RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Bui linger
Zurich to a high standard of excellence, proposing an admirable scheme, which comprised both teachers and pupils and prescribed their duties. He likewise promoted theological training by the establishment of scholarships and secured the canons' fund for the maintenance of the schools, in addition to preparing regulations for preachers and synods. The first of these, drawn up by him and Leo Jud, remained unchanged for almost three centuries. The synod met twice 5. Pastoral annually, and had as representatives and Educa- of the State a non-officiating burgotional master and eight members of the Activity, great council. The chief duty of the synod was a complete report of the activity, qualifications, and conduct of each and every pastor. Bullinger was highly esteemed as a pastor, especially in time of pestilence, while his Qua facto cum cegrotantibus et morientibus agendum sit parcenesis (1540) is a work of unusual excellence. A generous friend and patron of fugitives from Germany, Locarno, and England, he also wrote an enormous mass of letters, numbering among his correspondents Lady Jane Grey, Henry II. and Francis II. of France, Henry VIII. and Edward VI. of England, Elizabeth, Christian of Denmark, Philip of Hesse, and the palsgrave Frederick III.
Bullinger took part in the controversy over the Lord's Supper as the chief representative of German-Swiss doctrine. After the death of Zwingli both the Romanists, headed by Johann Faber, and Luther assailed the doctrines of his followers, only to be answered by Bullinger in his Auf Johannsen wienischen Bischofs Trostbiichlein trostliche Ver- < antwortung (Zurich, 1532) and in the introduction to Leo Jud's translation of the treatise De corpore tt sanguine Domini of Ratramnus, a monk of Corvey. Even in these earlier works he emphasized the objective side of the sacrament, the work of Christ in the faithful, whereas Zwingli had taught rather the subjective aspect as a memorial. The controversy involved the Protestant party in Germany, and in the ensuing efforts for reconciliation Butzer and Bullinger were active figures, the latter preparing a confession for the former, showing how far a union with Luther was possible. This confession was sent in Nov., 1534, to the remaining Swiss cities and was gladly accepted by the majority, Bern alone refusing to subscribe to it until after the Conference of Brugg in Apr., 1535. This was, however, little more than an agreement of the clergy, and the desirability of an understanding with Luther, as well as the expectation of a general council, rendered it advisable for the Swiss Church to make an official formulation of its creed. The result was the First Helvetic Confession (see Helvetic Confessions), framed at iiasel in 1536, Bullinger being one of its authors. Meanwhile Butzer had framed the Wittenberg Concord (q.v.), which was accepted by the cities of Upper Germany, but was opposed by Bullinger in Zurich ™d rejected by Bern. The Swiss responded with an elucidation of the Helvetic Confession prepared oy Bullinger and addressed directly to Luther (Nov., 1536), seeking the middle way between
6. Eucha-
ristic Teachings.
transubstantiation and the concept of a mere memorial meal. The reply was conciliatory, but the peace was soon broken by Luther, who bitterly attacked the Zwinglian doctrines of the Lord's Supper in 1544. Bullinger replied in the Zurich Confession of 1545, and, though no understanding was reached between the Swiss and the Lutheran churches, the French and German sections of the Swiss Church were drawn together all
7. The Hel- the closer, a matter which was the vetic and more momentous since the Reformed
Zurich had found a second center in Geneva, Confessions thus giving rise to the danger of a and the schism like that headed by Luther Consensus and Melanchthon in Germany. The Tigurinus. peril was averted, however, by the Consensus Tigurinus, which was quietly prepared by Bullinger and Calvin in 1549 and which was in complete harmony with the previous views of Bullinger on the Lord's Supper, while it emphasized the divine work of grace, though it restricted it to the elect. In his later years he was involved in a controversy with Brenz, who defended the doctrine of the ubiquity of the sacraments but reached no definite conclusion. The views concerning the Lord's Supper were closely connected with the doctrine of predestination. While still in Kappel, Bullinger had maintained that free will was incompatible with the foreknowledge of God, but later he was gradually led to accept the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, his views finding their ultimate expression in the famous Second Helvetic Confession, which he prepared in consultation with his friend Peter Martyr to serve as a posthumous testimony of his own belief and that of his church. It was published, however, in 1566, when Frederic III., who was accused of Calvinism, wished to defend himself before the Diet of Augsburg. At his request Bullinger sent him the confession, which he printed
8. His Part and which was accepted not only by all in the Swiss churches with the exception
Second of Basel, but also by the Reformed Helvetic in France, Scotland, and Hungary Confession, and highly praised in Germany, England, and Holland. It was, strictly speaking, the bond uniting the scattered members of the Evangelical-Reformed churches.
In the controversies concerning the relation of Church and State, Bullinger regarded the two as united, Christian citizens forming both Church and State, and temporal officials being likewise the servants of God. The chief duty of the Church was the unrestricted preaching of the word, and the power of admonishing the authorities, when necessary, of their obligations. Neither Church nor State, however, should interfere in
9. Views on each other's affairs. External adminthe Rela- istration of the property of the Church,
tion of on the other hand, was to be left to
Church the State, which was also to execute
and State, ecclesiastical punishments. With this
was closely connected his attitude
toward heretics. While in his earlier career he
had expressed the utmost tolerance, he later reached
the conclusion that preaching and writing against
Bullinger Bunting