Auslegung eines paulinischen Grundgegensatzes,” in Reformatorische Paulusauslegungen, ed. Stefan Krauter and Manuel Nägele (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, forthcoming). Pierrick Hildebrand, “Heinrich Bullinger (1504-​1575) and the Covenant of Works,” in Covenant: A Vital Element of Reformed Theology, ed. Hans Burger et al., Studies in Reformed Theology 42 (Leiden/​Boston: Brill, 2022), 254–​66. Pierrick Hildebrand, “Heinrich Bullingers Summa christlicher Religion (1556) als ‘Inbegriff ’ der Dekaden (1549–​1552)? Eine kritische Untersuchung,” in Wirkungen und Wurzeln der Schweizer Reformation: Festschrift für Peter Opitz, ed. Gergely Csukás and Ariane Albisser, Zürcher Beiträge zur Reformationsgeschichte 30 (Zurich: TVZ, 2022), 251–​267. Pierrick Hildebrand, “Zwingli’s Covenantal Turn,” in From Zwingli to Amyraut: Exploring the Growth of European Reformed Traditions, ed. Jon Balserak and James West, Reformed Historical Theology 43 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017), 23–​35. Walter Hollweg, Heinrich Bullingers Hausbuch: Eine Untersuchung über die Anfänge der reformierten Predigtliteratur, Beiträge zur Geschichte und Lehre der Reformierten Kirche 8 (Neukirchen: Kreis Moers, 1956). Anthony A. Hoekema, “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Covenant of Grace,” RR no. 15 (1962): 1–​12. Michael Scott Horton, People and Place: A Covenant Ecclesiology (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008). R. Ward Holder, John Calvin and the Grounding of Interpretation: Calvin’s First Commentaries, Studies in the History of Christian Tradition, vol. 127 (Leiden/​Boston: Brill, 2006). Eugen Huber, System und Geschichte des Schweizerischen Privatrechtes, vol. 4 (Basel: C. Detloff ’s Buchhandlung, 1893). Gregor Joos, Testamentsformen in der Schweiz und in den USA, Zürcher Studien zum Privatrecht 170 (Zurich: Schulthess, 2001). Mark W. Karlberg, Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective: Collected Essays and Book Reviews in Historical, Biblical, and Systematic Theology (Eugene OR: Wipf and Stock, 2000). Sang-​yoon Kim, Humanistic Commentary on Scripture in the Reformation: Heinrich Bullinger’s Commentary on 1 Corinthians (1534) (Doctoral Thesis: Graduate Theological Union, 2015). Meredith G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1963). Ernst Koch, Die Theologie der Confessio Helvetica Posterior, Beiträge zur Geschichte und Lehre der Reformierten Kirche 27 (Neukirchen-​Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, 1968).

Bibliography  411 Walther Köhler, “Einleitung Ad Matthaeum Alberum de coena dominica epistola,” in Z 3, 322–​332. Walther Köhler, “Einleitung Antwort über Balthasar Hubmaiers Taufbüchlein,” in Z 4, 577–​583. Walther Köhler, “Einleitung De peccato originali ad Urbanum Rhegium,” in Z 5, 359–​367. Walther Köhler, “Einleitung Subsidium sive coronis de eucharistia,” in Z 4, 440–​455. Edwin Künzli, Zwingli als Ausleger des Alten Testamentes, in Z 14, 869–​899. Edwin Künzli, Zwingli als Ausleger von Genesis und Exodus (Zurich: Berichthaus, 1950). Anthony N. S. Lane, John Calvin: Student of the Church Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999). August Lang, Der Evangelienkommentar Martin Butzers und die Grundzüge seiner Theologie, Studien zur Geschichte der Theologie und der Kirche Vol. 2/​2 (Leipzig: Dieterich’sche Verlags-​Buchhandlung, 1900). Brian J. Lee, Johannes Cocceius and the Exegetical Roots of Federal Theology: Reformation Developments in the Interpretation of Hebrews 7–​10, Reformed Historical Theology 7 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009). Urs B. Leu and Sandra Weidmann, Heinrich Bullingers Privatbibliothek, Heinrich Bullinger Bibliographie 3 (Zurich: TVZ, 2004). Peter A. Lillback, The Binding of God: Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant Theology, Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-​Reformation Thought (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001). Peter A. Lillback, “The Early Reformed Covenant Paradigm: Vermigli in the Context of Bullinger, Luther and Calvin,” in Peter Martyr Vermigli and the European Reformations: Semper Reformanda, ed. Frank A. James, Studies in the History of Christian Traditions 115 (Leiden/​Boston: Brill, 2004), 70–​96. Gottfried W. Locher, “Die Lehre vom Heiligen Geist,” in Glauben und Bekennen: Vierhundert Jahre Confessio Helvetica posterior, ed. Joachim Staedtke (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1966), 300–​336. Gottfried W. Locher, Die Zwinglische Reformation im Rahmen der europäischen Kirchengeschichte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979) Gottfried W. Locher, Grundzüge der Theologie Huldrych Zwinglis im Vergleich mit derjenigen Martin Luthers und Johannes Calvins, in Huldrych Zwingli in neuer Sicht: Zehn Beiträge zur Theologie der Zürcher Reformation (Zurich: Zwingli-​Verlag, 1969). Gottfried W. Locher, Die Theologie Huldrych Zwinglis im Lichte seiner Christologie, Studien zur Dogmengeschichte und systematischen Theologie 1 (Zurich: Zwingli-​ Verlag, 1952). Charles S. MacCoy and Joseph W. Baker, Fountainhead of Federalism: Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenantal Tradition (Louisville, KY: Westminster/​John Knox Press, 1991). Marie Maclean, “Pretexts and Paratexts: The Art of the Peripheral,” New Literary History no. 22 (1991): 273–​279. Elsie Anne McKee, “Exegesis, Theology, and Developments in Calvin’s Institutio: A Methodological Suggestion,” in Probing the Reformed Tradition: Historical Studies in Honor of Edward A. Dowey, Jr., ed. Elsie Anne McKee and Brian G. Armstrong. (Louisville, KY: Westminster/​John Knox Press, 1989): 154–​172. Perry Miller, The New England Mind (New York: Macmillan, 1939). Joe Mock, “Biblical and Theological Themes in Heinrich Bullinger’s ‘De Testamento’ (1534),” Zwa no. 40 (2013): 1–​35. Joe Mock, “Bullinger and the Covenant with Adam,” RTR 70:3 (2011): 185–​205.

412 Bibliography Joe Mock, “Bullinger’s The Old Faith (1537) as a Theological Tract,” UNIOCC 3:2 (2017): 137–​154. Andreas Mühling, Caspar Olevian, 1536–​1587: Christ, Kirchenpolitiker und Theologe, Studien und Texte zur Bullingerzeit 4 (Zug: Achius, 2008). Andreas Mühling, “Caspar Olevian und die Einführung des Heidelberger Katechismus, in Huijgen,” The Spirituality of the Heidelberg Catechism, 25–​33. Andreas Mühling, Heinrich Bullingers europäische Kirchenpolitik, Zürcher Beiträge zur Reformationsgeschichte 19 (Bern: Lang, 2001). Johannes Müller, Martin Bucers Hermeneutik, Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte 32 (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1965). Richard A. Muller, After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition, Oxford Studies in Historical Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003). Richard A. Muller, Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: On the work of Christ and the Order of Salvation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012). Richard A. Muller, “Calvin’s ‘Argument du livre’ (1541): An Erratum to the McNeill and Battles Institutes,” SCJ 29:1 (1998): 35–​38. Richard A. Muller, “Review of Fountainhead of Federalism,” AEH no. 63 (1994): 89–​91. Richard A. Muller, “The Covenant of Works and the Stability of Divine Law in Seventeenth-​Century Reformed Orthodoxy: A Study in the Theology of Herman Witsius and Wilhelmus à Brakel,” CTJ no. 29 (1994): 75–​101. Richard A. Muller, “The Placement of Predestination in Reformed Theology: Issue or Non-​Issue?,” CTJ no. 40 (2005): 184–​210. Richard A. Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition, Oxford Studies in Historical Theology (New York: Oxford University, 2000). John Murray, Covenant Theology, in Collected Writings of John Murray, vol. 4 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1982), 216–​240. John Murray, The Adamic Administration, in Collected Writings of John Murray, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1977), 47–​59. Wilhelm Niesel, Das Evangelium und die Kirchen: Ein Lehrbuch der Symbolik, 2nd ed. (Neukirchen: Erziehungsverein, 1960). Heiko A. Oberman, “Wir sein pettler. Hoc est verum: Bund und Gnade in der Theologie des Mittelalters und der Reformation,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte no. 78 (1967): 232–​252. Peter Opitz, “Calvin as Bible Translator: From the Model of the Hebrew Psalter,” in Calvinus sacrarum literarum interpres: Papers of the International Congress on Calvin Research, ed. H. J. Selderhuis, Reformed Historical Theology 5 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 9–​26. Peter Opitz, “Der Heidelberger Katechismus im Licht der ‘Schweizer’ Katechismustradition(nen),” in Geschichte und Wirkung des Heidelberger Katechismus: Voträge der 9. Internationalen Emder Tagung zur Geschichte des Reformierten Protestantismus, [17.–​19. März 2013], ed. Matthias Freudenberg, Emder Beiträge zum reformierten Protestantismus 15 (Neukirchen-​Vluyn: Neukirchener Theologie, 2013), 9–​35. Peter Opitz, “Historische Zugänge zum Heidelberger Katechismus aus Schweizer Sicht,” in Der Heidelberger Katechismus, ein reformierter Schlüsseltext, ed. Martin E. Hirzel, Frank Mathwig and Matthias Zeindler, reformiert 1 (Zurich: TVZ, 2013), 21–​50. Peter Opitz, “Einleitung Sermonum decades quinque de potissimis Christianae religionis capitibus (1552),” in HBTS 3:1, XI–​XXIII.

Bibliography  413 Peter Opitz, Heinrich Bullinger als Theologe: Eine Studie zu den “Dekaden” (Zurich: TVZ, 2004). Peter Opitz, Leben und Werk Johannes Calvins (Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009). T. H. L. Parker, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries (London: SCM Press, 1971). T. H. L. Parker, Calvin’s Old Testament Commentaries (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986). Carl Pestalozzi, Heinrich Bullinger: Leben und ausgewählte Schriften nach handschriftlichen und gleichzeitigen Quellen, Leben und ausgewählte Schriften der Väter und Begründer der reformirten Kirche 5 (Elberfeld: Friderichs, 1858). Diane Poythress, Johannes Oecolampadius’ Exposition of Isaiah, Chapters 36–​37 (Doctoral Thesis, Westminster Theological Seminary, 1992). Jürgen Quack, Evangelische Bibelvorreden von der Reformation bis zur Aufklärung, Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte 43 (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1975). Detlef Roth, “Einleitung,” in HBTS 5, XI–​XII. Detlef Roth, “Einleitung Das Testament oder der Bund,” in BS 1, 51–​56. Kurt J. Rüetschi, “Heinrich Bullinger und Dänemark: Die Widmung von ‘De gratia dei iustificante’ an König Christian III im Jahre 1554,” Zwa 15:3–​4 (1980): 215–​237. Martin Sallmann, Zwischen Gott und Mensch: Huldrych Zwinglis theologischer Denkweg im De vera et falsa religione commentarius (1525), Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 108 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999). Gottlob Schrenk, Gottesreich und Bund im älteren Protestantismus, vornehmlich bei Johannes Coccejus: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Pietismus und der heilsgeschichtl. Theologie, Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie 5 (Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1923). Herman J. Selderhuis, Marriage and Divorce in the Thought of Martin Bucer, Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies 48 (Kirksville, MO: Thomas Jefferson University Press, 1999). Quentin Skinner, “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas,” History and Theory 8:1 (1969): 3–​53. Quentin Skinner, Visions of Politics: Regarding Method, vol. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). Quentin Skinner and James Tully, Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and His Critics (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1988). Joachim Staedtke, “Blarer und Bullinger,” in Der Konstanzer Reformator Ambrosius Blarer, 1492–​1564: Gedenkschrift zu seinem 400. Todestag, ed. Evangelische K. Konstanz (Konstanz: Thorbecke, 1964), 193–​204. Joachim Staedtke, “Die Juden im historischen und theologischen Urteil des Schweizer Reformators Heinrich Bullinger,” in Reformation und Zeugnis der Kirche: Gesammelte Studien, ed. Dietrich Blaufuss, Zürcher Beiträge zur Reformationsgeschichte 9 (Zurich: TVZ, 1978), 29–​49. Joachim Staedtke, Die Theologie des jungen Bullinger (Zurich: Zwingli-​Verlag, 1962). William P. Stephens, “Bullinger’s Defence of the Old Faith,” R & RR 6:1 (2004): 36–​55. William Peter Stephens, The Theology of Heinrich Bullinger (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2019). William P. Stephens, The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli (Oxford, New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press, 1986). Peter Stotz, Studiorum ratio -​Studienanleitung, in HBW Sdb. 1:2. D. A. Stoute, The Origins and Early Development of the Reformed Idea of the Covenant (Doctoral Thesis, King’s College, 1979).

414 Bibliography Erdmann K. Sturm, Der junge Zacharias Ursin: Sein Weg vom Philippismus zum Calvinismus (1534–​1562), Beiträge zur Geschichte und Lehre der Reformierten Kirche 33 (Neukirchen-​Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972). Karl Sudhoff, C. Olevianus und Z. Ursinus: Leben und ausgewählte Schriften nach handschriftlichen und gleichzeitigen Quellen, Leben und ausgewählte Schriften der Väter und Begründer der reformirten Kirche 8 (Elberfeld: Friderichs, 1857). Dennis E. Tamburello, Union with Christ: John Calvin and the Mysticism of St. Bernard (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994). Leonard J. Trinterud, “The Origins of Puritanism,” Church History 20 (1951): 37–​57. Willem van den Bergh, Calvijn over het genadeverbond (‘s Gravenhage: W. A. Beschoor, 1879). Emanuel von Korff, Die Anfänge der Foederaltheologie und ihre erste Ausgestaltung in Zürich und Holland (Licentiat: Friedrich-​Wilhelms-​Universität, 1908). Willem v.‘t. Spijker, “Bullinger als Bundestheologe,” in Heinrich Bullinger: Life—​ Thought—​Influence, 2 vols., ed. Emidio Campi and Peter Opitz, Zürcher Beiträge zur Reformationsgeschichte 24 (Zurich: TVZ, 2007), 573–​592. Daniel Timmerman, Heinrich Bullinger on Prophecy and the Prophetic Office (1523–​1538), Reformed Historical Theology 33 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015). Johann Martin Usteri, “Vertiefung der Zwinglischen Sakraments-​und Tauflehre bei Bullinger,” Theologische Studien und Kritiken 56:4 (1883): 730–​758. Simon van der Linde, “Die Lehre von der Kirche in der Confessio Helvetica Posterior,” in Glauben und Bekennen: Vierhundert Jahre Confessio Helvetica posterior, ed. Joachim Staedtke (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1966), 337–​367. Charles D. van Gunnoe, Thomas Erastus and the Palatinate: A Renaissance Physician in the Second Reformation, Brill’s Series in Church History 48 (Leiden: Brill, 2011). Willem van Vlastuin, “The Promise of Unio Mystica: An Inquiry into the Functioning of a Spiritual-​Theological Concept in the Heidelberg Catechism,” in Huijgen, The Spirituality of the Heidelberg Catechism, 168–​185. Cornelis P. Venema, Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination: Author of “the Other Reformed Tradition”?, Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-​Reformation Thought (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002). Cornelis P. Venema, “Heinrich Bullinger’s Der Alt Gloub (‘The Old Faith’): An Apology for the Reformation,” MAJT no. 15 (2004): 11–​32. Cornelis P. Venema, “Recent Criticisms of the Covenant of Works in the Westminster Confession of Faith,” MAJT 9:3 (1993): 165–​198. Hans Georg vom Berg, “Einleitung,” in HBTS 1, 8–​11. Hans-​Georg vom Berg, “Einleitung Antwort an Burchard,” in HBTS 2, 134–​140. Hans-​Georg vom Berg, “Einleitung Von dem Touff,” in HBTS 2, 66–​67. Hans Georg Vom Berg, “Noch einmal: zur Datierung von Heinrich Bullingers ‘Antwort an Johannes Burchard,’ ” Zwa 14:10 (1978): 581–​589. Geerhardus Vos, The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology, in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, ed. Richard B. Graffin (Phillipsburg NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 2001), 234–​267. Boris Wagner-​Peterson, Doctrina schola vitae: Zacharias Ursinus (1534–​ 1583) als Schriftausleger, Refo500 Academic Studies 13 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013).

Bibliography  415 Robert J. D. Wainwright, Early Reformation Covenant Theology: English Reception of Swiss Reformed Thought, 1520–​1555 (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 2020), 145. Peter Walser, Die Prädestination bei Heinrich Bullinger im Zusammenhang mit seiner Gotteslehre, Studien zur Dogmengeschichte und systematischen Theologie 11 (Zurich: Zwingli-​Verlag, 1957). Robert Clifford Walton, Zwingli’s Theocracy (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967). David A. Weir, The Origins of the Federal Theology in Sixteenth-​Century Reformation Thought (Oxford, New York: Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, 1990). George Huntston Williams, The Radical Reformation (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962). Hans Heinrich Wolf, Die Einheit des Bundes: Das Verhältnis von Altem und Neuem Testament bei Calvin, Beiträge zur Geschichte und Lehre der Reformierten Kirche 10 (Neukirchen: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Erziehungsvereins, 1958). Andrew A. Woolsey, Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought: A Study in the Reformed Tradition to the Westminster Assembly, Reformed Historical-​ Theological Studies (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012). Endre Zsindely, “Aus der Arbeit an der Bullinger-​ Edition: Zum Abendmahlsstreit zwischen Heinrich Bullinger und Johannes Burchard, 1525/​26,” Zwa 13:7 (1972): 473–​80.

Scripture Index For the benefit of digital users, indexed terms that span two pages (e.g., 52–​53) may, on occasion, appear on only one of those pages. Genesis, 60–​63, 76–​78, 96, 165–​66, 174–​ 75, 246–​47 1-​3, 174–​75, 177, 182–​83, 202 1:1, 95, 101–​2 1:26, 62–​63 1:28, 91–​92, 177 1:29, 62–​63 2, 195–​96 2:16–​17, 87 2:24, 195–​96 3, 74–​76, 132, 188–​89, 274 3:15, 57–​59, 66–​67, 88–​89, 91, 95, 164, 175–​76, 182–​83, 192–​93, 219–​20, 221–​22, 223–​24, 231–​32, 235–​36 9:2, 62–​63 9:3, 62–​63 12, 64, 66–​67, 188–​89, 223–​24 15, 64–​65, 66, 223–​24 15:5, 64–​65 15:6, 45, 255 15:10, 64–​65 15:14, 65 15:18, 65–​66 17, 43–​44, 45–​46, 47, 51, 54–​57, 58–​59, 66, 72, 84–​85, 91–​92, 96–​97, 120, 129, 132–​33, 138–​39, 143–​44, 146–​49, 154, 159–​60, 164, 173, 174–​75, 183–​ 84, 187, 190–​92, 202, 213–​14, 216–​ 17, 221–​22, 223–​24, 228–​29, 263–​64, 271–​72, 273 17:1, 68–​69, 76, 145–​46, 147–​48, 162–​ 63, 183–​84, 217, 220–​21 17:1–​7, 83–​84 17:7, 89–​90, 149, 199–​200, 216, 263–​64 17:7.9–​11, 45 17:13, 272

17:19, 267–​69 22, 173, 288 22:18, 231–​32, 235–​36 28:13, 267–​69 Exodus, 68–​69 12, 43–​44, 190–​91, 271–​72 12:14, 252–​53 19, 92 20:17, 78 24, 55, 68–​69, 85–​86 24:5–​8, 253, 270 24:8, 28 Deuteronomy 6:13, 56 2 Kings 2, 181–​82 23, 118–​19 Psalms, 60–​61, 73 44:2, 267–​69 45, 267–​69 50:5, 76 55:21, 76 105:15, 76 Isaiah, 165–​66, 208–​9, 267–​69 24:5, 73–​74 33:15, 220–​21 53, 214 55:3, 32 Jeremiah, 207–​8, 255 1–​6, 216–​17

418  Scripture Index Jeremiah (cont.) 3:11–​18, 216–​17 3:16, 216–​17 4:4–​9, 216–​17 7–​13, 216–​17 13:11, 217 14–​29, 216–​18 17:1–​8, 217–​18 30-​52, 216–​17 30:21–​24, 218 31, 211–​12, 219–​20, 231–​32 31:31, 235–​36 31:31–​33, 148–​49, 253–​54, 269–​70 31:31–​34, 73–​78, 79, 218, 265 31:33, 33, 172–​73, 256 31:35–​40, 218 32:40, 270 Ezekiel 16:61, 74–​76, 255 Daniel, 208–​9 3:28, 219–​20 9:26–​27, 219–​20 Hosea 6:7, 74–​76, 274 Matthew, 18–​19, 124–​25, 170, 211 6:12, 270 14:22–​33, 211–​12 16:28–​17:5, 211–​12 17:5, 288 17:5–​8, 211–​12 18:17, 151 20, 98 22:2, 267–​69 26, 159–​60, 161 26:27–​28, 172–​73 26:28, 26, 34, 143–​44 Mark, 170 14:24, 173 Luke, 38–​39, 124–​25, 170, 203–​4 1:55, 143–​44 1:72, 76–​78

10:16, 151 16:16, 136 22:20, 173 John, 170 6:44, 46 17:21, 173 Acts, 124–​25 2:18, 267–​69 3:25, 147–​48 7:8, 147–​48 8, 208–​9, 214 10:15, 267–​69 Romans, 124–​25, 136 1:16, 29–​30 4:3, 255 9:4, 76–​78, 147–​48 9:16, 46 11, 93–​94 11:27, 76–​78 1 Corinthians, 124–​25, 250–​51 6, 195–​96 7:14, 149 10, 263–​64 11, 35, 54–​55, 76–​78 11:25, 149 14, 143 15, 182 2 Corinthians, 78, 165–​66, 170, 256–​ 57, 270 3, 73–​74, 253–​54, 256–​57, 260–​61 3:6, 170 4:13, 170 5:19, 270 Galatians, 76–​78, 90–​91, 136, 165–​66, 171–​72, 173 2:9, 170–​71 3, 159–​60, 221–​22 3–​5, 256–​57 3:7, 45 3:15, 27 3:24, 258–​59

Scripture Index  419 4, 93 4:4, 258–​59 4:24, 170–​71 Ephesians, 165–​66, 171–​72 1, 129–​30 1:4, 185 2:8, 255 2:11–​12, 171–​72 4:24, 177–​78 5, 36–​37, 196–​97 Philippians, 165–​66 Colossians, 165–​66, 171–​72 2, 221–​22 2:11, 272 3:10, 177–​78 Hebrews, 26, 33, 34–​35, 37, 76–​78, 79, 124–​25, 146 6, 173 8, 211–​12

8–​10, 219–​20 8:6, 258–​59 9, 42–​43, 51, 68–​69, 159–​60, 161 10, 68–​69 13:20, 32 1 Peter, 124–​25 1:10, 148–​49 2 Peter, 124–​25 1 John, 124–​25, 146 1, 289 1:3, 144–​45, 173, 267–​69, 288–​89 1:5, 145–​46 2:5, 145–​46 Revelation, 143–​44, 203–​4, 211 4:3, 214–​15 8:3, 214–​15 11:19, 214–​15 19:8, 214–​15 21:1–​3, 214–​15, 216

Subject Index For the benefit of digital users, indexed terms that span two pages (e.g., 52–​53) may, on occasion, appear on only one of those pages. Tables are indicated by t following the page number Abraham (biblical), 42, 43, 45–​46, 88–​90 Abrahamic covenant, 68–​69, 80, 83–​86, 88–​89 Bullinger on, 129, 132–​34, 135–​36, 137–​ 38, 139–​40, 145–​47, 153–​54, 160–​61, 162, 164, 184–​85, 191–​92, 193–​94, 213–​14, 216–​17, 219–​20, 221–​22, 223–​24, 228, 263–​64 Calvin on, 253–​54, 255, 263–​64, 267–​69 Eucharist and, 140–​41 sacraments and, 221–​22, 223–​24 Zwingli on, 54–​55, 56–​59, 64–​68, 91–​92 Abrahamic sonship, 96 Adam (biblical), 30–​31, 86–​89, 180–​81 covenant with, 62–​63, 66–​67, 116, 117, 192–​93 the fall and, 57–​58, 86–​88, 91, 274 Adam and Eve (biblical), 57–​58, 179, 195–​96 Adamic administration, 176–​77, 176n.73 Adlischwyler, Anna, 124 Alber, Matthäus, 38 Am Grüt, Joachim, 54 amicitia, 144–​45, 171–​72, 191, 200–​1, 216–​17, 219–​20 Anabaptists, 96 Bullinger, Zwingli and, 122–​23, 129–​30, 137–​38, 164 Bullinger on, 204–​5, 224–​25 Calvin and, 273 Zwingli and, 8–​10, 17–​18, 23, 41, 52, 53, 54, 56, 59–​60, 70, 80, 82, 89–​90, 91, 92–​93 Anklage und ernstliches Ennahnen Gottes (Bullinger), 123 Annotationes in sermones clarissimi prophetae Isaiae (Bullinger), 165–​66

Antwort (Zwingli), 70, 80, 81, 115–​ 16, 130–​32 Antwort an Burchard (Bullinger), 121–​22, 138–​40, 141–​42, 150–​51, 170–​ 71, 187–​88 Apodixis. See Ecclesias evangelicas orthodoxas et catholicas esse Apodixis (Bullinger) Apolegeticus Archeteles (Zwingli), 21, 31, 34 Apologetica expositio (Bullinger), 205 Assertio utriusque in Christo naturae (Bullinger), 149–​50, 165–​66, 170 Augustine, 31, 52–​53, 178–​79 Auslegen und Gründe der Schlussreden (Zwingli), 21–​22, 31–​32, 37, 113–​14 Baker, J. Wayne, 10–​11, 12–​13, 114–​15, 117–​ 18, 183–​84, 185, 197, 200–​1, 226, 242–​43 baptism. Calvin on, 263–​64, 273 Christ and, 44, 81–​82, 135, 171–​72 circumcision and, 41–​44, 47–​48, 52–​53, 67, 82–​83, 84–​85, 92, 96–​97, 135–​ 36, 263–​64 covenant and, 9–​10, 41–​48, 53, 56, 81–​ 82, 92, 96, 105, 131–​32, 131t, 134–​35, 137–​38, 171–​72, 214, 216–​17, 222–​ 23, 225, 229, 231–​32 grace and, 82, 84–​85, 105 infant, 8–​9, 23–​24, 25, 41, 45, 47, 52–​53, 70, 81–​82, 86–​87, 96, 98–​99, 102–​3, 115–​16, 134–​35, 137–​38, 273 by John the Baptist, 135–​36 rebaptism, 25, 70 testament and, 134–​35

422  Subject Index Beza, Theodor, 285–​87 Boquin, Pierre, 7–​9 Brevis antibole (Bullinger), 166–​ 67, 196–​97 Brunner, Leonhard, 70 Bucer, Martin, 5–​6, 10, 70–​71, 125–​ 26, 248–​49 Budé, Guillaume, 171–​72 Bugenhagen, Johannes, 55 Burchard, Johannes, 150–​51 Cain (biblical), 91 Calvinism, 1, 10–​11, 241–​42 Catechesis Minor (Ursinus), 277–​79 Catechesis pro adultioribus (Bullinger), 209–​10, 225–​26, 230–​32, 230t Ceporinus, Jacob, 60 ceremonial law, 73–​74, 78–​79, 85–​86, 93, 106, 136–​38, 146–​47, 153–​54, 170–​ 71, 252–​53, 258–​59, 272 Charles V (emperor), 69, 71–​72, 103 CHP. See Confessio Helvetica Posterior (Bullinger) Christian III (king), 204–​5 Christliche Antwort (Zwingli), 23, 35–​36, 40, 140–​41 Christliche Einleitung (Zwingli), 22–​ 23, 35–​36 Christliches Burgrecht, 69, 105–​6 Christliche Vereinigung, 69 Christology, 30–​31, 58–​59, 64, 100–​2, 186–​87, 251–​52, 265–​67 Cicero, 141–​42, 170–​71 circumcision, 54–​55, 139–​40 baptism and, 41–​44, 47–​48, 52–​53, 67, 82–​83, 84–​85, 92, 96–​97, 135–​ 36, 263–​64 Bullinger on, 133–​34, 135–​36, 137–​38, 147–​48, 216–​17 Calvin on, 263–​64, 272 covenant and, 89–​90, 92, 96–​97, 133–​ 34, 137–​38, 147–​48, 272 Zwingli on, 41–​44, 46–​47, 52–​53, 67, 82–​83, 84–​85, 89–​90, 92, 96–​97 Clement VII (pope), 105–​6 Cocceius, Johannes, 7–​8 Cochlaeus, Johann, 166–​67, 196–​97

Colloquy of Worms, 277–​78 Commentarius (Zwingli), 24–​25, 36–​37, 38–​39, 42, 54 communio, 138, 144–​45, 149, 172–​73, 191, 200–​1, 215, 221–​23, 237, 238, 275 Bullinger on, 111–​12, 140–​41, 144–​45, 163, 196–​97, 200–​2, 213–​14, 215, 224–​25, 236–​38 Calvin on, 265–​69, 271–​72 Zwingli on, 40–​41, 63, 72, 96–​97 Conciones in Danielem (Bullinger), 208–​9 Confessio Augustana (Melanchthon), 103 Confessio Helvetica Posterior (CHP) (Bullinger), 203–​4, 210–​11, 232–​38, 261–​62, 281–​82 confession of faith, 103–​6 coniunctio, 145–​46, 191, 193–​94, 196–​97, 200–​2, 213–​14, 215, 217–​18, 221–​22, 224, 237, 238, 265–​69, 274, 284 Consensus tigurinus (Bullinger and Calvin), 165, 168–​69, 191, 250–​ 51, 270–​71 Contra Suenckfeldium (Zwingli), 70, 96 Cop, Nicolas, 241–​42 corpus, 221–​22, 237 Council of Trent, 203–​4, 221–​22 counter-​reformation, 212 covenant. See also Abrahamic covenant; foedus with Adam, 62–​63, 66–​67, 116, 117, 192–​93 bilateral, 10–​11, 48–​49, 51, 117–​18, 170–​71, 185, 192–​93, 202, 219–​20, 223–​24, 227–​29, 231–​32, 242, 269–​70 circumcision and, 89–​90, 92, 96–​97, 133–​34, 137–​38, 147–​48, 272 confession and, 232–​33 election and, 14, 46, 91, 93–​94, 102–​3, 104–​5, 118, 183–​87, 242, 270 eternal, 28, 32, 118–​19, 132, 149–​50, 151–​52, 175–​76, 221–​22, 290 Eucharist and, 55, 96–​98, 139t, 222–​23, 231–​32, 237 Gemeinschaft and, 12–​13 Holy Spirit and, 232–​34, 280 with Israel, 92–​93, 216–​17 law and, 99–​100, 154, 225, 258–​59 marriage and, 194–​97, 267–​69

subject Index  423 Mosaic, 65–​66, 68–​69, 136, 253–​54, 255 mutual, 140–​41, 186–​87 natural, 281–​82 new, 58, 73–​74, 252–​55, 269–​70 Noahitic, 62–​63, 91–​92, 192–​93 prelapsarian, 2–​3, 11–​12, 175–​81, 274–​ 75, 276, 281–​82 seals of the, 229, 271–​72 substance and, 251–​55, 271–​72, 281 of works, 175–​77, 175n.66, 176n.73, 182–​83, 276–​77 covenantal continuity, 6–​7, 9–​10, 30–​31 Bullinger, Zwingli and, 130 Bullinger on, 122, 128–​29, 130, 134–​36, 146, 148–​49, 151–​52, 160, 170, 192, 225, 235 Calvin on, 93, 248–​49, 251–​64, 271–​72 Zwingli on, 9–​10, 30–​31, 53, 54, 69–​72, 78, 80–​81, 82–​85, 86–​87, 93–​95, 104–​7 covenantal turn of Bullinger, 127–​30, 147–​48 of Zwingli, 6–​7, 17, 25, 41, 57, 59–​60, 72, 80, 82, 84–​85, 106, 138–​39, 155–​56, 164, 273 covenant of grace, 182–​83, 196–​97, 218–​ 20, 269–​70, 271–​72, 276–​77, 288–​90 Bullinger and Zwingli on, 175–​76 Calvin on, 261–​62, 267 Olevian on, 288–​89 Ursinus on, 279–​83 Zwingli on, 58–​59, 64, 82, 83, 91

De peccato originali (Zwingli), 70–​71, 86–​ 87, 90–​91, 104–​5 De prophetae officio (Bullinger), 118–​19, 124–​25, 128, 154, 187–​88 De propheta libri duo (Bullinger), 128 De providentia (Zwingli), 70–​71, 99–​103 Der alte Glaube (Bullinger), 167–​68, 192–​ 94, 201–​2, 219–​20, 235, 250–​51 Der christliche Ehestand (Bullinger), 167, 167n.20, 194–​96 Der Widertäufer Ursprung (Bullinger), 204–​5, 224–​25 De sacrifitio missae (Bullinger), 128, 138–​ 39, 150–​51 De scripturae negotio (Bullinger), 116–​17, 121–​22, 127–​28 De scripturae sanctae autoritate (Bullinger), 166–​67, 187–​88 De similitudine ac differentia veteris et novi testamenti (Calvin), 247–​48, 251–​52, 260 De substantia foederis (Olevian), 288 De testamento seu foedere Dei unico et eterno (Bullinger), 120, 125–​26, 138, 145–​46, 149–​50, 158–​63, 164, 165–​66, 170–​71, 183–​84, 185, 247–​ 49, 263–​64 Diarium (Bullinger), 112–​13, 114, 121, 165–​66, 174–​75 Diet of Augsburg, 71–​72, 103

Das höchste Gut (Bullinger), 124 De articulo fidei ‘Descendit ad inferna’ (Bullinger), 123 Decades. See Sermonum decades quinque (Bullinger) De gratia dei iustificante (Bullinger), 204–​ 5, 222–​24 De institutione eucharistiae (Bullinger), 128, 138–​40 De omnibus Sanctae Scripturae libris expositio (Bullinger), 166–​67, 188–​89 De origine erroris in divorum ac simulachrorum cultu (Bullinger), 122, 128–​29, 167–​68, 193–​94, 250–​51 De pane eucharistiae declamationes (Bullinger), 122–​23, 138–​39

Ecclesias evangelicas orthodoxas et catholicas esse Apodixis (Bullinger), 204–​5, 221–​22 election, 100–​1 Bullinger on, 129–​30 Calvin on, 242, 270 covenant, 14, 46, 91, 93–​94, 102–​3, 104–​ 5, 118, 183–​87, 242, 270 Elenchus (Zwingli), 70, 116 Epitome temporum (Bullinger), 208–​9, 219–​20 Épître à tous amateurs de Jésus-​Christ (Calvin), 248–​49 Erasmus, 18–​19, 112–​14, 155 Erastus, Thomas, 284–​87 erbgmächt. See also gemächde; gmächt/ gmecht, 34–​35

424  Subject Index eschatology, 93–​94, 177–​83, 207–​8, 214–​ 15, 216, 237 Eucharist, 23–​24 Bullinger on, 128, 138–​42, 139t, 187–​88, 190–​91, 231–​32 testament and, 37–​41 Zwingli on, 37–​41, 54, 96–​99 Expositio brevis ac dilucida orthodoxae fidei (Bullinger), 210–​11 Faber, Johann, 21–​22 fall, the, 57–​58, 91, 95, 274 familia/​familiaritas, 144–​45, 191, 267 Farel, Guillaume, 284–​85 Ferdinand I, 69 Festorum dierum sermones (Bullinger), 207–​8, 212 Fidei expositio (Zwingli), 71–​72, 103, 105–​6 Fidei ratio (Zwingli), 71–​72, 103–​4 First Disputation, the, 21–​23, 31–​ 32, 113–​14 First Helvetic Confession, 168 foedus, testamentum and. See also covenant, testament and Bullinger on, 138, 139–​42, 144–​45, 148–​ 49, 153–​54, 158–​63, 164, 170–​73, 187–​88, 191, 198–​202, 234 Calvin on, 251–​52, 265 Ursinus on, 284 Zwingli on, 34–​35, 65–​66, 72 Francis I (king), 24–​25, 69, 71–​72, 105–​6 Frederick III, Elector Palatine, 210–​11, 276–​78, 284–​87 Freundliche Bitte (Zwingli), 20–​21, 29–​30 Froschauer, Christoph, 19–​20 gemächde. See also erbgemächt; gmächt/ gmecht, 48–​50 Gemeinschaft, 12–​13, 111–​12, 197, 200–​1 gmächt/​gmecht, 28, 34, 35, 37, 40–​41, 42–​43, 49, 51, 72, 79, 132. See also erbgemächt; gemächde Heidelberg Catechism, 210–​11, 276, 278–​ 79, 284–​87 Henry VIII (king), 166–​67

Heppe, Heinrich, 7–​9, 287–​88 historical-​legal aspect, 176–​77 Bullinger on, 158, 191, 214, 216, 217–​ 18, 219–​20, 223–​24, 227–​28, 229, 234, 236–​38, 269–​70, 271–​72 Calvin on, 11, 271–​72 organic-​mystical and, 2–​3, 12–​13, 111–​ 12, 216, 217–​18, 219–​20, 224, 229, 234, 236–​38, 269–​70, 271–​72 Hubmaier, Balthasar, 70, 80, 81, 82, 86–​87, 115–​16, 130 Hugo of Hohenlandenberg, 19–​21, 23, 31, 35–​36 imago Dei, 177–​79, 180–​81, 182–​83, 274, 280, 281–​82 In Apocalypsim conciones centum (Bullinger), 207–​8 In Danielem. See Conciones in Danielem (Bullinger) In Genesim (Zwingli), 60–​61, 66 In Jeremiae prophetae sermones conciones (Bullinger), 207–​8 In omnes apostolicas epistolas commentarii (Bullinger), 170 Institutes of the Christian Religion (Calvin), 244–​46, 245n.15, 247–​49, 250–​51, 258–​ 59, 262–​64, 265–​67, 269–​71, 273, 288 Institutionum στρωματέων (Bullinger), 124–​25, 155–​57, 156t Isaias (Bullinger), 208–​9 Israel, covenant with, 92–​93, 216–​17 John the Baptist (biblical), 135–​36 Joner, Wolfgang, 113–​14, 121–​22 Josiah (biblical), 118–​19 Jud, Leo, 60–​61, 68–​69, 115–​16, 124–​26, 230–​31, 230t Judaism, Christianity and, 151–​52 Justinian I, 141–​42 Kurzes Bekenntnis zum heiligen Sakrament (Luther), 168 Lactanctius, 115–​16 Lasco, John a, 168–​69 Lateinische Homilien zum 1. Buch Mose (Bullinger), 165–​66

subject Index  425 law Bullinger on, 136–​37, 141–​42, 162–​63, 170–​71, 180–​81, 261–​62 Calvin on, 243–​44, 253–​55, 256–​ 58, 260–​63 ceremonial, 73–​74, 78–​79, 85–​86, 93, 106, 136–​38, 146–​47, 153–​54, 170–​ 71, 252–​53, 258–​59, 272 Christ and, 78–​79, 85–​86 covenant and, 99–​100, 154, 225, 258–​59 gospel and, 154, 162, 170, 243–​44, 253–​55, 256–​58, 260–​63, 274–​75, 278–​79, 281–​82 grace and, 43, 47–​48, 57–​58, 78, 84–​ 86, 137 Holy Spirit and, 261–​62 internal versus external, 73–​76, 78 Levitical, 79, 188–​89 moral, 65–​66, 73–​78, 85–​86, 93, 106, 136, 137, 170–​71, 218, 257–​59 Mosaic, 43, 73–​76, 85–​86, 90–​91, 148–​ 49, 153–​54, 256–​58, 260, 261–​62 natural, 180–​81, 260, 274–​75, 276–​ 77, 281–​82 original sin and, 87–​88 prophets and, 151–​53 Roman, 141–​42 substance of, 256–​59 lectio continua method of preaching, 18–​ 19, 60–​61, 169, 174–​75, 211 letter-​Spirit antithesis, 78, 170, 253–​55, 256–​58, 260–​63, 274–​75 Livy, 141–​42 Loci communes (Melanchthon), 155, 169, 247–​48, 260 Locorum communium Index (Bullinger), 124–​25, 155–​57, 156t Lord’s Supper, the. See also Eucharist Bullinger on, 149, 172–​73, 211–​ 12, 213–​14 Zwingli on, 18, 24–​25, 31–​32, 33, 36–​41, 53–​55, 76–​78 Luther, Martin, 30–​31, 112–​13, 165, 168–​ 69, 190–​91 Marburg Colloquy, 69, 70–​71, 99–​100 marriage and matrimony, 124, 149, 167, 194–​97, 214–​15, 237, 267–​69

Megander, Caspar, 60–​61, 68–​69 Melanchthon, Philipp, 2, 6–​7, 8–​9, 30–​31, 260 Münster, Sebastian, 166–​67, 188–​89 Musculus, Wolfgang, 5–​6 Myconius, Oswald, 25–​26 Noah (biblical), 62 obsignatio, 139–​40 Oecolampadius, Johannes, 5–​6, 9, 10 old and new testaments, 1–​2, 6–​7, 164 Zwingli on, 25–​32, 34–​37, 41–​42, 43, 47–​48, 56, 57, 64, 73–​74, 78–​79, 82–​ 86, 93–​94, 96 Old Testament, 27, 29–​31, 42–​43, 60–​61, 73–​76, 148–​49, 199–​200, 216 New Testament and, 41, 43, 96, 127–​28, 139–​40, 150–​53, 174–​76, 188–​89, 192, 214–​21, 224–​25, 227, 231–​32, 244–​45, 246–​47, 251–​52, 256–​57, 260 organic-​mystical aspect Bullinger on, 96–​97, 111, 145–​46, 149, 171–​72, 187–​88, 190–​91, 195–​96, 200–​1, 202, 214, 216, 217–​18, 219–​ 20, 222–​23, 224, 225, 228–​29, 231–​ 32, 234, 236–​38, 264–​65, 269–​70, 288–​89, 290 Calvin on, 265, 267, 271–​72 Olevian on, 288–​90 Ursinus on, 283 original sin, 86–​91, 104–​5 Osiander, Andreas, 204–​5 Ott-​Henry, Elector Palantine, 166–​67, 196–​97 pactum, 34–​35, 65–​66, 67–​68, 72, 74, 147, 153–​54, 170–​71, 188–​89, 265 Pastor ecclesiae (Bullinger), 205–​6 Peace of Augsburg, 210–​11 Pellican, Conrad, 60 pflicht, 42–​44, 45–​46, 72, 80–​81, 131–​32 pflichtzeichen, 42–​43, 72, 80–​81, 96–​97, 131–​32, 133–​36 Philip of Hesse, 70–​71, 123 predestinarianism, 7–​8, 11, 86n.135, 118, 202 predestination. See also election Predigtskizzen (Bullinger), 165–​66, 174–​ 75, 183–​84

426  Subject Index promissio, 66, 172–​73, 184, 188–​89, 201–​2, 221–​22, 223–​24, 231–​32, 235–​36, 237, 238 Prophezei, the, 60–​62, 68–​69, 73, 143–​ 44, 209–​10 protoevangelion, 57–​58, 116, 132, 148–​49, 175–​76, 192, 193–​94 protology, 58–​59, 177–​79, 180 pundt, 34–​35, 42–​43, 45–​46, 55, 65–​66, 72, 76, 80–​81, 131–​32, 133–​34, 190–​91, 192, 229. See also covenant pundtzeichen, 80–​81, 131–​32, 133–​34 Quod animae non dormiant (Bullinger), 122–​23, 137–​38 Quod in ecclesia Christi magistratus sit (Bullinger), 125–​26 Radziwiłł, Mikołaj Krzysztof, 212 Ratio seu methodus compendio perveniendi ad veram theologiam (Erasmus), 155 redemptive history, Bullinger and Zwingli on, 111, 118–​ 19, 131–​33 Bullinger on, 111, 118–​19, 131–​33, 134–​36, 139–​40, 164, 182–​83, 199–​ 200, 201, 202, 205–​6, 211–​12, 213–​ 14, 216, 219–​21, 223–​24, 232–​33, 235, 236 Calvin on, 271–​72 Olevian on, 288 Zwingli on, 2–​3, 30–​31, 85–​86, 91–​95, 96, 98–​102, 103–​4 Reformation, the, 2, 5, 18–​19, 69, 166–​67 Reformed dogmatics, 24–​25, 287–​88 Reformed Orthodoxy, 2 religio, 145–​46, 217–​18, 238 Rhegius, Urbanus, 70–​71, 86–​87 Roman Catholic Church, 18 Bullinger and, 121–​22, 127, 129–​30, 167–​68, 196–​97, 203–​4, 207–​8 Council of Trent, 203–​4, 221–​22 Eucharist, Zwingli and, 53–​54, 59 mass, 23–​24, 37, 122–​23 Sabbath, 180

sacraments. See also baptism; covenant, sacraments and; Eucharist Abrahamic covenant and, 221–​22, 223–​24 Bullinger and Calvin on, 270–​73 Lutherans on, 67–​68 testament, 33, 37, 38, 40–​41, 67, 72, 139–​40 Schlussreden (Zwingli), 34–​35 Scholia in Esaiam prophetam (Bullinger), 165–​66 Schrenk, Gottlob, 8–​10, 17–​18, 52, 53, 59, 80, 94–​95, 247–​48 Schriftprinzip, 22–​23, 151 Schwenckfeld, Caspar, 70, 96, 125–​26 Second Disputation, the, 22–​23, 37, 60, 70 Second Kappel War of 1531, 69, 114 Sermonum decades quinque (Bullinger), 120, 165, 169, 191, 197–​201, 202, 212, 226, 229, 250–​51, 281–​82 Sermon von dem neuen Testament (Luther), 33 Servetus, Michael, 251–​52 Simler, Heinrich, 122–​23 societas, 138, 144–​45, 149, 170–​72, 187–​ 88, 191, 196–​97, 200–​2, 216–​17, 221–​22, 237, 267–​69, 271–​72, 283–​84 sola scriptura principle, 18–​19, 150–​51, 157 Stiltz, Christoph, 122 Strauss, Jakob, 96–​97 Studiorium ratio (Bullinger), 124–​25, 152–​ 57, 156t, 187–​88 Subsidium (Zwingli), 24–​25, 53–​59, 60–​62, 66, 70–​71, 80, 90–​91, 97–​98, 116–​17, 130 Summa christenlicher Religion (Bullinger), 209–​10, 226–​29, 230, 235–​36, 250–​51 Summa theologiae (Ursinus). See Catechesis, summa theologiae (Ursinus) Supplicatio (Zwingli), 20–​21, 28–​29 Tertullian, 115–​16 testament. See also testamentum

subject Index  427 baptism and, 134–​35 of Christ, 26, 31–​32, 36–​37, 38, 40–​41, 57, 65–​66, 76–​79, 84–​85, 97–​98, 116, 134–​35, 136–​37, 138–​39, 187–​88 of Christ, new, 26, 36–​37, 38, 59, 78, 84–​85, 96 Eucharist and, 37–​41 everlasting, 25–​37, 40–​41 Luther on, 33, 37 promise and, 170–​72, 173, 202 sacrament and, 33, 37, 38, 40–​41, 67, 72, 139–​40 Scipture as, 154, 159–​60, 188–​89 testamental covenant, 139–​40, 160–​61, 162–​63, 228–​29 testamental discontinuity, 6–​7, 30–​31, 41–​ 42, 43, 47–​48, 148–​49, 262–​63 testamentary contract, 28, 34–​35, 37–​39, 40–​41, 72, 79, 132, 133–​35, 211–​12 Thamer, Theobald, 204–​5 Torah, the, 151–​53 Tractatio (Bullinger), 191, 250–​51 tree of life, 181–​83 Über Straussens Büchlein (Zwingli), 70–​ 71, 96–​97 Ulpian, 141–​42, 170–​71 Unterrichtung (Bugenhagen), 55 Ursache (Zwingli), 23–​24, 41–​43 Vadian, 125–​26 Verfolgung (Bullinger), 205–​6 Verglichung der uralten und unser Zyten Kaetzeryen (Bullinger), 122 Vester grundt (Olevian), 285–​89 Volkommne underrichtung (Bullinger), 124, 194–​95 Vom einigen Gott (Bullinger), 122, 128–​30, 138–​39, 164 Vom heiligen Nachtmahl (Bullinger), 207–​ 8, 211–​12

Vom underschaid dess alten und newen testaments (Schwenckfeld), 125–​26 Von dem christenlichen Tauff der gläubigen (Hubmaier), 70, 80, 130 Von dem Touff (Bullinger), 116, 117, 122–​ 23, 128–​29, 130–​32, 133, 135, 137–​ 38, 160–​61, 164 Von dem unverschämten Frevel der Wiedertaufer (Bullinger), 122–​ 23, 137–​38 Von der Taufe (Zwingli), 25, 26–​2 8, 42–​4 3, 45, 56, 57, 59, 67, 70–​7 1, 72, 80–​8 1, 82, 84, 86–​8 7, 131–​ 32, 137 Von der Verklärung Christi (Bullinger), 207–​8, 211–​12 Von Erkiesen und Freiheit der Speisen (Zwingli), 19–​20, 26–​28, 34 Von rechter Hilfe und Errettung in Nöten (Bullinger), 207–​8, 211–​12 Von warer und falscher leer (Bullinger), 118–​19 von Zell, Wilhelm, 122 Vorlesung über den Hebräerbrief (Bullinger), 124–​25 Vorschlag (Zwingli), 23, 37, 40 Vorwort zu Leo juds Katechismus (Bullinger), 124–​25 Weingartner, Rudolf, 123 Wider das Götzenbrot (Bullinger), 128, 138–​39 ‫ברית‬/​ ּ ְִ berith. See also covenant 44, 45–​46, 63, 72, 159–​60, 172–​73, 174–​75, 265 διαθήκη. See also testament 63, 72, 138, 144–​45, 148–​50, 159–​60, 170, 172–​ 73, 265 κοινωνία, 144–​45, 149