Zwingli: An Introduction to His Thought. Contributors: W. P. Stephens - author. Publisher: Oxford University.

Place of Publication: Oxford. Publication Year: 1992.

ZWINGLI
An Introduction to His Thought
W. P. STEPHENS

CLARENDON PRESS · OXFORD

-iii-

Contents
Abbreviations x
Dates from Zwingli's Life and Ministry xii
Introduction 1
1. Zurich and the Confederation 7
2. Zwingli's Life and Ministry 12
3. The Bible 30
4. God: The Sovereignty of God 43
5. Christ: Salvation in Christ 53
6. The Holy Spirit: The Spirit and the Word 61
7. Salvation 67
8. Word and Sacrament 76
9. Baptism 85
10. The Eucharist 94
11. The Church 111
12. The State 123
13. Zwingli: Theologian and Reformer 138
Bibliography 149
Glossary 155
Short Biographies of Some Principal Figures 159
Index 161

-ix

Dates from Zwingli's Life

and Ministry

1484 Born in Wildhaus (Toggenburg) (1 January)

1489-98 At school in Weesen, Basle, Berne

1498-1506 At university in Vienna and Basle

1506 Priest at Glarus

1513 Accompanied Glarus troops to Novarra

1515 Accompanied Glarus troops to Marignano

 Met Erasmus in Basle
1516 Priest in Einsiedeln

People's Priest in Zurich--at the Great Minster

(Grossmünster)
1519 Ill with the plague

A group broke the Lenten fast

Zwingli's first reformation writings
1522 Disputation with friars (21 July)

First Zurich Disputation (29 January)

1523 Second Zurich Disputation (26-8 October)

Disputation with canons (13-14 January)

Removal of pictures and statues from Zurich chur-
1524 ches

First rebaptisms (by the anabaptists) (21 January)

The Lord's Supper replaced the Mass (Holy
Week)
Marriage laws (10 May)
1525 The Prophecy began (19 June)

1526 Disputation in Baden (19 May-9 June)

1527 Alliance with Constance

Alliance with Berne and St Gallen

1528 Berne Disputation (6-26 January)

Alliance with Basle, Schaffhausen, Biel, and

Mühlhausen
Alliance of Five Cantons with Ferdinand I (22
1529 April)

-xii-

First Kappel Peace Treaty (26

June)
Marburg Colloquy (1-4 October)
 1530 Alliance with Hesse

Zwingli's death at Kappel (11

1531
October)

-xiii-

Introduction
ALL figures in the past suffer from their interpreters, who too
often see them as the embodiment or antithesis of their own
position. Zwingli is no exception in this. He has in turn been
welcomed as the liberal among the reformers or repudiated as
the rationalist among them. He has been portrayed as the heroic
Swiss patriot dying on the field of battle or dismissed as the
preacher turned politician who took the sword and deservedly
perished by it.

Zwingli has suffered also from historians who see the Refor-
mation in terms of Luther and who measure every other
reformer by him. They see Zwingli in terms of Luther, regard-
ing him as a variant of Luther or, especially if they are Lutheran,
as a deviant from him.

There is no final picture of Zwingli and his thought, even

though some pictures have undoubtedly had their day. All
presentations of Zwingli's thought are inevitably coloured by
their authors' standpoint or starting-point and by the selection
they make of Zwingli's works.

Thus, to take but one example, a writer's standpoint on the

question of how and when Zwingli became a reformer will
colour his presentation of Zwingli's thought. For some, Zwingli
had essentially Erasmian views of reform until he read Luther.
It was through Luther that he became a reformer. After that he
was to be understood--as he was by Köhler--as a combination
of Luther and Erasmus, a merging of the two streams of Chris-
tianity and classical antiquity, or--as he was by others--as a
Lutheran reformer who became less Lutheran in the course of
the 1520s.

For others, however, Zwingli became a reformer inde-

pendently of Luther, influenced especially by Erasmus and
Augustine, but influenced also by a range of factors and people
in the way he developed as a reformer and theologian. In this
approach Zwingli's relation to Luther is important but not all

-1-

important. It should, moreover, not be allowed to dominate the

presentation of Zwingli's thought, as that distorts Zwingli's
thought which should be presented in its own terms and in
its own accents. That is the conviction which underlies this
study.

Presentations of Zwingli have equally been coloured by the

selection made of his writings as well as by the standpoint of
the author. Thus those who emphasize Zwingli's treatise The
Providence of God get a much more philosophical view of his
theology than those who draw on any other of his writings.
Those who present his view of the sacraments chiefly from
the years 1524 and 1525 get a much more symbolic view (see
Glossary) of the sacraments than those who choose the years
1530 and 1531.

In this introduction to Zwingli I endeavour to unfold Zwin-

gli's thought historically. Writings are examined from every
period of his life, beginning with his earlier ones where that
helps to show development in his thought. The whole range of
his writings is drawn on--not only the more systematic ones,
but also the letters, commentaries, tracts, and treatises. The
factors which shaped his thought, both before and after his
move to Zurich, are noted.

Through the centuries there have been many different pres-

entations of Zwingli. Indeed whole books have been written on
the changing picture of Zwingli in both Protestant and Roman
Catholic writers. There is no space for such a presentation here,
though in the course of this study various interpretations will
be noted. There are however important areas where the
interpretations of recent scholars differ.

First, there is the question of the influences on Zwingli's

development, including not only the relative importance of
Erasmus, Luther, and Augustine, but also the type of humanist
and scholastic thought which he encountered.

Then there is the question of when he emerged as a reformer

whether as early as 1516 or not until after his arrival in Zurich,
probably as late as 1520 or 1521. This is a theological as well as
a historical issue, for it raises the question of how the Refor-
mation is to be defined. Is it to be defined in terms of Luther

-2

and the doctrine of justification, and if not is it to be defined

ecclesiologically in terms of the break with Rome, or theo-
logically in terms of the authority of scripture, or religiously in
terms of the understanding of salvation?

The question of change or development in Zwingli touches

particularly on his interpretation of the eucharist, his view of
church and state, and his understanding of God. First, did his
interpretation of the eucharist change, as Köhler argued, from
the medieval view of transubstantiation, to a mystical Erasmian
view of Christ's presence, to a purely symbolic view of his
presence, to a view of faith-presence? Or is there an evolution
or development of his thought, rather than a change, so that it
can be said that he always held a broadly symbolic interpret-
ation, with the letter of Hoen simply providing a clue for him
to present his symbolic view more satisfactorily? Secondly, did
he, as Yoder argued, have a more free-church view of church
and state in the early 1520s and then change to a more state-
church view? Or did he always have a strong sense of the
community as a whole, though perhaps with a somewhat
increased emphasis on the role of the council in the second half
of the 1520s? Thirdly, did he move from a more biblical or
Lutheran view of God and the Christian faith in the early
1520s (in, for example, An Exposition of the Articles) to a more
philosophical view in the middle and later 1520s (in, for
example, The Providence of God)? Or is there continuity between
these periods, so that a work like The Providence of God, if set
in the context of his earlier writings, can be seen in a less
philosophical light than appears at first sight? Is there in other
words a fundamental coherence between Zwingli's various wri-
tings, which are fundamentally biblical, but which always reflect
the distinctive influences of Erasmus and Augustine?

The relation of church and state in Zwingli raises other ques-

tions as well, both concerning Zwingli's political role in the city
(which is a matter of continuing discussion among scholars) and
concerning the shift that some see to a greater stress on the Old
Testament in the later Zwingli, especially in his understanding
of the prophet. Zwingli undoubtedly exercised a political role
in the city, though he was never, as it was once put, minister

-3

and mayor, councillor and clerk, all in one person. He certainly

saw the situation of church and society in Zurich as more like
that of the Old Testament than that of the New, but he was still
expounding the New Testament as well as the Old Testament
in the second half of the 1520s.

In all these areas there is debate among Zwingli scholars, as

well as in some other matters which will be examined, such as
whether Zwingli was a Nestorian in his understanding of Christ,
and a spiritualist in his understanding of the Spirit.

This introduction to Zwingli's thought opens with a brief

chapter on Zurich and the Swiss confederation which were the
context of Zwingli's life and work. There follows a longer
biographical chapter in which his thought is set in the context
of his life and work and in the context of his development in
the time both before and after he became a reformer. It helps
to show that his thought is not divorced from his life and work,
but is his response both to the word of God on the one hand
and to the events and people he was dealing with on the other.
In some subjects such as baptism, his theology was developed
only because he faced challenges to which he had to respond
and without which it is likely that he would have written little
or nothing on certain subjects.

The central concerns in Zwingli's theology are expounded in

the remaining chapters. The first deals with the Bible because
that is the basis of Zwingli's reforming ministry and his
theology. Then come the main subjects which he treats directly
and indirectly in his works. They are referred to directly in
commentaries and treatises and in his more systematic and
confessional works. But in some cases they are also referred to
by Zwingli indirectly as doctrines which underlie and shape
other parts of his teaching. Thus the sovereignty of God is so
fundamental an element in Zwingli's thought that it affects all
aspects of his theology. It is a presupposition of much of what
he wrote. (You could almost say that it is the key in which his
theology is composed.) Again the way he understands Christ
and the Spirit is a major factor in what he has to say, for example,
about word and sacrament. These different subjects are related

-4

and cannot be divorced from each other, though they are necess-
arily treated separately.

The final chapter points to some of the characteristic notes

in Zwingli's work as a reformer and some of the emphases in
his thought.

A study of Zwingli raises the question of the impact of Zwingli

not only in his life but also after his death. Relatively little has
been written on this, although G. W. Locher has written on
Zwingli's influence in England and Scotland in the sixteenth
century.

Zwingli's influence after his death was direct and indirect. It

was made directly through his writings and indirectly through
Bullinger and others who continued his work and reflected or
developed his theology. The impact is clearest in two areas:
the relation of church and state and the understanding of the
sacraments, especially the eucharist.

In Zwingli's writings and in his work in Zurich there is a

sense of church and society as one, with the government or
council involved in the ordering of the life of the church. This
had an impact in parts of Switzerland and beyond. It was
distinct from the other Reformed tradition in, for example,
Calvin and Geneva, which sought independence from govern-
ment in the ordering of the church's life and in particular in the
matter of discipline.

Zwingli's view of the sacraments and in particular of the

eucharist was more influential both then and now. It was main-
tained though somewhat modified by Bullinger in the Zurich
Agreement ( Consensus Tigurinus) which united Zurich and
Geneva in 1549. Zwingli's view made a strong impression on
the English Reformation, especially through some of the con-
tinental exiles, and is manifest in much popular Protestant
thought today. The question of whether Cranmer was a Zwin-
glian is still debated.
Some elements in his theology were developed by others.
Bullinger in particular developed Zwingli's theology of the
covenant, which was to be so important in later Reformed
teaching. Like Zwingli in his doctrine of predestination, Bul-

-5

linger laid the stress on election, so that both sides appealed to

him in later controversy over election and reprobation. More-
over some of the ways in which Reformed theology differs from
Lutheran theology show its kinship with Zwingli, especially in
the understanding of gospel and law (rather than law and gospel)
and in some of the emphases in the understanding of God and
the relation of the divine and human natures in Christ.

Of his reformation practices the most influential was the

prophecy. Its impact can be seen in the development of pro-
phesyings in the English Reformation. His practice of expound-
ing whole books of the Bible rather than the appointed readings
for the day is still used in some churches today.

-6

I
Zurich and the Confederation
No one can be isolated from the time and place in which he
lives and works--and Zwingli can certainly not be isolated from
Switzerland at the end of the fifteenth and the beginning of the
sixteenth century. In this chapter and the next Zwingli's work
and thought will be set in the immediate context of his life and
the wider context of the city and the confederation in which he
ministered.

The Swiss Confederation

The Swiss confederation in which Zwingli lived had a complex
history. In 1291 Uri, Schwyz, and Unterwalden entered into
an alliance which marked the beginning of the confederation.
They were joined by Lucerne in 1332, Zurich in 1352, and
Glarus, Zug, and Berne, bringing the number to eight by 1353.
Others joined later ( Fribourg and Solothurn in 1481, Basle and
Schaffhausen in 1501, and finally Appenzell in 1513) making a
total of thirteen. Despite this long development Swiss inde-
pendence of the Holy Roman Empire was probably not formally
recognized until 1648. However it was effective from the Peace
of Basle in 1499.

Besides these thirteen states (Orte or Stände) which were

later called cantons, there were other places in a variety of
relationships with them. These included seven allies or affiliated
states (Zugewandten) and a number of mandated territories
(Gemeine Herrschaften). Among the former were the Valais
and the Grisons, St Gallen, the Abbey of St Gallen,
Mühlhausen, and Biel.

The states were very different in nature and size. Some were
relatively small rural communities, such as the three original

-7-

states, while others were flourishing city-states, such as Basle,

Berne, and Zurich. However regardless of size they were con-
stitutionally equal and independent. Their representatives met
in a federal diet, but the diet did not have political or economic
powers. Decisions were taken by the separate states. This inde-
pendence of the various states was an important factor both in
the spread of the Reformation and in the opposition to it. It was
also a factor in the mandated territories where the decision was
that of the majority of the ruling states.

The Swiss were notable at this time for their military prowess.
They had been victorious in a number of crucial battles in their
first formative century: Morgarten ( 1315), Sempach ( 1386), and
Näfels ( 1388). Their success in war continued and led to their
being regarded as valuable soldiers in the armies of France,
Austria, and other powers, including the papacy. Substantial
annual sums or pensions were paid to leading Swiss figures in
order to enlist mercenaries. A catastrophic defeat by the French
at Marignano in 1515, when the Swiss had switched sides to the
pope, led to renewed support for the French, except in Zurich.
Zwingli's hostility to the French alliance was to be a factor
working against him in Glarus, and working with him in his
move to Zurich.

Zwingli's reforming ministry was primarily in Zurich, but

his sense of being Swiss and not just a Zuricher or Toggenburger
meant that he had his eye on winning the whole confederation
to the gospel of Christ. Initially however he had to win a hearing
for it in Zurich and then build on the response to it there. The
difficulties and opportunities he faced in this were related in
part to the civil and religious character of the city and its
surrounding territory.

Zurich
Zurich was a city of 5,000-6,000 (the exact figure is a matter of
debate) with a population of some 50,000 in the whole state.
The city had a long history. There was a settlement there in
Roman times, but it was the establishing of a community of
Benedictine nuns in 853 which led to the development of the

-8

city. By 1218 it had become a full imperial city. In 1336 the

craftsmen, led by Rudolf Brun, turned it into a guild city. It
was then organized in thirteen guilds (later there were to be
twelve), with Brun as mayor. In 1351 it entered into an alliance
with the three original Swiss states (Uri, Schwyz, and Unter-
walden) and Lucerne which had already joined them. Through
the succeeding centuries it grew in size and importance.

The city was governed by two councils. The Great Council

had 162 members. They were drawn from the twelve craft guilds
(twelve from each) together with eighteen from the constables, a
body made up of nobles, property owners, and merchants. The
Small Council which was in effect a cabinet or executive body
had fifty members. Strictly speaking there were two such coun-
cils, with twenty-five members, headed by a mayor, governing
for six months each. Eventually, however, they met together.
There were also representatives in the Small Council of the
guilds and constables. As there could be changes in the mayor
and membership every six months, there was a regular possi-
bility of changing policy. (Another important factor in the
development of the Reformation was the shift of power in the
first part of the sixteenth century from the constables to the
guilds.) The Great and Small Councils together made up the
Council of the Two Hundred (strictly speaking 212 members).
It was concerned with matters such as alliances, major appoint-
ments, peace, and war.

There were at different times commissions to advise on par-

ticular matters. These bodies exercised considerable influence,
and it was in part through his advice to them or participation
in them that Zwingli made his impact on the council. His role
was, however, essentially indirect, for he was never himself a
member of the council.

The Church in Zurich

Switzerland was not a coherent whole in church government.
There was no archbishop and the dioceses overlapped Switz-
erland and the neighbouring countries of France, Germany, and
Italy. Zurich itself was in the large diocese of Constance, whose

-9

bishop, Hugo von Hohenlandberg, had in his diocese some

1,800 parishes and over 15,000 priests. There were about 500
priests in the city-state and some 200 in the city of Zurich.

The low moral standards of the priests are evident in a letter

of Bishop Hugo in May 1516. He spoke of a number of their
failings, including concubinage. The council had, indeed,
already complained about concubinage both to the bishop and
the pope.

Among the clergy the vow of celibacy was widely broken, and
it seems that in one year 1,500 children were born to priests in
the diocese. (Priests had to pay four or five gulden to the bishop
for such offences.) However concubinage did not cause the
surprise or offence that it would today, and there were priests
who lived acceptably in their parishes with a wife and children.
A notable example in Switzerland was in Bremgarten, where
the father of Heinrich Bullinger, Zwingli's successor in Zurich,
had been priest. The widespread practice of concubinage helps
to explain the relative ease with which people accepted the
marriage of the reformers. It is also one reason why the
reformers wrestled with the biblical material bearing on the case
for the freedom of priests to marry.

The council exercised a growing role in church affairs, includ-

ing the right to appoint to posts in the Great Minster and the
Minster of our Lady. (It appointed Zwingli to the Great Minster
in 1518.) The Great Minster (Grossmünster) and the Minster
of our Lady (Fraumünster) were founded in the ninth century.
The latter was a monastery for Benedictine nuns. The first
abbess, Hildegard, was the daughter of King Lewis the German,
who founded and endowed it. The abbess had once exercised
great power, including the right to mint coins and collect tolls
on goods. By the time of the Reformation the monastery had
considerably diminished numbers and its powers had mostly
passed to the city. The last abbess transferred it to the city in
November 1524. Besides the two minsters there were five other
places of pilgrimage in Zurich: St Peter's Church, the cloisters
of the Dominicans, Franciscans, and Augustinian Hermits, and
the Water Church (Wasserkirche). The Dominicans and Fran-
ciscans came to the city in the first half of the thirteenth century,

-10

and the Augustinians in the second half. There were also com-
munities of Dominican nuns.

It is in this republican setting, with power exercised by a

council rather than by a single ruler, that Zwingli lived and
worked. The changing balance of power in the various groups
(both civil and religious) helps to account for the kind of
reformer Zwingli became and the kind of reformation he intro-
duced.

-11

2
Zwingli's Life and Ministry
NOT two months separated the birth of Martin Luther in 1483
from that of Huldrych Zwingli on 1 January 1484. Born at
Wildhaus, high up in the Toggenburg, he was the son of a
farmer, who was the Ammann (or magistrate) of the community.
He went as a young boy to his uncle Bartholomew, a priest in
Wesen, to begin his education. He showed promise there and
at the age of 10 he was sent to the school of Gregory Bünzli in
Basle to learn Latin. Two years later he moved to Henry Wölf-
lin's school in Berne, where--among other things--he studied
Latin literature. Then in 1498, at the age of 14, he went to the
university of Vienna, where the great humanist Conrad Celtis
taught. At 18 he matriculated in the university of Basle, where
Thomas Wyttenbach was one of his teachers. Among his fellow
students were Leo Jud and Conrad Pellican, later to be col-
leagues in Zurich. He graduated there as Bachelor of Arts in
1504 and as Master of Arts in 1506. Then, at the age of 22,
while he was still a layman, he was called to be priest at Glarus.

He was ordained in Constance in September 1506, several

weeks before reaching the canonical age for ordination. He
preached his first sermon at Rapperswil and then celebrated his
first mass in Wildhaus on St Michael's and All Angels. He was
a priest in Glarus for a decade. It was a period in which,
alongside his duties as a priest, he learned Greek and developed
his humanist studies. It was not till the end of that time that
Zwingli began to emerge as a reformer, but in those ten years
and in the years before we see three of the important influences
on his later work as a reformer: patriotism, scholasticism, and
humanism.

-12

Patriotism, Scholasticism, Humanism

Zwingli was intensely patriotic. He was a patriot all his days.
In 1526 he recalled that from his boyhood, he had resisted any
who slandered or abused the Swiss, even putting himself in
danger (Z V 250. 6-11).1 It is a testimony to his patriotism that
the earliest writing of his that we have, written in 1510 when
he was 26, is a patriotic poem called The Ox. The poem is
an attack--in the form of an allegory--on the use of Swiss
mercenaries to fight for foreign powers. At that stage, in his
loyalty to the papacy, he made an exception of fighting for the
pope, but soon he allowed no exceptions whatsoever. However
his support for the papacy led to his receiving an annual pension
of fifty gulden until he surrendered it in 1520.

His opposition to mercenary service was deepened by his

firsthand experience of war as a chaplain in 1513 and 1515, and
perhaps in 1512 as well. In September 1515 he witnessed the
disastrous battle of Marignano, in which thousands of Swiss
soldiers died, fighting as mercenaries against the French. These
experiences made him even more aware of the devastation of
war and the profound moral and social cost that it brought to
his people. In a second poem, The Labyrinth, he again used an
allegory to attack the mercenary system. This time however the
patriotism was explicitly religious. 'In us there is no love of
God.... Whoever commits crime and murder is considered a
bold man. Did Christ teach us that? ... Tell me what have we
of Christians more than the name?' (Z I60.) His attacks on the
mercenary system and in particular on the alliance with the
French, which was favoured in Glarus, provoked opposition to
him in Glarus, and lay behind his moving from there to Ein-
siedeln in 1516.
If his patriotism dates from his boyhood, the influence of
scholasticism stems from his time at university. At Basle he was
influenced by Thomas Wyttenbach, an exponent of the the old
way (via antiqua), with the writings of Thomas Aquinas, Peter
Lombard, and Duns Scotus. (That contrasts with Luther who

____________________
For an explanation of references in the text, see the sections on 'Zwingli's
1

Works' and 'Zwingli's Works in English' in the Bibliography.

-13-

was influenced by the modern way (via moderna), though

Zwingli almost certainly met both traditions in Basle.) In Zwin-
gli's library there is evidence of his reading Aquinas and Duns
Scotus, and in a letter of 1511 he is spoken of as being an
Aristotelian. There may be signs of Scotist influence in his
theology in the emphasis on the will of God, in the contrast
between the creator and the creature, in the stress on the euchar-
ist as a commemoration of Christ's sacrifice, and perhaps in his
christology as well. However scholars vary in their assessment
of Zwingli, with Locher pointing to Thomism and the old way
(via antiqua) and Pollet, a Dominican, pointing to Occamism
and the modern way (via moderna). Yet, although Zwingli
rejected scholastic theology, he did not escape its influence.
Moreover he made use later of its methods and distinctions in
debate, not least in the debate on the eucharist.

Humanism probably influenced Zwingli at school and at uni-

versity. Some argue particularly for the influence of Celtis in
Vienna, although little can be said about this with certainty.
During his time at Glarus ( 1506-16), however, he emerged as
a humanist. He read widely and eagerly. His love of classical
antiquity can be seen in the library which he built up and which
he later took with him from Glarus to Einsiedeln, with its
annotated copies of Aristotle, Cicero, Demosthenes, Homer,
Juvenal, Livy, Pliny, and Plutarch. His correspondence at this
time with Beatus Rhenanus, Glarean, and Conrad Pellican tes-
tifies, as Farner points out, to a humanist scholar rather than to
a priest or theologian. 2

A decisive change occurred when he met Erasmus in 1515 or

1516. Erasmus, the prince of the humanists, was a classical
scholar, as well as a biblical and patristic scholar. His humanist
concern for the sources led not only to the study of the language
and literature of Greece and Rome, but also to that of the New
Testament and the fathers. He published an edition of the Greek
New Testament and an elegant Latin translation of the New
Testament, as well as notable editions of the fathers. He worked
for a rebirth of Christianity.

____________________
O. Farner, Huldrych Zwingli ( Zurich, 1946), ii. 109.
2

-14-
It was the impact of Erasmus that pointed Zwingli in a new
way to Christ and to the scriptures. For Zwingli Erasmus had
freed the scriptures from scholasticism, and under his influence
Zwingli became a theologian not in a scholastic but in a humanist
sense. He turned to the sources, in particular the Greek New
Testament; he studied the fathers; he learned the historical,
critical approach to the text. It is now the fathers rather than
the schoolmen who engaged Zwingli, and they are widely rep-
resented in his library which came to include editions of
Ambrose, Athanasius, Augustine, Basil, Chrysostom, Cyprian,
Eusebius, Jerome, and Origen, and various works of Cyril,
Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Hilary of Poitiers,
Irenaeus, John of Damascus, and Lactantius.

The first fruit of Erasmus's influence can be seen in The

Labyrinth which has a religious element missing from The Ox
three years earlier. The long-term fruit was in a reformation
theology that was both biblical and centred in Christ. There are
many points of contact between Erasmus and Zwingli. There
were shared assumptions--in particular a stress on God as Spirit
and a Platonist view of man as body and soul. There were
common emphases--in particular the emphasis on an inward
rather than an outward piety. There were similar concerns--in
particular a delight in the literature and philosophy of Greece
and Rome. But there were differences as well, notably but not
only in their understanding of the sovereign grace of God and
the freedom of the will. The differences can be seen later in
Erasmus's criticism of Zwingli Archeteles in 1522, and Zwin-
gli's attack on the freedom of the will in A Commentary in 1525.
However--unlike Luther--he could still refer positively to
Erasmus.

The Early Years in Zurich

From 1516 till 1518, Zwingli ministered in Einsiedeln, a great
centre of pilgrimage and famous for its Marian shrine. He
continued with the diverse work of a priest: celebrating the
sacraments of the church, involved in pilgrimages and in indul-
gences, exercising pastoral care. He also continued to make a

-15-

name for himself as a preacher. Then on 28 October 1518

Oswald Myconius wrote to say that there was a vacancy at the
Great Minster in Zurich and that he longed to see Zwingli there.

On 3 December however he wrote again to say that various

objections had been raised against Zwingli, including one which
he could not answer: that he had wronged the daughter of a
prominent citizen of Einsiedeln. Zwingli's reply was found
in the nineteenth century by the Zwingli scholar, Johannes
Schulthess. Oscar Farner records that Schulthess showed it to
his pupil Alexander Schweizer and then placed it in the flame
of a candle to burn it. However he withdrew it in time, uttering
the defiant words, 'Protestantism is the truth in all circum-
stances.' 3 This letter of Zwingli was one in which he admitted
that he had--despite great efforts--been unchaste, but that his
unchastity was now a thing of the past. His letter satisfied the
chapter, and he was elected on 11 December by seventeen votes
to seven. ( Zwingli's unchastity was far from exceptional in the
sixteenth century, and an alternative candidate was said to have
fathered six children.)

Zwingli's ministry in Zurich began on 1 January 1519, his

35th birthday. As he had promised in his acceptance, he began
the following day to preach on St Matthew--but in a new way.
He preached consecutively through the gospel, as indeed some
of the fathers had done, and not on the passage for the day. (Z
VII 106.3-4.) (He was later to claim that his preaching before
he came to Zurich had been on the basis of scripture and
not on the basis of the fathers (Z II 144.32-145.8).) After
expounding St Matthew and the Acts he turned to 1 Timothy,
Galatians, 2 Timothy, 1 and 2 Peter, and Hebrews, choosing
the books which would speak to the people's need at the time
(Z I 133.2-5; 284.39-285.25). He wrote of the role of his preach-
ing in the words: 'This is the seed I have sown, Matthew, Luke,
Paul and Peter have watered it and God has given it splendid
increase, but this I will not trumpet forth, lest I seem to be
canvassing my own glory and not Christ's.' (Z I 285.25-8;
Works i. 239.) By the end of 1519 Zwingli spoke of 'two thousand

____________________
Farner, Huldrych Zwingli, ii. 298-9.
3

-16

rational souls, who now feeding on spiritual milk, will soon take
solid food' (Z VII 245.15-16), although the same letter refers
to the opposition he was facing.

The first year in Zurich was an eventful one. Between August

1519 and February 1520 almost a quarter of the inhabitants of
Zurich died of the plague. Zwingli, who was out of Zurich,
returned to his pastoral duties in the city. In September he was
himself taken ill and came close to death. It was some time after
this that he wrote a poem, The Plague Song, which manifests
his sense of God's sovereignty and his submission to God's will.

In July 1519 Luther engaged in the Leipzig disputation, at

which he challenged the divine right of the papacy. This was a
decisive experience for Zwingli, who hailed Luther as a new
Elijah, and in 1520 Zwingli took the symbolically important
step of renouncing the papal pension which he had enjoyed
since his time in Glarus. (In 1523 Zwingli wrote that he had
renounced it in 1517, but that it was still paid until his written
renunciation in 1520 (Z II 314.2-21).) Some see this step as the
evidence that he had come to a reformation faith.

The year 1520 was marked by an important decision of the city

council, as it determined that preaching should be in accordance
with scripture. This was no doubt a victory for Zwingli whose
preaching was scriptural. It is on the basis of scripture that he
attacked a number of beliefs and practices of the medieval
church, such as indulgences, tithes, and the invocation of the
saints--attacks which in their turn provoked opposition to him.
On issues such as these he drew support from Luther's works
and encouraged the sale of Luther's books as part of his own
battle for reform in the church. Luther features constantly in
his correspondence at this time, but Zwingli did not seem to see
in him anything more than a support for positions which he
already held. Luther's distinctively reformation concerns (such
as the theology of the cross and justification by faith) are cer-
tainly not explicit in Zwingli's references to him. Along with
the reading of Luther, there is the study of Augustine's tractates
on John, and the study of John and Paul, which were to be so
important in the maturing of his theology.

Yet Zwingli remains in many ways a humanist in his concerns.

-17

In particular his correspondence testifies to the strong literary

and political interests of Swiss humanism. Some would see a
decisive change from the reforming humanist to the reformer
in 1520, and point especially to Zwingli's letter to Myconius on
24 July. The letter certainly shows how much opposition
Zwingli faced in his ministry in Zurich, although at that time
he still had good relations with the hierarchy. In it he wrote
that he intended to urge the papal legate to warn the pope not
to excommunicate Luther. He is, however, himself prepared
for the possibility of excommunication. 'I entreat Christ for this
one thing, that he grant me to bear all things manfully and that,
as a potter's vessel, he break or strengthen me, as it pleases him.'
(Z VII 344.15-17.) The letter is dated significantly on the eve
of the feast of James, the son of Zebedee, who was the first of
the apostles to be a martyr.

In March 1522 there was a decisive public step when Chri-

stoph Froschauer, the famous Zurich printer, and others ate
meat in Lent--on the ground that an unusually heavy amount
of work demanded it. Zwingli did not himself break the Lenten
fast with them, but he preached a sermon in support of them,
arguing for Christian liberty. It is from this sermon--some
would say from a poem, The Mill--that most scholars see a
clearly evangelical note in Zwingli's writings. (However few of
Zwingli's writings have survived from before this--only three
poems, some letters, and an account of a battle--which makes
judgement in this matter difficult.) For Zwingli, however, this
was not a new departure in his ministry, for when he published
the sermon, he began by stating that the people had been
responding eagerly to the gospel he had been preaching for over
three years.

In a work published in May the issue he raised was not an

individual one, as it had been with the Lenten fast, but a national
one: the question of Swiss mercenaries. Of all the dangers which
he saw, the gravest was not the moral corruption or political
subjugation to which the mercenary system led, but the fact
that it placed the whole people under God's wrath. A Solemn
Exhortation was addressed to Schwyz, the state in which Zwingli
had worked while a priest in Einsiedeln. It shows that Zwingli's

-18

challenge was to the whole life of the people and not just its
religious life, and to civil leaders and not just ecclesiastical ones.
This concern with the total life of society was characteristic of
the whole of Zwingli's reforming ministry.

In July 1522 there was an appeal for clerical marriage, as

well as debates with Francis Lambert, a Franciscan, on the
intercession of the saints, and with members of the religious
orders in Zurich on the authority of scripture. Running through
his preaching and writing in 1522 was the appeal to scripture
against all human teaching, and hence a challenge to the auth-
ority of the church. This issue came to a head in the first
disputation in January 1523 where judgement was to be made
on the basis of scripture.

Zwingli saw the disputation, to which over 600 people came,

as an opportunity to expound and defend the faith--and to do
so in German and not, as in an academic disputation, in Latin.
(Disputations were to become an important means of spreading
and establishing the Reformation in Switzerland and southern
Germany.) He presented sixty-seven articles which embodied
what he had been preaching. They expressed two fundamental
contrasts: between the authority of scripture and the authority
of the church and between seeking salvation through Christ and
seeking it through anyone or anything else. The central place
of Christ is unmistakable, and the first twenty-three articles are
all related specifically to Christ. However Zwingli's opponent,
John Faber, vicar general of Constance, raised the question of
authority, shrewdly asking whether it was not the council that
was the judge between them. Zwingli, however, insisted that
the judge was scripture. At the end of the debate the council,
which had summoned the disputation because of the dissension
in Zurich, gave its judgement that Zwingli's preaching was
scriptural and that everyone should preach in accordance with
scripture.

In July 1523 Zwingli published An Exposition of the Articles.

It is the most substantial treatment of his theology in German
and manifests most of his distinctive emphases. It is charac-
teristic of him that his sixty-seven articles cover a whole pro-
gramme of reform, social and political, as well as ecclesiastical

-19

and personal. They can be contrasted with Luther's ninety-five

theses which deal with the single issue of indulgences. With the
articles and their exposition it can be said that the inauguration
of the Reformation in Zurich was complete.
 Becoming a Reformer
The question of when Zwingli became a reformer is one of
the most disputed and fascinating questions in Zwingli study.
Scholars are divided about when it happened and what caused
it to happen. Some place it as early as 1516, others as late as
1521. Some see the decisive influence in Erasmus, others in
Luther or Augustine.

The question is complicated by the evidence available to

us. The only contemporary evidence is in the marginal notes
Zwingli made in his books. There is naturally a problem in
dating marginal notes. However a century ago Usteri discovered
two clues for dating them: the colour of the ink and the writing
of the letter d. He argued that Zwingli wrote d with its tail
below the line up to July 1519 and above it from then. This is
the time of the Leipzig disputation which made a strong impact
on Zwingli. The change in the colour of the ink dates from
the time of his contact with Erasmus. However there are still
problems in dating the notes, and there is the further problem
that they show what Zwingli noted in others or from others,
and not necessarily what he learnt from them.

Zwingli's own view is clear. He dated his preaching of the

gospel from the time when he turned to Christ and scripture,
probably in 1516. Yet, as we study his writings, that seems the
decisive moment rather than the final one. It is not till 1522 that
Zwingli's writings manifest a full sense of the grace of God in
Jesus Christ. What began in 1516 did not fully mature till
several years later.

Zwingli, however, always pointed to the earlier date. There

are several occasions in the 1520s when he referred to the time
that he had begun to preach the gospel, and the general picture
that emerges is clear and coherent, even if the year is not clear.
He asserted his independence of Luther and invoked God as

-20

witness that he had learned the gospel from John, Augustine's

tractates on John, and Paul's epistles. He referred to Thomas
Wyttenbach's disputation in Basle, probably in 1515, which
showed indulgences to be a deceit, and to the poem of Erasmus,
from which he derived his faith that no one except Christ can
mediate between God and us. He took up the poem's lament
that people do not seek all their good in Christ, the fount of all
good. For Zwingli the fundamental difference between himself
and his opponents was between trusting in Christ and his
atoning death and trusting in the creature. Therefore, he nat-
urally regarded the making of that discovery as the fundamental
turning-point in his life. This also means that, like Bucer and
unlike Luther, he did not see a fundamental contrast between
Erasmus and the Reformation.

Zwingli's preaching of the gospel embraced both his turning

to Christ and his turning to scripture. In The Clarity and
Certainty of the Word of God in 1522 he spoke of having begun
seven or eight years before to rely wholly on scripture, learning
God's teaching from his own plain word, and seeking under-
standing from God rather than from commentaries and exposi-
tors. In the same year there is reference in Archeteles to trusting
God's word alone for salvation.

It is noteworthy that Zwingli saw a continuity not only

between his understanding of scripture and the gospel in 1522
and 1523 (when undoubtedly there is a reformation under-
standing of them) and what he held in his early years in Zurich,
but also between that and what he held in Einsiedeln or at the
end of his time in Glarus (Z I 88.10-89 2; II 14.11-14), which
is a period in which most scholars see him as an Erasmian rather
than as a reformer. Zwingli's sense of continuity in his ministry
fits the way in which Bucer--twenty years later--saw the con-
tinuity between Erasmus and Luther and wrote of Erasmus as
showing that salvation comes from faith in Christ and not from
ceremonies. Zwingli regarded both Erasmus and Luther as
raised up by God, and he recognized, beside scripture, both
their part and that of the fathers in learning what true religion
is.

The decisive role of Erasmus cannot be doubted--but what

-21

of Luther and Augustine? Zwingli certainly denied that he learnt

the gospel from Luther, and claimed to have begun preaching
it two years before people in his area had heard of Luther. There
is naturally the suspicion that Zwingli wanted to assert his
independence of Luther, in part at least because of the danger
of being identified with a heretic. However there are good
reasons for accepting his assertion that he was independent,
although some scholars still make a case for Zwingli's depen-
dence. The research of Rich has shown that when Zwingli read
Luther, he seemed to find in Luther confirmation of views he
already held and to see Luther as supporting what we may
describe as a reforming rather than a reformation position. For
Zwingli what was decisive in Luther was his deed rather than
his words--the fact that at the Leipzig disputation he had had
the courage to act against the pope, like a David against Goliath.

The exact role of Augustine is also difficult to determine. It

is bound up with the dating of Zwingli's marginal notes. It
seems that Zwingli studied Augustine in Glarus and Einsiedeln
as well as in Zurich, and Augustine was certainly a stimulus in
the deepening of Zwingli's grasp of scripture and the gospel, as
he himself stated. Moreover important elements and emphases
in Zwingli's theology can be found in the marginal notes on
Augustine. But besides the question of their date there is the
question whether Augustine led to a further study of the Bible
or whether the study of the Bible led to a study of Augustine
and other fathers in order to understand the Bible better. The
similarities between Augustine and Zwingli are, however, wide
and deep. They can be found not only in their understanding
of the sovereignty and righteousness of God, but also in their
understanding of scripture and the sacraments, as well as in the
Platonist cast of their theology.

There are probably many factors that lie behind the change
that took place in 1515-16: not only matters such as the learning
of Greek, the disputation of Wyttenbach, the reading of Eras-
mus's poem, the meeting with Erasmus and the intensive study
of his works, and the copying out of Paul's letters in Greek, but
also perhaps experiences such as the disastrous defeat of the
Swiss which he witnessed at Marignano in September 1515,

-22

and his own sexual lapse when a priest in Einsiedeln. Yet

important as the change in 1515-16 was, there is no doubt that
Zwingli came to a profounder grasp of the gospel and scripture
in his first years in Zurich. Various experiences contributed to
this: his study of John, Augustine, and Paul (whenever this is
dated); the example of Luther in Leipzig in 1519; his suffering
from the plague in the same year and his later reflection on this
in a poem; the apparent failure of his successful ministry in
Zurich to which a letter of 24 July 1520 testifies; and an undated
occasion when--in wrestling with the words 'Forgive us our
trespasses, as we forgive those that trespass against us'--he
came to see and accept his utter dependence on God's grace.

Yet whatever the influence of these various experiences, none

should exclude the formative role of scripture itself. In it he
met the living word of God and sensed God's overwhelming
grace. Alongside scripture, however, we cannot ignore the role
of two of its interpreters: Erasmus and Augustine.

Conservative and Radical Opponents

Zwingli found himself with opponents on both sides--those
resisting reformation and those wanting a reformation which
was more radical than his. The radicals differed not only in their
interpretation of the Bible, with their emphasis on the New
Testament, but also in their understanding of the church and
the Christian life. They took issue with him on tithes and the
paying of interest, and later on images, oaths, baptism, and the
eucharist. They disagreed with Zwingli on both the content of
the reformation and its pace.

The radicals were at first closely identified with Zwingli--

some had broken the Lenten fast in 1522. In the early days
Zwingli often met with them. In the summer of 1522 they were
joined by Felix Manz and Conrad Grebel, the son of a city
councillor. The following year, on 22 June, a delegation from
several parishes met the council and raised among other things
the question of tithes. Two days later Zwingli preached a
sermon, which was expanded into a treatise, Divine and Human
Righteousness. In it he made the distinction between divine and
 -23-

human righteousness. He argued for respecting property and

paying interest and tithes while the government required them,
although he criticized them in terms of divine righteousness.

Later in the summer Zwingli was criticized by the radicals

for not being biblical enough in his proposals about the mass.
For example, he did not reject eucharistic vestments, and for
the sake of the weak he allowed the sign of the cross. (In earlier
controversy with his Catholic opponents on fasting, he had
argued that where there was no prohibition in scripture, then
God had left the issue free.) Zwingli regarded his opponents as
biblicist. By contrast with them he regarded matters such as the
time at which the eucharist was to be celebrated and the question
whether the bread should be leavened or unleavened, as ones
which the church was free to decide. Moreover he judged that
the radicals' concern for immediate action in reform would
alienate many people and lead to uproar.

By October, however, after the denunciation and violent

destruction of images by the radicals, the council summoned a
second disputation to examine images and the mass in the light
of scripture. Although the council clearly hoped to make it a
federal assembly, the bishops and most of the cantons declined
invitations. Nevertheless it was attended by 900 people and its
judgement was that the mass and images were unscriptural.
Unlike the radicals, however, Zwingli was willing for the council
to determine when the changes which had been agreed should
take place. The role that Zwingli saw for government (and
therefore in Zurich for its governing body, the council) was to
become an area of increasing dispute between him and the
radicals.

A third disputation was held in January 1524, but this time

it was with a small select group. It marked an unsuccessful
attempt by the conservatives to undermine the Reformation in
Zurich. By June the council agreed to do away with statues and
images in response to the word of God, and in a dramatic
fortnight they were removed and the churches cleansed.
However it was not till the Easter of 1525 that the mass was
replaced by the Lord's Supper. Then on Maundy Thursday a
table, covered with a clean linen cloth, was set between the choir

-24

and nave in the Great Minster. Upon it were the bread on

wooden platters and the wine in wooden beakers. The service
was in Swiss German, not Latin, with the men and women on
opposite sides of the middle aisle. The elements were taken by
the appointed ministers through the congregation.

The slowness of reform provoked the radicals. They

destroyed images months before the council took action to
remove images, and they celebrated their own form of the Lord's
Supper in January 1525, several weeks ahead of the reformers.
But images and the mass were not the only issues. Soon other
matters came into the centre of the conflict with the reformers.
There were social and political issues, including obedience to
civil authority, which led to Zwingli writing Those Who Give
Cause for Tumult in December 1524, as well as the question of
infant baptism and eventually rebaptism.

As early as February 1524 a number of people refused to

have their children baptized. After an unsuccessful meeting in
December between the radicals and Zwingli, along with other
ministers, the council summoned the ministers and the radicals
to a disputation on 17 January 1525. After it the council insisted
that they baptize their infants within eight days, on pain of
banishment. However on 21 January a new development took
place. On that day opposition to infant baptism led to rebaptism,
and Conrad Grebel baptized George Blaurock, who then bap-
tized fifteen others. Further meetings between radicals and
reformers were not fruitful, and on 7 March 1526 the council
threatened those rebaptizing with death by drowning. On 5
January 1527 Felix Manz was the first to suffer that penalty.

The year 1525 was important in Zurich not only for the first
reformed celebration of the Lord's Supper at Easter, but also
for the institution of the prophecy (Prophezei) in June. The
prophecy was a characteristically Zwinglian response to both
conservatives and radicals, and expressed his view of the refor-
med pastor and preacher over against the unreformed priest and
the itinerant preacher. At the heart of the prophecy was the
study of the Bible in the original languages, Hebrew and Greek.
(The understanding of biblical languages was seen as cor-
responding with the gift of tongues in the New Testament.) For

-25

Zwingli, a preacher versed in the scriptures could keep clear of

the errors of those who rely on human teaching, whether they
appealed as conservatives did to the teaching of the church or
as radicals did to the Spirit. The prophecy was vital for the
education of a reformed ministry and manifested the centrality
of the word in a reformed church.

In Zwingli's view the whole life of the community was to be

brought under the sovereign rule of God. Legislation for the
social and political life of the community was as important for
him as changes in its liturgical life. In January 1525 the poor law
was enacted, and in May marriage laws. This process developed,
leading to the great moral mandate in May 1530. Oversight of
another kind came with the calling of a synod in 1528 and in
succeeding years.

In all these reforms the council was indispensable. Its active

role in church affairs was not new, as it had gathered powers to
itself in the years before the Reformation, but undoubtedly it
sought to extend its powers wherever possible. Zwingli argued
for its place in the reformation of the city on theological and
practical grounds, but always it was to act in accordance with
the word of God, by which everything was to be governed. It
was, moreover, not to act on its own, but always with the silent
consent of the church. Its representative action was for Zwingli
a way in which change could take place peacefully, for an
assembly of the whole church might be divisive. However other
reformers, such as Bucer, Oecolampadius, and Calvin, sought
a more independent role for the church.

The Later Years in Zurich

From the beginning Zwingli's concern was with the whole of
the confederation and not just with Zurich. He sought freedom
for the preaching of the word in other cantons. For their part
the five cantons, Uri, Schwyz, Zug, Lucerne, and Unterwalden,
sought to expel Zurich from the federation. The conflict
between them expressed itself first in disputation and then in
battle.

Zwingli did not take part directly in the disputation with John

-26-

Eck at Baden in 1526 because of fears for his safety, although a

well-concealed messenger service brought reports to him of the
day's debate and took back his comments and suggestions for
the next day. The theses advanced by Eck concerned the mass,
the intercession of the saints, images, and purgatory, but under-
lying them all was the question of the authority of scripture.
The disputation resulted, as was expected, in a victory for Eck.
The defeat was reversed two years later at the disputation in
Berne in January 1528, in which Zwingli took part, together
with Bucer, Haller, and Oecolampadius. Victory in Berne was
a crucial step in the spread of the Reformation in Switzerland,
for its dominant role in the west was similar to that of Zurich
in the east.

The following year saw disputation give way to battle. In his

eagerness to defend the proclamation of the gospel, Zwingli
urged an attack on the five cantons. He wrote to Berne, 'Be firm
and do not fear war. For that peace which some are so urgently
pressing upon us is not peace but war. And the war for which
I am so insistent is peace, not war. . . . Unless this takes place
neither the truth of the gospel nor its ministers will be safe
among us.' (Z X 147. 2-7.) The war ended almost as soon as it
had begun, and a treaty was signed. The reformation cities held
that it permitted the preaching of the gospel. However, as the
five cantons denied this, there was deadlock.

The same year marked the climax of the conflict between

Zwingli and Luther. The main area of disagreement was the
eucharist, and there were signs of a different theology in this
and in some other matters as early as 1523. At first Zwingli and
Luther were not engaged in direct conflict, but in 1527 and
1528 they wrote major works against each other. The need
for unity, made more urgent by Catholic opposition to the
Reformation, led to the Marburg Colloquy, to which Philip of
Hesse invited them in 1529. It produced substantial agreement,
although both sides interpreted the Marburg articles somewhat
differently. Fourteen of the fifteen articles were agreed and in
the fifteenth on the eucharist there was agreement in five points,
with the one point of disagreement being put into a subordinate
clause. However for Luther the point of disagreement (on the

-27

bodily presence of Christ) was vital. It meant that he was

unwilling to regard Zwingli as a brother and it prevented union
between them.

Although the colloquy did not bring unity, it ended the bitter
conflict. In this the mediating work of Bucer and Oecolampadius
on the one side and of Melanchthon on the other was important.
Nevertheless the absence of total agreement prevented an
alliance with the Lutheran powers, which had become more
pressing in the face of growing Catholic opposition, manifest at
the Diet of Speyer in 1529 and the Diet of Augsburg in 1530.
Zurich had, however, entered into alliance with Constance in
1527, with Berne and St Gallen in 1528, with Basle, Schaff-
hausen, Biel, and Mühlhausen in 1529, and with Hesse in 1530.
(Already in 1524 the five cantons of Uri, Schwyz, Zug, Lucerne,
and Unterwalden had entered into an alliance against the Refor-
mation in Zurich, and in 1529 they made an alliance with King
Ferdinand of Austria.) Zwingli was in fact prepared for alliances
even with powers which were not Protestant but which were
simply opposed to the emperor, in order to secure the preaching
of the gospel.

Alliances meant a willingness that ultimately the sword should

defend the preaching of the word. Zwingli was ready for this in
1529 and again in 1531. In 1529 peace was concluded with the
five cantons without the decisive battle which would have been
in Zurich's favour. The persecution of some followers of the
Reformation that ensued made Zwingli urge invasion of the
Catholic cantons. Berne however counselled sanctions, which
Zwingli for his part regarded as unjust, because they involved
the suffering of the innocent. Nevertheless they were agreed on,
and there was an embargo on wheat, wine, salt, iron, and steel.
Various attempts at negotiation failed. Eventually in October
the forces of the five cantons assembled and on 9 October 1531
they crossed the borders of the canton of Zurich. Zurich itself
was only twelve miles away. After a hasty meeting of the council
an advance guard left the city. Battle began before the next
contingent of 1,500 arrived. According to Swiss custom,
Zwingli, as the chief pastor, bore the banner on horseback. He
urged the 1,500 into battle to support the 1,200 already there.

-28

But tired, ill-prepared, and outnumbered three to one, they

could not prevail--and in the battle Zwingli was wounded and
killed.

His death was seen by Luther as the judgement of God. Bucer

was shocked by it, but a few days later he wrote to Melanchthon:
'He was a truly religious man, who believed in the Lord and
also one who greatly loved good letters and furthered them
among his own people. . . . In truth he looked to nothing other
than the glory of Christ and the salvation of his native land.'
(ZWA 14 ( 1978) 484.)

Zwingli's death and the defeat at Kappel on 11 October halted

the Reformation in Switzerland for a time. But in Zurich the
young Heinrich Bullinger succeeded him and developed the
work which he had begun--and then a few years later in Geneva
the Reformation drew new breath under the leadership of
Calvin.

-29-

3
The Bible
THE Bible was at the heart of Zwingli's reformation. When he
began his ministry in Zurich on his 35th birthday on 1 January
1519, he announced that the next day he would begin a con-
tinuous exposition of St Matthew. The dozen years that fol-
lowed until his death in 1531 were remarkable for the central
place given to the exposition and proclamation of the word. He
preached regularly--not only in the Great Minster, but also on
Fridays, market-day, in the Minster of our Lady. In the former
he began by expounding St Matthew and the Acts of the Apo-
stles and then in 1521-2 he continued with some of the epistles.
Eventually he preached from most of the Bible, Old Testament
as well as New. The preaching was practical and topical. It
grappled not only with distinctively religious issues, but also
with social and political ones.

The importance of the preaching of the word is evident in

Zwingli's concern for freedom to preach the word in other cities
and cantons as well. For example, the first condition for peace
in the war of 1529 was freedom for the preaching of the word,
and the alliances which he sought had the same concern. For
Zwingli the word of God 'will as surely have its way as the
Rhine, which you can stem for a while, but not stop' (Z III
488.7-8).

Behind Zwingli's preaching lay his study of scripture. It was

in 1513 that the humanist priest in Glarus began to learn Greek
in order to study the Bible. He immersed himself so deeply in
the Greek text that in later years he most naturally quoted from
the New Testament in Greek rather than in Latin or German.
Indeed he copied the Pauline epistles in Greek and, it would
seem from one reference, learned them by heart. Hebrew came

-30

with more difficulty than Greek. He started learning it before

coming to Zurich, and began again in his first year there, in
order to expound the Psalms in 1520. Yet on 25 March 1522 he
wrote to Beatus Rhenanus in Basle, 'Greet Pellican and tell
him I have begun Hebrew. Ye gods, what a distasteful and
melancholy study! But I shall persist until I get something out
of it.' (Z VII 497.27-29.) However 1522 was the year in which
with the help of Böschenstein and Ceporinus he began to master
the language.

His biblical study bore fruit in his debate with others and in
the prophecy. Frequently in debate (as with Faber and Luther)
he challenged his opponent's case by reference to the Greek or
Hebrew text. However it was in the prophecy that his concern
for the scholarly study of scripture is most evident. From June
1525 preachers and students met five times a week to study the
Bible. The Old Testament was read first in Latin from the
Vulgate, then in Hebrew, and finally in Greek from the Sep-
tuagint. The Hebrew and Greek were expounded in Latin, the
language of the educated, before a final exposition in German,
the language of the people. For Zwingli it was only by such a
fundamental study of the scripture that the preaching of the
church could be free from error, both the error of Catholics'
appealing to tradition and the error of radicals' appealing to the
Spirit. (For the anabaptist, Hubmaier, however, Zwingli was
exchanging dependence on popes and councils for dependence
on linguists.) The prophecy was of central importance in edu-
cating Reformed ministers, and through the years it also led to
a series of valuable translations and commentaries (on Genesis,
Exodus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the gospels), and in 1531 to the
Zurich Bible.

Underlying the study of scripture and the preaching from it

was the conviction that it was God's word. It was for this reason
that it was central to Zwingli's reformation. That is why at the
first disputation in January 1523 he could point to the Bible,
which had been brought into the assembly in Hebrew, Greek,
and Latin, as the judge. (Indeed the introduction to the sixty-
seven articles which he was to defend at that disputation asserted
that they were based on the Bible.) In all his debates Zwingli

-31

appealed to its authority and rejected the authority of the church

and its traditional teaching. He invited his opponents to correct
him from scripture, and made it clear that he was prepared to
be in a minority of one, if he spoke with scripture and not
against it.

The Authority of the Bible

The authority of the Bible lay in its being God's word, and
Zwingli opposed this to man's word, as he opposed truth to
error. The tradition of the church, even when expressed by
councils or by the pope, was in the end man's word and not
God's. In this conflict Zwingli frequently referred to Rom. 3:4,
'Let God be true, though every man be false.'
The Bible is God's word because it was spoken by God and
because God speaks through it. 'The doctrine of God is never
formed more clearly than when it is done by God himself and
in the words of God.' (Z I 378. 17-18; LCC xxiv. 89-90.)

Zwingli maintained the unity and consistency of God's word.

He did not allow any disharmony in scripture, but insisted on
the agreement of its different parts, as they derive from the
Spirit who is the Spirit of concord (Z V 735. 21-3). He therefore
argued for the agreement of apparently inconsistent passages,
just as, for example, Bucer did, although Bucer's treatment
of such texts in his commentary on Romans was much more
systematic. Nevertheless Zwingli was not a literalist, and he
recognized minor differences between say Matthew and Mark.
Although Zwingli stressed certain parts of scripture, calling St
John the noblest part of the New Testament, he did not, unlike
Luther, have a canon within the canon. His appeal, like that of
Bucer and Calvin, was rather to the whole of scripture. At the
same time, like Luther, he did not accept the Revelation of St
John as canonical. Following Jerome, he thought it was not held
as canonical in the early church. For him it lacked the heart and
spirit of John.

He saw a fundamental difference between scripture and the

tradition of the church. By contrast with scripture the utterances
of the fathers, the councils, and the popes are human words.

-32

Therefore in debate with his Catholic opponents he challenged

the authority of the fathers, for 'the fathers must yield to the
word of God and not the word of God to the fathers' (Z III 50.
5-9). The Bible is 'master, teacher, and guide', not the fathers
(Z I 307. 1-4). In any case the councils and fathers were not
always consistent, which means that they have to be tested by
scripture and, as Zwingli put it, by Christ as the touchstone (Z
I 302. 35-303.10).

Yet Zwingli was not simply a man of one book: the Bible. He
made use of fathers, councils, and popes to support his case and
to show that his views were not his alone. He also used them in
order to debate with his opponents on their own ground and to
fight them with their own weapons. After citing a series of
patristic texts in A Commentary he stated explicitly his reason
for using the fathers:

I have quoted these things from the weightiest of the fathers, not
because I wish to support by human authority a thing plain in itself
and confirmed by the word of God, but that it might be manifest to
the feebler brethren that I am not the first to put forth this view, and
that it does not lack very strong support (Z III 816.1-4: Works iii.
247-8).

This quotation from A Commentary occurs not surprisingly

in a discussion of the eucharist, for that was the subject above
all that caused Zwingli to examine the fathers in support of his
case. As the years passed the range of quotations increased, with
Augustine always of central importance theologically. (Overall
there are twice as many references to Jerome as to Augustine, but
that is because Jerome was used so often in the Old Testament
commentaries on points of philology and exegesis.) In his
dispute with Luther on the two natures of Christ, Zwingli
argued that Luther's view of the two natures was contrary to
that of the fathers, and indeed also to that of the schoolmen (Z
V 943. 11-14).

Zwingli disallowed the appeal to councils, in part because of

their inconsistency but more importantly because such an appeal
subjects God's word to men, and therefore to those opposed to
his word. 'To cry for councils is nothing but to cry for the word

-33

of God to be imprisoned again and imprisoned in the power of

the swaggering bishops.' (Z II 449.17-19.)

An interesting example of his rejection of human authority

comes in his dispute with Jerome Emser. Emser appealed to the
way people have invoked the aid of St Nicholas in storms at sea.
Zwingli rejected such an appeal by pointing out that Castor and
Pollux have rescued many more from shipwreck and therefore
ought to be invoked rather than Nicholas. He shows the futility
of appealing to human authority, whether in tradition or experi-
ence, and makes his appeal to scripture which states that our
help comes from God alone. (Z III 273.1-276.17.)

Yet, despite the centrality of scripture for Zwingli, there is a

wide use of non-biblical writings, especially in two of his major
works, A Commentary and The Providence of God. It is true that
he could dismiss non-biblical writers with scorn, but he also
used them in support of his argument. He claimed that he did
this for the sake of those for whom he was writing, using--as
he put it in his first reformation work--a heathen argument for
the sake of those who were better versed in Aristotle than in the
New Testament (Z I 98.3-6). Zwingli supported his use of non-
biblical writers by the example of Paul in the New Testament
( Acts 17: 28) and Jethro in the Old. 'Let us receive from them
anything good or true that they have said and turn it to the
glory of our God, and from the spoil of the Egyptians let us
adorn the temple of the true God.' (Z XIII 382. 28-31.) In this
use of non-biblical writers Zwingli stood in the tradition not
only of his humanist contemporaries but also of many of the
fathers. Following Jerome and Augustine, he asserted that 'all
truth is of God'.

In The Providence of God, where the Bible is in the back-

ground and philosophical argument in the foreground, he
defended his use of non-biblical testimony, such as Plato,
Pythagoras, and Seneca, by asserting that 'writings are properly
called sacred when they proclaim the thought of the holy, pure,
eternal and infallible mind', adding that 'all that I have said and
all that I am going to say in this book is derived from one source,
namely from the nature and character of the Supreme Deity.
This source Plato also tasted, and Seneca drank from it.' (Z VI
 -34

iii. 106.5-8, 106.16-107.1; Works ii. 151.) At the end of the

work, however, Zwingli insisted that the foundation of his case
was scripture, even though he had used philosophical
arguments. This indicates that he saw the criterion of truth to
be scriptural.

Zwingli undoubtedly used non-biblical writers more posi-

tively than Luther, but there is no sense in which non-biblical
writings have independent authority. Indeed Christians are
reminded of the biblical revelation and directed to go to it rather
than to non-biblical writers. He stated this in A Commentary
when he affirmed, 'But we, to whom God has spoken through
his Son and through the Holy Spirit, are to seek these things
not from those who were puffed up with human wisdom, and
consequently corrupted what they received pure, but from the
divine oracles' (Z III 643.24-7; Works iii. 62). Only of scriptural
testimony did he say that it was 'unassailable' (S IV 56.18).

There is, however, an important difference with Luther here.

Zwingli did not see as sharply as Luther did the uniqueness of
the biblical revelation. This was in part because, like Augustine
and Origen, he interpreted non-biblical writers in the light of
scripture. Thus, for example, when they refer to gods in the
plural, Zwingli took them to refer to the one God, just as the
Hebrews did with the word elohim, which was also plural.
There is therefore in Zwingli a considerable christianizing of
non-biblical writers, which enabled him to treat them positively,
while insisting on the authority of scripture.

The Interpretation of the Bible

The reformers shifted the starting-point of theological debate
to the scripture. It alone was authoritative. They appealed to
its clear testimony, but in doing so they were inescapably
involved in discussion of its interpretation, not least when they
used or interpreted passages of scripture differently from their
opponents. In the course of controversy with his opponents
(Catholic, radical, and Lutheran) Zwingli developed various
principles of interpretation, of which the most fundamental was

-35

that scripture comes from the Spirit and can be understood

aright only where the Spirit gives understanding.

He accused his Catholic opponents of using human reasoning

to interpret scripture, so that they read out of it what human
reason had first read into it. This was expressed clearly in one
of his earlier works, The Clarity and Certainty of the Word of
God, where he recognized in a measure the force of his
opponents' case. 'I know that you will reply that you have
worked through the scriptures and discovered texts which
support your opinion.' (Z I 376. 15-17; LCC xxiv. 88.) For him
his opponents misunderstood the scripture because they went
to it to find support for their own views, whereas the right
approach is:

Before I say anything or listen to the teaching of man, I will first

consult the mind of the Spirit of God (Ps. 84 [A.V. 85]): 'I will hear
what God the Lord will speak.' Then you should reverently ask God
for his grace, that he may give you his mind and Spirit, so that you
will not lay hold of your own opinion but of his. . . . You must be
theodidacti, that is, taught of God, not of men. (Z I 377. 7-20; LCC
xxiv. 88-89.)

Without the Spirit people read their own ideas into scripture.
Therefore before people approach scripture they need to pray
to God, so that they may receive his mind and Spirit; otherwise
they are blinded by the flesh or human reason. This does not
mean that scripture is not clear; the problem is rather that we
are not open or receptive to it. The necessity for the Spirit in
understanding and interpreting scripture fits the God-centred
character of Zwingli's theology. He never tires of quoting pass-
ages such as 'And they shall all be taught of God' ( John 6: 45).
This approach, with its emphasis on the role of the Spirit, leads
Zwingli generally to speak of Spirit and Word, in contrast to
Luther who spoke of Word and Spirit for without the Spirit we
cannot understand the word.

The emphasis Zwingli gives to the Spirit does not, however,

make the Spirit a substitute for scripture. He sees that as the
error of some of the radicals, who appealed to the Spirit,
although it was their own spirit rather than God's Spirit who
inspired them.

-36-

For as often as by the use of clear passages of scripture they are driven
to the point of having to say, I yield, straightway they talk about 'the
Spirit' and deny scripture. As if indeed the heavenly Spirit were
ignorant of the sense of scripture which is written under his guidance
or were anywhere inconsistent with himself. (Z VI i. 24. 2-6; Selected
Works126.)

Luther's charge against Zwingli of being an enthusiast

(Schwärmer) was exactly Zwingli's charge against Luther be-
cause--for Zwingli--Luther was arguing without the support
of God's word. Zwingli used the analogy of a horse and reins,
in which both are needed. The reins do not draw without the
horse, but the reins keep the horse on the track. 'For it is no
less agreeable and delightful than fair and just for us to submit
our judgement to the holy scriptures, and the church, deciding
in harmony with these by virtue of the Spirit.' (Z VI ii. 815.21-
3; Works ii. 58.) As the Spirit is the author as well as the
interpreter of scripture, his guidance is always in keeping with
scripture.

The reformers read and were influenced by Augustine On

the Spirit and the Letter, and Zwingli was no exception. Augu-
stine saw the fundamental distinction of letter and spirit in 2
Cor. 3:6 not as between the literal and the figurative or spiritual
meaning of a passage, but as between the letter and the Holy
Spirit. He gave as an example of the letter that kills the command
not to covet. It is to be taken literally. Yet taken literally, it kills,
because we cannot keep it without the Holy Spirit who gives
life. However not all passages are to be taken literally. Augustine
also allowed the distinction between the literal and spiritual
meaning and held that there were many passages, as in the Song
of Songs, where we must look for the spiritual or figurative and
not the literal meaning. These two senses of letter and spirit are
evident in Zwingli. The probable impact of Erasmus is to be
seen in the distinction he makes between the word and its sense
or real meaning.

A proper understanding of scripture involved Zwingli, in

common with his contemporaries, in using a number of prin-
ciples of interpretation: setting disputed passages in their
context, comparing one passage of scripture with another, and

-37

employing the various senses of scripture. The importance of

context and comparison is evident in controversy, especially the
eucharistic controversy. Thus Zwingli insisted that the crucial
clause 'This is my body' must be seen in the context of the
words that follow it: 'which is given for you' and 'Do this in
remembrance of me'. It must also be compared with other
passages of scripture such as 'The flesh is of no avail' ( John 6:
63). Another form of comparison is in the use of analogy. The
most important ones Zwingli used were between baptism and
the eucharist in the New Testament and circumcision and the
passover in the Old Testament. (Comparison was used to rec-
oncile apparently conflicting passages, such as the statements
on faith in James and Paul. Zwingli held that the passages
must be in harmony, as the Spirit--and therefore scripture--is
everywhere consistent.)

A further principle of interpretation is faith--in the sense of

faith in God or in Christ rather than in ourselves. Like Augu-
stine, Zwingli appealed to Isa. 7: 9, as translated in the Sep-
tuagint and the Vulgate, 'If you do not believe you will not
understand.' He insisted that we learned by faith that flesh was
not given to us to eat. Rather by faith we are sure that we are
saved through Christ and that everything is given to us with
him. What, he asked, could eating the flesh do in addition to
that? He challenged Luther's appeal to the literal sense of the
words 'This is my body' by reminding Luther of his own
statement that a word is to be taken in its natural sense unless
faith admonishes otherwise. (Z V 662.2-663.15.) It is faith
which causes us not to interpret the words of institution literally
any more than we should interpret literally (as Luther himself
had argued) 'Upon this rock I will build my church'.

Faith as a principle of interpretation is frequently associated

with love or the glory of God. To take from God his honour or
glory and give it to anything else is for Zwingli the true idolatry.
In debate Zwingli appealed both to the Old Testament and
the New. The theological priority lay with the New, even when
he quoted Old Testament passages first, for his desire from the
beginning was 'always to be guided by the scriptures of the New
and Old Testament' (Z I I33.13-14). The Old Testament was

-38

to be read in the light of the New Testament, and not the

New in the light of the Old. So, for example, Zwingli rejected
arguments from the Old Testament that the eucharist is a sac-
rifice, as that is to turn from the light to the shadow. In a proper
use of scripture you can find implicit in the Old Testament only
what is explicit in Christ.

Against anabaptists, who insisted on arguing only from the

New Testament, Zwingli had to defend his use of the Old. This
was particularly important in the baptismal controversy, where
anabaptists stressed the contrast between the Old and the New
Testament. Against them he argued from the fact that Christ
and the apostles appealed to the Old Testament. He quoted
especially: 'Search the scriptures, in which you think you have
eternal life, and they bear witness of me' ( John 5: 39), 'Every-
thing that was written was written for our instruction' ( Rom.
15: 4), and 'Everything happened to them as a symbol, but was
written for our instruction' ( 1 Cor. 10: 11).

There is a development in Zwingli's view of the Old Testa-

ment. In his earlier writing the emphasis was more on the
contrast between the two testaments, in his later writings it was
rather on the unity of the two. This shift in emphasis is related
to the development in his understanding of the covenant. From
1525 he spoke of the one covenant which God had made, which
was renewed in Christ. There is only one covenant, as there is
only one God and one people of God. With this change in
Zwingli's theology there was added further strength to the case
he made against the anabaptists, as he was able to argue freely
from both testaments.

In his interpretation of the Old Testament Zwingli stood in

a tradition that went back to the fathers and to Philo. In this
tradition various senses of scripture were distinguished--some-
times three, sometimes four. There were the three senses which
Origen described as corporal (historical), psychical (moral), and
spiritual (mystical), following his understanding of man as body,
soul, and spirit. There were the four senses (literal, allegorical,
tropological or moral, and anagogical) expressed in the thir-
teenth century in a couplet by the Dominican Augustine of
Dacia. 'The literal sense (littera) teaches you what has hap-

-39

pened, the allegorical what you should believe, the moral what
you should do, and the anagogical what you should strive for.'
Zwingli's fundamental concern was with the natural sense.
(However the natural sense can be seen as the spiritual sense,
in that it comes not from human reason but from the Spirit who
is the author of scripture.) This led to a detailed examination
of the text, necessitating a knowledge of the biblical languages
and of the Bible's many figures of speech. (Künzli has pointed
to seventy rhetorical terms in the commentaries on Genesis
and Exodus, and 200 in that on Isaiah.) 1 Especially in his
commentaries on the prophets Zwingli drew heavily on Jerome
in matters of language, history, and geography. A stress on the
natural sense links Zwingli with the other reformers and also
with medieval scholars such as Nicholas of Lyra.

Besides the natural sense is the moral sense. Texts such as 1

Cor. 10: 11 show that the Old Testament was written for our
sake, but the same is true of the New Testament as well because
for Zwingli there is nothing in the Bible that does not teach,
admonish, or console (Z XIII 157.26-8). This moral purpose
is furthered by the use of examples, and it all fits Zwingli's
overall purpose in the study of the Bible. This was expressed
in the prayer used at the beginning of the prophecy: 'open and
illuminate our minds, that we may understand your oracles in
a pure and holy way and be transformed into that which we
have rightly understood' (Z IV 365.3-5).

In addition to the natural and moral sense, there is the mys-

tical sense. This sense Zwingli saw as a biblical way of inter-
preting the Bible. He drew on Paul's words in 1 Cor. 10: 6
and 11, which speak of everything in the Old Testament as
happening sybolically and as symbolizing something to us, as
well as being written for us. For him the events were historical
as well as symbolical, and he insisted on their historicity.
However to see the promises of the prophets as having to do
only with an earthly Israel or an earthly Jerusalem is to see them
in a fleshly way as the Jews do. They also have an allegorical or
symbolical sense.

____________________
See E. Künzli, 'Zwingli als Ausleger von Genesis und Exodus', Diss.
1

( Zurich, 1951), 57 and Z XIV 884.

-40

The allegorical interpretation is related to the New Testament

and above all to Christ, in keeping with his conviction that one
must argue back from Christ who is the fulfilment of scripture.
Only what is explicit in him may be read into a person or event
in the Old Testament. In keeping with this Zwingli frequently
used typology, with Noah, Isaac, Joseph, and Moses serving as
types of Christ. Gen. 22, with its story of Abraham's sacrifice
of Isaac, exemplifies various features in Zwingli's use of
typology. It shows similarity: the three days correspond with
Christ's resurrection on the third day, the ass with the ass ridden
by Christ in entering Jerusalem, the wood borne by Isaac with
the cross borne by Christ, and so on. Equally it shows dis-
similarity: two boys compared with three disciples, showing the
truth to be superior to the shadow, and Isaac's not dying, while
Christ did die, for if Isaac had been like Christ in all things he
would have been the truth and not the figure. (Z XIII 147.36-
148.32.)

There are types or figures not only of Christ, but also of the
church, evil powers, and the last things. Some are less com-
pelling than others to the modern reader. In Gen. 32 the two
feet of Jacob stand for the desire of the flesh and of the Spirit.
The person who is lame in both feet, that is who desires at the
same time to please God and the flesh, is accursed. The person
who is lame in one foot, the flesh, so that he rests only on the
Spirit and trusts in him alone, is happy. (Z XIII 213.8-12.)
Faith, he says, teaches what things are to be understood typo-
logically.

In the mystical sense of scripture Zwingli shows both a depen-

dence on and an independence of Origen. He refers those who
want more to Origen, but he also criticizes Origen for not
treating a passage as historical. He gives a greater stress to the
natural sense than Origen and is also more christological in his
interpretation. For him, allegory is no more than a condiment
to a meal. It is nothing by itself, but for the believer it can give
a pleasant taste to something which has its basis in scripture.

-41

The centrality of the Bible for Zwingli is evident in the three

vital institutions of the Zurich Reformation: preaching, the
disputations, and the prophecy. Each of them is an assertion of
the authority of the Bible over against every other authority.
Each of them, though especially the prophecy, shows him wrest-
ling with the interpretation of the Bible. Each of them in its
own way affirms the sovereignty of God, which underlies the
whole of Zwingli's thought.

-42-

4
God: The Sovereignty of God
FOR Zwingli the life of the church and the teaching of the
church had lost their centre in God. He was concerned to see
that both theology and the Christian life recover that centre. In
that sense the great reformation slogans were true for him:
'Christ alone', 'scripture alone', 'grace alone', 'faith alone'. But
perhaps most characteristic of him would be 'God alone' or 'the
honour or glory of God'.

In A Commentary in 1525 he expressed the character of true

and false religion in this way:

True religion, or piety, is that which clings to the one and only God.
. . . True piety demands, therefore, that one should hang upon the lips
of the Lord and not hear or accept the word of any but the bridegroom.
. . . It is false religion or piety when trust is put in any other than God.
They, then, who trust in any created thing whatsoever are not truly
pious. They are impious who embrace the word of man as God's. (Z
III 669.17-25, 674.21-4: Works iii. 92, 97-8.)

Zwingli's challenge was to a religion and theology where the

centrality of God had been lost. In religion that meant placing
one's trust in the creature rather than the creator; in theology
it meant placing one's trust in human tradition and teaching
rather than in God's word. This double challenge is charac-
teristic of Zwingli's writings from beginning to end.

Zwingli's conviction of God's sovereignty or glory runs like

a thread through the whole of his theology and colours every
view which he presents. It finds most obvious expression in his
understanding of providence and predestination. Nevertheless
important as predestination was in the later Zwingli, it does not
really feature in his writings until 1526--and then it is in
response to the challenge of the anabaptists. Yet the sense of

-43-

God's providence is present in almost all of Zwingli's writings--

and it is clearly both a personal experience and an intellectual
conviction.

The Knowledge of God

The fundamental importance of the doctrine of God is apparent
in Zwingli's systematic expositions of his thought. In A Com-
mentary as in An Account of the Faith and An Exposition of the
Faith, both of which are modelled on the creed, he begins with
the doctrine of God. They affirm in their different ways the
central place of God as opposed to all that is not God, the
creator over against the creature.

It is, however, in his more systematic presentations of the

faith that Zwingli is judged by some to be as much a philosopher
as a theologian, as much dependent on non-biblical as on biblical
sources. Certainly the humanist and scholastic influences per-
meate Zwingli's thought, even if they do not control it. Human-
ist influence is manifest in the place he gives to classical authors,
especially Plato and Seneca, and scholastic influence is clear in
the discussion of the knowledge of God (his existence as well as
his nature). Both humanist and scholastic influences are evident
in A Commentary and The Providence of God.

A Commentary begins with a discussion of the knowledge of

God, in which Zwingli makes the traditional distinction between
the knowledge of God's existence and the knowledge of his
nature. He allows that most people have been aware of God's
existence, but he does not regard the knowledge of God as
inherent in people, but--in keeping with Paul in Rom. 1: 19--
as coming from God. (Z III 640.28-644.18.) Religion,
moreover, is not something natural to man, but rather depen-
dent on God, for--in a reference to Adam--he says that it 'took
its rise when God called runaway man back to him, when
otherwise he would have been a deserter for ever' (Z IIl 667.9-
12, 30-3; Works iii. 89-90).

The question naturally arises how this knowledge of God,

which people can have independently of the incarnation, relates
to Christ. Zwingli faced this question in A Commentary where

-44

he had given almost forty pages to a consideration of the nature

of religion, God, and man, before turning to Christ and the
gospel. In response to any who might say that he had made 'no
reference to salvation through Christ and to grace' his defence
was:

First, because I cannot say everything at once and in the same place;
secondly, because all that I have said of the marriage of the soul to
God applies to Christ just as much as to God (for Christ is God and
man) and finally, because knowledge of God in the nature of the case
precedes knowledge of Christ. (Z III 675.25-34; Works iii. 99.)

Locher takes this enigmatic sentence of Zwingli to mean that

in order to understand who Christ is one must first know the
doctrine of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 1 However it
would be quite natural to take the sentence in the historical
sense that God made himself known before he made himself
known in Jesus Christ. Whichever view is right the problem of
the starting-point in Zwingli's theology remains: God or God's
revelation of himself in Jesus Christ.

In A Commentary Zwingli began with an exposition of the

being of God and then considered his goodness. In The Provi-
dence of God, with its different subject, he began with God's
goodness and then considered his being. In both, but especially
the latter, the language of some of the discussion is philosophical
or scholastic, with terms like entelechy and summum bonum (the
highest good). Yet the basis of the discussion even in these
works is biblical, despite the use of non-biblical sources and
ideas, and that is certainly true in the writings that precede
them. However for those who begin with these writings or
concentrate their study of Zwingli on them, Zwingli will seem
much more a philosopher than a biblical theologian.

The Providence of God

There were various influences at work in Zwingli's under-
standing of God's sovereignty. Apart from the Bible which was

____________________
G. W. Locher, Die Theologie Huldrych Zwinglis im Lichte seiner Christologie
1

( Zurich, 1952), 55 n. 14.

 -45

fundamental, there were Christian writers, especially

Augustine, and non-Christian writers, especially Seneca.
Besides these intellectual influences on Zwingli's thought,
however, there was also the impact of Zwingli's personal experi-
ences which are likely to have confirmed and indeed to have
strengthened his understanding of God's sovereignty. He
suffered from the plague in 1519 and later wrote a poem about
it which expresses an utter trust in God and a powerful sense
of being an instrument in the hands of God. The first section
'At the Beginning of the Illness' opens with the words:

Help, Lord God, help

In this trouble!
I think Death is at the door.
Stand before me, Christ;
For Thou hast overcome him!
To thee I cry:
If it is Thy will
Take out the dart,
Which wounds me
Nor lets me have an hour's
Rest or repose!
Will'st Thou however
That Death take me
In the midst of my days,
So let it be!
Do what thou wilt;
Me nothing lacks.
Thy vessel am I;
To make or break altogether.
(Z I 67.5-24; Works i. 56)

This trust in God is evident in Zwingli's letters. Thus in a

letter to Myconius on 24 July 1520 he wrote: 'I beseech Christ
for this one thing only, that he will enable me to endure all
things courageously, and that he break me as a potter's vessel
or make me strong, as it pleases him.' (Z VII 344.15-17; Jackson
148.) The sense of man's being a vessel in the hands of the

-46

potter is a recurring note in his works. He recognized God's

providence not only in matters of life and death, but also in the
events of every day. Thus in a letter to Vadian on 28 March
1524 he spoke of the immense pressure under which he worked,
so that having to attend to the needs of people when he was
writing meant that he forgot what he intended to write. Yet he
added at once, 'In all these things I recognize the providence of
God.' (Z VII 166.14-167.4.)

His own sense of the providence of God and the way he

developed his understanding of providence in his early writings
show that his affirmation of God's sovereignty and providence
was nourished by the Bible and his personal experience. It was
rooted in the sense of God's goodness revealed in Christ and
found expression in his frequent reference to the questions in
Rom. 8: 31-2: 'If God is for us, who is against us?' and 'He who
did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, will he not
also give us all things with him?' It was sustained by a range of
biblical texts showing, as Jas. 1:17, that everything good comes
from above, from the Father of light (Z II 96.27-34). It was
expressed in the conviction not simply that all good comes from
God, but that everything happens out of his providence and
that not a sparrow falls to the ground without his ordaining it.
After using this reference to Matt. 10: 28-31 in An Exposition
of the Articles, Zwingli goes on to draw the conclusion that all
our good works are therefore ordained by God and cannot be
ascribed to us (Z II 178.32-179.20).

It is his belief in the sovereignty of God that is the weapon

which Zwingli used against the belief of Erasmus and others in
free will and merit. This is not the place to enter into the detailed
case that Zwingli advanced, but in the course of it he argued
that the believer knows that he is an instrument through whom
God works and so he ascribes everything to God, whereas
unbelievers, if they do apparently good works, ascribe them to
themselves. The unbeliever, in other words, is incapable of
grasping the sovereignty of God whereas the believer knows it
from experience.

Initially references to the providence of God were primarily

either in opposition to the doctrine of free will and merit, which

-47

would ascribe to man a part in his salvation, or in the believer's

sense of utter dependence on God. However in his more detailed
theological discussion in A Commentary Zwingli stressed the
fact the everything in the universe is dependent on God as the
sole cause, and that God would not be God, if anything lay
outside his providence.

It is evident, therefore, that God . . . is . . . such wisdom, knowledge,

and foresight that nothing is hidden from Him, nothing unknown to
Him, nothing beyond His reach, nothing disobedient to Him. Hence
not even the mosquito has its sharp sting and musical hum without
God's wisdom, knowledge, and foresight. His wisdom, then, knows
all things even before they exist, His knowledge comprehends all
things, His foresight regulates all things. For that which is God would
not be the supreme good unless he were at the same time supreme
wisdom and foresight. (Z III 647.7-16; Works iii. 66.)

So it is that he could say 'all things are so done and disposed

by the providence of God that nothing takes place without His
will or command' (Z III 842.28-30; Works iii. 372).

Both A Commentary and The Providence of God show that

Zwingli's method is sometimes as much logical as theological.
In A Commentary he reached the point in the argument where
he stated that 'it is time to bring forward the witness of the
word itself to everything that has been said so far about the
wisdom and providence of God'. However the biblical tes-
timony is not an afterthought, for he held that 'the whole
scripture of the Old Testament views everything as done by the
providence of God'. (Z III 648.21-2, 649.1-3; Works iii. 68-9.)
Rather Zwingli has followed the example of Paul in Rom. 1 in
looking first at the world in which God has manifested himself.
In this way he deliberately accommodated himself to those for
whom he was writing.

The Providence of God, which is his major work on the subject,

is the least biblical and most philosophical of all Zwingli's
writings. He sought to make a logically coherent case for the
doctrine of providence, beginning from the nature of God as the
highest good. Thus his first thesis was 'Providence necessarily
exists, because the highest good necessarily cares for and orders

-48

all things.' (Z VI iii. 70.7-8; Works ii. 130.) Although there is

no fundamental change in Zwingli's understanding of provi-
dence, the nature of the argument and the non-biblical pres-
entation of the doctrine mark this discussion off from the earlier
ones. Zwingli admitted that he 'made larger use of argument
than of the testimony of scripture' though that was 'the foun-
dation for the whole argumentation' (Z VI iii. 229.20-230.4;
Works ii. 233). He consciously used a philosophical approach,
on the basis that all truth is of God, and cited as witnesses Plato
and Seneca alongside Moses and Paul (Z VI iii. 83.15-16), while
drawing also on Aristotle, Pliny, Plutarch, and Pythagoras.

Zwingli's deep humanist roots are evident here. Yet even this
strongly philosophical case for providence does not mean that
Zwingli's view of God was more philosophical than biblical,
though some have taken that view. His position was derived
from scripture and shaped by his own experience of God. The
assertion of God's providence is set over against any other cause
whether, as for many at that time, chance or human action, for
a so-called secondary cause is no more than a means or instru-
ment in God's hands. His fundamental concern was to ascribe
glory to God.

Belief in the providence or sovereignty of God did not lead

to resignation but rather to a trusting submission to God. It did
not lead, as one might suppose, to passivity, with everything
being left to God, but rather to activity, to a sense of being an
instrument for good in the hand of God.

Predestination
Important as predestination became for Zwingli, it did not
develop as an independent doctrine until 1526. Before that it
was included in his understanding of God's providence and
indeed he could speak of providence as 'the mother of pre-
destination, as it were' (Z III 842.9-11; Works iii. 271). Many
of the issues which were later related to predestination (such as
free will and merit) were dealt with initially in the context of
God's sovereignty or providence.

In 1526, however, he made use of the doctrine of election in

-49

the controversy about baptism, particularly infant baptism. In

Original Sin he attacked those who bound salvation to baptism,
since it comes 'to those elected of God, not to those who do this
or that', and they were elected before they were born (Z V 378.2-
5; Works ii. 11). He criticized those who regarded Gentiles or
the unbaptized children of Christians as damned, arguing that
Christ did not say, 'He who is not baptized will not be saved.'
(The reference is to the words in Mark 16: 16: 'He who believes
and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will
be condemned.') Zwingli's use of this text in Mark 16 was
challenged by Urbanus Rhegius in favour of linking salvation
and faith as in Heb. 11: 6, a link Zwingli himself had made in
An Exposition of the Articles (Z II 426.19-25). Zwingli insisted
that these passages apply to those hearing the word and not to
children. Faith is a sign of election in adults, but its absence in
children is not a sign that they will be damned (Z VIII 737.7-
738.27).

The argument from election then became a major argument

in Zwingli's attack on the anabaptists, though they seem to have
taken the initiative in introducing it into the debate with him
by their reference to Rom. 9: 11-13. Zwingli used this passage
in A Refutation in 1527 to underline his position that the absence
of faith does not necessarily imply that a person is not elect,
for--as with Jacob--the elect are always elect before they
believe. Zwingli was aware of the danger that too great a stress
on election could diminish or eliminate the role of Christ in
salvation. He insisted, however, that the elect are destined to be
saved through Christ (Z VI i. 181.19-22).

It is in The Providence of God that Zwingli engaged in his

most sustained treatment of predestination or election, and it is
again clear that his emphasis is on election rather than repro-
bation, even if the one implies the other. He preferred the
word election to the word predestination; moreover he spoke of
election as originating in the goodness of God, which here and
in some other places embraced both God's righteousness and
his mercy. It is not as if election proceeds from God's mercy and
reprobation from his righteousness. (Z VI iii. 150.3-152.12.)

In his concern to insist that election is entirely of God and

-50

has nothing to do with our works, Zwingli stressed that election

comes from God's will rather than from his wisdom, although
for Zwingli God's attributes cannot be separated. He opposed
the opinion, as Calvin did later, that God elects someone when
he foresees by his wisdom what he will be like. (Z VI iii.
155.22-165.4.) That view makes election and therefore salvation
dependent on man rather than on God.

Zwingli discussed the question of whether we can know that

we and others are elect, an issue that was to become prominent
in Reformed and Puritan circles. He was not primarily
concerned, as many were later, with our knowing whether or
not we or others are elect. He was rather concerned to attack
the idea that salvation depends on our faith or love, insisting
that faith and love depend on God's election. Nevertheless he
does assert that we can know from our works and love as well
as from our faith that we are elect. At some points he regards
faith and good works (or their absence) as evidence that others
are elect (or not), but at other points he recognizes the need for
caution, for we can be mistaken as we are able to judge others
only by appearance. In An Account of the Faith where he dis-
cussed election in the context of the church which is without
spot or wrinkle and known only to God, he wrote, 'those who
are members of this church, since they have faith, know that
they themselves are elect and are members of this church, but
are ignorant of the members other than themselves' (Z VI ii.
800.19-35; Jackson463; Works ii. 43-4). Such caution is in
keeping with the acknowledgement that there can be sin in the
elect, as there was, for example, with David and the thief on the
cross.

Zwingli's approach is, however, much less cautious in An

Exposition of the Faith. In a work dedicated to the King of
France he had a vision of heaven which included by name not
only some of the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles, but also the
king's predecessors ('the Louis, Philips, Pepins'), as well as
non-Christians such as Hercules and Theseus (S IV 65.26-41;
LCC xxiv. 275; Works ii. 272). Although Zwingli introduced
important qualifying references to faith and goodness, yet his
own view expressed only a few pages before was that 'the

-51

election and faith of others is always concealed from us, although

the Spirit of the Lord gives us certainty of our faith and election'
(S IV 61.3-6; LCC xxiv. 269; Works ii. 264).

The reference to non-Christians in heaven outraged Luther.

For him it called in question the relationship between salvation
and Christ. Zwingli always affirmed the necessity of Christ and
of his death for our salvation. However the strong place in his
theology given to election (as to the sovereignty of God) does
lead to a different emphasis on or understanding of both Christ
and word and sacrament than what we find in Luther.

The sovereignty of God is a motif running through the whole

of Zwingli's theology, but it also raises questions, as we shall
see, about the role of Christ in salvation as well as the role of
word and sacrament.

-52
 5
Christ: Salvation in Christ
IT is in the way they understood and preached Christ and in
particular salvation in Christ that the reformers differed most
decisively from their opponents in the medieval church. Yet
they differed also from each other in some of their emphases
and interpretations. Some of these differences account in part
for the disagreement between Zwingli and Luther.

One accent that is stronger in Zwingli than in Luther is the

stress on Christ as teacher and example. This probably comes
from the influence of Erasmus. Yet this does not deny the
fundamental stress in Zwingli on him as saviour and as Son of
God, but it does colour it. (It should be noted that Christ is
said to be our teacher and example as Son of God, and not--as
one might expect--as man.) The stress on him as God also leads
to some of Zwingli's differences with Luther including the way
he related the divinity of Christ to his humanity and the way he
related Christ to the salvation of non-Christians. There are
differences between them both in their understanding of the
place of Christ and in their understanding of his person and
work.

The Place of Christ

If the starting-point of Zwingli's more systematic works is
God rather than Jesus Christ, that is not true of his most
comprehensive work in German, An Exposition of the Articles.
The central place of Christ is evident in the opening articles of
the first disputation in 1523, though some see in this the influ-
ence of Luther at that time. The central concern is the gospel
which is summarized in Christ. He is described among other

-53-

things as the only way of salvation. Indeed all of the first twenty-
three articles are related to Christ.

Yet in spite of the indispensable, and in many ways central,

place Christ had for Zwingli, he was not the beginning, middle,
and end of Zwingli's theology as he was of Luther's. Moreover
the Christ on whom Zwingli concentrated was Christ as God
rather than as man.

The central place of Christ derived from Zwingli's reading

of a poem of Erasmus.

I do not want to keep from you, most beloved brethren in Christ Jesus,
how I have come to the opinion and firm faith, that we need no
mediator except Christ, and that between God and us no one can
mediate except Christ alone. Some eight or nine years ago I read a
comforting poem of the most learned Erasmus of Rotterdam, addressed
to the Lord Jesus, in which Jesus laments in many beautiful words
that we do not seek all that is good from him although he is the source
of all good, a saviour, comfort, and treasure of the soul. Then I thought:
It is always so. Why do we seek help in the creature? (Z II 217.5-14.)

It is characteristic of this sense that Christ is the centre of

Christian faith that one of the texts which Zwingli used most
frequently and one which appeared on the title-page of his
writings was Matt. 11: 28: 'Come to me, all who labour and are
heavy laden, and I will give you rest.'

His exposition of Dan. 7: 25 saw Christ as exactly at the mid-

point between creation and the end of the world. That places
him at the centre. Nevertheless the way Zwingli spoke of those
who lived before Christ or without knowledge of him raises
questions about the centrality and indispensability of Christ,
and in particular of his death and resurrection.

In what he said about the salvation of believers in the Old

Testament Zwingli stood clearly in the tradition of the fathers.
For him, as for Augustine, they believed in the Christ who is
to come, whereas Christians believe in the Christ who has come.
However although Zwingli stressed the difference between the
Old and New Testaments, as well as their similarity, the empha-
sis shifted to the latter in the middle of the 1520s. In the
controversy with the anabaptists he made increasing use of the

-54-

fact that God made a covenant with his people of old, which
was not abrogated but renewed in Christ.

In A Refutation, written against anabaptists, he asked the

question: 'What difference is there between the Old and the
New Testaments?' His response was:

Very much and very little, I reply. Very little if you regard those chief
points which concern God and us; very much if you regard what
concerns us alone. The sum is here: God is our God; we are his people.
In these there is the least, in fact, no difference. The chief thing is the
same today as it ever was. For just as Abraham embraced Jesus his
blessed seed, and through him was saved, so also today we are saved
through him. But so far as human infirmity is concerned, many things
came to them in a figure to instruct them and be a testimony to us.
These are therefore the things which seem to distinguish the Old
Testament from the New, while in the thing itself or in what pertains
to the chief thing they differ not at all. (Z VI i. 169.19-30; Selected
Works234.)

The problem is more acute with Gentiles, both those who

lived before Christ and those who lived after him, than it is with
Jews living before Christ. For Gentiles who lived before Christ,
the Old Testament provided both examples, such as Jethro,
Moses' father-in-law, and arguments. Thus Zwingli argued
from Mal. 1: 11 that Gentiles before Christ sacrificed to the one
true God. ('For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name
is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to
my name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the
nations, says the Lord of hosts.' ( Mal. 1: 11).) Their sacrifices
are related to the one sacrifice of Christ. (Z III 202.35-204.15.)

Zwingli was aware of the problems with his position and,

after making a very positive reference to Seneca in Original Sin,
he added: 'Who, pray, wrote this faith upon the heart of man?
Let no one think that these things point to the taking away of
Christ's office, as some men charge me with doing; they magnify
his glory. For through Christ must come all who come to God.'
(Z V 379.22-9; Works ii. 12-13.) Following Augustine he argued
that Gentiles who show by their works that the law is written
in their hearts have faith. They do the law by grace, or by faith,
or by the Spirit of God (for these, in effect, say the same), and

-55

are to be counted among those justified by the Spirit of Christ.

(S VI i. 242.6-243.1.)

Zwingli insisted on the necessity of Christ and his death for

the salvation of all, but he did not relate this necessarily--as
Luther would--to the proclamation of Christ and his saving
death in word and sacrament. He based his understanding of
the position of Gentiles on the evidence in scripture of what
God has done in some of them and on the implications of his
understanding of God's sovereignty in election. God's sov-
ereignty is not limited historically to Israel. The Spirit created
the whole world and is not therefore limited to Israel, but
produces piety in those he elects, wherever they are. In that
sense a Gentile 'is a Christian even if he does not not know
Christ'. He argues for this, in part by analogy with the person
in Rom. 2: 28-9 who is a Jew, not because of outward circum-
cision, but because of circumcision of the heart. (Z IX 458.25-
459.7.)

The vision of heaven in An Exposition of the Faith which

includes pious pagans is not however the product of a humanist
universalism, as some have supposed. That would put the
emphasis on their works or free will. For Zwingli their enjoy-
ment of eternal life in God's presence is the fruit both of God's
election, which was manifested in their piety (and not dependent
on it), and of Christ's redemption of mankind, which reaches
as far as Adam's fall did and therefore reaches all mankind.

The Person and Work of Christ

The place of Christ in salvation is related to his person, in
particular his divinity, and to his work, in particular his sac-
rificial death. Zwingli frequently offered summaries of the
gospel, as in the second of the sixty-seven articles, which
included two vital elements: that Christ was Son of God and
that he died for us, thereby satisfying the righteousness of God.
The primary understanding of Christ's death is that of
Anselm, even though other elements are present. There is on
occasion an almost Abelardian sense of the compelling power
of God's love displayed in Jesus Christ. There is the Irenaean

-56-

understanding of Christ as recapitulating all that happened in

Adam. There is, following Athanasius, the view that Christ
became human, so that we might become divine. There is also
the presentation of Christ's death as a victory over or liberation
from sin, death, and the devil. Yet the dominant note is the
Anselmian one.

For Zwingli we have failed to keep God's law, indeed cannot

keep it, because we are sinners, and therefore deserve his pun-
ishment. He is righteous and cannot simply pass over sin. In
his mercy, however, he sent his Son who accomplished God's
will and satisfied God's righteousness with his innocence. (Z II
36.25-39.19.)

God's work of election and salvation is related not only to his

mercy or goodness, but also to his justice. 'It is of his goodness
that he has elected whom he will; but it is of his justice to adopt
and unite the elect to himself through his Son, who has been
made a victim for satisfying divine justice for us.' (Z VI
ii.796.25-30.) For Zwingli Christ's sacrificial death was the way
God had determined to reconcile the world to himself and he
regarded it as sacrilege to enquire whether it could have been
done differently (Z V 391.20-2; Works ii. 27).

He is our salvation because he is both God and man. Zwingli

expressed this in a variety of ways. In expounding the sixty-
seven articles he wrote that as Christ is God, he can fulfil the
will of God, as he is man he can be a sacrifice that satisfies the
righteousness of God (Z II 182.5-13). In his Berne sermon he
stated that as the godhead cannot suffer, the humanity was
necessary, for it could suffer; yet at the same time no man can
satisfy the righteousness of God, but only God (Z VI i. 464.5-
17).

The stress on Christ's sacrificial death led to an emphasis on

the virgin birth. The virgin birth was necessary, as Christ's
divine nature could not suffer the stain of sin, but also the
human nature had to be pure if it was to be the means of
satisfying God's righteousness, for in the Old Testament the
sacrificial victim was without stain.

-57

And this could not have been unless he had been born of a virgin, and
without male intervention. For if the virgin had conceived from the
seed of a man, would not the birth have been thereby polluted? And
if a woman who had before known a man had conceived him, even
from the Holy Spirit, who would ever have believed that the child that
was born was of the Holy Spirit? (Z III 686.7-28; Works iii. 112.)
Zwingli held that Mary was perpetually a virgin on the basis
of passages such as Ezek. 44: 2: 'This gate shall remain shut, it
shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it, for the Lord
the God of Israel, has entered by it, therefore it shall remain
shut.' However he did not support devotion to Mary. Her role,
like that of every Christian, was to point to Christ. Therefore
he could say that the greatest honour we can give to Mary is to
honour her Son. (Z I 426.5-427.9.)

There is in Zwingli a strong sense of the distinctiveness of

the divine and human natures in Christ, which was to have a
strong influence in later Reformed theology. It is clearly in the
tradition of the Tome of Leo and the Council of Chalcedon,
but nevertheless it led to accusations of Nestorianism. However
Zwingli always insisted on the unity of the person of Christ as
well as the distinction of the natures. It is not 'as if we wish to
separate the natures in Christ, for the one Christ is God and
man, but we desire rightly to distinguish between the works
and properties of each nature and not to confound them'. (S VI
i. 311.8-9, 357.15-28.)

The sharp distinction between the natures is one of the under-

lying reasons for Zwingli's and Luther's differences in under-
standing the Lord's Supper. For Zwingli Christ could not be
present according to his human nature in the eucharist, because
his human nature--like ours--can be in only one place. Only
his divine nature can be present everywhere. Luther's stress lay
on the unity of Christ's person, rather than the distinction of
his natures. For him, therefore, wherever Christ is present he
is present in both his natures, otherwise his person would be
divided.

In the debate between them they both drew on analogies.

Zwingli drew on two from the fathers, his preference being for
that of soul and body, an analogy used by Cyril of Alexandria

-58

and Augustine, as well as the Athanasian Creed. Man is both

soul and body, though soul and body are two opposed sub-
stances. Similarly the one Christ is both God and man. He also
used the analogy of a red-hot sword (from Origen and John of
Damascus), which cuts and burns, and disputed Luther's use
of this analogy in support of his view of Christ's presence.
( Luther used it to show that both Christ and bread can be
present in the eucharist, just as two substances, that is fire and
iron, are present in a red-hot sword.) Another of Zwingli's
analogies was that of the sun, where the body is in one place
and yet the light shines everywhere. With these analogies he
sought to hold to the unity of the person of Christ and the
distinction of his natures.

Zwingli supported his view of the sharing or interchange

of properties (communicatio idiomatum) especially from John's
gospel. For this he often used the rhetorical term alloiosis:
'where we name the one nature and understand the other, or
name what they both are and yet understand only the one' (Z
V 926.1-3). For him passages like John 3: 13; 6: 62; 10: 30; and
12: 25, 28 make sense only as they apply either to the humanity
or to the divinity of Christ. One example from the controversy
shows something of the way Zwingli argued here. Thus he
challenged Luther to say whether 'Before Abraham was I am'
applied to the humanity as well as to the divinity. If Luther said
no, then alloiosis would be established. If he said yes, then
Christ was not born of Mary, as she was not born before
Abraham; or else Christ has two human natures, one before
Abraham and one from Mary. (Z VI ii. 138.18-139.7.)

Zwingli was concerned that Luther was limiting God by

confining him to Christ and enclosing him within the humanity
of Christ, whereas he is infinite (Z V 934.11-936.10). Zwingli
argued that Christ was concerned to safeguard the divine by
refusing to accept the word good when it was used of him, for
the person using it saw him only as man and not as God (Z V
700.1-17). The same kind of concern was seen in the words.
'He who believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent
me.' Here Christ was saying that trust belonged to him as God
but not as man. Zwingli saw Luther by contrast as attributing

-59

to Christ's humanity the infinity which Christ refused, and in

effect of teaching that trust should be put in the creature rather
than the creator. (Z V 687.21-34.)

The humanity of Christ does not have the vital place in

Zwingli's theology that it has in Luther's, even though it is
indispensable for our salvation, for the stress is on the divinity
which saves us and in which we are to put our trust. At points
a sense of the genuine humanity of Christ is missing. For
example, Jesus prayed not because he needed to, but as an
example to us, and he asked questions not in order to learn, but
to give us an example (S VI i. 480.28; Z III 726.33-7). Yet
there are also occasions when Zwingli recalled the earthly life
of Christ with great vividness; and his role as our example,
derived in part from Erasmus, was always important.

There are differences between Zwingli and Luther not only

in their understanding of the person of Christ (for example,
Zwingli's stress on the distinctiveness of the natures and
Luther's on the unity of the person) but also on their under-
standing of his place. The second of these has a bearing on their
doctrine both of the Spirit and of word and sacrament.

-60

The Holy Spirit: The Spirit and the

Word
THE emphasis on the Spirit in Zwingli corresponds in part to
the stress on Christ's divinity rather than his humanity. It
reflects the emphasis on the centrality and sovereignty of God
and the contrast (or opposition) between God and man in Zwin-
gli's theology. The need, for example, to be taught of God was
on occasion present in terms of being taught by the Spirit of
God or the Holy Spirit, even where there is no mention of the
Spirit in the biblical texts referred to.

The central role of the Spirit is evident in descriptions of

Zwingli's theology as spiritualist or pneumatological. Some see
it as spiritualist, as indeed Luther did, because for them the
Spirit in Zwingli is not closely tied to the Word, but is rather
independent of the Word. Others see it as pneumatological,
because for them the Spirit is interpreted biblically and set in
the context of the trinity. Both these descriptions have force.

An examination of the Spirit in Zwingli shows that he does

not use the term vaguely as a synonym for God, but the Spirit
is the Holy Spirit, related to Christ in the way that the Spirit is
related to Christ in the New Testament. In this sense Zwingli's
theology is pneumatological.

There are also, however, senses in which his theology may be

described as spiritualist. It gives a priority to the Spirit, so that
Zwingli naturally spoke of the Spirit and the Word, rather than
the Word and the Spirit. Moreover there is in Zwingli a certain
opposition between the Spirit and outward means, related to
the Platonist contrast of flesh and spirit. Yet there is an injustice
in using the term spiritualist for Zwingli, as the term covers
an enormous diversity of people, and someone like Sebastian

-61-

Franck, for whom it is used, is farther from Zwingli than Zwingli

is from Luther at these points.

For Franck there is an opposition between the Spirit and the

Word or between the inward and outward word which is not to
be found in Zwingli. This is evident in Franck's letter from
Strasbourg to John Campanus in 1531, in which he stressed the
Spirit in contrast to the written word of the scripture.

I should wish, however, that thou wert not so addicted to the letter of
Scripture, thus withdrawing thy heart from the teaching of the Spirit,
that thou wouldst not drive out the Spirit of God as though it were
Satan, crowding him against his will into the script and making Scrip-
ture thy god (which has often happened and still happens). Thou
shouldst much rather interpret the Scripture as a confirmation of thy
conscience, so that it testifies to the heart and not against it. Again,
thou shouldst not believe and accept something [merely] reported by
Scripture--and feel that the God in thy heart must yield to Scripture.
It were better that Scripture should remain Antichrist's! (LCC xxv.
159.)
It was precisely such a separation of the Spirit and scripture
that Zwingli attacked in the anabaptists.

Franck also opposed the Spirit to the sacraments (or visible

words) as a perversion of the true spiritual worship intended by
God and enjoyed in the New Testament period.

Along with this, I ask what is the need or why should God wish to
restore the outworn sacraments and take them back from Antichrist,
yea, contrary to his own nature (which is Spirit and inward) yield to
weak material elements? For he had been for fourteen hundred years
now himself teacher and baptizer and governor of the Feast, that is,
in that Spirit, I say, in order that he may baptize, instruct, and nourish
our spirit. And does he wish now, just as though he were weary of
Spiritual things and had quite forgotten his nature, to take refuge again
in the poor sick elements of the world and re-establish the besmirched
holy days and the sacraments of both Testaments? But God will remain
[true] to his character, especially [as disclosed] in the New Testament,
as long as the world stands. (LCC xxv. 154.)

This is a world away from Zwingli, who does not divorce the
Spirit from the sacraments. Rather the Spirit sometimes works
with them and sometimes without them.

-62

There were contexts in which Zwingli spoke of the Spirit

without relating him to God's revelation of himself in Jesus
Christ. In some respects, at least, this reflects the use of the
Bible or one way in which it can be interpreted. There are
references to the Spirit as the Creator Spirit (as in Gert. 1), who
created the whole universe and not only Palestine and so he is
not limited to Palestine in his continuing work (Z IX 458.25-
459.10). There are references to the Spirit as at work in the
writing of the law in the hearts of those who are not Christians,
as in Rom. 2: 14-15. Zwingli followed Augustine in under-
standing the law of nature in terms of the Spirit. (Z II 634. 10-
34, 327.3-7.) However the work of the Spirit in non-Christians
is related to Christ as they were elected in Christ before the
foundation of the world.

The Spirit is related to the word: the incarnate word, the

written word, and the audible and visible word. The Spirit is
related specifically to Christ, both to his birth and life and to
his death and resurrection. More particularly he is seen as given
at Pentecost in the place of Christ. The Spirit was sent by Christ
and it is by the Spirit that Christ is now present and active.
(Z II 80.15-16.) The text, 'I will not leave you orphans', is
paraphrased in part in the words: 'Then after the ascension I
will be present with you in my Spirit.' In his exposition of John
14: 26 Zwingli goes beyond the text in declaring that the Spirit
will teach nothing new, as he brings to remembrance what
Christ taught the disciples. (S VI i. 751.41, 752.41-4.) These
passages show that the Spirit is bound closely to Christ in
Zwingli's earlier and later writings.
The link of the Spirit with the written word of scripture is
strong. He is the author of scripture, though not in a way that
denies the individuality of the gospel writers. Zwingli noted the
differences, even the inconsistencies, in the gospels but they did
not trouble him, as faith does not depend on such things (S
VI ii. 70.37-38). Errors, however, were never present in the
substance or the essential matter (in re), but only in questions
concerning people and times (Z XIII 41.31-2). In general,
however, the differences were regarded as only apparent, and
they were reconciled on the assumption that the true author is

-63

the Spirit, who does not contradict himself (Z V 735.21-23).

Zwingli's insistence on the divine origin and authority of

scripture was most evident in his controversies with Catholics
and anabaptists. Against Catholics he appealed to it as God's
word, in contrast to the human words to which they appealed--
the words of the pope or the councils or the fathers of the
church. Against the anabaptists he appealed to it as God's word
to confute their appeal to the Spirit speaking in them, for
Zwingli saw this as their spirit and not the Holy Spirit. In both
cases the authority of scripture lay in its origin in the inspiration
of the Holy Spirit.

Yet Zwingli did not limit the Spirit to scripture. When writing
against the anabaptists in A Refutation he refers to God's speak-
ing 'also through sibyl prophetesses among the Gentiles, that
we might recognize the liberty of his will and the authority of
his election' (Z VI i. 162.8-11; Selected Works226-7). However
in A Commentary where he drew particularly on non-biblical
writers, he directed attention to scripture with the statement,
'But we, to whom God has spoken through his Son and through
the Holy Spirit are to seek these things not from those who were
puffed up with human wisdom, and consequently corrupted
what they received pure, but from the divine oracles' (Z III
643.24-7; Works iii. 62).

It is in the relation of the Spirit to word and sacrament that

Zwingli is most often thought of as a spiritualist, for dissociating
the Spirit from the word. Two distinct elements in Zwingli's
thought combine to do this. The first is the freedom and sov-
ereignty of the Spirit, and the second is a Platonist opposition
of spirit and flesh in his understanding of man.

The freedom of the Spirit is affirmed in the frequent reiter-

ation of 'The Spirit blows where he will' ( John 3: 8) and 'It is
the Spirit who gives life, the flesh is of no avail' ( John 6: 63).
He is not bound to word and sacrament, so that he must act
through them or so that he cannot act apart from them. To
assert the contrary is to put salvation at man's disposal, for it
would mean that salvation could be guaranteed simply by
hearing the word, or being baptized, or receiving holy com-
munion; but equally it could mean that salvation could be denied

-64
by failure to preach the word or administer the sacraments.

For Zwingli, by contrast, the word of the teacher is of no

avail unless the listener is taught of God. 'Even if you hear the
gospel of Jesus Christ from an apostle, you cannot act upon it
unless the heavenly Father teach and draw you by the Spirit'
(Z I 366.30-3; LCC xxiv. 79). The word of the preacher, indeed
the word of the human Jesus, is of no avail unless the Father
draws the hearer. The flesh or body of the earthly Jesus, just as
the flesh or body of Christ in the sacrament, is of no avail, for it
is the Holy Spirit who gives life. In the end word and sacrament
guarantee nothing. They are not automatically effective or
effective for all because the Spirit blows where he wills, and you
cannot make him blow simply by your act of preaching or
baptizing or offering the sacramental bread.

For in this way the liberty of the divine Spirit who distributes himself
to individuals as he wills, that is, to whom he wills, when he wills,
where he wills, would be bound. For if he were compelled to act within
when we employ the signs externally, he would be absolutely bound
by the signs. (Z III 761.4-8; Works iii. 183.)

Word and sacrament are ineffective without the Spirit, but

the Spirit is not ineffective without them. He does not need
them, though they need him.

Moreover a channel or vehicle is not necessary to the Spirit, for he

himself is the virtue and energy whereby all things are borne, and has
no need of being borne; neither do we read in the holy scriptures that
perceptible things, as are the sacraments, bear certainly with them the
Spirit, but if perceptible things have ever been borne with the Spirit,
it has been the Spirit, and not perceptible things, that has borne them.
. . . Briefly, the Spirit blows wherever he wishes. (Z VI ii. 803.10-22;
Jackson466-7; Works ii. 46.)

The other element in Zwingli's thought is his partially Pla-

tonist view of man, which is part of his humanist inheritance.
This presupposes a sharp contrast or opposition between the
inward and the outward, so that what is inward (the heart or
mind) cannot be affected by what is outward (words, water,
bread, and wine). What is outward appeals to and affects the
outward. This factor is important, but it is less fundamental
than the sovereign freedom of the Spirit, for that is the heart of

-65

Zwingli's understanding of Christian theology, which is theo-

centric, and of Christian life, which involves faith in the creator
rather than the creature.

If there is a dissociating of the Spirit from word and sacra-

ment, there is also an associating of them. The natural order is
nevertheless Spirit and Word, with the stress on the Spirit. In
The Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God, where some see
the strong influence of Luther, Zwingli emphasizes the word.
He writes, 'The word of God is so sure and strong that if God
wills all things are done the moment he speaks his word.' But
even here the power of the word is set within the sovereignty
of God's will, and when Zwingli discusses the clarity of the
word he emphasizes the role of the Spirit, as the word is under-
stood not because of human understanding, but because of 'the
light and Spirit of God, illuminating and inspiring the words'.
(Z I 353.8-13, 365.14-21; LCC xxiv. 68, 78.)

In expounding Isa. 59: 21 where the order is Spirit and word

Zwingli stressed that the Spirit is placed first, for without the
Spirit the flesh misunderstands the word. The church therefore
has both the word preached by the prophets and the Spirit who
illuminates where he wills. (Z XIV 391.1-7.) Where Zwingli
contrasts the Spirit and the word his concern is often to affirm
the Spirit rather than to deny the place of the word. Without
the Spirit teaching inwardly, the outward word is in vain, for
everyone must be taught of God. 'Yet it does not follow for
that reason that the outward word is not necessary, for Christ
commanded the apostles to preach the gospel through all the
world.' (S VI i. 752.44-8.) There is no sense in which we can
simply rely on the Spirit and dispense with the word. For, as he
made clear in A Commentary, 'we are to be taught outwardly by
the word of God and inwardly by the Spirit' (Z III 900.6-7).

There is a certain irony in the fact that the Marburg article

on the outward word, drawn up by Luther, has a Zwinglian
emphasis in making the Spirit the source of faith. Indeed it is
a statement which Zwingli could well have written both with
its affirmation that ordinarily the Spirit does not give faith to
anyone without the word, and with its conclusion that the Spirit
creates faith where and in whom he wills. (Z VI ii. 522.12-17.)

-66

Salvation
AT the heart of the Reformation was the question of salvation.
It was, of course, central in medieval theology and medieval
religion, and it was against that background that the reformers
formulated their understanding of salvation. Although there
was fundamental agreement on this central element in their
teaching, there were some important differences. These reflect
their different theological traditions and the different ways they
came to faith in Christ. For Zwingli the role of Erasmus and
Erasmian humanism was an important factor both in his path
to faith and in his theological development, although it was not
the only one.

The turning-point for Zwingli was in 1515-16. He dated it

from his reading of a poem of Erasmus. This led him to see that
there is no mediator between God and man except Christ, who
is our saviour, and to contrast this with seeking help in created
things, whether they be saints or sacraments or good works.
Seven years later, when Zwingli presented for debate sixty-
seven theses, which summarized what he had been preaching
on the basis of scripture, the message was in a similar though
maturer form. Articles fifty and fifty-one were: 'God remits
sin only through Jesus Christ, His Son, our Lord', 'Whoever
ascribes this to the creature, deprives God of his glory and gives
to him who is not God; that is veritable idolatry.'

Zwingli's grasp of the gospel almost certainly developed in

the years before he came to Zurich and in his first years in
Zurich, but there is a fundamental continuity in his view. Beatus
Rhenanus referred to his witty preaching in Einsiedeln with its
attacks on ceremonies. His comments have been interpreted as
meaning that Zwingli was a typically Erasmian preacher at that

-67-

time, and no more. (That is possible. Yet it must be remembered

that years later Bucer could speak of Erasmus as initiating the
Reformation by his opposition to man's finding salvation in
ceremonies and not in Christ.) It could be that he heard only
what confirmed his own position and missed the charac-
teristically reformation notes in Zwingli's preaching, but it is
probable that throughout the years between 1516 and 1522
Zwingli's understanding of the gospel was maturing, as he
wrestled with Paul and John, as well as Augustine, and as he
underwent experiences as diverse as the plague and his own
failure as a person and a minister.

In his preaching of the gospel Luther attacked works, whereas

Zwingli attacked idolatry, that is putting one's trust in anything
other than God, which of course included works. (The different
emphases are characteristic of other differences in their
theology.) Zwingli's concern needs to be set in the context of
Zurich, where in the period before the Reformation Farner
speaks of an immense increase in images, processions, and pil-
grimages. 1

Two of Zwingli's favourite texts indicate the positive and

negative side of idolatry. It is put negatively in the words of
Jeremiah, 'They have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters,
and have hewn out for themselves cisterns, broken cisterns, that
can hold no water' ( Jer. 2: 13). It was put positively in the
words, 'Come to me, all who labour and are heavy laden, and I
will give you rest' ( Matt. 11: 28). By contrast we tell people:
'run here, drive there, buy indulgences, paint the walls [with
images of saints], give to the monk, offer up to the priest, fatten
the nuns, then I--one person to another--will absolve you etc.'
Repeating the same word of Christ Zwingli stated, 'Note how
he calls us unto himself and does not point us to this one or that
one of the advocates'. (Z II 66.13-16, 221.25-7; Writings i.80,
174.)

Pilgrimages, prayer to the saints, even works of mercy and

sacraments were or could be idolatrous, for they all made Christ
and his death secondary or dispensable. Faith was to be placed
not in them but in God.
____________________
1
O. Farner, Huldrych Zwingli ( Zurich, 1954), iii. 19-20.

-68

The true religion of Christ, then, consists in this: that wretched man
despairs of himself, and rests all his thought and confidence on God,
sure that he can refuse nothing who has given his Son for us; and that
the Son, who is equally God with the Father, can refuse nothing, since
he is ours. But false religion merely juggles with the name of Christ,
having its hope elsewhere. For, to wash away his sins, one man hires
drunken singers, another monks to engage in empty psalmody; one
thinks to purchase blessedness by building pretentious churches,
another by having costly raiment made for some saint; one rests on his
own works, another on those of somebody else. . . . Almighty God,
grant that we may all recognize our blindness, and that we who have
thus far clung to creatures may henceforth cleave to the Creator, that
he may be our only treasure and our heart abide with him.

After that Zwingli concludes with the words 'So much on the
chief and essential point of the Christian religion'. (Z III 723.1-
17; Works iii.156.)

The strong emphasis on God in Zwingli's theology is charac-

teristic of his view of salvation which he saw as from God and
in God. It begins in God's election and depends entirely on his
will and purpose, and not on us. God's election, however, is in
Christ, which does not simply mean the eternal Christ, but the
Christ who was born, suffered, died, rose, and ascended for the
salvation of mankind. Salvation, however, is not accomplished
in us, until the Spirit leads us to faith. For Zwingli therefore
salvation was seen to be altogether the work of God--Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit.

The insistence on God's grace in Christ was common to all

the reformers. It led to their denial of free will and merit, and
was accompanied by a doctrine of human sinfulness. Zwingli
and Luther were at one in their opposition to free will and merit
in debate with Erasmus and others, although there were some
differences between Zwingli and Luther in their understanding
of sin. Indeed Zwingli's attack on free will in A Commentary
was published before Luther's challenge to Erasmus in The
Bondage of the Will. Zwingli's attack, like Luther's, was an
attack on works which were called good, but were not, either
because they did not arise from faith or because they were not
commanded by God, as for example pilgrimages. It was also an
attack on regarding our works as the basis of our salvation or

-69

standing with God. They affirmed that truly good works spring
from faith, for a living faith produces good works, as a good
tree produces good fruit. In debate with his opponents Zwingli
allowed that many passages of scripture ascribe salvation to
works and speak of God's rewarding our works. However he
followed Augustine in asserting that in such references it is his
own work and not ours that God is rewarding, for it is he who
effects the good we do. He points out that in the end everything
depends on God's election of us before the foundation of the
world. (S IV 62.21-44.)

The opening articles at the first disputation show that for

Zwingli, as for Luther, Christ is at the heart of the gospel he
preached and that his concern like Luther's was a pastoral
concern for people's souls.

The summary of the gospel is, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the true
Son of God, has revealed the will of his heavenly Father to us, and
with his innocence has redeemed us from death, and has reconciled us
with God.

Therefore, Christ is the only way to salvation for all those who have
been, are, and will be.

Whoever seeks or points out another door errs, yes, he is a murderer

of souls and a thief. (Z I 458.13-19.)

Within Zwingli's summary of the gospel there is a reference

to revealing the will of the Father which marks Zwingli off
from Luther. It is one of the differences in emphasis and in
terminology between Zwingli and Luther; and some of them led
to important differences in Lutheran and Reformed theology.
From the beginning there was in Zwingli a concern with the
living of the new life. This is probably related both to the
influence on Zwingli of Erasmian humanism and to his reading
of the fathers. In his earliest reformation writing Zwingli spoke
of the gospel as firing people with the love of God and neighbour
(Z I 88.10-89.2). In his concern for the transformation of
people's lives he could even say that it would have been better
not to send a redeemer at all than to send one and then for us
not to change (Z III 787.20-7).

In this the example of Christ, which was so important in

-70

humanist circles, remained a part of Zwingli's theology as a

reformer. When commenting on 'Put on the Lord Jesus Christ'
( Rom. 13: 14), he described the life of a Christian as 'nothing
other than acknowledging oneself a sinner, trusting in God's
mercy through Christ, and building a life in holiness and inno-
cence according to Christ's example' (S VI ii. 126.12-29). Such
a life is, however, no longer a matter of human effort, but it is
constantly presented as the work of Christ or the Spirit in the
Christian. In his stress on the new life of the Christian Zwingli
attacked the anabaptists, whom he accused of talking rather
than living the life of Christ, and Catholics whom he accused
of cutting the Christian life off from its source in Christ.

Zwingli differed from Luther in the way he used certain

crucial terms, in particular righteousness and law and gospel.
For Luther righteousness was Christ's righteousness imputed
to us. For Zwingli it was that, but it was also (and here he is
closer to Augustine) Christ's righteousness imparted to us. In
his earliest writings Zwingli used the terms law and gospel in a
way close to Luther's, but from his letter to Strasbourg in 1524
a different emphasis was present. The order became gospel and
law, for he spoke of faith 'as the foundation on which the law
is built'. (Z VII 263.18-265.24.) In his early writings Zwingli
like Luther spoke of the impossibility of fulfilling the law and
of Christ's giving it to us so that we may recognize our short-
comings and take refuge in him. But Zwingli was critical of
Luther's negative way of describing the law. The law itself is
holy, and one ought not, like Luther, to speak of it as frightening
us, bringing us to despair, causing us to hate God. Despair and
hatred of God are not an effect of the law, but come from our
weakness and our inability to keep the law. As Zwingli was to
put it later in a comment on Jas. 1: 25, the law does not condemn
any more than light shining on people who are deformed makes
them deformed (S VI ii. 260.24-261.23).

Far from opposing the law to the gospel, as Luther did,

Zwingli could even speak of the law as gospel. In expounding
the sixteenth article in 1523 Zwingli stated that he regarded as
gospel 'everything which God has made known to us through
his own Son' and that includes a command like 'You shall not

-71

be angry with one another.' If you see law from the standpoint
of the believer it is in fact gospel or good news. 'The true
believer is gladdened and nourished with every word of God,
even if it is against the desires of the flesh.' (Z II 231.33-233.15.)

For Zwingli Christ fulfilled the law in two senses: in showing

what God wants from us and in doing what we could not do, to
satisfy God's righteousness. The law is therefore renewed by
Christ by being expressed more clearly. (Z II 496.6-22.) But
Christ has freed us from the law 'not so that we are never to do
what God commands or wills', but rather so that we should do
what God wills out of the love stimulated by God's grace and
friendship (Z II 235.4-236.33).

We are free from the law because Christ (or the Spirit) is at
work in us doing what the law commands or--and this is not
fundamentally different--because those who love do not need
the law to tell them what to do. However, as many people's faith
is weak, the law is necessary. 'Hence we preach the law as well
as grace. For from the law the faithful and elect learn the will
of God; and the wicked are also affrighted so that they either
serve their neighbour through fear or reveal all their desperation
and unbelief.' (S IV 63.31-45; LCC xxiv. 273; Works ii.269.)
Here we see the so-called third use of the law, in addition to its
restraining of evil and its exposing of human sinfulness.

For Zwingli the civil and ceremonial laws which concern the
outward man are not eternal, but only those which concern the
inward man. In contrast to his Catholic opponents he regarded
the so-called counsels in the gospels as binding on all Christians.
They are summed up in Christ or in love, for Christ and love
are said to be the end of the law ( Rom. 10: 4 and 1 Tim. 1: 5).

Some differences between Zwingli and Luther relate to

differences in their understanding of man and of sin. Zwingli
argued as strongly as Luther that man is a sinner and in contrast
to the Vulgate he translated Gen. 8: 21 as stating that the
thoughts of the heart are evil, not that they tend to evil, a
translation which had led some to speak of man's free will. He
expressed the view of man as a sinner in the Pauline opposition
of flesh and spirit. In this the word flesh refers to the whole man
and not a part of man, and describes him as fallen. Man therefore

-72-

can do nothing for his own salvation. In this contrast the Spirit
refers to the Holy Spirit. But Zwingli also worked, as Erasmus
did, with a Greek opposition of flesh and spirit or body and
soul. Although the Pauline view is dominant in Zwingli's view
of salvation, the Greek view runs through all his thought. It
particularly affected his understanding of the way men and
women receive salvation, for it resisted the idea that word and
sacrament as outward things could mediate salvation to the
heart and soul, which are inward.

Zwingli's initial discussion of sin in An Exposition of the

Articles was set in the context of salvation. It was after articles
two to four which affirmed Christ as saviour, that article five
dealt with the nature of sin. Moreover Zwingli described the
underlying sickness in order that our healing or salvation could
be understood better. He began the discussion with Adam who
turned from God to himself, wanting to become like God.
He disobeyed God's command and consequently suffered the
penalty of death. As a result all his descendants are dead.
Without the Spirit of God all people are dead and powerless to
do good. Zwingli's discussions of sin are based largely on
Genesis, as here, and Romans. From Romans he drew the role
of the law as showing us what sin is and as making us despair
of coming to God of ourselves.

In A Commentary Zwingli stressed that Adam's seeking to be

equal with God sprang from self-love. The resulting disease in
us as Adam's descendants can be described not only as death
and powerlessness, as before, but also as self-love. (Self-love
corresponds with concupiscence in Luther.) Zwingli used the
traditional distinction between original sin (disease or weakness)
and actual sin (or transgression) which flows out of it. Like
Augustine and Luther, he affirmed the total corruption of sin.

It was controversy with the anabaptists which led to an

important re-expression of his view of sin. In Baptism, Rebap-
tism, and Infant Baptism in May 1525 he emphasized sin as
voluntary transgression of the law and distinguished original
sin from original guilt. In his debate with anabaptists he was
arguing for infant baptism, but could not use the traditional
argument that baptism deals with original sin as that was in
 -73

conflict with his understanding of baptism. He argued that

original sin which is inborn in us 'is a defect which of itself is
not sinful in the one who has it'. He added: 'it also cannot damn
him, whatever the theologians say, until out of this defect he
does something against the law of God. But he does not do
anything against the law, until he knows the law.' He based his
argument on passages like 'where there is no law, there is no
transgression' ( Rom. 4: 15) and 'The son shall not bear the guilt
of the father' ( Eze. 18: 20). (Z IV 307.11-312.4, 315.10-25.)

Luther attacked Zwingli's position as Pelagian, regarding him

as opening the way for free will. In Original Sin, published in
1526, Zwingli spoke of original sin as a disease (morbus), though
not in the sense of something temporary in contrast to a defect
(vitium) which lasts. 'I use it as combined with a defect and
that a lasting one, as when stammering, blindness, or gout is
hereditary in a family. . . . On account of such a thing no one is
thought the worse or the more vicious. For such things which
come from nature, cannot be put down as crimes or guilt.' (Z
V 370.23-7, 371.11-372.3; Works ii.4-5.) He drew an analogy
with being born a slave because one's ancestors had been cap-
tured and made slaves.

He gave a varied response to the question whether original

sin damns us. We are sinners as we are descendants of a sinner.
However if we are sinners, we are enemies of God and therefore
damned. But Zwingli qualifies this apparently clear statement
by reference to Jacob who was beloved of God before he was
born, so that original sin could not have damned him. He
supports this with reference to the covenant with Abraham's
seed in Gen. 17: 7, which includes the children of Christian
parents. 'If, therefore, he promises that he will be a God to
Abraham's seed, that seed cannot have been damned because of
original guilt'. Besides these arguments which relate to election
Zwingli also developed an argument relating to Christ's work
as making good the evil done by Adam, a point made in relation
to Rom. 5: 19-21. (Z V380-7; Works ii.20.) Zwingli applied
this to the children of Christian parents, but held back from
applying it to the whole human race.

Zwingli's mature position was that it is the nature of original

-74

sin, taken by itself to damn, for it leads to actual sin. However

Christ has made good what Adam did, so that it does not damn
those who trust in him or their children. This can be seen in
the fourth of the Marburg articles which united him at least
verbally with Luther. It held that original sin damns if you
consider its nature and if you do not relate it to the work of
Christ. The article of course has no reference to Zwingli's
distinction between original sin and original guilt nor to his
insistence that there is no damnation until there is transgression.
Zwingli affirmed, as Luther and Augustine, man's total cor-
ruption and his incapacity to contribute to his own salvation.
In this he was opposed to the medieval stress on works and the
emphasis of Erasmus and others on free will. Zwingli's sense
of the sovereignty and centrality of God affected his whole
understanding of salvation, including his understanding of sin.
The attack on idolatry focused the attention on trust in God
over against everything and everyone other than God. His elab-
oration of his thinking (in terms of election, faith, and works or
love) puts the emphasis on God who elects and on Christ or the
Spirit who work in us to lead us to faith and a new life of love.

-75-

8
Word and Sacrament
THE word Zwinglian is most often linked with Zwingli's view
of the sacraments, usually to imply that whereas Luther was
positive and affirmed the real presence of Christ in the Lord's
Supper, Zwingli was negative and affirmed the real absence!
There are many points where Zwingli spoke positively about
word and sacrament. However the hundreds of pages written
against his opponents--Catholic, Lutheran, anabaptist--are
more taken up with refuting his opponents' positions than with
stating his own. He was therefore as much concerned to assert
what word and sacrament are not as what they are.

Zwingli attacked the way that word and sacrament had

become a source of false confidence, replacing faith in God with
faith in the outward word or the outward sacrament. This was,
as we have seen, idolatry, for it took away God's honour and
gave it to the creature. Salvation, it seemed, could be guaranteed
simply by hearing the word, or being baptized, or receiving holy
communion. If salvation came from word and sacrament, then
repentance and faith were unnecessary.

Zwingli's stress on the sovereignty of God, which in fact

underlies the whole of his theology, is most evident in his
understanding of word and sacrament. He rejected any idea that
they could be effective in or of themselves, for such a view
denied the sovereignty of God. If God were bound by word and
sacrament, then salvation would be put at man's disposal. We
could do (or have done to us) something which guarantees our
salvation. Zwingli had many objections to this view; funda-
mental among them was that salvation depended utterly on
God, not on word and sacrament, even though they are given
by God. But God is not bound to them in the sense that he

-76-

must act through them and cannot act apart from them, for that
would limit the sovereign freedom of the Spirit who blows
where he wills. He maintained this position consistently against
Catholic and Lutheran opponents.
His difference from Luther can be seen in the texts which each
of them emphasized when speaking of the word. For Luther it
was texts such as 'So faith comes from what is heard, and what
is heard comes from the preaching of Christ' ( Rom. 10: 17) and
'So shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall
not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I
purpose' ( Isa. 55: 11).

For Zwingli besides Johannine texts such as 'No one can

come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him' ( John 6:
44), 'And they shall all be taught of God' ( John 6: 45), and 'The
Spirit blows where he wills' ( John 3: 8), there was the text which
he never tired of quoting against Luther: 'It is the Spirit who
gives life, the flesh is of no avail' ( John 6: 63). There was also
the Pauline word: 'I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave
the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is
anything, but only God who gives the growth' ( 1 Cor. 3: 6-7).

The stress on God's sovereignty does not mean that preaching

is unnecessary or unimportant. For Zwingli preaching was
central to his reforming ministry in Zurich, and it was through
preaching that the city was being changed. But the Spirit came
from God, not from the preaching. Thus in 1522 when he
reviewed the preaching he had done since his arrival in Zurich
at the end of 1518 he could say, 'This is the seed I have sown,
Matthew, Luke, Paul, and Peter have watered it, and God has
given it splendid increase.' (Z I 285.25-7; Works i. 239.)

Zwingli did on occasion speak of the word as if it was auto-

matically effective. When however he spoke of the power of the
word, it was not in terms of anything in the word but in terms
of God's doing all things according to his sovereign will. 'The
Word of God is so sure and strong that if God wills all things
are done the moment that he speaks his Word.' (Z I 353.8-9;
LCC xxiv. 68.)

Zwingli's view of the word was rooted in scripture and experi-

ence. They were both evidence of the fact that the word is not

-77-

automatically effective, for many then, as now, did not believe.

But scripture also testifies that God chose men to minister and
that he has used human ministry to lead people to faith. For
Zwingli the word was indispensable in the offer of salvation as
in the reformation of the church. He expressed this positive
view in An Account of the Faith. 'For in speaking canonically
or regularly we see that among all nations the outward preaching
of apostles and evangelists or bishops has preceded faith, which
we nevertheless say is received by the Spirit alone.' (Z VI ii.
813.8-11; Jackson478; Works ii. 56.) The sending of a preacher
is a sign of God's grace because God always sends a prophet to
prepare the way of the Lord, even though he could simply
enlighten people's hearts by the Spirit (S VI i. 550.8-22). It
was because of the importance of the word that Zwingli made the
preaching of the gospel a condition of peace with the Catholic
cantons in 1529.
Here, as in other areas, Zwingli made a distinction between
what God could have done and what he actually did. He could
have saved people without the word and without human instru-
ments, but he chose to use them, as he chose to use herbs for
healing. The main reason he gave for God's use of preachers to
preach the word is that God has made people with senses and
in need of admonition, unlike angels who see him continually.
(S VI i. 582. 19-32.) The preacher and the word are, however,
not causes but only instruments, as in their different ways water,
fire, and the sun are also only instruments. It is God who is the
true cause of everything, including the warmth of the fire or the
sun (Z VI iii. 112.18-24; Works ii. 156).

Despite the positive way Zwingli could speak of the word and
the agreement reached between Zwingli and Luther at Marburg,
there was a fundamental difference between them. The eighth
of the Marburg articles was written by Luther, but he expressed
the article in such a way that Zwingli could sign it as well as
Luther. It stated what was of greatest importance for him: that
it is the Spirit, and not the outward word, who gives faith.

For Luther, it was through the word that we receive the Spirit
and faith so that he could write 'through the word, which is the
door and window of the Holy Spirit. . . . He will use that door,

-78

which is the word whether written or spoken.' ( W A 20. 451.7-

10.) For Zwingli, however, a 'channel or vehicle is not necessary
to the Spirit, for he himself is the virtue and energy whereby
all things are borne and has no need of being borne' (Z VI ii.
803.10-12; Works ii. 46). There is the same underlying differ-
ence in their approach to the sacraments, a difference that is
rooted in their differing understandings of the sovereignty of
God and in other differences of doctrine, but also in Zwingli's
Platonism. Zwingli stressed God's sovereignty over word and
sacrament, while Luther stressed God's sovereignty in them.
For Zwingli the creature was set over against God as leading us
from God into idolatry, for Luther the creature was rather a
mask for God through which God comes to us. But there was
also Zwingli's Platonism. For him nothing outward, as word
and sacrament are, could affect what is inward.

The differences between Zwingli and his opponents (Cath-

olic, Lutheran, and anabaptist) were more evident in the sac-
raments than in the word. Moreover as Zwingli's writings are
an attack on their views, his position often appears in a negative
rather than a positive form. Nevertheless, even in 1536 when
Bucer was regarded by many as Lutheran, he spoke positively
of Zwingli's position.

Christ alone effects the whole of salvation in us, and he does it not by
some other power, but by his Spirit alone. However, for this he uses
with us the word, both the visible word in the sacraments and the
audible word in the gospel. By them he brings and offers remission of
sins. . . . Zwingli recognized that; hence, when he denied that the
sacraments dispense grace, he meant that the sacraments, that is the
outward action, are not of themselves effective, but that everything
belonging to our salvation depends on the inward action of Christ, of
whom the sacraments are, in their way, instruments. 1

Zwingli's views were stated initially against Catholic

opponents. Already in An Exposition of the Articles in 1523, he
was particularly troubled by the use of the term sacrament.
He had several objections. It was a Latin term which was
misunderstood by Germans; it was a word not used by Christ;

____________________
In sacra quatuor evangelia, Enarrationes perpetuae ( Basle, 1536), 485 B.
1

-79-

and it grouped together rites that are better understood in terms

of their own individual names. Like Erasmus he pointed out
that sacrament comes from sacramentum meaning an oath. For
this reason it could be used of things which 'God has instituted,
commanded, and ordained with his word, which is as firm and
sure as if he had sworn an oath thereto' (Z II 120.25-8). On this
basis Zwingli rejected as sacraments rites, such as confirmation,
which God had not ordained.

In 1524 there was an important shift as Zwingli began to use

the term oath as our oath or pledge rather than as God's oath.
In a discussion of 1 Cor. 10: 16-17 the sacrament was seen as
'an inward and outward union of Christian people'. In it we eat
and drink 'so that we may testify to all men that we are one
body and one brotherhood'. (Z III 124.32-3, 125.10-14.) The
accent shifted from God to Christians as the subject of the
sacraments.

The shift of accent from God to man coincides with a move-

ment away from seeing the sacraments as an assurance of for-
giveness and a strengthening of faith. In a letter to Fridolin
Lindauer in October 1524 the sacraments are said to be given
to instruct the outward man which grasps things through the
senses. Thus God satisfies the whole man, inward and outward,
by commanding that the person who already believes inwardly
should be baptized outwardly. (Z VIII 236.3-13.) As Zwingli
put it in December 1524, 'our eyes want also to see, otherwise
Christ would not have instituted baptism and the eucharistic
bread' (Z III 411.16-18).

The understanding of the sacraments as an oath or pledge was

the basis from which Zwingli attacked other views (especially
Catholic and Lutheran, but also anabaptist) in A Commentary.
A sacrament 'cannot have any power to free the conscience, if
it is simply an initiation or public inauguration'. Only God is
able to free the conscience. (Z III 759.18-21.) He rejected the
view that what was done outwardly was also done inwardly, by
examples from the New Testament as well as by reference to
the freedom of the Spirit. He offered a different understanding
of sacraments. They are 'signs by which a man proves to the
church that he either aims to be, or is, a soldier of Christ, and
 -80-

which inform the whole church rather than yourself of your

faith'. (Z III 761.22-38; Works iii. 184.)

In 1525 there was an important change in Zwingli's view of

sacraments as signs of the covenant, deriving from his changed
understanding of the covenant. He had naturally used the term
covenant of God's covenant with man, but in 1525 this view
was developed and related to the sacraments as signs of the
covenant of grace made by God with man, that he will be their
God, and they will be his people. This enabled Zwingli to move
from the earlier view of sacraments as a covenant or pledge
between Christians. Although this development took place in
terms of the eucharist, it was particularly important in his
controversy with the anabaptists, as it gave greater coherence
to his arguments for infant baptism.

Zwingli accepted the traditional definition of Augustine and

Peter Lombard that a sacrament is 'the sign of a holy thing'.
However he made a sharp distinction between the sign and what
it signifies. Signs cannot be what they signify, or they are no
longer signs. For him a sacrament does not make present what
it signifies, but it shows and attests that what it signifies is there.
It is the sign, as he later put it, not of a grace that is given, but
of one that has been given (Z VI ii. 805.6-7). Zwingli's view of
signs is related to his understanding of the sovereignty of God,
but also to a Platonist opposition between the outward and the
inward.

In Zwingli's later writings in 1530 and 1531 his views are

presented more positively, in part through the mediating influ-
ence of Bucer and others and the attempts at reconciliation
leading to the Marburg Colloquy in 1529; but the changes are
ones of emphasis rather than of substance. The stress on the
sovereignty of God remains, with the insistence that the Spirit
does not need outward means and is certainly not bound by
them, either in the sense that he must work where they are
present, for 'if it were thus it would be known how, where,
whence and whither the Spirit is borne', or in the sense that he
cannot work apart from them, for the Spirit blows where he
wills. However the freedom of the Spirit in relation to the
sacraments is also expressed more positively. 'And one and

-81

the same Spirit works all these things, sometimes without,

sometimes with, the external instrument, and in inspiring draws
where, as much, and whom he wills.' (Z VI ii. 803.22-804.25;
Works ii. 46; Z VI iii. 271.10-12; Works ii. 117.)

The term sacramentarian was one used by Luther and others

to characterize Zwingli's position on the sacraments. Zwingli
however used it in reply to describe those who 'attribute to the
symbols what belongs only to the divine power and the Holy
Spirit working immediately in our souls', and who thus lead
people away from simple trust in God to trust in the power of
symbols. His concern is that glory shall be given to God and
not to the sacraments. (Z VI iii. 173.4-5; Works ii. 194; Z VI
iii. 270.18-21.) This concern and its suspicion of outward things
must be related not only to Zwingli's stress on the sovereignty
of God and his Platonism, but also to the state of medieval
religion, with its superstitious attachment to people, places, and
things, and not least to the sacraments, and with the financial
exploitation of this by the church. This attachment was for
Zwingli quite simply a restoration of Judaism (Z VI ii. 805.23-
9).

As the Bible is full of examples of God's making use of

what is outward to accomplish his purposes, Zwingli's biblical
commentaries naturally refer to this. They accept that God used
outward means, though he could have acted without them.
Nevertheless the power is God's and does not dwell in the
means.

And to put it briefly, the ground does not bring forth, nor the water
nourish, nor the air fructify, nor the fire warm, nor the sun itself, but
rather that power which is the origin of all things, their life and
strength, uses the earth as the instrument wherewith to produce and
create (Z VI iii. 112.20-4; Works ii. 156).

This sense that God is at work in all things might have led
to a more positive view of the sacraments. Such a view could
have safeguarded God's sovereignty, and Zwingli could have
used the doctrine of election, as Bucer did, to indicate that the
sacraments are effective only with the elect. Like him he could
have expressed the distinction between outward and inward

-82

by using the preposition 'with' (rather than Luther's other

prepositions 'in' and 'under') to express the relationship
between the sign and what is signified. However the strong
opposition between outward and inward in Zwingli probably
prevented this development, although his last major work An
Exposition of the Faith offers an essentially positive presentation
of the sacraments.

Under the heading 'The Power (or Virtue) of the Sacraments',

Zwingli lists seven powers or virtues of the sacraments. First,
they are instituted by Christ who received the one and celebrated
the other. Secondly, they testify to actual historical events.
Thirdly, they take the place and name of what they signify.
Fourthly, they signify high things, where the analogy is used of
the queen's ring, the value of which comes less from the gold
than from the value of the king it represents. (As Zwingli put
it elsewhere 'it so represents him who so loves us that we gaze
upon him with the eye of the mind and adore and worship him'.)
Fifthly, there is a twofold analogy: bread sustains human life as
Christ sustains the soul, and bread is made up of many grains
as the body of the church is made up of many members. The
sixth virtue is expounded at greatest length and states that the
sacraments 'augment faith and are an aid to it'. This comes
through their powerful appeal to the senses. When the senses
would lead us astray, they check them and 'recall them to the
obedience of the heart and of faith', so that they 'assist the
contemplation of faith'. The seventh virtue is that they act as
an oath with which we are joined in one body. (S IV 58.18-
60.27; LCC xxiv. 263-4; Works ii. 258-9.)

This last virtue demonstrates the way in which throughout

his writings Zwingli links the sacraments to the church. He
understands them corporately in terms of the church rather
than individually in terms of salvation. This is expressed in the
two ways in which they were covenant signs: as our pledge to
our fellow believers that we are one with them in God's people,
and as God's pledge to us that he is our God and that we are
his people.

Although there is a fundamental continuity, there are also

changes in Zwingli's view of the sacraments. At first the sac-

-83

raments are signs of the covenant with which God assures us;
then they are signs with which we assure others that we are one
with them in the church; finally both these elements are present.
Again, at the beginning the sacraments are said to strengthen
faith; later this view is rejected; but at the end it is present in a
modified form, in that through their appeal to the senses the
sacraments can be said to strengthen faith, though there is no
sense in which they can give faith. Nevertheless the role of the
senses is not new in the later Zwingli, even if it is expressed
more positively there than it was earlier. However nothing for
Zwingli can take from the sovereignty of God who alone gives
faith and who, although he may use outward means, has no need
of them.

-84-

9
Baptism
FROM the beginning there were those in Zurich who were more
radical than Zwingli in wanting to move faster and further in
reformation of the church than he did. The differences between
them concerned social matters (such as tithes and interest, the
role of government, and the use of the oath) as well as religious
matters (such as images and baptism).

In some cases, at least on the surface, their differences had to

do with the right moment or the right method. That was true
when some broke the fast by eating meat in Lent in 1522.
Zwingli was present, but although he agreed with them and
later defended them he did not join them. It was also true in
the summer of 1523 when opposition to images led some radicals
to smash images in churches. Again Zwingli agreed with their
view, but he did not join in their action. Moreover in the
disputation in October 1523 which held images and the mass to
be unscriptural, although both he and they agreed on their
abolition, Zwingli again proved more cautious and was prepared
to leave the timing of the action to the council.

There were, however, differences of substance, hidden some-

times in matters of method and timing, but manifest in divergent
understandings of baptism and the church. Other differences
were also evident in the representations about tithes and interest
in July 1523, where the radicals had a vision of society based
on the Sermon on the Mount. Zwingli recognized the force of
their appeal to what he called divine righteousness, but he
argued that human society must be based on human rather
than divine righteousness. Their different understanding of the
church emerged in October 1523 when Zwingli was prepared
to leave the timing of change to the council, whereas they

-85

thought that the council had no place at all in the life of the
church. Their differences came into even sharper focus in 1524
and 1525 over the question of baptism. They rejected infant
baptism in favour of believers' baptism and claimed that Zwingli
had once agreed with them. At first they simply declined to
have their children baptized, but then in January 1525 they
began to rebaptize those who had been baptized as children. It
was after this that Zwingli wrote his four main works about
baptism, although his views on baptism were as much opposed
to those of Catholics and Lutherans as to those of the ana-
baptists.

Before the baptismal controversy Zwingli said little about

baptism and in what he wrote the emphasis was on faith rather
than baptism. He believed that baptism could strengthen faith,
but denied that it could give faith. In An Exposition of the
Articles in July 1523 he appeared to accept infant baptism, and
his concern was that those baptized as infants should be properly
instructed in the faith and that they should not be confirmed
until they were able to confess the faith. Looking back later,
however, he admitted that there had been a time when he
thought it much better not to baptize children until they had
come to years of discretion (Z IV 228.20-229.7). This was
because he had held that baptism strengthened faith, which it
could not do with infants who cannot have faith.

It was in 1524 that some people raised more openly questions

about baptism. As early as February that year a number refused
to have their children baptized, and in the autumn Manz and
Grebel were in touch with Müntzer and welcomed his criticism
of infant baptism. Zwingli had abortive discussions with some
of the radicals in December, and in the same month set out his
position in a letter to Strasbourg (Z VIII261-78). He stated
that in the Bible 'baptism is the initiation both of those who
have already believed and those who are going to believe'. In it
baptism preceded knowledge of Christ and was given so that
people 'might learn Christ afterwards'. Secondly, he argued for
infant baptism on the grounds that it replaced circumcision
( Col. 2: 11) which was given to infants, although it was a sign
of prior faith ( Rom. 4: 11). Thirdly, he drew on the words of

-86-

Christ in Matt. 19: 13-14, saying that if anyone forbids children

to be baptized, he forbids them to come to Christ.

Zwingli also dealt with a number of the objections to infant

baptism raised by his opponents. In dealing with the objections
that there are no statements or examples in the New Testament
in support of infant baptism, Zwingli argued that it is more likely
than not that there were children in the households baptized in
1 Cor. 1 and Acts 16. In response to two challenges about
faith preceding baptism in Mark 16: 16 and about the apostles'
examining beforehand the faith of those they baptized, he
argued first that Mark 16: 16, as the previous verse shows,
applies only to adults to whom the gospel is preached and
not to infants, and secondly, that the apostles only sometimes
examined people beforehand.

In another treatise at the same time he dealt again with the

fact that the New Testament gives no command about baptizing
infants and no example of it. He allows that there is no
command, but adds that there is also no prohibition. He argues
that the fact that the apostles did not baptize infants does not
mean that we should not, any more than the fact that they did
not baptize in Calcutta means that we should not baptize in
Calcutta. Moreover since the New Testament gives no clear
guidance we should turn to the Old Testament and that gives
us circumcision which was administered to infants. The appeal
to the Old Testament was alien to the radicals, and Zwingli had
later to argue his case for appealing to it for support. He did
this in part in terms of Christ's appealing to the Old Testament.

The crisis with the radicals came to a head in January 1525

when the council summoned the radicals and Zwingli, along
with the other ministers, to a disputation on 17 January. After
it the council insisted on the baptism of infants within eight
days, on pain of banishment. However on 21 January Grebel
baptized Blaurock, who then baptized fifteen others. A day or
two later he presided at an evangelical celebration of the Lord's
Supper in a house in Zollikon. Despite official action against it
the movement spread to other cantons and beyond. Further
meetings or disputations between the reformers and the radicals
in March and November produced no change, and on 7 March

-87

1526 the council declared that anyone rebaptizing would be put

to death by drowning. The first to suffer in this way was Felix
Manz on 5 January 1527.

The debate with the radicals forced Zwingli to differentiate

his position from theirs, though they shared in part his view of
the sacraments. For him their insistence on believers' baptism
called in question salvation through Christ alone, as in their
different ways Catholic and Lutheran understandings of
baptism also did. In the course of the debate Zwingli elaborated
his earlier views on baptism, but there was a major development
(in his understanding of covernant) which gave greater coher-
ence to his view of baptism whether administered to adults or
to children.

A typical example of the anabaptist case for believers' baptism

can be found in a treatise from this period, probably written by
Grebel or Manz who had joined the radicals in the summer of
1522. It regarded infant baptism as a popish invention and
stated both that Christ did not teach and that the apostles did
not practise infant baptism. Moreover Christ commanded those
who had been taught to be baptized, while the apostles baptized
only those who had been taught and who desired baptism.
Christ is presented as an example to us, for he was baptized at the
age of 30, but circumcised when eight days old. Furthermore, it
was argued, baptism is for those seeking to lead a new life. (Z
III368-372.) The need to have faith and the desire for a new
life was seen as clear evidence that only adults could be baptized.
Some anabaptists, such as Hubmaier, held very moderate views.
Thus in a letter to Oecolampadius he wrote that he would
baptize children where the parents were weak and insisted on
it (S II i. 339.4-11).

Zwingli's first response to the rebaptism in January 1525

came in A Commentary. In it he argued for the identity of John's
baptism and Christ's baptism. He did this to demonstrate that
there was no need for as well as no case of a second baptism in
Acts 19, a chapter used by the anabaptists in support of rebap-
tism. He dealt also in general with the meaning of sacraments,
describing them as signs 'by which a man proves to the church
that he either aims to be, or is, a soldier of Christ, and which

-88

inform the whole church rather than yourself of your faith'.

Baptism is an initiatory ceremony or pledging and not, as ana-
baptists claimed, a sign which makes a person sure of what has
been done within him. Furthermore it does not as Catholics
asserted free or cleanse the conscience, nor as Lutherans held
does it make a person sure that the Spirit does inwardly what
the sacrament signifies outwardly. (Z III757-762; Works iii.
184.)

The conflict intensified after this and Zwingli published three

major works against the anabaptists--two in 1525 Baptism,
Rebaptism, and Infant Baptism and A Reply to Hubmaier and
one in 1527 A Refutation. Finally, in 1530, there was a reply to
questions about baptism raised by Schwenckfeld. Zwingli's
concern was not with the issue of baptism only, but with the
threat posed to the Reformation itself by the radical approach
of the anabaptists on baptism and social issues. (He had already
dealt with some of these. Thus he used the command not to
steal to defend personal property against the radicals' attack on
private ownership.) He criticized their divisiveness in separating
from the church to set up their own sinless churches.

The main lines of Zwingli's defence of infant baptism

remained the same as in the letter to Strasbourg: what happened
in the course of the controversy is that he refined his position
and added important supporting arguments. Although infant
baptism was the main issue, the discussion of it was set in the
context of a general discussion of baptism.

For him both Catholics and anabaptists were guilty of over-

emphasizing outward baptism, for 'no outward element or
action can purify the soul' (Z IV 252.21-6). Christ did away
with outward things, so that we should not seek our salvation
in them. It was a concession to our weakness that he gave us
baptism, but he gave it as a pledge, a sign of a sacred thing, and
not the sacred thing itself. (Z IV 216.26-217.23.) Baptism is an
initiatory sign, like the cowl a man has on entering an order,
which he wears before learning the rules of the order. Zwingli
used Matt. 28: 19-20, a favourite anabaptist text, as a support
for his case because in it baptism precedes the teaching of what
the baptized are to observe. (Z IV 231.26-30, 231.32-233.16.)

-89

This view of baptism as an initiatory sign or pledge could be

applied to infant as well as adult baptism. Zwingli held that
baptism should be given to infants as they are part of God's
people, for the children of Christian parents are no less children
of God than their parents are, just as much as was the case in
the Old Testament. If they are God's, who will refuse them
baptism? (Z IV 333.24-6.) If they are not baptized, then we
would have a part of God's people baptized and a part not
baptized (Z IV 318.3-12). Moreover they should receive
baptism as children because baptism replaces circumcision
which was given to children.

Besides this essentially positive point, Zwingli had to deal

with the range of arguments against infant baptism. He
advanced some additional arguments, although the one which
continued to be presented at greatest length was the identity of
John's baptism and Christ's baptism. He rejected the view that
children cannot have the Spirit. Among other examples he
pointed out that while still in his mother's womb John the
Baptist acknowledged Christ with greater joy than we who are
adults. God works how and when he will, regardless of age. (Z
IV 242.10-27.)

Zwingli did not deny the anabaptist assertion that Christ did
not baptize infants, but he challenged the conclusion that we
should therefore not baptize infants, arguing that otherwise by
implication women should not come to holy communion, as
there were no women at the Last Supper (Z IV 296.1-7). (In
any case one should beware of saying that something did not
happen because it was not recorded as happening, as after all
there is no record that most of the apostles were baptized.) He
met their assertion that since 'God does not command the
baptism of infants, therefore we should not baptize them' with
the rebuke that they are guilty of that of which they accuse
others: adding to the word of God by prohibiting what God
does not prohibit (Z IV 301.31-302.4, 211.8-212.4).

Zwingli drew, moreover, on 1 Cor. 10:1-5 as an argument for

the baptism of adults and children, for the passage says that
they were all baptized into Moses (Z IV 304.28-306.10). He
argued also that the gospel account of children being brought

-90-

to Jesus favoured infant baptism, for how else can children come
to Jesus now, apart from the covenant sign of God's people?
And if they belong to God's people, why should one withhold
from them the sign of God's people? (Z IV 299.8-300.4.)

A development elsewhere in Zwingli's theology in 1525

produced an important change in his understanding of baptism.
It was used at length in a reply to Hubmaier. The covenant is
seen as God's covenant of grace, rather than our covenant, his
promise rather than ours. The covenant sign, therefore, is the
sign of God's covenant and promise, rather than our pledge to
live a godly life. This understanding of the sign suited both
adult and infant baptism, whereas the earlier understanding of
it as a pledge was less coherent, for it meant pledging oneself in
the case of adult baptism and pledging to bring up one's children
in the case of infant baptism. Moreover, Zwingli argues, the
covenant in the New Testament is not a new or different one,
but 'we are one in the covenant that God made with Abraham'
(Z IV 596.1-2, 636.24-6, 636.33-637.1). The argument was not
therefore, as before, in terms of the contrast between the two
testaments, so that if something applied to those under the law,
how much more does it apply to us under grace. Now it was
rather in terms of the unity of the two, for the point of reference
is not Moses and the law but the covenant of grace with
Abraham.

In A Refutation in 1527 he pointed out that the covenant

was in fact with Adam in the first instance. There is only one
covenant as there is only one God, and he is 'as much our God
as he was Abraham's, and we are as much his people as was
Israel'. From this it follows that as the children of the Hebrews
were one with their parents in the covenant and received the
sign of the covenant, so should the children of Christians receive
the sign of the covenant, that is baptism, as they are counted in
the church of Christ. (Z VI i. 170.12-16, 171.15-19, 171.28-
172, 5; Selected Works236.)

Zwingli now also used the argument from election which was
in fact used initially against him by the anabaptists. They argued
from the rejection of Esau in Rom. 9: 11-13 that infants were
not of God's people. Zwingli's reply was that only those whom

-91-
God has elected are members of his people, and they are
members even if as yet, like infants, they do not believe. The
children of Christians are moreover in the covenant as the
children of the Hebrews were. This makes us sure of their
election until God pronounces differently about them, as he did
in the case of Esau. (Z VI i. 175.21-179.19, 184.2-4.)

Zwingli continued to argue from election in his last sub-

stantial treatment of baptism, Questions Concerning the Sac-
rament of Baptism ( 1530), which was a response to forty-six
questions raised by Schwenckfeld about baptism. But he used
it as a weapon against the anabaptist linking of baptism and
faith in support of believers' baptism rather than as the basis of
his own case for infant baptism. Among many points two can
be taken. First, as we cannot know who are elect and who are
reprobate it is wrong to drive from the church the children of
Christians to whom God's promise belongs. Secondly, if only
those who have faith should be baptized, then nobody can be
baptized, for we cannot know for certain about other people's
faith. (S III572-6.)

There were fundamental elements in Zwingli's theology which

made him deny the traditional view that baptism is a means of
grace and that it is necessary to salvation. For him the traditional
view called in question the sovereignty of God, the centrality
of Christ, and the freedom of the Spirit. It was also in conflict
with the clear witness of scripture that some were baptized who
were not saved and some were saved who were not baptized.
His view of baptism was bound up with his understanding of
salvation, and with his understanding of man, which would not
allow that the soul could be affected by what is bodily.

Baptism therefore had a different meaning and purpose for

Zwingli from those traditionally given to it. Zwingli saw it as
an initiatory sign, a sign of the covenant. This he developed in
terms of our pledge to live the Christian life. However as a child
could not make a pledge, the pledge made in infant baptism was
the parents' pledging of the child and the child's being pledged
to the law. In 1525, however, his deepened understanding of
the covenant as God's covenant of grace gave him an under-

-92

standing of covenant signs where the emphasis shifted to God

and the church and where the term could be used in fun-
darnentally the same sense for adults and for infants.

In his debate with anabaptists Zwingli relied on two major

propositions for the baptism of infants: that children belong to
God and should therefore be baptized and that baptism replaces
circumcision. They were buttressed by a host of supporting
arguments. The most notable development in Zwingli's position
came with the changed view of the covenant. This meant that
he no longer argued in terms of the contrast between the Old
and New Testament but in terms of the unity. Later Zwingli
made use of the doctrine of election which had been used first
by his opponents. However he used it negatively to undermine
their case rather than positively, as Bucer did, as a basis for
affirming the effectiveness of baptism with those who are elect,
while continuing to assert the sovereignty of God.

-93

10
The Eucharist
THE term Zwinglian is most often used to describe a certain
view of the Lord's Supper or eucharist, the subject about which
there was the most vigorous and bitter controversy among the
reformers. The view is associated with a stress on the eucharist
as a memorial. This is often understood or misunderstood as
Zwingli's denying the presence of Christ in the eucharist, as if
others believed in the real presence and Zwingli in the real
absence. Of course Zwingli believed in the presence of Christ,
but not his bodily presence, nor his presence in his human
nature.

The Early Zwingli: The Sacrifice of Christ and the

Presence
of Christ
The eucharist was at the centre of medieval religion, and it is
natural that it became the focus of the controversy both between
the reformers and the medieval church and then among the
reformers themselves. In The Babylonian Captivity of the
Church Luther attacked three ways in which the sacrament had
been taken captive: communion in one kind (that is, that lay
people received the bread but not the wine), the sacrifice of the
mass (the offering of the mass as a sacrifice for the living and
the dead), and transubstantiation. On the first two of these,
Zwingli and the other reformers were in fundamental agreement
with Luther. They appealed to the New Testament to support
communion in both kinds (bread and wine) and to assert the
sufficiency and unrepeatability of the sacrifice of Christ on the
cross. The eucharist does not repeat that sacrifice but is a
commemoration of the once for all sacrifice of Christ. It is not
something we offer God, but something which he offers to us.

-94

These two points of disagreement between the reformers

and the medieval church were frequently expressed in debate
between Zwingli and his Catholic opponents and there was no
fundamental change in his views. Like Luther he was opposed
to the way that masses could be bought, becoming thereby a
source of greed and wealth, as well as diverting money from the
needs of the poor; but much more important for both of them
was the fact that this view of the sacrament imperilled people's
salvation, encouraging them to trust in something other than
God. Zwingli based his case largely on the Epistle to the
Hebrews, but drew also on the fathers as evidence of a view of
the eucharist as a commemoration of Christ's sacrifice and not
the sacrifice itself.

He addressed the question at the first disputation in January

1523. In the eighteenth article he asserted, 'That Christ, having
sacrificed himself once, is to eternity a certain and valid sacrifice
for the sins of all faithful, wherefrom it follows that the mass is
not a sacrifice, but is a remembrance of the sacrifice and assur-
ance of salvation which Christ has given us.' (Z I 460.6-10;
Selected Works112.) In the detailed exposition of this in July
1523 he argued from the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ in
Hebrews and claimed that for some years he had called the
sacrament 'a memorial of the suffering of Christ and not a
sacrifice'. He held that Christ's intention was clear by his saying
'Do this in remembrance of me' and not 'Offer this up to me'.
(Z II137-8.) He also noted a difference in the terms used by
himself and Luther. Luther referred to the sacrament as a
testament. Zwingli also used that term, but he preferred the term
memorial. It is interesting that already at this stage Zwingli's
preference was for the more subjective term, for remembering
is primarily something which we do rather than something
which God does.

Zwingli's position was developed in The Canon of the Mass

where he defended the term eucharist, although it was not used
by Christ or the apostles, as it makes it clear that the sacrament
is a gift of God, whereas the term mass makes it something we
offer to God (Z II 568.34-569.10). Unlike Grebel, Zwingli
allowed liberty to the congregations in what is not clearly pre-

-95

scribed by scripture and did not regard them as bound by the

custom of Christ and the apostles in outward matters like time
and dress. For the sake of the weak or to avoid divisions he was
prepared to use the old forms and formulations.

At this stage Zwingli was conservative in his proposals for

reforming the mass and was criticized, for example, for toler-
ating eucharistic vestments. At the second disputation in the
autumn he still did not seek to abolish them, as that would
cause an uproar, although he regarded them as a hindrance. He
believed that people needed first to be taught. (Z II 788.31-
789.16.)

The decision at the second disputation was that the mass was
unscriptural and should be abolished. That decision was not,
however, put into effect until Easter 1525, as the conservative
opposition in Zurich was too strong for the council to move at
once. The radicals anticipated this reform by only a few months
with their evangelical celebration of the Lord's Supper in the
January. The debate with Catholic opponents, such as Joachim
am Grüt and Eck, continued, but the major concern moved
from the sacrifice of the mass to the presence of Christ in the
sacrament.
Christ's presence in the eucharist, as his sacrifice, was also
discussed in the first disputation in 1523. At this stage Zwingli's
challenge was to the medieval doctrine of transubstantiation--
in other words, that the substance of the bread and wine becomes
the substance of the body and blood of Christ, while the acci-
dents, that is what the senses apprehend (such as colour and
taste) remain those of bread and wine. He rejected this doctrine
as an invention of theologians. Although Zwingli referred to the
bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ, it is not clear
in what sense he regarded the eucharistic elements as the body
and blood of Christ. The stress was on the body and blood of
Christ as slain for us. He presented his view by expounding
John 6 placing the emphasis on faith and on the soul being fed.
(He uses the text which was later to be so important: 'It is the
Spirit who gives life, the flesh is of no avail' ( John 6:63).) He
held that if we believe that 'Christ's body slain for us and his
blood shed for us have redeemed us and reconciled us to God

-96

. . . then our soul receives food and drink with the body and
blood of Christ'. With faith the food strengthens us; but without
it we eat to our damnation. (Z II 141.14-144.16.) This view
that the sacrament strengthens faith was rejected by Zwingli
later.

In July 1523 Zwingli wrote to his former teacher, Thomas

Wyttenbach, in response to his enquiries about the eucharist.
The main concern here, unlike that of the articles, was with the
presence of Christ rather than with sacrifice. There is the same
emphasis on faith, and faith is related to 'the body of Christ
slain for us' for our salvation and not to the eucharistic elements,
a factor that was to be important later in his controversy with
Luther. The bread and wine can be called the body and blood
of Christ, but only 'catachrestically'. They are given to be eaten
(not to be reserved or adored) and the stress is on the first half
of Christ's word at the Last Supper: 'Take eat' rather than the
second half 'This is my body'. There is a shift from the elements
to the action. In discussing the presence of Christ, Zwingli used
the analogy of a flint to illuminate his understanding of Christ's
presence. As there is fire in the flint only when it is struck, so
Christ is found under the form of bread and wine only when he
is sought in faith. (Z VIII84-9.)

Scholars differ in their view of how Zwingli understood

Christ's presence in the eucharist in 1523 (and before), some
arguing for a real or at least a mystical presence, others for a
spiritual presence or a presence dependent in some sense on
faith, a position compatible with a symbolic view of the sacra-
ment. There are pointers to both views of the sacrament. Yet it
should be noted that, although Zwingli used traditional terms,
which might seem to imply the former view, they were clearly
qualified by other expressions. For example, he referred to the
body and blood of Christ but spoke of them as food for the
believing soul (Z II 812.7-8). Moreover he allowed those not
strong enough to give up an objectionable term like sacrifice to
go on using it and yet to understand it as a commemoration of
Christ's sacrifice. However from 1524 he clearly held a symbolic
view in which the word 'is' in 'This is my body' was interpreted
as 'signifies'.

-97

The Symbolic View of the Sacrament

It was in 1524 that Zwingli read the letter by Cornelis Hoen,
which Luther had already rejected and which argued for inter-
preting the word 'is' as 'signifies' in 'This is my body'. Hoen
used in support a range of biblical examples including the seven
cows and seven ears in Gen. 41 as signifying seven years and
the 'I am' passages in St John. Zwingli said that Hoen had
helped him to see that the trope was in the word 'is' and not,
for example, in the word 'body'.

The impact of Hoen's letter is seen first in a letter of Zwingli

to Matthew Alber in November 1524. It is significant, however,
that Zwingli dealt with this new insight only in the second
part of his letter. In the first part (Z III 336.19-342.10) he
concentrated on John 6 which began to have a dominant part
in his teaching on the eucharist. (Its importance was to be
reflected in its becoming the invariable gospel at holy
communion, whereas in the medieval church it had been one of
the readings for Corpus Christi.) He recognized that it is not
concerned with the eucharist, but for him it disproves certain
views of the eucharist, and therefore it is his first line of attack.
From it Zwingli shows that it is the flesh of Christ as slain for
us and not as eaten by us that is food for the soul. For, as he
argued, John 3:6 makes it clear that what is born of the flesh is
flesh, just as what is born of the Spirit is Spirit. Eating the flesh
of Christ cannot therefore give birth to anything but flesh. In
fact the phrase eating Christ in John 6 means believing in him.
Eating his body means believing that he was slain for us. In the
whole exposition the two fundamental elements are: the flesh is
of no avail and eating is believing.

In the second part (Z III 342.11-347.12) he dealt with what

he regarded as the most difficult point: that the words of con-
secration seem to imply that the bread given by Christ was his
body slain for us on the cross. He discounts this on the ground
that faith teaches that salvation comes through believing that
Christ died for us and not through the sacramental eating of
bread and wine. Consequently he holds that there must be a
figure of speech in Christ's words. He rejects Carlstadt's view
that the word 'this' in 'This is my body' refers to Christ's body

-98-

rather than the bread, and following Hoen he sees the clue in
the word 'is', which is to be understood as 'signifies' just as in
many other biblical passages. Furthermore he points to the link
between signifying and remembering by noting that 'Take, eat;
this is my body' is followed by 'Do this in remembrance of me'.
He draws on Tertullian, Augustine, and Origen in support of
the term 'signify', referring to Tertullian's use of the term
'represent' and Augustine's use of the term 'figure'. The bread
represents Christ's body in that when it is eaten, it calls to
remembrance that Christ gave his body for us.

Zwingli also interpreted another key passage ( 1 Cor. 10:14-22)

used by those who supported bodily eating to support his posi-
tion. He argued in the light of the following verse ('we who are
many are one bread and one body') that 'the communion of the
body of Christ' must mean that those who believe testify by eating
the bread, that they are members of the same body. What is funda-
mental therefore is not the eating, but faith, so that we become
one body as soon as we believe in Christ. (Z III 347.13-352.3.)

Most of what Zwingli had to say about the eucharist was

present, at least implicitly, in his writings by the end of 1524.
With each new work some new point or detailed argument was
presented, but for the most part they were only refinements or
elaborations of what he had already stated by the end of 1524.
Moreover, although Zwingli did not engage in direct debate
with Luther till 1527, he did implicitly attack Luther's views
in the letter to Matthew Alber, for Alber's position represents
Luther's in many ways.

Luther had already rejected what he was to see as Zwingli's

position in his rejection of Hoen's letter (for example in The
Adoration of the Sacrament in 1523) and in his attack on
Carlstadt's views. Luther was indeed to see Zwingli essentially
in terms of Carlstadt, and this made it difficult for him to
understand Zwingli in his own terms. There were important
differences between Zwingli and Carlstadt, including Zwingli's
rejection of Carlstadt's view that with the word 'this' in 'This
is my body' Christ pointed to his own body. However Zwingli
did see Carlstadt as on his side in putting the emphasis on faith
as faith in Christ (and not faith in the sacrament).

-99

The Controversy with Luther

In the many expositions of the eucharist from A Commentary
in 1525 to the Marburg Colloquy in 1529 Zwingli largely
defended and reaffirmed what he had already said, though with
some development and addition. There were two issues that
underlay the discussion: whether Christ is bodily present and
whether he is bodily eaten; but the concern was mostly with the
latter. For Zwingli Luther put 'the chief point of salvation in
the bodily eating of the body of Christ', which Luther saw as
strengthening faith and remitting sins. This led Zwingli to
contrast two ways of salvation: the one by eating the flesh of
Christ and the other by believing in him. He opposed the first
as it made the atoning death of Christ unnecessary and would
also restore the papacy and a religion of externals. (Z IV 817.19-
27; V 500.1-16.)

Zwingli attacked the bodily eating of the body of Christ on

two grounds: faith and scripture. By faith he meant the kind of
faith which leads to salvation. By scripture he meant the whole
range of scriptural argument (the use of tropes, the collation
of passages of scripture, the analogy and agreement between
different parts of scripture, and of course the emphasis on
certain key passages).

The argument from faith was in terms of faith in Christ as

Son of God and not, as Luther made it, a belief about the
body of Christ in the bread. Zwingli argued that salvation was
promised to faith and not to bread, whereas Luther's view
implied that there are two ways of salvation: the death of Christ
and bodily eating. (Indeed the character of faith tells against
Luther, because faith has no need of bodily food, since John's
gospel says 'the one who believes in Christ will not hunger or
thirst'.) For Zwingli the subject of the eucharist is the death of
Christ, not the eating of the body, for the words 'Do this in
remembrance of me' refer to giving thanks for Christ's death,
his body given for us, and not to the eating of the body. Luther's
view would make the death of Christ unnecessary, since the
disciples shared in the eucharist before Christ died. (Z V 576.1-
7, 659.4-661.6, 707.3-708.13, 572.27-573.2, 706.5-11.)

Faith is also the fundamental criterion in interpreting scrip-

-100

ture. Luther had used this principle in rejecting the pope's

interpretation of Matt. 16:18 to prove that Peter was the foun-
dation of the church. Zwingli now used this principle against
Luther, arguing that the plain sense of a passage is not always
the true sense. The true sense is discerned by faith and by a
comparison with other relevant passages of scripture. (Z V
663.9-29, 710.2-10, 731.25-732.11.)

Besides the argument from faith, there was the argument

from scripture. A vital part in this was played by St John's
gospel. It was fundamental for Zwingli's understanding of the
eucharist, initially in the use of John 6 and passages such as
John 1:18 and 3:6, but later in giving examples of alloiosis,
that is the sharing or interchange of properties. Zwingli spoke
of John as the noblest part of the New Testament. If you take
it away 'you take the sun from the world'. (Z V 564.6-16.)

John 6:63 was his key text. He used it in support of 'is'

meaning 'signifies' and so against the bodily presence of Christ
as well as against bodily eating. In it Christ cut the knot 'with
an axe so sharp and solid that no one can have any hope that
these two pieces--body and eating--can come together again'.
(In this text Zwingli's emphasis moves from 'it is the Spirit
who gives life' to 'the flesh is of no avail'.) He defended his
interpretation of it against Luther's view that the flesh refers
not to Christ's flesh but to a fleshly understanding. He added
moreover that the fathers were on his side. (Z V 616.9-15,
605.9-612.34.) As earlier he also argued that John 6:56, which
speaks of those who eat Christ's flesh as abiding in him and he
in them, cannot refer to sacramental eating, as many people eat
the body of Christ sacramentally and yet are not in him nor he
in them. (Compare Z III 780.28-782.22.)

The discussion of alloiosis or the sharing or interchange of

properties is related to the sharp distinction Zwingli makes
between the divinity and humanity of Christ. (It was in 1526
that Zwingli first used the argument from the two natures of
Christ.) According to his divine nature, he is omnipresent and
so he is always at the right hand of the Father; whereas according
to his human nature, he is not and so after his resurrection he
ascended into heaven. However if his body is in heaven, it

-101

cannot be in the eucharist. For Zwingli if you make a proper

distinction between the two natures, you can reconcile appar-
ently conflicting passages, such as 'I am with you always' which
refers to the divine nature, and 'you will not always have me'
which refers to the human nature. (Z IV 827.4-830.28.)

He holds that Luther confuses the two natures and that that
confusion underlies Luther's holding that the body of Christ is
everywhere, whereas in fact Christ's body belongs to his
humanity and shares the characteristics of his humanity, which
can be in only one place at one time. For Zwingli a proper
understanding of John's gospel requires an understanding of
alloiosis, by which when speaking of one nature in Christ, we
use terms that belong to the other. Thus when Christ said 'My
flesh is food indeed', the word flesh applies to the human nature,
but by interchange is used here of the divine, for it is as Son of
God that he is food for the soul. Zwingli is concerned that the
two natures should keep their distinctiveness and integrity and
the appeal to alloiosis was a support in this. (Z V 683.11-
701.18.)

For Zwingli it is clear from scripture that the body of Christ,

including his resurrection body, was always in one place at one
time and was never in more than one place at one time. Although
both Zwingli and Luther engaged in philosophical argument in
support of their different positions on this point, Zwingli's
fundamental objection to Luther's view was biblical and theo-
logical rather than philosophical. He saw Luther as denying
that Christ was human as we are, in opposition to passages such
as Phil. 2:7 and Heb. 2:14, 17 and 4:15, as well as denying the
passages which state or imply that his body is in one place.
Zwingli cited a growing range of texts about the resurrection
and ascension of Christ as well as the three clauses in the creed
about ascending into heaven, sitting down on the right hand of
God, and coming again in glory, to show that Christ will not be
here bodily until he comes again in glory to judge the living and
the dead.

Both Luther and Zwingli used various analogies (sometimes

the same ones) in illustration of their position. Thus Zwingli
spoke of the sun which shines throughout the world, without

-102
being in each place, to show how Christ can shine everywhere
by divine power while his body is in one place (Z VI ii. 167.18-
168.13). The whole thrust of his argument that the body of
Christ can be in only one place at one time (that means now at
the right hand of God) is to demonstrate that his body cannot
be in the eucharist. He described Luther's opposite view as
Marcionite, in effect asserting that the body of Christ was not
a real body.

Zwingli offered a host of supporting arguments in favour of

his view that 'this is' means 'this signifies'. A major one is the
parallel with the passover. This came to him as from God in a
dream in 1525. The force of the example comes from the fact
that the passover foreshadows the death of Christ and that
Christ himself is the true passover. He held that the disciples
who celebrated the passover each year would understand the
words 'This is my body' in the light of 'The lamb is the passo-
ver'. He argued moreover by analogy with the passover that the
eucharist was given for commemoration and thanksgiving and
not for bodily eating. (Z IV 482.32-487.9, 844.3-847.2.)

Other arguments were drawn from the way in which the bread
was still called bread and the wine was still called wine after the
words of institution and from the fact that the disciples were
calm rather than amazed at the Last Supper (Z IV 847.3-
848.11). Zwingli also used the argument of his colleague, Hein-
rich Engelhard, that in the New Testament the term the body
of Christ is used in three senses only: for the natural body with
which Christ lived and died, for the risen body, and for the
mystical body, the church. For differing reasons the bread could
not be any of these. (Z IV 476.4-478.11.) The argument of his
opponents that if God is omnipotent he could cause the bread
to be both real bread and real flesh is dismissed by denying that
something is done by God simply because he can do it. Zwingli
states that God's omnipotence is always in keeping with his
word. (Z IV 831.23-30. Compare Z V 501.23-6.)

-103

The Marburg Colloquy

The differences between Luther and Zwingli on the eucharist
were a serious cause of division among Protestants, a division
made more serious by the stand of Roman Catholic territories
after the Diet of Speyer in 1529. The cause of the Reformation
was put at risk in many places and therefore the concern for
Protestant unity was intensified. Philip of Hesse arranged a
colloquy in the hope of attaining unity. Luther was reluctant to
attend but saw it as an opportunity to convince his opponents.
By contrast Zwingli was eager for the colloquy, but he also saw
it as an opportunity to convince his opponents. The mediating
approach of Bucer, Oecolampadius, and Melanchthon was an
important factor in leading to the colloquy and to the measure
of agreement at Marburg. When the participants assembled,
Luther and Zwingli did not meet with each other at first, but
Luther met with Oecolampadius and Zwingli with Melanchthon
in the hope of creating a better atmosphere and basis for dis-
cussion.

Nothing new in Zwingli's or Luther's eucharistic theology

emerged in the discussion, which was dominated, as the contro-
versy had been till then, by Luther's insistence on the words
'This is my body'. They did not change their positions. Indeed
they could not because their positions reflected their underlying
theology. The colloquy produced agreement on fourteen of
the fifteen articles, which were drawn up by Luther; and the
disagreement in the fifteenth article on the eucharist (in only
one point out of its six) was kept to a subordinate clause. (It
concerned the bodily presence of Christ.) Yet the agreement at
Marburg on five points in the eucharist is in a way misleading,
for in three points of the five Zwingli and Luther understood
the words differently or gave the emphasis to different words
or phrases.

The controversy had hardened positions. From the beginning

Luther had seen Zwingli in terms of Carlstadt and therefore as
a spiritualist, emptying the sacraments of their power. Zwingli
presented his views largely in opposition to Lutheran and Cath-
olic views, and he increasingly tended virtually to identify the
two. That made reconciliation for Zwingli other than on his

-104-

terms almost impossible as any other agreement would have

seemed to the Swiss a return to Catholicism. Their Catholic
opponents for their part sought to intensify the division between
the reformers.

The colloquy ended the bitterness of the conflict, but not the
division. For Luther, though not in the same way for Zwingli
and those with him, the difference that remained was funda-
mental. For the Lutherans it was so fundamental that they could
view the Zwinglians only as friends, and not as brethren in the
gospel. Yet, despite all his earlier critical assertions, that was
not how Zwingli saw things at the end of the colloquy. Luther
refused fellowship and communion with Zwingli, Bucer, and
Oecolampadius. Only pressure from Philip of Hesse made him
willing to seek an agreement at all. The division was to last for
over four centuries and not till the Leuenberg Concord in 1973,
almost four and a half centuries later, was an agreement found
which a large number of Lutheran and Reformed Churches,
though not all, could accept as a basis for fellowship in word
and sacrament.

The Closing Years

The immediate effect of the colloquy, however, was a decrease
in controversy and a more positive expression of Zwingli's views
of the eucharist. Zwingli made it clear that the bread was not
mere bread, and he began to affirm terms such as presence, true,
and sacramental. His more positive view can be seen in 1530
and 1531 in works like An Account of the Faith written for the
Diet of Augsburg, The Letter to the Princes of Germany, written
in the same context in defence of his views after Eck's attack on
them, and An Exposition of the Faith, written for the King of
France.

At this point he was more concerned to affirm the presence

of Christ than to deny it. Indeed in the appendix to An Expo-
sition of the Faith he asserted, 'We believe Christ to be truly
present in the Supper, indeed we do not believe that it is the
Lord's Supper unless Christ is present.' In support, however,
he used a text that has nothing to do explicitly with the eucharist:

-105

'Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there

am I in the midst of them.' (S IV 73.36-9.) He asserted that the
true body of Christ and everything done by him is present by
the contemplation of faith, before denying the bodily presence
and bodily eating. He could even say that he had never denied
that Christ's body is truly, sacramentally, and mysteriously
present in the Supper. (Z VI ii. 806.6-17; VI iii. 263.3-265.19.)
As the body is present sacramentally, it can be eaten sac-
ramentally. He distinguished eating Christ's body spiritually,
which is trusting in the mercy and goodness of God through
Christ, and eating it sacramentally which is eating 'the body
of Christ with the mind and spirit in conjunction with the
sacrament'. But without faith we do not eat sacramentally. (S
IV 53.33-55.29.)

The link made between the senses and the sacraments in 1524
was developed in the later Zwingli and was given as the reason
for the eucharist, whereas earlier Zwingli had spoken of it
primarily in terms of testifying to others. Zwingli held not only
that the eucharist does not give faith, but also that it is of no
use to us without faith, which is given by the Spirit, who
can act with the sacraments or without them. This raised the
question of what the benefit of the sacraments is. His answer
was that whereas preaching appeals to the sense of hearing, the
eucharist appeals more richly to the senses. 'Then by the
symbols themselves, namely the bread and wine, Christ himself
is presented as it were to the eyes, so that in this way not only
the hearing, but also the sight and taste see and perceive Christ,
whom the mind has present within and in whom it rejoices.'
The devil tempts us through the senses, but the eucharist helps
to increase our faith by engaging the senses. Zwingli always
insisted, however, that faith is a gift of the Spirit, and comes
from him, not from the sacrament. (Z VI iii. 259.5-265.19; S
IV 46.18-21, 57.12-58.5.)

With the more positive emphasis on the eucharist went a

more positive reference to the bread and wine. They are signs
and a sign increases in value according to the value of what it
signifies, just as the wedding ring given to the queen by her
husband is of more value than the gold of which it is made. The

-106
bread therefore which had been common is now divine and
sacred. (Z VI iii. 271.13-272.3; S IV 56.32-46.)

There were of course other positive elements in Zwingli's

thinking which do not concern the presence of Christ and which
remain from the early Zwingli. For example, in A Proposal
Concerning Images and the Mass in May 1524, he spoke of the
sacrament testifying 'to all men that we are one body and one
brotherhood' and of Christ's willing 'that his own shall be one,
just as he is one with the Father, and for this reason he has given
us the sacrament'. 'And as he gave himself for us, we also are
bound to give ourselves one for the other'. (Z III 124.27-
125.15.) In Zwingli's later writings the eucharist is a thanks-
giving for Christ's death for us, a confession of our faith, and a
commitment to our brethren to love them as Christ loved us.
It is moreover a corporate act (an emphasis that particularly
distinguished Zwingli from medieval practice) for as the bread
comes from many grains, so the body of the church is joined
together from many members. The fact that the sacrament is
an oath stresses this unity.

There are many possible influences on Zwingli's understanding

of the eucharist, the most obvious being Erasmus, Augustine,
and Hoen. Zwingli himself spoke of his debt to Erasmus and
much in him is certainly typical of Erasmus: there were the
subjective, corporate, and ethical emphases; the stress on faith
and commemoration; and most notably the key role of John 6:
63. But the affinity between Zwingli and Augustine is also
striking. A study of Augustine's tractates on John 6 shows how
close Zwingli's thought was to Augustine, as does the frequency
with which he quotes from him. There are not only the elements
he has in common with Erasmus (and with Augustine as well)
including his Platonism, but there is also the stress in Augustine
on the sovereignty of God. (At Marburg Luther admitted that
Augustine and Fulgentius were on Zwingli's side.) Hoen con-
tributed a vital element to Zwingli in the development of
his symbolic view, though his importance for Zwingli is often
exaggerated. Important, though less obvious, is the continuity
between the reformers and the diverse eucharistic theologies of

-107

the Middle Ages. Most elements in the reformers' eucharistic

controversy can be found in the medieval tradition, though not
in the same combination nor set in the same theological context.

Fundamental in Zwingli's understanding of the eucharist is that

it is a sign--and it is the nature of a sign not to be the same as
what it signifies. This applies both to the sacrifice of Christ and
to the body of Christ. The eucharist is a memorial of the
sacrifice, not the sacrifice itself; it is a sign of the body of Christ,
not the body itself. The clue that came from Hoen in 1524 that
'is' means 'signifies' fitted Zwingli's view of a sacrament and
enabled him to deal with the text 'This is my body' which
seemed the strongest obstacle to his position. (In a letter in
April 1526 to Crautwald and Schwenckfeld he argued against
the word 'represent' as--unlike 'signify'--it could imply the
presence of the body (Z VIII 568.1-569.9.) For him the central
text was John 6: 63, 'It is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh is
of no avail.' Both halves of the verse were important, even
though the emphasis most often lay on the second half. The
first half fitted his emphasis on the sovereignty of God, the
second half his Platonism, though that is not the only way in
which it was used. Zwingli dismissed any argument from the
fact that Christ used these words only once, on the grounds that
heaven and earth will pass away rather than a word of God (Z
VIII 210.11-12). This text was a wall of bronze which nothing
could shake, let alone shatter (Z III 785.40-786.1).

There is continuity in Zwingli's view of the eucharist not

only in the areas which were not a source of controversy between
him and Luther (the rejection of communion in one kind and
the eucharist as a sacrifice), but also in Zwingli's understanding
of the presence of Christ. The symbolic view which emerged
clearly at the end of 1524 is implicit in his first statements in
1523. There are from the beginning elements which imply a
symbolic view of the eucharist: the sacrament as a sign; a stress
on the atoning death of Christ, on its being food for the soul,
on salvation as dependent on faith in Christ's body and blood
as given for us, on the vital role of faith, and on the Spirit as
enabling faith; and the rejection of bodily eating. The more

-108

positive notes in the later Zwingli do not indicate a real shift in

his position, rather a difference of emphasis. Unlike Bucer and
Oecolampadius he did not link the sacraments positively to
the sovereignty of God, for example, in God's making the
sacraments effective for the elect or in the Spirit's bringing
Christ's death to our remembrance, although there was potential
for this in his theology--and in a passage not on the eucharist
he spoke of the Spirit's lifting our eyes to Christ in heaven (S
VI ii. 74.28-33). His Platonist opposition between flesh and
spirit was an obstacle to a more positive view of the eucharist,
though he did have one surprising reference in a comment on
Exod. 21: 28 to being made cruel by eating the flesh of a
cruel animal, which might have helped him to overcome this
opposition (Z XIII 408.1-22).

Both Zwingli and Luther saw the gospel as at stake in their

controversy and that made compromise impossible. Zwingli was
determined to stand by the truth: 'For we do not live to this
age, nor to the princes, but to the Lord.' (Z IX 340.2-4.) At the
same time his admiration for Luther was clear. He was 'one of
the first champions of the gospel', a David against Goliath, a
Hercules who slew the Roman boar (Z V 613.12-13, 722.3-5,
723.1-2).

Zwingli, as Bucer and Oecolampadius, appealed to the early

Luther, where there is a strong emphasis on the place of faith,
without realizing that his position there presupposed a belief in
the real presence. The real presence was vital for Luther's
understanding of God's gracious dealing with us in Jesus Christ.
The sacraments offer us salvation and therefore to dispute the
real presence is to dispute the way God offers us salvation.
There were other differences which underlay their differences
here: in christology, with Zwingli's emphasis on the distinction
of the natures and Luther's on the unity of the person; in
anthropology with Zwingli's frequent Platonist opposition of
outward and inward in the terms flesh and Spirit, and Luther's
seeing no opposition of outward and inward in them.

For Zwingli the salvation of men and women was at stake--

hence the vigour of his opposition to bodily eating. If you allow

-109-

that bodily eating, which is possible for believer and unbeliever

alike, is a means of grace, then for Zwingli faith in God will be
replaced by faith in the sacrament, and so the entire doctrine of
God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit will be overthrown. Sal-
vation will then be put at our disposal, for we can do (or have
done to us) something which mediates salvation, as it is we
who administer and receive the sacrament, in which there is
salvation--and that denies the sovereignty of God in our
salvation. Moreover Christ's humanity and saving work are
denied, for the bodily presence of Christ in the sacrament would
imply that his body unlike ours can be in more places than one
at a time, and bodily eating would call in question the necessity
of Christ's death for salvation, as the disciples ate the Last
Supper before Christ died. The role of the Spirit in our salvation
is also denied, for it is the Spirit, and not the sacrament, who
was given to take the place of Christ's bodily presence with
mankind, and it is the Spirit, and not the sacrament, who gives
faith.

-110

11
The Church
THE changed understanding that Zwingli had of Christ and
the gospel led to a changed understanding of the church. At the
first disputation in January 1523 the articles on the church came
immediately after those on Christ. What was said about Christ
determined what was said about the church. It was described
and defined in terms of him. At this stage Zwingli maintained
his view against Catholic opponents, but within months he was
to be challenged by some of his more radical supporters in his
understanding of the church.

Christ and the Church

Already in a letter in April 1522 and in The Petition in July
1522 Zwingli had spoken of the church in terms of those who
believe in Christ and who receive the Holy Spirit. In this he
was dissenting from a view of the church as the hierarchy, as he
was to do explicitly at the first disputation. In the eighth article
he maintained: 'From this it follows first that all who live in the
head are members and children of God and that is the church
or communion of saints, the bride of Christ, the catholic
church.' (Z I 459.3-5.)

This definition reflects the major points of disagreement with

his Catholic opponents--by its reference to the head of the
church and to the holiness and catholicity of the church.

The head of the church is Christ and Christ's headship is set

in opposition to the pope as the head of the church (Z II 54.12-
23). Thus the members of the church are 'all who live in the
head'; it is not those who are in communion with the bishop of
Rome. Parallel in some ways to the contrast between Christ and
the pope is the contrast between Christ and the bishops. Far

-111

from the church's being defined in terms of the bishops, Christ

is the true bishop and he is in fact freeing people from the
bishops, as he has freed the people of Zurich from the Bishop
of Constance. (Z V 79.3-9.)

Unlike the church defined in terms of Christ, the church

defined in terms of the pope or bishops is fallible. It 'has often
gone wrong and erred' (Z I 537.9; Selected Works85). Bishops
indeed, like anyone else, are members of the church only in so
far as they have Christ as their head. The church that does not
err is the one that is related to Christ and the Spirit. The Spirit
moreover is not the automatic possession of the church, as many
assumed. He is not present simply where a council or the
representative church is assembled, but only where the word of
God is master (Z II 62.21-8). Yet Zwingli could speak with
confidence about the church, and in 1526 wrote that God does
not abandon his church or allow it to err in the essential matters
of salvation, although it may err in outward things (Z V 72.8-
74.5).

The Church: One, Holy, Catholic

The traditional marks of the church (as one, holy, catholic, and
apostolic) are all related to Christ. They all feature in the early
Zwingli, but in the first disputation the main concern is with
catholicity. Zwingli accepted two meanings of the word church
in scripture: the communion of all those who believe in Christ
and particular congregations or parishes. The church is both
catholic or universal and local.

Zwingli discussed the catholicity of the church in expounding

the articles and in The Canon of the Mass in 1523 and in A
Reply to Emser in the following year. He distinguished the
catholic or universal church from the Roman church for the
Roman church is a local church not the universal church. The
catholic church is both scattered throughout the world and
gathered together in one body by the Spirit. It does not come
together visibly here on earth, although it will do so at the end
of the world. As Augustine and Luther, Zwingli spoke of the
church as visible to Christ, but invisible to us. It is discerned

-112

only by faith. Nevertheless a person may know of himself that

he is in the church, if he puts all his trust in God through Jesus
Christ. (Z II 59.1-64.20, 570.19-572.31; compare Z III 252.23-
269.6.)

The local church is the congregation, and together all these

local churches are the catholic or universal church. It is fed by
the word and nourished by the sacrament. It is the local church
which removes the impenitent and receives back the penitent.
Here Zwingli distinguished between those who called them-
selves believers and those who are believers. Although some
might use the word 'church' to include the evil, Zwingli did not
include them, for he regarded the evil as unbelievers rather than
as believers who lapse. The local church exercises discipline
and makes decisions about pastors and doctrine. An example of
this is the church in Corinth, of which we read in l Cor. 14. (Z
II 572.20-31; III 261.18-264.4.)

In the first of the two biblical uses of the term 'church' (the
communion of all those who believe in Christ), the church is
also holy. It does not have any inherent holiness and its members
are not holy, as some thought, by virtue of being priests or
religious, but it is holy in so far as it remains in Christ. In A
Reply to Eraser in 1524 he answered the charge that the church
without spot or wrinkle no more exists than Plato's republic by
saying that the holiness or purity is Christ's. Those who rely
on him are without spot or wrinkle because he is without spot
or wrinkle. (Z III 254.25-256.23.)

Alongside this view of the church as holy is Zwingli's view

of it as mixed. Although Zwingli discussed the holiness of the
church before his conflict with the anabaptists, they raised the
issue for him more acutely. For them the church is holy and
should be kept holy, with only those who believe belonging to
it. Baptism, therefore, which gave entry to the church, was to
be administered only to believers, and that excluded children.
Moreover the eucharist should be celebrated only by those who
believe and who live holy lives. Those whose lives are unholy
should be excommunicated, so that the church remains holy.

In tackling the problem of the unholiness of the members of

the church, Zwingli appealed to the Old and New Testaments,

-113

which the word church is used of a community made up of

believers and unbelievers alike, although the conduct of some
of the latter made it clear that they were not in the church which
is without spot or wrinkle. As early as a letter to Myconius on
24 July 1520 Zwingli used the parable of the wheat and tares
about the church. In A Reply to Eraser he used it again and the
parables of the net and of the ten virgins, as well as the examples
of Judas, Ananias and Sapphira ( Acts 5) and Alexander the
coppersmith ( 2 Tim. 4: 14). In using the parable of the wheat
and tares against the anabaptists, Zwingli accepted Christ's
command that the tares should be left until harvest. He did not
seek to purify the church by seceding from it to form a pure
church, as the anabaptists did, but by preaching the word.

In the controversy with the anabaptists the holiness of the

church was related to its unity. Seeking to keep the church holy
by withdrawing from those who are not holy breaks the unity
of the church. Moreover those who seek to create a church of
believers only, break the unity of children and adults in the
church by excluding children from it. Zwingli expressed his
concern for unity before the outbreak of the controversy in A
Solemn Exhortation in May 1522. In it he spoke of God as
willing all people to be descended from one father for the sake
of unity, and of Christ as praying that his disciples might be
one. We are to be one body whose head is Christ. (Z I 167.14-
169.4.)

Zwingli developed his understanding of unity in a variety of

contexts and in a variety of ways. In A Solemn Exhortation it
was set in the context of the confederation, but for most of the
decade it was set in the context of the anabaptist controversy.
Zwingli expressed his concern in many ways--theological, lit-
urgical, and practical.

An important theological and liturgical expression lay in the

doctrine of the covenant. It originated outside the debate with
the anabaptists, but it was used increasingly within that debate.
The covenant made with the people of Israel was made with all
the people, including children, and through this people the
covenant was to extend to all peoples. From 1525 Zwingli
affirmed that there is only one covenant and one people of God

-114-

in the Old and New Testaments. From this he argued that

children in the New Testament belong to the church as much
as those in the Old Testament, and they should therefore be
baptized. Thus infant baptism was a source of unity, whereas
the anabaptist approach to the church and to baptism led to
division. (Z IV 637.27-638.1, 641.1-3; VI i. 155.22-172.5; S
VI i. 461.40-7; Z IV 641.19-26.) Like baptism the eucharist is
linked with the unity of the church, for the church was instituted
by Christ for unity--so that we might be united to him and to
each other (Z III 227.11-228.6).

The unity of the church which is related to Christ is related

also to the Spirit, for the Spirit does not separate or divide. On
the contrary he binds together and draws into unity. Those who
are endowed with the Spirit, therefore, do not despise sinners
or separate from them, but rather do they call them from their
evil and join them to themselves. (S VI i. 211.23-212.9.)

For Zwingli the anabaptists had a fundamental misconception

of the church. The true church which is holy is known only to
God, and therefore no one, including anabaptists, can know
who truly believes. Moreover Christians should not separate
themselves from those who are weak but bear with them as Paul
teaches in Rom. 14. The Pauline concern for the weak frequently
distinguishes Zwingli's more cautious approach to change from
that of the anabaptists.

He saw their divisiveness not only in their particular stress

on the faith and holiness of members of the church, but also in
their individualism. That led him to stress the role of the whole
congregation as opposed to the views of one or some members
of the congregation.

How dare you introduce innovations into the church simply on your
own authority and without consulting the church? I speak only of those
churches in which the word of God is publicly and faithfully preached.
For if every blockhead who had a novel or strange opinion were allowed
to gather a sect around him, divisions and sects would become so
numerous that the Christian body which we now build up with such
difficulty would be broken to pieces in every individual congregation.
Therefore no innovations ought to be made except with the common
consent of the church and not merely of a single person. For the

-115-

judgement of scripture is not mine or yours but the church's ( 1 Cor.

14). (Z IV 254.24-255.3; LCC xxiv. 158.)

In the middle and later 1520s, when the doctrine of election

began to play a part in Zwingli's theology, it also began to
feature in his description of the church. In his later writings the
church was still described in terms of faith, but also in terms of
election which underlies faith. References to election, however,
in descriptions or definitions of the church safeguarded both
the fact that the church includes children as well as adults and
the fact that its origins lie in God and not in us.

An Account of the Faith begins by defining the church in

terms of the elect, but goes on to speak of those who are members
of the church as having faith and therefore 'they only who have
firm and unwavering faith know that they are its members'.
Zwingli distinguished the church which is perceived with the
senses from the church of the elect which is known only to
God. The members of the visible church confess Christ and
participate in the sacraments, but some of them 'in heart either
are averse to him or ignorant of him'. We cannot tell whether
those who confess Christ are in reality believers, any more than
the apostles could. Those who confess Christ are, however,
baptized and become members of the church. Like Peter in his
first epistle, we apply terms like elect to this church because we,
unlike God, judge by the confession they make. (Z VI ii. 800. 16-
801.30; Jackson464; Works ii. 44.)
 Excommunication
The mixed character of the church raised for Zwingli--as for
the church through the ages--the issue of discipline and excom-
munication. This became a point of dispute with the anabaptists,
but it was a point of dispute before that as Zwingli criticized
the practice of the medieval church.

It arose initially in the context of Luther, and Zwingli told

Myconius in July 1520 that through the pontifical commissary
he had tried to persuade the pope not to excommunicate Luther
(Z VII 343.33-344.8). But Zwingli himself also faced the possi-
bility of excommunication. That, almost certainly, apart from

-116

anything else would have made him consider the nature and
basis of excommunication. This led him to advance two articles
at the first disputation. 'That no private person may excom-
municate anyone, but only the church, that is, the community
of those among whom the person to be excommunicated lives,
together with the watchman, that is, the minister.' 'That one
may excommunicate only the person who causes public offence.'
(Z I 462. 6-9.)

Here as elsewhere Zwingli sought a scriptural foundation for

doctrine and practice. For him the basis of excommunication
was in Christ's words in Matt. 18: 15-18. From this passage
Zwingli saw the reason for excommunication as concern 'not to
infect or ruin the whole body'. But excommunication is not just
for keeping the church whole, it is concerned as well with the
repentance of the sinner, as the example of Paul shows, where
Paul exhorted the congregation to forgive the man who was
penitent. He also argued that it was to be used for an offence
against the church rather than one against an individual, and
that the offence must be a public offence. It was not, for example,
to be a way for bishops to collect debts, as happened in the
medieval church. Moreover, excommunication is also not to be
the prerogative of an individual, whether pope or bishop, but
of the church. However as the word 'church' is used in only
two senses in the New Testament, the word must mean the local
church and not the universal church, for it is not possible for
the universal church, to come together in one place as Matt. 18
requires. (Z II 277. 1-284. 13.)

After dealing with excommunication in the articles at the first

disputation, Zwingli dealt with civil authority. In his exposition
of article forty on the power of the magistrate to take life, he
quoted Matt. 18 and applied it to the magistrate, although he
allowed that its primary reference was to excommunication. He
argued that the magistrate can take the life of those guilty of
public offence, if their remaining alive would harm the body of
Christ. Zwingli held that it is better for one member to perish
than the whole body, and thus in taking this action the magis-
trate is a servant of God. (Z II 334. 24-335. 19.)
These views were advanced by Zwingli to challenge the prac-

-117

tice of the medieval church and they show characteristic refor-

mation and reforming insights--in the return to scripture, in
the emphasis on the church rather than the hierarchy, and
in the purposes for which excommunication is given (for the
church's wholeness and the individual's salvation). But they
show an element that was later to be characteristic of Zwingli
and Zurich rather than other parts of the Reformed tradition:
the role of the magistrate in discipline.

In A Commentary Zwingli challenged the Catholic view of

excommunication by pointing out that Jesus had said, 'Tell it
to the church' and not 'Tell it to the pope' (Z III 879. 35-6).
(Interestingly he says in the same passage that the power of
excommunication belongs not to the magistrate but to the whole
church.) Later Oecolampadius was to challenge Zwingli's view,
with its growing role for the magistrate, by declaring that Jesus
said, 'Tell it to the church' not 'Tell it to the magistrate' (Z XI
129. 2-130. 9). Zwingli supported his view from various parts
of scripture, such as the way rulers were called shepherds in
Israel and the understanding of presbyter in Acts 15 as applying
not only to those who preside over the word but also to coun-
cillors and senators (Z IX 455. 21-456. 8). This co-operative
role for the magistrate led to changes in practice in Zurich. With
The Zurich Marriage Ordinance in 1525 the council appointed
a tribunal of six judges (two ministers and four members of the
council) to deal with matrimonial and other matters. In the
case of adultery the ministers were to excommunicate and the
magistrates were to deal with corporal punishment and
property. However in 1526 it was the council alone which dealt
with adultery.

In his last major work, An Exposition of the Faith, Zwingli

saw the role of the magistrate in discipline as vital to the life of
the church, relating it to his being one of the shepherds of the
church. Indeed half the brief article on the church is devoted
to the place of the magistrate in the discipline of the church.

Consequently the visible church contains within itself many who are
insolent and hostile, thinking nothing of it if they are excommunicated
a hundred times, seeing they have no faith. Hence there arises the need
of government for the punishment of flagrant sinners. . . . Seeing, then,

-118

that there are shepherds in the church, and amongst them we may
number princes, as may be seen from Jeremiah, it is evident that
without government a church is maimed and impotent. . . . we teach
that government is necessary to the completeness of the body of the
church. (S IV 58.42-59.4; LCG xxiv. 266; Works ii. 261.)

In his understanding of the role of the magistrate in the

church Zwingli differed not only from reformers such as Oeco-
lampadius but also from the anabaptists. They were seeking in
their different ways forms of independence for the church. The
anabaptists believed in the total separation of the church from
the civil power, with the magistrate being concerned with those
outside the church and having no part in the church's reform
or discipline. Excommunication was the means whereby the
church was kept pure and it was essential for that purpose. The
second article of The Schleitheim Confession in 1527 stated: 'The
ban shall be employed with all those who have given themselves
to the Lord, to walk in his commandments, and with all those
who are baptized into the one body of Christ and who are called
brethren and sisters, and yet who slip sometimes and fall into
error and sin, being inadvertently overtaken.' It is to take place
'before the breaking of bread, so that we may break and eat one
bread, with one mind and in one love, and may drink of one
cup'. The fourth article affirmed the separation of believer and
unbeliever, good and evil, while the sixth asserted that the sword
is ordained of God 'outside the perfection of Christ'. 'In the
perfection of Christ, however, only the ban is used for a warning
and for the excommunication of the one who has sinned, without
putting the flesh to death.' 1

In associating excommunication with the eucharist the ana-

baptists were like Zwingli. In Excommunication from the Euchar-
ist in 1525 he made proposals to introduce it in that context, in
connection with the re-ordering of the service. A number of
public sins, such as adultery, prostitution, drunkenness, and
blasphemy, as well as graver sins, were considered grounds for
what amounted to the greater excommunication, exclusion from
social intercourse as well as from communion. (Z IV 186. 26-
187. 2.)

____________________
H. J. Hillerbrand, The Protestant Reformation ( London, 1968) 131-4.
1

-119

As Zwingli developed his doctrine of election, new questions

arose about the practice of excommunication, as it could mean
that the church was excommunicating those whom God had
elected, which would contradict the words of Christ that what
was bound on earth would be bound in heaven. Zwingli tackled
this in his commentaries and in connection with the Berne
disputation. He held that the church was following what God
had already done. For him those whom the church excom-
municated have already been rejected by God, and when the
church receives back the penitent, then the church is again
following God's action, for the penitence is a sign of divine
grace (Z VI i. 258. 9-260. 14). Our action in excommunication
does not affect a person's election, which is entirely in God's
hands. However if a person is elect, he will repent.

The Ministry
Zwingli's understanding of the ministry as his understanding
of the church was affected by his understanding of Christ and
the gospel. In articles sixty-one and sixty-two, as Luther before
him, he rejected the medieval notion of the indelible character
of ordination as not scriptural and not present in the early
church before Jerome. For him, as for Luther, someone could
be dismissed who was not suited to the office of a minister, just
as for example a mayor could be who did not look after peace
and justice. (Z II 438. 14-440. 16.) He also repudiated the
sacrificial view of the ministry, as a denial of Christ's once for
all sacrifice for sin and of Christ's being a priest for ever. By
contrast, like Luther, he asserted the priesthood of all believers.

He attacked both the exercise of temporal power by the

ministers of the church and the misuse of the ministerial office
for financial gain, for example in the abuse of excommunication
and the sale of masses. By contrast with the medieval view of
the priest, he asserted that a priest is to be 'an honourable
proclaimer of the word of God and a guardian for the salvation
of souls' (Z II 439. 17-18; Writings i. 355). Proclaiming the
word includes the care and visiting of the poor, the sick, and

-120

the needy as 'all these things belong to the word of God' (Z II

441. 7-12).

Preaching is at the heart of the ministry, and the word of God

which is preached was for Zwingli as for Luther both law and
gospel, 'for in it we learn what God demands of us and with
what grace he comes to our aid' (Z II 494. 10-13). The central
role of preaching can be seen in Zwingli's own ministry in
Zurich, where the great emphasis was on preaching. It can be
seen also in his concern for others to be ministers of the word.
At the second disputation at which several hundred ministers
were present, he preached on the ministry. The sermon was
later published as The Shepherd (Z III5-68). It portrayed the
true shepherd over against the false shepherd, as one whose life
reflects God's glory and the needs of the sheep, and whose word
is God's not his own. But perhaps most striking is the prophetic
character of the shepherd as he challenges both high and low
alike, not only in religious matters but also in matters as diverse
as greed, usury, war, the mercenary system, and monopolies.
The wide range of concern is typical of Zwingli's own preaching
that touched every aspect of the life of the people.

With the growth of the radicals after the second disputation

and especially after the rebaptisms in 1525, Zwingli's attack
shifted to them. He dealt with them and their practice of the
ministry in June 1525 in The Ministry. If his Catholic opponents
erred in separating priest and people and in ascribing to the
priest a character and role he did not have, his radical opponents
erred in not recognizing the place of the ordained ministry and
in not seeing that there is a distinction between church members
and ministers. He argued that Christ appointed some to the
ministry but not all, for as the New Testament bears witness
not all were apostles, prophets, or teachers (Z IV 419.7-420.2).
Zwingli attacked anabaptists for entering parishes without per-
mission and--from his point of view--for creating confusion
and disturbance by what they did and taught (Z IV 383.4-8).

Fundamental in Zwingli's detailed attack on them from the

New Testament was the view that a person may not presume
to take the ministerial office upon himself, but must be com-
missioned by God and the church (Z IV 421.19-22). Zwingli
also attacked their ignorance of the Bible and their false claims

-121

to the Spirit. He used the example of someone who insisted on

entering the pulpit and preaching, but who did not understand
part of the biblical passage and who in the end was made by the
congregation to give way. Yet such people claimed to have the
Spirit. (Z IV 420.3-24.)

Zwingli's understanding of prophecy in terms of the biblical

languages made him challenge the anabaptists' lack of learning
and hence their incapacity for the ministry. Hubmaier in reply
accused Zwingli of creating a new popery, for dependence on
those versed in the biblical languages was like the earlier depen-
dence on popes and councils (Z IV 601.1-602.4 and 601 n. 8).
Simon Stumpf, another of the radicals, rejected paid full-time
ministers in favour of those who possessed the German bible
and the Holy Spirit (Z VI i. 559 n. 15). Zwingli however held
that if knowledge of the biblical languages were to be lost again,
then the church would be back in its former darkness. He also
argued in favour of a paid ministry, as the alternative to it would
be begging, with the risk of greed in the case of some preachers
and of flattery rather than prophetic preaching in the case of
others. (Z IV 403.30-405.19, 415.2-17.)

The development of the prophecy in June 1525 shaped a

distinctively Reformed model of ministry in opposition to that
of both Catholic and anabaptist. It stressed the preaching of the
word (in contrast to the priestly view of his Catholic opponents)
and the scriptures as the criterion of the Spirit (in contrast to
the anabaptist claim to have the Spirit). The word 'prophet'
became the dominant term for the minister in the mid-1520s
although other terms are used which have a slightly different
emphasis, such as bishop and pastor. The word 'prophet' is an
inclusive term as the word of God, of which the prophet is a
minister, includes word and sacraments, presiding and pastoral
care. The ministry is so central to the life of the church that
Zwingli could say in An Account of the Faith:

The work of prophecy or preaching I believe to be most holy, so that

above any other duty it is in the highest degree necessary. For in
speaking canonically or regularly we see that among all nations the
outward preaching of apostles and evangelists or bishops has preceded
faith. (Z VI ii. 813.7-13; Jackson478; Works ii. 56.)

-122
 12
The State
THE relation of church and state in Zwingli is represented and
misrepresented in the statue by the Wasserkirche in Zurich,
where he stands with the Bible in one hand and the sword in
the other.

It represents the relationship in expressing the fact that

church and state are not two separate communities, but one and
the same community under the sovereign rule of God. That
meant that the minister and the magistrate are concerned with
the whole life of the community and not just part of it. In this
each is the servant of God.

It misrepresents the relationship by implying that the min-

ister can also be the magistrate. However the role of each is
different. The Bible or the word of God was God's instrument
in the hands of the minister, as the sword is God's instrument
in the hands of the magistrate. For Zwingli they belong together,
but not in the same person.

Zwingli did not think that it was the role of the minister to
wield the sword, although he himself died on the field of battle
wielding one. He thought that it was exceptional for someone
to be like Samuel in the Old Testament both a prophet and a
ruler. But he did think that the sword was a proper instrument
not only to protect the good but also to protect the gospel. His
death was in a battle whose aim was to protect the preaching of
the gospel. He was present as chaplain but nevertheless he
did not hesitate to fight with his soldiers when he saw them
outnumbered. This aim and this action distinguished him
sharply not only from Luther, who regarded Zwingli's death on
the field of battle as God's judgement on him, but also from
Calvin and other reformers.

-123-

The statue leads into the controversial question of the relation

of church and state in Zwingli, with its differences from Luther
and also from later Reformed thinking. First, however, we may
note Zwingli's own development especially up to the disputation
in January 1523, as this shaped his understanding of church and
society.

Zwingli's Development
Zwingli's differences from Luther both in approach and practice
as a reformer need to be placed in the context of his own
development before he went to Zurich at the end of 1518 and
in the setting of his ministry in Zurich. As a boy, before he was
subject to the influence of Swiss humanism, with its strong sense
of patriotism, and before he had read Erasmus and Marsilius of
Padua who influenced his views, Zwingli claimed that he was
strongly patriotic (Z V 250.8-11). There is certainly clear evi-
dence of his patriotism as a young man. His earliest writings,
before he became a reformer, reveal a person with a passionate
love of his native land and a longing for liberty. These led to
his fierce opposition to the mercenary service which entangled
the Swiss in the service of foreign powers. This was expressed
in allegorical form in The Ox, a poem written as early as 1510.

This opposition to mercenary service was probably increased

by his own experience of war. He may have gone with the troops
as a chaplain in 1512, and if he did, the account he gave of
engagements between the Swiss and the French was a firsthand
account and not just a report of what others had said. He
certainly went in 1513 and 1515, and in September 1515 he
witnessed the disastrous battle at Marignano, in which thou-
sands of Swiss soldiers died. These experiences intensified his
sense of the devastation of war, and the moral and social cost to
his own people. He wrote another allegorical poem The Laby-
rinth in 1516, in a further attack on the mercenary system. This
time under the influence of Erasmian humanism there was an
explicitly religious dimension to his patriotism.

Thus from the start, before he became fully a reformer,

Zwingli's ministry and theology were set in a framework that

-124-

was social and political, indeed national and international, and

not simply individual and religious. It was, moreover, his oppo-
sition to mercenary service, and in particular the French
alliance, that caused him to leave Glarus for Einsiedeln in 1516.
It was also a factor later in his invitation to Zurich, for there
was opposition to mercenary service and the French alliance in
Zurich long before his arrival there.

With his deeper grasp of the Christian faith, in the beginning

of the 1520s, Zwingli saw war and mercenary service in theo-
logical and not just moral terms. Mercenary warfare had many
dangers. It led to the perverting of justice through bribes; it
encouraged envy and luxury; it tended to the exercise of power
by foreign rulers. But the greatest danger was that it brought
God's wrath on the people. (Z I175-85). For Zwingli therefore
the gospel was related to God's wrath in a national and not just,
as for Luther, in an individual sense.

As a reformer he saw that it was the gospel that brought in

its train the abolition of mercenary service. This did not mean
that the gospel served political ends, but that it had political
effects. In 1522 he wrote, 'For Zurich more than any other of
the Swiss cantons is in peace and quiet, and this all good citizens
put down to the credit of the gospel.' (Z I 148. 32-3; Selected
Works 16; Works i. 121.) 'I do not deny, nay, I assert, that the
teachings of Christ contribute very greatly to the peace of the
state, if indeed they are set forth in their purity.' (Z I 308. 24-
6; Works i. 267.)
This is the understanding of the Christian ministry and the
Christian message which developed in Zwingli both before he
came to Zurich at the end of 1518 and in his first years there.
His development was different from that of Luther. Luther's
life as a monk and his sense of God's judgement on his personal
life were quite different from Zwingli's life as a parish priest
and army chaplain and his sense of God's judgement on his
people.

There was a difference not only in their ministry and in their

experience, but also in the political and geographical cir-
cumstances in which their ministries were exercised. Luther
worked in Saxony with a single ruler, Frederick the Wise, who

-125

was one of the electors in the Holy Roman Empire. Zwingli

worked in a city-state within the Swiss confederation with rule
exercised by a council. The pattern of government in Zurich and
the size of the city made it possible and on occasion necessary for
Zwingli to involve himself actively in the affairs of the city. This
both expressed and helped to account for some of his differences
from Luther.

His understanding therefore of the relations of church and

state or of minister and magistrate was not simply theoretical.
His practice moreover was likely to have affected his theory as
theory did his practice. As with all men of affairs his teaching
and practice did not always coincide. His teaching was rooted
in the Bible, but it was also influenced by his reading of Christian
and non-Christian writers, particularly Aristotle. We may prop-
erly distinguish what he said from what he did, and recognize
that what he did was inevitably conditioned in part by the
circumstances he faced, in particular the situation in Zurich and
the confederation.

The Role of the Council

The city council had an important role in the Reformation in
Zurich, as can be seen in what it did but also in the way Zwingli
understood it. From the beginning of his ministry in Zurich he
saw that the council had a vital part in the reformation of
the church. In part this was a recognition of the increasingly
independent role it had already played in church affairs, though
not in matters of doctrine and worship; but in part it was the
recognition with so many others that if the bishops would
not reform the church then the civil power (whether emperor,
prince, or council) would have to do so. From the beginning
therefore the council had an indispensable role in the Refor-
mation in Zurich.

It was the council which summoned the first disputation in

January 1523 and which at the end both judged that Zwingli's
preaching was in accordance with scripture and required that
all other preaching be scriptural. However Zwingli saw the
assembly, which the council had summoned at his instigation

-126-

'in order to stop great unrest and disunity', as 'a Christian

assembly', not as a civil gathering. (Z I 484.11-14, 495.7-11.)
(This suggests comparison with councils in the early church.)
The council also summoned the second disputation. At the end
it accepted the case made by the reformers that the mass and
images were unscriptural. Then with the approval of Zwingli
and others, though not that of the radicals, it was left to the
council to determine when the mass and images were to be
abolished.

The growing role of the council was related to political cir-

cumstances in Zurich and the confederation. The disturbances
caused by the anabaptists in Zurich and beyond, the opposition
of Catholics in Zurich but even more in the other cantons, the
alliances forged by his Catholic opponents, such as the league
formed by Lucerne, Zug, Uri, Schwyz, and Unterwalden at
Beckenried in April 1524, all these led to a growing involvement
of Zwingli in the affairs of the city and the growing role for the
council in the affairs of the church. Among other things the
council played a part in excommunication, in requiring baptism
( 1525) and church attendance ( 1529), and in instituting ordi-
nances about marriage and social behaviour.

It is, however, important to see how Zwingli understood the

role of the council and not simply what it did in practice. In
any case its role was not determined by political necessity,
although it was undoubtedly influenced by it. Zwingli's under-
standing of its role was rooted in the Bible and the history of
the church. It was part of his unified vision of society as under
the sovereign rule of God, within which minister and magistrate
have distinct but not separate roles. Each aids the other in his
God-given role. The minister (or prophet as Zwingli increas-
ingly described him) helps the magistrate by the preaching of
the word, and the magistrate (the council in the case of Zurich)
helps the minister.

In the first disputation in 1523 Zwingli saw one of the main

tasks of the council as permitting the preaching of the gospel.
That was not an act external to the church, but one which
showed that the council if properly authorized could act within
the church. In expounding the thirty-sixth article Zwingli dis-

-127

cussed 1 Cor. 6, a passage used by Catholics to support papal

courts. Zwingli argued that it was concerned with bringing
disputes before Christians rather than before judges who were
non-Christian. As the princes under whom Christians live are
Christian, it is from them that Christians should seek judge-
ment. (This is an early example, Heb. 13: 17 being another,
where Zwingli ascribed to temporal rulers prerogatives which
belonged in some sense to the church and its leaders or
members.) The council could also act in removing members
from the church for the good of the church. (Z II 310. 13-28,
313. 9-25, 324. 11-18.) In a letter to Strasbourg in December
1524 he implied that the council should take the initiative in
removing preachers who do not preach the gospel or whose lives
deny what they preach, and that if it did not do so the church
would have to act (Z VIII 265. 25-266. 11). The developing
role of the council can be seen as a natural growth from Zwingli's
position in 1523 and compatible with it.

At the second disputation in October 1523 the division

between Zwingli and his radical supporters became open. He
would have agreed with Schmid's words that it was the council's
task to help Christ back into his kingdom (Z II 797. 31-798. 8).
After the mass and images had been declared unscriptural, he
was like Schmid prepared to leave the pace of change to the
council in order to avoid disturbance. Simon Stumpf saw this
as a sign that Zwingli was leaving judgement to the council. He,
however, made it clear that no one, including the council, was
to make judgement on the word of God. (Z II 784. 10-26.) The
expounder of that word was the minister. Zwingli manifested
this in preaching on the third day of the disputation a sermon
entitled The Shepherd, which dealt with the prophetic role of
the minister.

The criteria for action by the council were: submission to the

word of God, the assent of the church, the need for peace, and
the furtherance of the gospel. In a digression in The Eucharist
he responded to a charge that the reformers 'allow matters which
ought to belong to the whole church to be dealt with by the
Two Hundred when the church of the whole city and neigh-
bourhood is 7,000, more or less'. Zwingli made clear his con-

-128

dition that the decisions have to be made under the leading of

the word and that the council 'is not in place of the church
except in so far as the church itself has by silent consent till now
kindly accepted its deliberations and decisions'. He used the
example of the church sending Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem
as a precedent for the delegation of authority in order to avoid
contention. He argued that the council acted 'in the name of the
church and not its own name' because it left the churches in the
towns and country free in matters such as images and the
celebration of the eucharist, as there was no great reason to fear
contention there, the churches there not being large. Zwingli,
moreover, always instructed the people beforehand in the
matters to be considered by the council so that what was deter-
mined by it and the ministers had already been determined in
the minds of the faithful. (Z IV 478. 10-480. 29; Writings ii.
206-7.)

In an important letter to Ambrosius Blarer on 4 May 1528,

Zwingli stated--in contrast to Luther--that the kingdom of
God is outward. He then discussed the role of the magistrate in
outward things, the only area which is their sphere. His argu-
ments included the appeal to the term elders in Acts 15: 6 as
meaning councillors and senators and not only those who
preside over the word. (Z IX 452. 23-458. 3.) This offered a
further support for the role allowed to the council.

The need that the church has for the magistrate was made
explicit in the analogy of body and soul in An Exposition of the
Faith, 'For just as man is necessarily constituted of both soul
and body, the body being the lesser and humbler part, so there
can be no church without government, although government
supervises and controls those more mundane circumstances
which are far removed from the things of the Spirit.' (S IV 60.
4-9; LCC xxiv. 267-8; Works ii. 263.) In the light of Old
Testament references Zwingli spoke of rulers as shepherds in
the church, without whom the church would be maimed and
impotent (S IV 58. 46-59. 2). The church needed government
in dealing with persistent offenders. 'Consequently the visible
church contains within itself many who are insolent and hostile,
thinking nothing of it if they are excommunicated a hundred

-129-

times, seeing they have no faith. Hence there arises the need of
government for the punishment of flagrant sinners.' (S IV
58.42-6; LCC xxiv. 266; Works ii. 261.) There is a precedent
for this in what Zwingli stated in An Exposition of the Articles
in 1523, but it is also clearly a development, typical--as most
of the developments--of a later stage in the reformation of a
city and a church.

As the council had a role in relation to the church so the

minister had a role in relation to the government, and in Zurich
that meant to the council. At the first disputation Zwingli envis-
aged two major tasks of the council. The first, which bore on its
relations to the life of the church, was to permit the preaching of
the gospel. The second was to order the life of Zurich in accor-
dance with God's laws. The council was no more autonomous
in the second of these tasks than in the first. It was set under the
sovereign rule of God and if it departed from this it was to be
deposed. The forty-second and forty-third articles stated about
those in government: 'Should they become unfaithful and not
act according to the precepts of Christ, they may be deposed in
the name of God.' 'In short, the dominion of the one who rules
with God alone is the best and most stable; but the dominion
of the one who rules by his own whim, is the worst and most
insecure.' (Z II 342.26-8, 346.15-18; Writings i. 278, 281.)

For the fulfilment of its second task of ordering the life of the
community in accordance with God's laws the city needed
Christian councillors who accepted God's law and Christian
preachers who expounded it. Zwingli argued the need for Chris-
tian leaders initially against Catholic opponents who sub-
ordinated the civil power to the bishops and the pope, but later
against anabaptists who were opposed to Christians taking part
in government. He argued on the basis of texts like Rom. 13: 1
that everyone (including bishops) was subject to the civil
authorities, and then on the basis of Old Testament rulers and
New Testament examples such as Erastus and Sergius Paulus
that Christians should be in government, indeed that those most
fitted to govern were Christians. Christians were fitted because
they accepted God's law and would be able to interpret laws in
a Christian way.

-130

The vital role of the minister (or prophet) in society lay in

preaching God's word. Zwingli spoke of the prophet as more
necessary and fundamental than the magistrate. If the prophet
falls short, the magistrate and people suffer; and yet one prophet
who is true can rescue them. Indeed a true prophet could set
up a magistrate, if there were no magistrate, though a magistrate
could effect nothing, if there were not a true prophet. (S VI i.
367.15-27; Z XIV 421.4-10; S VI i. 550.21-5.) 'O happy rulers,
cities, and peoples, among whom the Lord speaks freely through
his servants the prophets. For thus religion can increase, inno-
cence return, justice reign, without which what we think king-
doms and governments are robbery and violence'. (Z XIV
14.21-4.)

Zwingli stated that if the council were to prescribe any law

not drawn from the scriptures, he would preach against it with
God's word (Z II 775.12-16). He resisted any attempt to claim
autonomy for the economic or the political sphere. In Those Who
Give Cause for Tumult, when discussing interest and finance, he
answered the question about what they had to do with the
gospel simply with the words 'much in every way'. To the later
question what do financial transactions, adultery, or drunk-
enness have to do with the minister, he replied that such a
question is the same as the response of the devils when they
said, ' Jesus what have we to do with you?' (Z III 423.1, 26-30.)
The Old Testament model of the prophet coloured Zwingli's
presentation of the ministry as prophetic, but it drew also on
the ministry of Christ and the apostles in the New Testament.
The prophet, like Christ, must be willing to lay down his life
for the sake of the sheep. He will speak against prince, emperor,
or pope not only for some obviously spiritual reason like resist-
ing God's word, but also if they place unjust temporal burdens
on the people. (Z III 26.25-27.1.) Following the example of
Elijah with Ahab and Jezebel, the preacher must speak against
the greatest tyrant, even where the matter concerns not the
whole people but only a single individual (Z III 34.3-5). To
refuse to attack greed, usury, war, the mercenary system, mon-
opolies, and companies which harm the common good, is
preaching the gospel of Christ crucified--but without the cross.

-131

Indeed it is to be the enemy of the cross of Christ. (Z VI ii.

299.21-300.5.) For Zwingli there is a simple test of the true and
false prophet. 'If a prophet looks to the glory of God, if he looks
to justice, peace and the public good (salutem), it is certain he
is a true prophet, one sent by God. If he looks to anything else,
he is false.' (S VI i. 247.17-20.)
Zwingli's personal application of the role of the prophet
developed beyond his theory. He was not only a preacher but
also a participant in the affairs of the city in his concern for the
defence of the Reformation by the council. In this there were
the alliance with Basle, Berne, Strasbourg, and others in the
Christian Civic Union, the negotiations with Philip of Hesse,
the attempt at alliances with France and Venice, neither of them
Protestant, and of course the exhortation to engage in battle
with the Catholic cantons rather than use sanctions. (With his
death the situation changed. The council rejected the idea that
his successor would participate in civic affairs as Zwingli had
done, though Bullinger insisted on the prophetic role of preach-
ing the word in all matters that had to do with God's rule in
society.)

The Role of Government

Zwingli was concerned not only with the role of the council in
Zurich but also with the role of government in human society.
In An Exposition of the Articles and Divine and Human
Righteousness published in July 1523, Zwingli offered two pres-
entations of the purpose of government and the obligations of
government and citizens. The first developed the sixty-seven
articles which Zwingli had advanced at the first disputation, in
the middle of which were ten articles on government. They
were therefore presented by Zwingli as part of the Christian
faith which he had been preaching in Zurich. There is a contrast
here with Luther's ninety-five theses which dealt solely with
the narrower religious issue of indulgences. The second work,
Divine and Human Righteousness, developed what had been
preached as a sermon on 24 June, two days after a delegation

-132

from several parishes met the council to discuss various disputed

matters, including the payment of tithes.

In both of these works government was set in the context of

God's ordering of the world. Christians co-operate in this by
their participation and obedience (or in some circumstances
disobedience). These works were written at a time of con-
siderable tension. Outside Zurich Zwingli was threatened by
the federal diet with imprisonment if he entered any of the
other cantons, while inside Zurich a controversy over tithes was
raging. The work of the Reformation in the other cantons as well
as in Zurich itself would have been imperilled by an outbreak of
religious or social disorder, such as seemed possible. In this
context Zwingli presented his own positive view of government,
so that the preaching of the gospel could be safeguarded. He
affirmed that 'the gospel of Christ is not opposed to government
. . . but is a support of government', but added the qualification
'as far it acts in a Christian way in accordance with the standard
prescribed by God' (Z II 473.1-5).
His view of government was presented in the exposition of
articles thirty-four to forty-three and with certain modifications
remained constant. Like Luther he held that there would be no
need of government if everyone were Christian. 'If all men gave
God what they owe him, we should need no prince or ruler,
indeed we should never have left paradise.' (Z II 305.26-8.)
Zwingli argued about the origin of government and its purpose
on the basis of texts such as Rom. 13 and a range of other
passages in the Old Testament and the New.

Government has a positive and a negative purpose: to protect

the good and to punish the evil. In keeping with these purposes
laws must be made in conformity with God's word so that, as
article thirty-nine puts it, 'they may protect the oppressed, even
if he does not complain'.

Rom. 13: 1 and other passages were also used to support

obedience by every soul (including the pope) to the authorities,
whether they were good or evil. In this Zwingli argued initially
against Catholic opponents, but then against radical opponents,
in relation, for example, to paying the tithe. The obligation to
obey gives way, however, to the obligation to disobey when the

-133-

authorities set themselves against God, whether in commanding

what is contrary to his will or in seeking to control the preaching
of the word. In this context Zwingli appealed constantly to
the word: 'We must obey God rather than men.' Moreover
disobedience could lead to resistance and even the overthrow of
a ruler if he became a tyrant. The forty-second article stated,
'If, however, they are unfaithful and deal contrary to the rule
of Christ, they may be deposed with God.' Zwingli interpreted
this article in terms of rulers who supported sinners rather than
punished them, who oppressed the innocent, and who opposed
the preaching of the gospel. (Z II 343.13-16.)

In his early insistence that tyrants should be removed Zwin-

gli's views were markedly different from Luther's, and they
were to be influential in the way Reformed theology developed.
The removal was, however, to follow a proper procedure. It
was not to be by murder or war or uprising, but by those who
elected the ruler. That created a problem with rulers who were
not elected, but Zwingli argued that with all rulers there must
at some point have been the consent of the people. (Z II 342.26-
8, 344.17-346.13.) Zwingli followed examples from the Old
Testament in stating that God may punish us with unjust rulers,
but he also used the example of Moses to show that in his mercy
he wishes to liberate us as he liberated Israel. This example was
used initially of liberation from the pope, but later of liberation
from temporal rulers as well. (Z II 311.27-312.7; III 468.12-
23, 873.32-7, 880.16-19; XIII 327.18-20.)

The sermon on Divine and Human Righteousness was a

response to an attack by radicals on the paying of tithes and
interest. They based their case on the Sermon on the Mount.
Zwingli in his response made a distinction between two kinds of
righteousness, divine and human. Divine righteousness which is
inward is perfect conformity with the will of God. If people
lived in conformity with God's will there would be no need
of human righteousness (or government) which is outward.
However since we do not love our neighbour, God gives other
commands, concerned with our outward actions, such as not
stealing. If we obeyed them, we should be righteous before men,
but not necessarily before God, who knows what is in our heart.

-134

Government cannot know that and therefore is concerned, as

Paul makes clear in Rom. 13, with the outward and not the
inward, with our deeds and not our thoughts. (Z II 484.21-
485.14, 486.18-487.8, 503.27-33.)

Whereas the radicals argued for the abolition of tithes and

private property as contrary to scripture, Zwingli defended
them in terms of human righteousness. Zwingli seems radical
in seeing divine righteousness as the standard by which every-
thing is judged, social as well as personal. It is significant also
that those he regarded as the true disturbers of the peace were
the bishops and clergy, and also the princes, the powerful, and
the wealthy in society, and not those who rebel against injustice
and oppression. However, in his practical policy it was human
rather than divine righteousness that prevailed, and that meant
that Zwingli was in practice more conservative than his radical
opponents.

There are developments in Zwingli and shifts of emphasis,

but there is continuity between the early and the late Zwingli.
Some of the developments obviously relate to the changing
circumstances in Zurich and outside: the continued strength of
the conservatives, the disturbance created by the radicals, the
need to defend the Reformation, and the opportunities for the
gospel to be preached in other places. However Zwingli's
response both in his writings and in his actions is consistent
with his earlier position, and in particular with what he said and
did up to 1525, the year in which many see a change.

Some assert a shift from the New Testament to the Old.

However Zwingli still preached regularly from both and if there
was a growing emphasis on the Old Testament, it may relate to
Zwingli's recognition that the situation in Zurich (and in general
in Europe) corresponded more closely with Israel at the time of
the prophets than with the church at the time of the apostles. 1
Yoder argues that after 1523 the council acted without the assent
of the church in an assembly and without delegation by the
church. There was, however, no formal delegation at the first
disputation, and Zwingli still argued that there was silent assent

____________________
1
J. Kessler, Sabbata, ed. E. Egli and R. Schoch (St Gallen, 1902), 355.18-
21.

-135
in 1525 in The Eucharist. A different charge made is that of
legalism in applying the Bible. This must also be questioned,
as--to take one example--Zwingli clearly allowed that cir-
cumstances could determine whether the biblical punishment
for an offence should be increased or decreased (Z II 488.19-
489.5.)

Church and society overlapped for Zwingli so closely that in

answer to the question how the state differs from the church,
he said that there is a difference only inwardly for 'the state can
be content if you show yourself a faithful citizen, even if you
do not trust in Christ'. The life of the state does not differ at all
from the life of the church, for each demands what the other
demands. Indeed Zwingli could refer to the Christian church
as the Christian city or state. (Z III 867.13-17, 868.15-22;
Works iii. 294.) This relationship is reflected in the respective
roles of the preacher and the magistrate. The preacher is con-
cerned with divine righteousness, which is inward and means
perfect conformity with the will of God. The magistrate is
concerned with human righteousness, which is outward and
means words and deeds which help or at least do not harm
our neighbour. Thus human righteousness is related to divine
righteousness. They both help each other--the preacher by
preaching the word of God, and the magistrate by protecting
that preaching and by ordering the life of society in conformity
with God's law. For his God-given task the magistrate has the
sword, whereas the preacher has the word.

Zwingli's understanding of the state was theocratic, in the

sense that the whole life of the community is under the rule of
God and that the minister and magistrate are to seek to establish
that rule. (For Zwingli theocracy did not mean that the state or
magistrate was subject to the church or minister or that the
church or minister was subject to the state or magistrate.) For
him matters of social justice were not therefore at the cir-
cumference of Christian preaching but at the centre. Indeed he
accused some people of preaching the gospel of Christ crucified
but without the cross. They speak sweetly and cleverly of God's
work, but because they are enemies of the cross of Christ, they
do not attack greed, the wanton exercise of power by those in

-136

authority, the giving of false weight or false judgement, and

monopolies (Z VI ii. 299.21-300.5).

His concern that the life of society and not just the life of the
individual should be to the glory of God comes out in the closing
words of A Commentary. 'All that I have said, I have said to the
glory of God, and for the benefit of the commonwealth of Christ
and the good of the conscience.' (Z III 911.31-1; Works iii.
343.) His priorities were: God, society, and the individual.

-137
 13
Zwingli: Theologian and Reformer
ZWINGLI'S theology has many characteristic marks, of which
the two most notable are that it is biblical and centred in God.
They are not separate, but are intimately related, for the Bible
is God's word and not man's and it points to faith in God and
not in man.

A Biblical Theologian
The statue of Zwingli by the Wasserkirche in Zurich portrays
him with the sword held by the left hand but with the Bible
held above it in the right hand. The statue rightly emphasizes
the central role of the Bible in Zwingli's reforming ministry.
He began his ministry in Zurich on Saturday 1 January 1519,
his 35th birthday. He announced that he would begin the next
day a continuous exposition of St Matthew, not according to
the fathers but according to the scriptures themselves. This
action of Zwingli focuses attention on the dominant element in
his ministry: the exposition and proclamation of the word.

The preaching of the word meant that the Bible was not
God's word in a merely static sense, as something given by God
in the past. It was rather for Zwingli the living word of God.
Zwingli was to write in A Commentary, 'Those who are faithful
therefore grasp at the word of God, as a shipwrecked man grasps
at a plank.' (Z III 670.33-4; Works iii. 93.) It was through the
preaching of the word that God changed lives and changed
society, for in preaching it is God who is the chief actor and not
the preacher. Zwingli could therefore say of his preaching in
Zurich: 'This is the seed I have sown, Matthew, Luke, Paul, and
Peter have watered it, and God has given it splendid increase'. (Z
I 285.25-8; Works i. 239.)

-138-

To the preaching was added the prophecy in June 1525. It

combined scholarly exegesis with biblical exposition. It led to
a flow of commentaries on the books of the Bible, and it helped
to make both ministers and theological students men of the
Bible. In this way Zwingli's biblical emphasis was to shape the
life of the church in Zurich and beyond. It is this which was
fundamental, though the prophecy is interesting for its sur-
prisingly modern combination of ministerial and lay education
and its use of a participatory style of learning. Through exegesis
and exposition the Bible spoke to the life of people and their
community. The prayer used at the beginning asked not only
for an illumination of one's mind but also for a consequent
transformation of one's life. Scholarship was not to be divorced
from piety, both personal and social.
Two years earlier in the first disputation the fundamental role
of the Bible in the Reformation was vividly demonstrated in
another way. The Bible was placed before the assembly in
Hebrew, Latin, and Greek, as a witness to the fact that the
criterion of all preaching and teaching is scripture. 'I say that
we have here infallible and unprejudiced judges, that is the holy
writ, which can neither lie nor deceive. These we have present
in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin tongues; these let us take on both
sides as fair and just judges.' (Z II 498.2-6; Selected Works56-
7.) Moreover the sixty-seven articles which were the subject of
debate at the disputation were described as being 'on the basis
of scripture, which is called theopneustos, that is inspired by
God'(Z I 458.3-6).

It was the central role and sole authority of scripture which

divided Zwingli from his Catholic opponents in Zurich and
beyond. With it he repudiated the authority of the church, ex-
pressed in the teaching office of the pope or bishops and in the
appeal to the councils and fathers of the church. 'They are
impious who embrace the word of man as God's. It is, therefore,
madness and utter impiety to put the enactments and decrees
of certain men or certain councils upon an equality with the
word of God.' (Z III 674.23-5; Works iii. 98.) Nevertheless
Zwingli could claim in An Exposition of the Faith that his
teaching had the support of the fathers: 'Nor do we make a

-139-

single assertion for which we have not the authority of the first
doctors of the church.' (S IV 69.4-5; LCC xxiv. 278.)

Zwingli's view of scripture, above all his giving attention to

the whole of it and not just to certain parts, supplied strength
and comprehensiveness to his grasp of the Christian faith. It
saved him from the onesidedness of the anabaptists in neglecting
the Old Testament in favour of the New and of Luther in
stressing justification to the detriment of sanctification.

Yet alongside the centrality of the Bible there was an aston-

ishing, some would say an excessive, openness to the truth
whether or not it came in an explicitly Christian form. Standing
in a tradition that runs through Justin Martyr and Augustine,
Zwingli did not hesitate to welcome the truth he saw in non-
Christian writers--in his case essentially pre-Christian ones.
Here one sees in him the profound and continuing influence
of humanist scholarship, with its delight in the rediscovered
literature of Greece and Rome. (At points, especially in his
writing on providence, the priority given to the non-biblical
material has raised suspicion about the genuinely biblical nature
of Zwingli's theology.) Zwingli, following Augustine, held that
all truth comes from God, and therefore its immediate source
(whether in Paul or in Plato) is unimportant, compared with its
ultimate source (in God). The truth moreover was to be tested
by the truth disclosed in Christ and scripture. (A parallel to this
may be seen in his controversy with Luther, in which Luther
accused him of giving to reason a role superior to that of the
word. Zwingli answered the charge precisely by stating that his
appeal was not to reason itself, independent of faith, but to the
reason of the believing man, in other words to reason rooted in
faith.)

For Zwingli all goodness, like all truth, comes from God.
Therefore he took with deep seriousness the instances of good
men who were not Christian. In his vision of heaven in An
Exposition of the Faith Socrates was to be found as well as
Samuel, Aristides as well as Abraham. But good pagans like
Socrates were not good or in heaven because of something in
them apart from God or independently of his work of redemp-
tion in Christ. It was not their goodness that put them there;

-140

rather was their goodness evidence that they had been elected
by God in Christ before the foundation of the world. Zwingli's
placing of particular people in heaven is open to obvious objec-
tion, not least in terms of his own theology which allows that
we can never know with certainty whether another person is
elect. Zwingli's attitude to people (in his case in the past) who
were not Christian and to writings which were not dependent
on the biblical revelation foreshadows at points some of the
modern discussion of the relation of Christianity to other
religious faiths and offers some insights for it.

A Theocentric Theology
The stress on the Bible was in itself a part of and a witness to
the theocentric character of Zwingli's theology. This found
distinctive expression in a vital element in Zwingli's theology
and preaching: the attack on idolatry. This corresponds in a
measure to Luther's attack on justification by works. Idolatry
means a placing of one's trust in the creature and not the creator.
Jeremiah asserted this in the words: 'They have forsaken me,
the fountain of living water, and have hewn out for themselves
cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water' ( 2: 13).

Zwingli's position was expressed in the fifty-first article in

1523: 'He who gives this authority [to remit sins] to the creature
takes away the honour that belongs to God and gives it to one
who is not God.' (Z I 464.1-2.) This conviction lay behind his
attack on a range of medieval practices and beliefs, such as the
intercession of the saints, the use of images, the doing of so-
called good works, and a reliance on the sacraments. Zwingli's
contrast between faith in God and faith in outward things
probably also reflects a negative attitude to outward things
which he sees both as leading from God rather than leading to
him, and as symbols of what man does rather than of what God
does. It is at this point that Zwingli and Luther are in sharpest
contrast. Their difference here reflects their different ways of
understanding God and creation, and the fact that Zwingli has
a Greek as well as a biblical view of the opposition between flesh
and spirit.
 -141

The theocentric emphasis can be seen also in the sovereignty

of God, which shapes the whole of Zwingli's theology. It affects
the understanding of God (with a stress on the Spirit and on
the divinity rather than the humanity of Christ), of salvation
(with a stress on God's providence and election), of church and
ministry, and of word and sacrament (with a stress on the inward
working of the Spirit rather than the outward means). It is also
expressed in his theocratic view of society.

The theocentric emphasis is combined with a strong sense of

the opposition of outward and inward, flesh and Spirit, which
is part of Zwingli's humanist heritage. (This Greek view exists
in Zwingli alongside the biblical opposition of flesh and Spirit,
where flesh is the whole person and Spirit is the Holy Spirit.)
This combination lies behind Zwingli's view of the sacraments.
It separates him from Luther and in a measure from other
Reformed theologians, such as Bucer, who combined the two
more positively. Of course other influences are also at work
here, such as the stress on inwardness in the modern devotion
and a reaction against a superstitious regard for externals in
much medieval religion.

The opposition of inward and outward was an element in

Zwingli's opposition to outward forms in religion. It helps to
explain why someone as musical as Zwingli (he played an array
of instruments) could banish music and singing from church.
Singing could distract from true spiritual worship, just as images
inside church could, though not necessarily those outside. In
worship as in the whole of life the glory or honour of God was
fundamental.

Zwingli's Approach to Reformation

In Zwingli's approach to reformation, teaching and timing were
fundamental. He had a strong sense that there was a right
moment and a wrong moment for saying or doing something,
and in this context he frequently alluded to the danger of casting
pearls before swine. His was not the way of the revolutionary--
a quick sermon and then out with the hammer and sickle! In
his case, let us say, a sermon against idolatry and then out with

-142

the hammer to smash the statues and a sickle to slash the

pictures. Nor even for him the traditional way of the established
church leader, the way of instant legislation, as though changing
the church's laws and structures would magically produce
reform.

He said of the revolutionaries who wanted to destroy images

without more ado, 'Let them first teach their hearers to be
upright in the things that pertain to God, and they will immedi-
ately see all these objectionable things fall away.' 'Teaching
should come first, and the abolition of images follow without
disturbance.' (Z III 899.33-5, 906.8-9: Works iii. 330, 337.)
To misquote Chaucer, he taught and afterwards he wrought.
Preaching and persuasion came first, whether by book, or
sermon, or public disputation. The persuasion led to pressure
from the people for change, and then--at least in many
instances--there followed legislation and action. In Zwingli's
wise words:

You can easily persuade an old man to leave his chair if you first put
into his hand a staff upon which he can lean, when otherwise he will
never listen to you but rather believe that you are trying to entrap him
into falling upon the pavement and breaking his head. So the human
mind must above all be led to an infallible knowledge of God, and
when it has duly attained that, it will easily let go false hopes in created
things. (Z III 891.3-8; Works iii. 321.)

He advocated that one should first 'restore to their creator the

hearts that are given over to this world' before trying to abolish
the mass and cast out images (Z V 393.19-22; Works ii. 31). He
was concerned also about the weak and argued that 'to press on
regardless of the weak is the mark not of a strong but of a restless
spirit which cannot wait until the poor sheep can catch up
behind' (Z IV 255.9-13; LCC xxiv. 158).

With such an approach to reform (at least in outward things),

it is not surprising that when changes came they lasted so
long. The most notable example is that of organs. They were
abolished in 1524 and destroyed in 1527. Apparently Zurich
did not have an organ again until over three centuries later in
1848, and even then because of opposition it was not consecrated

-143-

for five years. Zwingli's church, the Great Minster, did not have
one till 1874--350 years after the last one had been played there.

His sense of the right time may express a naturally cautious

approach. At several points he held back when others took an
initiative. He was present when others broke the Lenten fast in
1522, but he did not break it himself, although he defended
those who did. He attacked images before the second disputation
in October 1523, but he did not break them as others did,
although he afterwards visited in prison those who had done so.
He supported marriage for ministers, but although he married
early in 1523 he did not make his marriage public until 2 April
1524. He advocated the use of German rather than Latin in
worship, but it was Jud who first introduced it, not Zwingli.

A Social Reformer
The Reformation was clearly and fundamentally concerned with
people's personal faith in God, but it was also social. In some
places it has been fashionable to speak of the Reformation of the
sixteenth century as concerned with God and the reformation of
the twentieth century as concerned with man. Luther, it is said,
wrestled with the question, 'How can I find a gracious God?',
whereas we wrestle with the question, 'How can I find a gracious
neighhour?' There is a truth in this half-truth, or perhaps a
half-truth in this truth. The Reformation of Luther and
Zwingli, Bucer and Calvin, was rooted in the discovery of a
gracious God. But as there is no fire without heat, so there is
no faith without love, no finding a gracious God without becom-
ing a gracious neighbour. For Zwingli as for Luther faith is
active in love, but for Zwingli in addition one of the purposes
of the law is to show us God's will so that we may live in
accordance with it.

Thus the seemingly modern idea that churches or church

property should be sold or adapted for the poor is not a new
idea. Zwingli, like Bucer, recalled that Ambrose sold chalices
to ransom prisoners of war. Furthermore it was natural for
Zwingli to tell people to spend their money not on images but
on the poor, and to see that monasteries were turned into schools

-144

or hospitals or places for the poor. His profoundly biblical

(though not literalist) theology enabled him to come afresh to
social questions (such as marriage and tyrannicide) and offer
new approaches.

A Political Reformer
The Reformation, however, was political as well as social. Zwin-
gli's social concern was not simply ambulance work, helping
the poor when they were down to stand up, although he was
certainly not concerned with a fundamental change in the struc-
ture of society as we understand that today. His aim was to
build a Christian society, a society ordering its life according to
God's word, in which preacher and prince (or in his case the
council) were both servants of God.

The political emphasis can be seen in his patriotism. He was

an intense patriot years before he was a reformer, and engaged
with political questions from the beginning of his ministry. In
particular he opposed the mercenary system--attacking those
who made a profit from hiring out their fellow countrymen
to foreign powers as well as deploring the lowering of moral
standards and the self-indulgence that followed from foreign
contact and cheap money. These attacks led to his departure
from his first parish in Glarus, but helped his later move to
Zurich.

In Zurich he dealt directly with social and political issues in

his preaching, and did not hesitate to name names in his
sermons. He portrayed the minister in terms of the prophet,
and encouraged others to engage in a ministry that was social
and political. He did this notably in his sermon on the shepherd
or pastor, preached to some 350 ministers at the second dis-
putation in October 1523. He used the example of Elijah and
Naboth's vineyard to show that the prophet is obliged to chal-
lenge those in authority not just when the whole people suffers
but also when only one person suffers injustice. In the light of
John the Baptist's challenge to Herod he declared:

-145-

From this we learn, that the shepherd must handle and oppose every-
thing which no one else dares to, with no exception, and he must
stand before princes, people, and priests, and not allow himself to be
frightened by greatness, strength, numbers, nor any means of terror,
and at God's command not cease till they are converted . . . (Z III
34.3-5, 35.30-36.2.)

A Practical Reformer
There was also a practical element in Zwingli's approach to
reformation. Zwingli had no doubt that God's will would
prevail, but he stood clearly in the tradition that was to find
expression in the famous words ascribed to Cromwell: 'Put your
trust in God and keep your powder dry!' One of his most
astonishing writings is an actual plan for war, which is well
regarded by some military experts. It included detailed instruc-
tions about such matters as the disposition of the troops, the
time of day or night for attack, and the sort of blasts to be blown
on the trumpet. Its concern was not essentially a military one.
Its point for Zwingli is clear in its opening words. 'In the name
of God! Amen. The author has produced this plan to the honour
of God and in the service of the gospel of Christ, so that violence
and oppression do not gain control and suppress the fear of God
and innocence of life.' (Z III 551.1-5.)

His concern in this was with the preaching of the gospel. That
lay behind his Plan for a Campaign, as it did with the later battle
against the five cantons. In June 1529, when Berne was hesitant
about war with them, Zwingli wrote about the necessity to secure
the preaching of the gospel. 'This is the end I have in view--the
enervation of the oligarchy. Unless this takes place neither the
truth of the gospel nor its ministers will be safe among us.' (Z X
147.5-7.)

This practical concern lay behind Zwingli's attempts to forge

alliances with other states and cities. Yet in 1531 he would not
compromise his view of the eucharist (even so far as to subscribe
the Tetrapolitan Confession of Bucer) in order to join the
Schmalkald League. Yet the league was formed to defend the
preaching of the gospel and its members included allies such as

-146
Strasbourg and Constance and Philip of Hesse. 'The business
of the truth is not to be deserted, even to the sacrifice of our
lives. For we do not live to this age, nor to the princes, but to
the Lord.' (Z XI 340.2-4.)

Besides the practical and often political approach which dis-

tinguished him from Luther, there was a practical approach
which in some cases was common to them, in particular the
recognition that new forms of worship were needed to give
expression to the rediscovery and reformulation of the Christian
faith. Recent study has shown something of Zwingli's originality
here. A reformation lives only as it finds outward forms which
embody what it expresses. It is part of the success of Zwingli
that he and others gave such forms to the Reformation in Zurich,
both in worship and in public life.

A Pastoral Reformer
There was also a pastoral and corporate dimension to the Refor-
mation. Unlike Erasmus whom he much admired, Zwingli had
a congregation with all the demands that that made on him. His
theology was not formed in a quiet study, but under constant
pressure and in response to religious and political problems at
home and abroad. In a letter to Haller in 1523 he referred to
having been called away ten times in writing it. He mentioned
the demands made on him on all sides; yet he told Haller not
to spare him if he could be of use, as soon it would be quieter.
(Z VIII 140.30-5.) To Vadian in the following year he wrote
of the haste in which everything was done as he tried to help
people and keep deadlines with the printer, whose eye was on
the date of the book fair, adding that he did not have in the house
a single copy of a letter. (He was in fact without a secretary.) (Z
VIII 166.11-167.6.) A year later he wrote to Vadian of being
so busy and suffering so much from headaches that if he did
not see his pen go forward, he would hardly know what was
happening (Z VIII 314.13-15).

It was under such pressure that Zwingli, the theologian and

reformer, worked. But he did not work alone. He had his library;
he had the years of careful study both of the Greek New Tes-

-147

tament and of the fathers which had preceded his coming to

Zurich; he had colleagues such as Jud; and he had a circle of
learned friends such as Bucer and Oecolampadius. Ministry was
much less isolated from colleagues, and theology less isolated
from the life of church and society than it often is today--and
what was true for Zwingli in Zurich was equally true for Bucer
in Strasbourg and Luther in Wittenberg.

These elements in Zwingli's work as theologian and reformer

are not all that could be said about him, though they are charac-
teristic and important. His was a theology that was biblical, yet
open to truth wherever it is found. It was centred in God, but
in the God who has revealed himself in Christ and who is active
through the Spirit. His was a reformation that was educational
and practical in method, and personal, social, and political in
scope. Both the reformation and the theology sprang from one
who was not a solitary, but a partner with others in ministry.
His aim in it all can be seen in the last words of A Commentary:
'All I have said, I have said to the glory of God, and for the
benefit of the commonwealth of Christ and the good of the
conscience.' His was a theology and ministry which embraced
society as well as the individual, but its source and goal were
the glory of God.

-148