(The Light and the Dark. A cultural history of dualism, volume XXIII, Chapter 1 §§15-17)
1. Zwingli's baptismal theology
a. Zwingli in favour of infant baptism
This brings us to Zwingli's specific theology.[i] Thus far we have seen that he was in favour of child baptism, just like Luther and the Roman Catholic Church, in contrast to the Baptists who opposed it. One thing stands out: Zwingli did not attach any value to the material side of the sacrament of baptism. "Nothing was effected by the sprinkling with or dipping into the water. A physical object, whether water or bread or wine, did not of itself effect anything with it."[ii]
So why then baptize at all? Because baptism is so omnipresent in the New Testament that there is no neglecting it. "Who believes and is baptized will be saved." And why baptize children? Zwingli's rule was that baptism follows belief, not the reverse. He must, strictly speaking, reject child baptism on the ground of this rule, because children are incapable of believing and cannot confess their faith.[iii] One reason to preserve child baptism was that this had been common Christian practice for fifteen centuries, a practice that should not be inconsiderately abolished. However, children should be cathechized as early as possible.[iv]
b. Predestination and infant baptism
Another weighty argument for child baptism was based on Zwingli's doctrine of predestination. Just like Luther, he believed that God is absolutely free to call some to the faith and others not. "It is certain that to God nobody is of his people or of his sons, if he has not elected him; it is reversely also true that all those are his whom has elected."[v] Faith, sincere faith, is the sign that one is divinely elected, It is perhaps somewhat illogical in Zwinglian doctrine that children of sincerely believing parents are really members of the Church; it is their parents' faith that makes them such.
This is what may be called `pre-election'. However, since nobody can know how sincere the Christian parents' faith is, and since nobody can know who is chosen by God and who not, it would be preferable to baptize all children born from Christian parents.[vi] This must be regarded as a safety measure, for at the back of his mind Zwingli did not deem child baptism really necessary. Children of chosen parents would be saved, even if they died unbaptized. "All those children are chosen, even if they die as little children, who belong to the people of God."[vii]
c. Adult baptism in and around Zollikon
Opposition to Zwingli's advocation of child baptism became apparent in 1523. In Wyttikon and Zollikon, both villages being situated not far from Zürich, Wilhelm Röubli was the parish priest. "He was the first priest in Switzerland to be publicly married and perhaps the first to preach in the pulpit against child baptism." It is reliably reported that he said in a sermon that, if he had children, he would not baptize them, until they were adults.[viii] Soon he was not the only one to do so.
Their preaching did not remain without consequences. In August 1524 two farmers refused to have their children baptized; others followed their example. Both Zwingli and the city council of Zürich were upset, because this was a clear act of defiance; they were not ready to accept the idea that in the course of time the churches would be filled with unbaptized people. Therefore, a council decree, dated August 11, ordered all refractory parishioners to bring their children to the baptismal font without delay.
Obviously they did not obey, for they and their supporters received orders to repair to the town hall for a public discussion on January 17, 1525. Zwingli's adversaries called themselves `Brethern in Christ', not much later known as the `Swiss Brethern'.[ix] They duly appeared to be deluged with scriptural quotations by Zwingli. The opponents retorted at great length; the atmosphere was decidedly hostile. As might be expected, the city council took Zwingli's side and on January 18 ordered the disobedient parents to bring their children for baptism within eight days, this under threat of banishment. Röubli and three other clerics were banished without more ado. The font of the church in Zollikon, which had been removed in expectation of things to come, had to be replaced immediately.[x]
d. Adult baptism in Zürich
I do not know how many parents of unbaptized children paid heed to this decree, but some certainly did not. On January 18 a number of dissidents assembled in a house in the Neugasse in Zürich. The principal of these was Conrad Grebel, the son of the aforementioned Jakob Grebel. Potter calls him `a brilliant student, Zwingli's intellectual peer and his most serious antagonist[xi] ..., soon to be found among Zwingli's ablest and most bitter critics'.[xii] He kept up a correspondence with such radicals as Müntzer and Karlstadt, much to Zwingli's indignation.[xiii] According to Grebel and other radicals, Zwingli was far too moderate in matters of reform; far too many of the old rituals and customs were preserved.[xiv]
One of those present, Georg Blaurock, a former priest, asked Grebel to baptize him, which Grebel, although not a priest, did. Thereafter Blaurock himself baptized fifteen others. Much water was used. Potter states that this was `the first adult baptism' on record.[xv] All these people had been baptized as babies with the Roman Catholic ritual, but they had come to consider infant baptism as meaningless. Through their adult baptism they became `Anabaptists', in German Wiedertäufer, in Dutch wederdopers. They themselves would not speak of `rebaptism', since they deemed infant baptism as invalid.
e. The first Anabaptist community
Probably on January 23 Grebel preached to a group of people in a private house at Zollikon. He also enacted a communion ceremony by parcelling out pieces of bread to his followers and offering them a cup of wine. The first Anabaptist community was thus founded.[xvi] Adult baptism spread like wildfire. Within days there were baptist rituals in seven villages around Zollikon, in which village itself eighty adults were baptized.[xvii]
Perhaps astonishingly the Baptists were given every opportunity to state their case. A debate on the subject of child baptism took place from the 6th to the 8th of November in the Grossmünster. Zwingli was confronted by Grebel, Blaurock and Mantz. Neither side succeeded in convincing the other; there was much shouting and abuse. At a certain moment a peasant in the audience called out: "Zwingli, I adjure you by the true and living God, tell me but one truth." "That I will", retorted the reformer under general applause, "you are the worst specimen of a trouble-making, discontented farmer that we have got in the neighbourhood."[xviii] If this was the tone of the debate, no real argument was possible.
f. Persecution of the Anabaptists
The Zürich city council reacted with the repeated injunction that all newly born children should be baptized. Blaurock and another former priest, Felix Mantz, were arrested, while twenty-five other Anabaptists were interned in a monastery. Some were tortured. During February and March 1526 Zwingli had discussions with the prisoners and internees. At the end some of them were fined and set free; others escaped. These measures did not ease the situation. To the Anabaptists Zwingli was `the old dragon'. Blaurock even proclaimed that Zwingli was the Antichrist. He was exiled.
The city fathers were made nervous by deranged men who ran through the streets, shouting `Zion, Zion, freedom for Jerusalem!', this Jerusalem being Zürich. Since the opponents continued their attacks on Zwingli, `the false prophet', the city council finally decided to take the most drastic measures. On March 7, 1526, it issued a decree stating that "henceforth in our city, territory and neighbourhood, no man, woman, or maiden shall rebaptize another; whoever shall do so shall be arrested by authority and after proper judgment shall without appeal be put to death by drowning.[xix]
That this was no vain threat was experienced by Mantz, who made things difficult for himself by his extreme vehemence. He escaped from his prison and evaded to Chur, where he was arrested on July 18 and sent to Zürich, where he remained imprisoned until October 7. Released again, he preached against Zwingli and the council in the most violent terms, so that he was imprisoned again on November 8. Yet on March 21, 1526, he was freed again; he immediately reopened the campaign. As before, he did not mince his words. The council was not ready to tolerate this any longer and imprisoned him once again on December 13.
Brought to justice, he was condemned to death, because he, although having taken an oath to leave Zürich and not to rebaptize, he had returned and rebaptized. On January 5, 1527, he was brought onto the river Limnatz in a small boat and lowered with tied hands into the cold waters of the stream.[xx] Mantz was the first fatal victim of the struggle over baptism, but also "the first `Protestant' martyr at the hands of the Protestants."[xxi] Zwingli had not instigated the city's action against Mantz, but neither did he anything to prevent it. This event did not spell the end of Anabaptism in Switzerland and elsewhere. In Zürich itself Zwingli's own baptismal theology and liturgy, with child baptism, remained triumphant. The last version of his baptismal ritual postumously became part of the Church Order of the Reformed Church of Zürich in 1535.[xxii]
2. Zwingli's theology of the Eucharist
The attentive reader will have remarked that the baptismal question, with its corollary of sectarism, was a very important political affair for the city council, which did not even shrink back from the death sentence. For Zwingli it was of less importance; as we have seen, he did not put great value on baptism. Another great tenet of the Christian faith, however, was of paramount importance for him, namely, eucharistic theology. This squarely opposed him to the Roman Catholic Church, but also to Luther. In order to give this subject its proper place in Zwingli's general theology, it is necessary to say something about his dualism.
a. Zwingli's dualism
In common with Luther, Zwingli also did not acknowledge the analogy of being. God and man exist on different ontological levels in his view. The opposition `God-man' is characteristic for Zwingli, says Sallmann; he "sharply distinguishes between Creator and creature, between heaven and earth, spirit and body, God and man",[xxiii] just as it is "a fundamental structure in Zwingli's thinking, that he makes a distinction between exterior and interior, between what he calls `the raw' and the spiritual."[xxiv] The point is not that these differences would not exist; they do, but it is Zwingli who so heavily accentuates them.
"The centre of Zwingli's theology is God - not God as opposed to Christ, but as opposed to all that is not God."[xxv] The reformer, who also sharply distinguished between true and false religion, says that "it is false religion, when trust is put in any other than God. They then, who trust in any created thing whatsoever, are not pious."[xxvi] We have already seen that he did not believe that baptismal water could not effect something of a spiritual nature."The inward man cannot learn anything through outward signs,"[xxvii] which means that a truly spiritual person does not need the sacraments.
Sacraments are material signs; perhaps they are of some use for `the outward man'. The outward and the inward person - body (flesh) and spirit (mind) - are different and opposed elements, constantly warring with each other. "When the mind begins to contemplate God, to talk and commune with him about the things he has in common with him, suddenly the flesh, fashioned, draws it back."[xxviii] The body has nothing in common with God; man obviously consists of two different parts. This is anthropological dualism of a Platonic nature. It is not difficult to find Platonic elements in Zwingli's writings.[xxix]
b. Dualism and the Eucharist
Zwingli's dualistic stance becomes markedly apparent in his eucharistic theology. It was not before January 1523 that he came decidedly forward with this key tenet of his both non-Catholic and non-Lutheran theology. As related above, a disputation was held in Zürich in January 1523; the reformer submitted sixty-theses - Schlußreden - to it. The eighteenth Schlußrede is, with regard to the Zwinglian doctrine of the Eucharist, of paramount importance.
It begins by stating that this thesis is stated on Christ's office, that is, on his sacrificial death on the cross. This sacrifice was once and for all; it could not and should not and need not be repeated.[xxx] The reformer concludes that Christ would not be eternal, if he would be sacrificed often. If this would be the case, he would not be perfect and have failings. In consequence, the Roman Catholic article of faith that the Mass is a sacrifice and the unbloody repetition of Christ's sacrifice on the cross is wrong. "If a repetition would be necessary, it would mean that the sacrifice on the cross had not been sufficient."[xxxi]
Since more sacrifices would make no sense, the consequence is that the Mass cannot be a sacrifice. "Who wants to know", writes Grötzinger, "how the new doctrine of the Mass, with which Zwingli wants to replace the traditional meaning, looks like in detail and have it argued, really needs patience. His expositions are extraordinarily longwinded and confused. Time and again his train of thought is interrupted by extensive digressions."[xxxii] He begins with a tirade against the `papists', whom he calls Päpstler, and continues with digressions on the word `sacrament', on confirmation and extreme unction, and then excuses himself that he is not coming to his point. Next he polemizes against the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Mass, which brings him close to the subject he wants to address. He comes to speak of the institution words, deviating more than once from his path, for instance, in order to propagate the lay chalice, and finally concludes that, when Christ at the Last Supper said; "Do this to commemorate me," he meant that the eucharistic service should be a memorial meal and not a sacrifice.[xxxiii]
c. The denial of the Real Presence
In this Schlußrede Zwingli did not express himself on the subject of the Real Presence; it is doubtful whether or not he still believed in it in January 1523. Yet soon enough he came to the conclusion that the dogma of Transsubstantiation was an invention of the theologians, without a biblical foundation.[xxxiv] Later in 1523 Zwingli received a letter from his former teacher, Thomas Wyttenbach; this letter is not extant, but it is evident that Wyttenbach wanted to know Zwingli's opinion of the Eucharist. Zwingli answered on June 15. He went somewhat further than in the Schlußrede. His main point now is that, where there is no faith, there is no Eucharist. Bread is bread, and wine is wine, just as figs are only figs.
Nonetheless, we may call the bread Christ's body and the wine his blood, if only we do not take this in a literal sense. "When one calls the bread the body and the wine the blood of Christ, and that Christ liberates us through his body and purifies us through his blood, then we have here a cathechrestic way of expressing it, for not the bread liberates us, but the faith in his body and his blood, given to us by Christ, that he redeems us through his body and purifies us through his blood from our sins."[xxxv]
What this sentence means depends on what the word `cathechrestic' signifies. The professional term `cathechresis' is used in an argument, when no proper term is available; then a figurative or metaphorical expression may be used. In this case the proper term is useless, because it is impossible that a piece of bread becomes Christ's body. We may only speak of Christ's body and blood, if we take this, not in a literal sense, but metaphorically. Faith does not turn bread and wine into Christ's body and blood; its effect is that it unites us with him, if we partake of the elements in the memorial meal.
It may be asked whether bread and wine are really necessary for this union with Christ, they being no more than just that. However, many a Christian's faith is still weak; for this reason he or she needs a visible sign. "The spirit, that is indeed inwardly taught by God's spirit, but whose sight is obscured by the veil of the body burdening the soul, must be made more gay and secure through a visible sign."[xxxvi] It is, by the way, interesting to see that Zwingli opposes body and soul. This letter makes it evident that he no longer believed in the Real Presence.[xxxvii]
d. The decisive step
On November 16, 1524, Zwingli addressed a letter to Matthew Alber in Reutlingen. In this he took a decisive step, using an expression that would have a great future. He gave the famous chapter Jo:6 pride of place, the text in which Jesus says that he will give himself, his body, as food for the faithful. Many of his audience were disgusted, because they thought he was speaking of cannibalism, even when he tried to make it clear that bread would take the place of his physical body. Zwingli also argued that the listeners misunderstood Jesus, for what he meant was that he himself, namely his words, were the bread. There was absolutely no question of a manducatio corporalis, of material food, but only of a manducatio spiritualis, of spiritual food, which is Jesus' teaching.[xxxviii]
The problem, however, is that the institution words unambiguously say: `This is my body, this is my blood'. This was an aporia indeed, until Zwingli in the summer of 1524 received a letter from Cornelis Hoen in which this Dutch Sacramentist explained that Jesus, speaking to his apostles at the Last Supper, with the words `this is' only meant to say that he would be with his faithful until the end of times.[xxxix] Est, therefore, must be understood as significat. This solved Zwingli's problem. It is true, of course', that `is' usually means `is', but sometimes, said Zwingli, it can also mean `signifies'. Thus the institution words come to mean: "Take and eat! For that what I now order you to do will be a sign for you or remind you of my body, that once was given for you."[xl]
Zwingli went out of his way to find examples, which would prove that `is' can occasionally mean `signifies', but as Grötzinger writes, "a foundation for this interpretation the word `is' must be understood in the sense of `signifies' will be looked for in vain."[xli] In my opinion this is a case of the horror materiae, that pervades all of Zwingli's theology which is in fact a dualistic element. He was caught in a hopeless dilemma: on the one hand his (basically Gnostic) conviction that something material could impossibly be the bearer of something spiritual, on the other the fact that he, as a good Protestant, could not neglect what Scripture said.
e. Deviating from Luther
It will have been not long after dispatching his letter to Alber that Zwingli became aware that he, in matters of eucharistic doctrine, was deviating from Luther. In a letter of December 1524, he wrote that his friend Oswald Mykonius, his first biographer, had told him that "a certain man, who has a great fame, rejects this notion that `est' takes the place of `significat' or `symbolum est', and [Mykonius] has given him a short text of this man to read."[xlii] There can be no doubt that this `man of great fame' was Luther and that the libellum is the reformer's On the adoration of the Sacrament of Christ's holy body.[xliii] It is, however, somewhat enigmatic why the Swiss reformer does not mention Luther's name, seven years after his first appearance in public.
Luther on his part had certainly heard of Zwingli in January 1523, but was then not yet acquainted with his writings. It was much later, in the summer of 1524, that he was informed of Zwingli's eucharistic doctrine.[xliv] His first reference to it dates from November 17, 1524. Fourteen days later he writes that "Karlstadt's poison is spreading widely; now Zwingli in Zürich and Leo Jud and many others have joined him in this opinion who contend stoutly and squarely that there is in the sacrament only bread, just as in the market."[xlv]
The Swiss reformer found it high time to now come forward with a public statement. In February 1526 his little book The Lord's Supper appeared. He affirmed that the institution words `this is my body' have no literal meaning. Instead, they have a symbolic or metaphorical meaning, that makes them accesible to the faithful. He adduced many instances of figurative speech in the Bible.[xlvi] Zwingli wrote four tracts against Luther, all of them in 1527. As Stephens writes, they "can be taken together, as the differences between them are small."[xlvii] Rather than expounding his own views, he attacked those of Luther. His tone was polite and friendly.
f. A discussion between Luther and Zwingli
The two reformers met face to face in 1529. As mentioned earlier in these pages, count Philip of Hessen brought them together in the hall of his castle in Marburg. It was to become quite an event, attracting visitors from near and far. It was decided that the language of the colloquy would be German, for the benefit of those who were not pastmasters of Latin, one of these being the count himself. The Swiss party needed ten days to reach Marburg, arriving there on September 27; the Wittenberg group appeared on the 30th.
On Friday October 1, the discussions began. The first round was, as Potter writes, `a friendly statement of alternative positions and no more'.[xlviii] Luther conceded that his opponent's doctrine of the Trinity and his opinion of the Bible was orthodox. Luther was less friendly with Martin Bucer, who was on Zwingli's side and who repeatedly conferred with him. "You are of the devil", Luther flung at him, "... you will deliver me too to the Satan, because I combat your opinion."[xlix] Luther was a difficult person to discuss with; he was "obstinate or determined from the first, chalking hoc est corpus meum on the table in front of him."[l]
On October 2 and 3, Saturday and Sunday, with count Philip in the chair, there were long exchanges on the main controversial point, that of the Real Presence. No real headway was made; the tone was sometimes hostile. Zwingli was a very able debater, who succeeded in driving his opponent on the defensive. On Sunday evening it was evident that no compromise was possible.
On the last day, Monday October 4, Luther appeared with a list of fifteen articles, which were subjected to discussion. There was agreement on fourteen of them: the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, on the natures of Christ, original sin, salvation, justification by faith, baptism, universal priesthood, married clergy and some others. No agreement was reached on the subject of the Eucharist. The dogma of Transsubstantiation was rejected; the Mass was not a sacrifice, and communion must be under two kinds. So far so good. However, with regard to the Real Presence the gap was unbridgeable, accepted by the Lutherans, repudiated by the Zwinglians.[li] The breach was complete and final, dualistically so.
3. The future of Zwinglianism
For a generation after the Swiss reformer's death elements of Zwinglianism were to be found in West Germany, particularly in East Frisia, in the Netherlands (as late as 1566 a Protestant vicar preached Zwinglian doctrine in Groningen), and in England. Yet nowhere was a Zwinglian Church founded. A real Zwinglian community existed only in Zürich, where Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575) kept the torch burning; he was the community's Antistes = chief priest.[lii] The Zürcher Zwinglians felt themselves constantly threatened by the Roman Catholic cantons; they began to realize that they would perhaps be unable to subsist alone and that it would be advisable to ally themselves with another Reformed Church.
Bullinger hoped that a compromise with Calvin would be possible, although the French reformer's eucharistic theology was not wholly concordant with Zwingli's. Calvin - we shall have to return to this - agreed with Zwingli that there was no Transsubstantiation, in other words, that the bread was not changed into Christ's body, but he believed in a spiritual Real Presence, more than the Zürcher did. When Bullinger sent a draft of a compromise to Calvin, it was rejected. Then, at Bullinger's invitation, Calvin and John Farel travelled to Zürich. Bullinger presented a second draft to them, numbering twenty-four articles. which the parties concerned all signed. It is known as the Consensus tigurinus of 1551.[liii]
· LUTH, Martin, Briefwechsel (quoted as Br). Weimarer Gesamtausgabe, Weimar/Graz, 1967 (Nachdruck von Originalausgabe Weimar 1913).
· Bullinger Tagung 1975. Vorträge aus Anlass von Heinrich Bullingers 400. Todestag. Herausgeber Ulrich Gäbler und Endre Zsindely. Zürich, 1977.
· KÖHLER, Walther, Das Buch der Reformation Huldrych Zwinglis von ihm selbst und gleichzeitigen Quellen erzählt durch --. München, 1926.
· FUGEL, Adolf, Tauflehre und Taufliturgie bei Huldrych Zwingli. Reihe: Europäische Hochschulschriften. Reihe XXIII Theologie. Band 380. Bern/Frankfurt am Main/New York, Paris (1989).
· GÄBLER, Ulrich, Huldrych Zwingli im 20. Jahrhundert. Forschungsbericht und annotierte Bibliographie 1897-1972. Zürich, 1975.
· GRÖTZINGER, Eberhard, Luther und Zwingli. Die Kritik an der mittelalterlichen Lehre von der Messe als Wurzel des Abendmahlsstreits. Reihe: Ökumenische Theologie. Band 5. Zürich/Köln/Gütersloh, 1980.
· KÖHLER, Walther, Ulrich Zwingli und die Reformation in der Schweiz. Reihe: Religionsgeschichtliche Vorlesebücher. IV. Reihe, 30/31. Heft. Tübingen, 1926.
· POTTER, G.R., Zwingli. Cambridge University Press, 1976.
· SALLMANN, Martin, Zwischen Gott und Mensch. Huldrych Zwinglis Denkweg im De vera et falsa religione commentarius (1525). Tübingen, 1999.
· STAEDTKE, Joachim, Bullingers Theologie - eine Fortsetzung des zwinglischen? in: Bullinger Tagung 1975.
· STEPHENS, W. Peter, The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli. Oxford, 1986.
· WILLIAMS, George Hunston, The Radical Reformation. Vol. XV of Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies. Kirksville (Missouri), 1992² (Philadelphia, 19621).
[i].. See for Zwingli's theological development Ulrich Gäbler, Huldrych Zwingli im 20. Jahrhundert. Erster Teil, IV.1 Zwingli's theologische Entwicklung.
[ii].. Potter, Zwingli 189.
[iii].. Fugel, Tauflehre und Taufliturgie 163.
[iv].. Fugel, Tauflehre und Taufliturgie 165/166.
[v].. "Certum est apud Deum neminem esse de populo suo atque filiis eius, nisi quem elegerit; rursusque hoc certum est omnem eius esse, quem elegerit," quoted by Fugler, Tauflehre und Taufliturgie 349.
[vi].. Potter, Zwingli 189.
[vii].. "Quotquot ex his infantibus moriuntur, qui intra populum dei sunt, omnes electi sunt," quoted by Fugel, Tauflehre und Taufliturgie 352.
[viii].. Potter, Zwingli 178.
[ix].. Williams, Radical Reformation 214.
[x].. Potter, Zwingli 181/182.
[xi].. Potter, Zwingli 58.
[xii].. Potter, Zwingli 177.
[xiii].. Fugel, Tauflehre und Taufliturgie 194-203.
[xiv].. Potter, Zwingli 177.
[xv].. Potter, Zwingli 177.
[xvi].. Potter, Zwingli 1182/183; Williams, Radical Reformation 217/218.
[xvii].. Potter, Zwingli 184.
[xviii].. Potter, Zwingli 185/186.
[xix].. "Und ist daruff der genannter unser herrenn ernstlich gepott, geheiss und warnung, dass weder in ir stat, land und gepietten hinfür niemants, männer, frowen noch dochtern, denn andern wyderumm tauffen söllen. Dann wer also wyter den andern touffte, zu dem wurden unser herrenn gryffen und nach iro jetz erkannter urteil on all gnad ertrencken lassen," Potter, Zwingli 185-187.
[xx].. Potter, Zwingli 177 note 2 and 187/188; Williams, Radical Reformation 241-243.
[xxi].. Williams, Radical Reformation 244.
[xxii].. Fugel, Tauflehre und Taufliturgie 456-461.
[xxiii].. Sallmann, Zwischen Gott und Mensch 151.
[xxiv].. Sallmann, Zwischen Gott und Mensch 167.
[xxv].. Stephens, Theology of Huldrych Zwingli 8.
[xxvi].. Quoted by Stephens, Theology of Huldrych Zwingli 81.
[xxvii].. Quoted by Stephens, Theology of Huldrych Zwingli 183.
[xxviii].. Quoted by Stephens, Theology of Huldrych Zwingli 144.
[xxix].. Stephens, Theology of Huldrych Zwingli 14/15.
[xxx].. Quoted by Grötzinger, Luther and Zwingli 53: "Dieses artickel ist zum ersten gründt in dem ampt Christi. Ist Christus ein einziger obrester priester in die ewigkeit, der nüt dann sich selbst uffopfferet, so muß ouch nit möglich sin, das er dick für uns uffgeopfferet werde ... So volgt, daß er nit mer dann einest mag uffgeopffret werden."
[xxxi].. Grötzinger, Luther und Zwingli 53: "Dann so sin uffopffern offt beschähe, so war er nit ewig ... So aber Christus ouch müßte gewidret werden, müßte ie üß unvolkommnus und gebrästen beschehen."
[xxxii].. Grötzinger, Luther und Zwingli 58.
[xxxiii].. Grötzinger, Luther udn Zwingli 58/59; p. 59 "So ist es ouch nit ein opffer, sonder ein widergedächtnus und ernüwerung deß, das Christus, eines vergossen, uns in die ewigkeit heilsam gemacht hat."
[xxxiv].. Stephens, Theology of Huldrych Zwingli 220/221.
[xxxv].. Grötzinger, Luther und Zwingli 155, note 25: "Ita per katechresin dicamus pamem corpus et vimum sanguinem, quod eis Christus nos liberaverit et mundaverit; non quod panis liberet aut vinum mentem spiritualiter exhilaret, sed fides, quam Christus haberi iussit in corpus et sanguinem suum, quod illo nos redemerit, isto laverit."
[xxxvi].. Grötzinger, Luther und Zwingli 155, note 13: "Cibum, quo animus intus spiritu Dei doctus, intra tamen corporis huius, quod aggravat animam, nebulas perpetuo cecubilus, visibili signo certior reddatur et laetior."
[xxxvii].. See for this passage Grötzinger, Luther und Zwingli 102-106; Stephens, Theology of Huldrych Zwingli 222-224.
[xxxviii].. Grötzinger, Luther und Zwingli 157, note 62: "Spiritualem ergo porro Christus his intelligit manducationem, sed qualem? Eamne qua dicimus Christum his corporaliter edi? Unum igitur idemque erit spiritualiter et corpolariter edere, quod logicae quoque peritis, absurdissimun est."
[xxxix].. Williams, Radical Reformation 107.
[xl].. Grötzinger, Luther und Zwingli 158, note 72: "Hic mihi pro `est' `significat' pone: accepite et edite! Hoc `significat corpus meum, quod pro vobis traditur. Tunc nimirum iste erit sensus: accepite et commedite! Hoc enim quod nunc facere iubeo, significabit vobis et rememorabit corpus meum, quod iamiam pro vobis traditur."
[xli].. Grötzinger, Luther und Zwingli 106-113, quotation on p. 108; Stephens, Theology of Huldrych Zwingli 227-250.
[xlii].. Grötzinger, Luthjer und Zwingli 160, note 107: "Quem eam epistulam Myconius noster legisset, admonuit quendam magni nominis virum repellere hanc sententiam, qua putamus `est' pro `significat' vel `symbolum est' esse positum, mittitque libellum."
[xliii].. Grötzinger, Luther und Zwingli 113.
[xliv].. Grötzinger, Luther und Zwingli 117.
[xlv].. Br3, 397, Luther to Nikolaus von Amsdorf, 2.XII.1524: "Nam Carlstadii venenum, accessit eius sententiae Zwinglius Turegi et Leo Iudaeus aliique multi, constanter asseverentes in Sacramento esse purum panem, sicut in foro."
[xlvi].. Stephens, Theology of Huldrych Zwingli 236-239.
[xlvii].. Stephens, Theology of Huldrych Zwingli 241.
[xlviii].. Potter, Zwingli 325.
[xlix].. Köhler, Buch der Reformation 300, from the report by Caspar Hedio.
[l].. Potter, Zwingli 325; Köhler, Buch der Reformation 301, from the report by Rudolf Collin.
[li].. Köhler, Buch der Reformation 306-312; Potter, Zwingli 325-329.
[lii].. Staedtke, Bullingers Theologie argues that Bullinger's theology was not wholly concordant with Zwingli's.
[liii].. Williams, Radical Reformation 968.