Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T01:36:26.230Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Zwinglians and Adiaphorism1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Bernard J. Verkamp
Bernard J. Verkamp
Affiliation:
Mr. Verkamp is instructor of history of religions in Vincennes University, Vincennes, Indiana
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Of all the evils of the late medieval church, none was complained about quite so frequently by contemporary theologians as that which Pierre D'Ailly termed the “evil of superfluity.” Jan Hus compared the prelates of his own day to the scribes and pharisees of old, who imposed many fasts, many prayers and other hard things upon the people while they themselves did none of them. A man of Adam's ststure had but one command fulfill and failed, Jean Gerson wrote at the start of the fifteenth century; how then is the Christian to escape, placed as he is among innumerable commands? If Augustine could complain about the Judaic condition of the church of his time, what, Gerson containud, would he have to say now! According to wessel Gansfort, the “forest if decrees and decretals” had become so dense that the Christian could scarcely find his way any longer to a study and knowledge of sacred Scripture.Even Gabriel Biel was forced to admit that the burden of Christian obedience had become heavier than the old Judaic yoke, if one took into accont the plethora of ecclesiastical laws and ceremonics.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 42 , Issue 4 , December 1973 , pp. 486 - 504
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

In its original conception among the ancient Cynic and Stoic philosophers, the term adiaphoron had been used to designate a thing which when considered in itself, was never of such decisive value or disvalue as not to be able to be rendered either good or evil in the concrete by the human intention. See especially: H. F. A. von Arnim, Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta (Lipsiae, 1921), 1: 191–196, 559–562; 3:117–123; Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, trans. R. D. Hicks (New York, 1931), 6:105; 7:101–108, 160; Margaret E. Reesor, “Indifferents in Old and Middle Stoa,” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 82 (1951): 102–110. Such an understanding of the term was introduced into Christian thought by the Alexandrians, Clement and Origen. For Clement, see Stromata 4.5: PG 8, 1231; ibid. 2.21: PG 8, 1071–1072; ibid. 7.3: PG 9, 422; ibid. 4.26: PG 8, 1374ff; Paedagogus 2. 1–9: PG 8, 391, 394, 406, 410–432, 490–498. For Origen, see Comm. in Matt. 11.12: PG 13,939; Comm. in Ep. B. Pauli ad Rornanos 4.9: PG 14, 994; Ibid. 10.3: PG 14, 1253; De Principiis 3.2.7: PG 11, 313; In Numerous Homilia 16.7: PG 12, 696; Contra Celsum 4.45: PG 11, 1102; Ibid. 5.49: PG 11, 1238; Ibid. 8:30: PG 11, 1559. It received some attention from other early Church Fathers like John Chrysostom (Quod Non Opporteat Peccata Fratrum Evuigare 2: PG 51, 355; Homiliae in Ep. Prirnam ad Cor. 17. 1: PG 61, 139–140; Hom. ad Rom. 11: PG 60, 483ff; Hom. ad Eph. 13: PG 62, 93ff; Hom, ad Tim 12: PG 62, 559, 563; Horn, ad. Col. 12: PG 62, 384: Ad illuminandos Catecheses 2.3: PG 49, 235–236), Cassian (Collatio 21.12–16: PL 49, 1185–1191; Collatio 6.2–12: PL 49, 648–664), and Augustine (De Sermone Domini in Monte 2.18: PL 34 1296–1297; Expositio ad Romanos 78: PL 35, 2086). Also during the high middle ages it figured considerably in the long debate over the intrinsic morality of human actions that was started by Abelard and reached a conclusion of sorts with Thomas Aquinas. For a general summary of the debate, see O. Lottin, “Le Problème de la Moralité Intrinsèque D'Abélard a Saint Thomas D'Aquin,” Psychologie et Morale aux XIIe et XIIe Siecles, Problèmes de Morale (Louvain, 1948), 2:425–464. It should be noted that this debate concerned a question that was altogether distinct from the question about the indifference of human actions in the concrete which was also hotly debated during the high middle ages. By the late middle ages, however, much of the discussion of adiaphora had shifted to the more specifically theological line of adiaphoristic thought, which had also been under development since apostolic times. See especially Augustine, Epistolae 27: PL 33, 11ff; 40: PL 33, 154ff; 72: PL 33, 234ff; 73: PL 33, 245ff; 75: PL 33, 251ff; 82: PL 33, 275; 180, 5: PL 33, 779; Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theol. 1–2, 108, 1 and 2; Jan Hus, Tractatus de Ecciesia, ed. B. H. Thomson (Cambridge), 1956), chap. 17, 19, 20, 21; Wessel Gansfort, Ecclesiastical Dignity and Power 2, LW 2:162. Those pursuing this line appealed generally to the remarks of Jesus about the “lightness” of the Christian burden (Matt. 11:28–30) and to the Pauline doctrine concerning “ceremonies” like circumcision, feast days and the eating of unclean foods (Gal. 2; Rom. 14; 1 Cor. 8, 9, 10). Along this theological line of development, the emphasis was not so much upon the intrinsic morality of things as upon the relationship of the person to them, with the result that the term adiaphoron came to be defined also as a thing that is “permitted” or “free”, because it has been “neither commanded nor prohibited” by the external operations of divine law asrevealed in the New Testament. It was primarily in this sense that the term was employed by the sixteenth-century “magisterial” reformers in the context of their doctrines of solafideism and sola Scriptura. See, for example, Luther, Von den Konziliis und Kirchen, WA 50:613; Von Menscheniehre zu meiden, WA 102:7992; Epist. ad Rom., WA 56:493–494; De Libertate Christiana, WA 7:70–71; Predigten des Jahres 1522, WA 103:11; Wider die himmi. Proph., WA 18:lllff; Melanehthon, Loci Communes, 1521, MW 2/1:132–135; Comm. ad. Born., MW 5:335–337; 331–332; Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford L. Battles (Philadelphia, 1960), 3.19.7–12; 4.17.43; Thomas Starkey, An Exhortation To the People, Instructyngs them to Unitie and Obedience (London, n.d.), sig. B, fol. 2(v); The Bishops Book, Formularies of the Faith during the Reign of Henry V111, ed. Charles Lloyd (Oxford, 1825), pp. 114–115. See also the Tridentine condemnation of the reformers on this point: Concilii Tridentini Aotoriim, ed. S. Ehses (Friburgi Brisgoviae, 1911), tome 5, p. 799, canon 19. Some sixteenth-century writers, however, continued to use the term adiaphoron in its philosophical sense. See, for example, Erasmus, Enchiridion Militia Christiani, EO 5:25–39, and some of the references to Zwingli 's works cited later In this study. For a further discussion of the relation of the term adiaphoron to the notion of “things permitted”, see Wolfgang Trillhaas, “Adiaphoron, Erneute Erwgungen elnes alten Begriffs,” Theologische Literaturseitung 79 (1954): 457–462; W. Trilthaas, Ethik (Berlin, 1959), pp. 63–71; N. H. Soe, Christliche Ethik (Mönchen,1965), pp. 150–156; Paul Althaus, Grundriss der Ethik (Gütersloh, 1953), p 84.

References

2. See Huizinga, Johan, The Waning of the Middle Ages (Garden City, 1954), p. 153.Google Scholar

3. Hus, , De Ecclesia, p. 188.Google Scholar

4. de Vita Splrituali, Liber, in Joannis Gersoni, Opera Omnia, ed. duPin, E. (Antwerp, 1706), 8, 3:17.Google Scholar

5. The Sacrament of Penance, LW 2:245.

6. “… pauciora sunt onera legis christiane inquantum est tradita a christo, sed forte plura inquantum addita sunt alia per eos qul habent regere populurn christianum”, 3 Bent., 40:2,1.

7. “… non paullo commodior videatur suisse Judaeorurn, quam nostra conditlo … sublata est circumcisio, sed suceessit baptismus, duriore prope dixerim conditione … Sublatum est sabbatum; im non sublatum est, sed translatum in diem dominicum … Pancorum dierum jenunia indixit Lex Mosaica; nos illis quantum addidimus numerum! In delectu eiborum quanto liberiores Judaei nobis. Illis nullum vestis genus erat interdictum, praeter eam quae esset lana linoque contexta. Nunc praeter tot vestium praescriptas, et interdictas formas et colores, accessit capitis rasura, eaque varia: ne commemorem interim onus … adstrictum arctioribus vinculis matrimonium, novas affinitatis leges, aliaque permulta”, Ichtuophagia, EO 1:788; see also Erasmus' commentary on Matt. 11:28–30 (EO 6:63–64), his commentary on Matt. 23:1–2 (EO 6:117) and his letter of Easter 1522 to the bishop of Basel (EO 9:1199).

8. De Libertate Christiana, WA 7:68.

9. Part 1, Art. 20; Part 2, Art. 5 and 7, in Schaff, Philip, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids, 1966), pp. 20, 43, 64–65.Google Scholar

10. Acta Tiguri, SW 1:49.

11. Decades, ed. T. Harding (Cambridge, 1850), d. 3, s. 7, t. 2, pp. 276–77Google Scholar. See also the Confessio Helvetica Posterior 27 in Schaff, p. 302.

12. An Answer to Sir Thomas More ' Dialogue, ed. H. Walter (Cambridge, 1850), p. 74.Google Scholar

13. Miscellaneous Writings and Letters of Thomas Cranmer, ed. J. E. Cox (Cambridge, 1846), pp. 147–148Google Scholar. For a well-balanced picture of the incidence of superstition in the medieval church, see especially Thomas, Keith, Religion and the Decline of Magic (New York, 1971), pp. 25–50.Google Scholar

14. Among the first to emphasize the qualitative sense of adiaphoristic liberty were Jan Hus (De Ecclesia pp. 184–186) and Gansfort, Wessel (Ecclesiastical Dignity and Power, LW 2:162–169).Google Scholar

15. According to Reginald Pecock, bishop of Chichester (1450–1457), the Lollards were always asking, “Where groundest thou it in the New Testament!… or in the Old in such place which is not by the New Testament revoked!” Pecock retorted by arguing that there are many things which men are obviously permitted to do which have no explicit Scriptural warrant, Repressor of OverMuch Blaming of the Clergy, ed. Churchill Babington, Public Record Office (London, 1860), Vol. 19, part 1, pp. 118ff.Google Scholar

16. According to Luther, the Picards were of the opinion that all churches, all the ornaments in them, all the holy offices celebrated in them, all fast days, feastdays and so forth had to be abolished in the name of Christian liberty, Epist. ad. Rom., WA 56:494.

17. See Turner, William, The Huntyng and Fyndyng out of the Romisohe Fox (Basel, 1543), sig. C, fol. 2(v)-fol. 3Google Scholar; sig. D, fol. 2, 4(v), 6(v); sig. B, fol. 3(v)-4; sig. F, fol. 2(v); Bale, John, Yet a Course at the Romyshe Foxe (Zurich, 1543), sig. A, fol 5Google Scholar; sig. A, foL 8(v)-sig. B, fol. 1; sig. C, fol. 1 and 2; sig. H, fol. 4; sig. K, fol. 4(v).

18. The position of the Anabaptists and Karlstadt will be noted later in this study.

19. McDonnell, Kilian, John Calvin, the Church, and the Eucharist (Princeton, 1967), pp. 89, 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20. See Köhler, Walther, Das Marburger Religionsgespräch 1529 (Leipzig, 1929)Google Scholar; Sasse, Herman, This is My Body (Minneapolis, 1959), PP. 223–268.Google Scholar

21. See Zwingli, , Von dem Touff, von Widertouff, unnd vom Kindertouff, SW 4: 203ff.Google Scholar

22. See Zwingli, , De Vera et Falsa Religione Commentarius, SW 3:741–757.Google Scholar

23. See Zwingli, , Von Klarheit und Gewissheit des Wortes-Gottes, SW 1: 342ff.Google Scholar

24. On Zwingli's relation to Erasmus, see Rogge, J., Zwingli und Erasmus (Stuttgart, 1962)Google Scholar; Walton, Robert C., Zwingli's Theocracy (Toronto, 1967), pp. 24–29Google Scholar; Maeder, Kurt, Die Via Media in der Schweizerischen Reformation (Zurich 1970), pp. 47–53Google Scholar; Gottfried Locher, W., H. Zwingli in Neuer Sicht (Stuttgart, 1969), p. 267nGoogle Scholar. On Zwingli's ties with Wessel Gansfort and other of the advocates of the devotio moderna, see Williams, George, The Radical Reformation (Philadelphia, 1962), pp. 35ff.Google Scholar

25. Bainton, Roland, Erasmus of Christendom (New York, 1969), pp. 216–217.Google Scholar

26. Bromiley, G. W., Zwingli and Bullinger (Philadelphia, 1953), p. 29.Google Scholar

27. Chadwick, Owen, The Reformation (Baltimore, 1968), p. 78.Google Scholar

28. McNeil, John T., The History and Character of Calvinism (New York, 1967), pp. 32, 39, 43, 73, 74, 84.Google Scholar

29. See Zwingli, , Apologetious Archeteles, SW 1:263–264, n. 1.Google Scholar

30. Ibid., p. 268, n. 57.

31. Ibid., p. 264, ns. 6 and 7.

32. Ibid., p. 268, ns. 44–48.

33. Ibid., pp. 271, 307.

34. “… sed nec fidem Christi aboleri posse abolitis ceremoniis in universum etiam. Immo ceremonias hand quicquam aliud agere, quam et Christo et eius fidelibus os oblinere, spiritus doctrinam abolere, ab invisibilibns al elementa mundi avocare”, Acta Tiguri, SW 1:49.

35. The Latin Works of H. Zwingli, trans. Jackson, S. M. (Philadelphia, 1922), 2:56.Google Scholar

36. See Ordnung der christlichen Kilchenn zu Zurich SW 4:680–694; Rilliet, Jean, Zwingli, Third Man of the Reformation, trans. Knight, Harold (Philadelphia, 1964), pp. 83–94Google Scholar; McNeil, pp. 44–47 65–66; 84–87; Garside, Charles, Zwingli and the Arts (New Haven and London, 1966).Google Scholar

37. See Rilliet, pp. 67–70.

38. His scriptural references are Matt. 15:17, Acts 10:10ff, 1 Cor. 6:12, 1 Cor. 8:8, 1 Cor. 10:25, Col. 2:16, 1 Tim. 4:lff, Titus 1:10, Heb. 13:9. He concludes: “Dero kuntschafften dunckt mich gnug sin uss der geschrifft zu bewären das alle spysen eim christgleubigen menschen zimme zu essen ”, Von Erkiesen, SW 1:91–98.

39. “Und gebruch dich diner fryheit, ja, wenn das on offen unruw geschehen mag … so es aber offen uffrur bringen mag, gebruch dich irnit”, Ibid., p. 125.

40. “Nachdem aber dhein vorgeben nit hilfft, thu, wie Christus sprach Mathei am 15: Lassend sy faren”, Ibid.

41. “Wo aber das den nächsten verletzt oder ergeret, sol man das on ursach nit essen”, Ibid., p. 112.

42. “… man sol den kleingleubigen vor vest im glouben machen”, Ibid.; “… also söle man inn ouch im vorgeben leeren und starck machen, und nit ewenklich nun mitmilch spysen”, Ibid., 120. For Bullinger's expression of these same principles, Decades, d. III, s. IX, t. II, pp. 315–318.

43. “Dero kuntschafften dunckt mich gnug sin uss der geschrifft zu bewären, das alle sypsen eim christgleubigen menschen zimme zu essen”, Von Erkiesen, SW 1:98.

44. “Doch muss ich denen ein heidisch argument fürwerffen, die geleerter sind im Aristotele, dann euangelio order Paulo… Nun sagt Aristoteles, das gelt syg indifferens, das ist, für sich selbs weder böss noch gut; es werde aber gut oder böss mit dem bruch, obs einer recht order unrecht bruch. Noch vilme die spyss ist an ir selbs weder gut noch böss,” Ibid.

45. “Noch vilme die spyss ist an ir selbs weder gut noch böss (das aber ich nur ietz nachlass), sunder noturfftig und desshalb mer gut …”, Ibid.

46. “Also verstond in andren dingin, die mittel sind, wie fleisch essen, als wercken am frytag, nachdem man das gotswort gehört und got genossen, und derglichen”, Ibid., p. 126.

47. “Posteaquam regnum dei nee potus, sectemur quae pacis sunt, paresertyium in hisce rebus quae sunt indifferentia”, In Epist. ad Rom Annot., Opera, ed. M. Schulero (Turici, 1838), 6, t. 2, p. 130Google Scholar

48. “Also soltend ir im gethon haben, den widertouff, ob er glych under die mitlen ding ghorte… in andren dingen derglychen, als in erkiesen der spysen”, Von dem Touff, SW 4:253.

49. Die Erste Baslerconfeesion von 1534, originally drafted by Oecolampadius, status that no one may forbid that which God has permitted: “Und hinwiderumb mag niemands verbieten, was Gott erlanbt hat. Der ursachen wir die spiss, mit dancksagung zeniessen, unverbotten haltend’ (OS, p. 469). For Bullinger's assertions of same, Decades, d. 3, s. 9, t. 2, pp. 310–311, and the Confessio Helvitica Posterior, 24, in Schaff, pp. 299–300.

50. IN the view of some sixteenth-century papists, the Spirit was at work no less in tradition than in the written word of Scripture. See, for exemple, More, Thomas, Responsioad Lutherum, The Complete Works of Thomas More, ed., Headley, J. M., trans. Mandeville, S. (New Haven and London; 1969), p. 242Google Scholar. Far from being mere “optional human inventions”, the “unwritten traditions” and other laws and ceremonies sanctioned by church authorities down through the centuries were “the inventions of the Holy Spirit“ Ibid., p. 372, and could very well bind Christian consciences under pain of sin, Ibid., pp. 416, 424, 414. Zwingli repeately rejected such cliams, but most explicitly in the sixteenth of his “67 Articles”: “Im euangelio lernet man, das menschan lere und satzungen zu der säligkeit nüt nüt nützend, Dis 67 Artikel Zwinglis, SW 1:459; see also his explanation of this article in Usslegen und gründ der Schlussreden, SW 2:76–102.

51. Rilliet, p. 68.

52. In a later treatise, Zwingli gave explicit expression to this principle: “Leer du für und für getrülich, und gebruch dich ouch christenlicher fryheit heimlich und by denen, did nitt verlezt werden”, Von dem Touff, SW 4:256.

53. In a letter from a friend, dated Apirl 4, 1524, Zwingli was asked why he had concealed his mariage for so long a time (SW 8:170–171). See also my article ”Clerical Marriages— Reformation Style,” America (03 3, 1973), pp. 185–188Google Scholar; Intellectual Digest (06 1973), pp. 58–60.Google Scholar

54. Chadwick, p. 78; MeNeill, p. 34

55. MeNeill, p. 39.

56. Chadwick, p. 78.

57. “Ac ubi euangeilo conformia deprehenderimus, servabimus; ubi difformia, foras mittemus”, Apolog. Archet., SW 1:319; “Maiorum traditions… quanto magis euangelicam et apostolicam doctrinam redolent, tanto magis suspicimus omnes; quantolongius ab hae recedunt, tanto magis fastidimus”, Ibid., p. 300; “Ac ea que cum scriptura canonica consentiunt… recipienda nimirum erunt, iis que dissentiunt reiectis”, Ibid., p. 303.

58. Ibid., pp. 304–305.

59. To the papists' argument that Christ and his apostles ahd taught much that is not written down in Scripture, Oecolampadius replied: “So warde auch daraus folgen, dass die heilige Schirft nicht vollkomen und genügnend sei, was eine lästerung gegen den heiligen Geist ist”, Christliche Antwort der Diner des Evangeliums au Basel, OS, p. 249.

60. “Durch Gottes Gande wissen wir, wie viele und welche Ceremonien den Christen nützlich und notwending sind und unser mit gutem Gewissen auf dem Worte Gottes begründetes Vornehmen zilet einzing dahin, dass dasjenige, was Christus unser herr und Meister in diesem Sacrament des heiligen Abendmahles zu unserem heile eingefest und vororlieferung gehalten und jetzt von uns gut und rechat ohne alle fremde Bemischung falscher Ueberlieferung gehalten und gefeiert werde”, Ibid., p. 246.

61. “… nicht zur Erbauung der herzen und zum Wachsthum der Frömmigkeit, des Glaubens und der Liebe dient … im gegenteil haben wir erfahren, dass, wo diese äuserlichen Dinge in hohem Ansehen stehen und hartnacking vertheidgt werden, da auch die von Gott gebotenen Tugenden als da sind Glaube, die herzensdemuth, die Liebe und der Dienst am Worte sehr gering geachtet warden”, Ibid., p. 254.

62. “Wir können aber jenes Nachtmal des herrn auf keine Weise reinen halten, als wenn wir uns auf sorgfältigste nach der Einsetzung Chirsti und nach dem Brauche der Apostel richten”, Ibid., p. 255.

63. Decades, d. 3, s. 9, t. 2, pp. 352–353.

64. Ibid., d. 5, s. 9, t. 3, p. 407. Compare with Bullinger's similar remarks concerning Baptism, Ibid., d. 5, s. 8, t. 3, pp. 356–357.

65. Ibid., d. 5, s. 9, t. 3, p. 406. See also Zuschrift an Frau Anna Roist, in Bullinger, H.,Leben und ausgewählte Schriften, ed. Pestalozzi, C. (Elberfeld, 1858), p. 552.Google Scholar

66. Decades, d. 5, s. 9, t. 3, p. 407.

67. “Die Kirche keine andere Form mache, sondern die von dem herrn und den Apostleneingesetzte und aufgestellte fest und unverwandelt behalten soll”, Zuschrift an Frau Anna, p. 552.

68. Decades, d. , s. 9, t. 3, p. 351.

69. Ibid., d. 5, s. 9, t. 3, p. 407.

70. “Wer sich aber dess nieht genügen lässt und etwas Anderes, gleich als was Besseres und hübscheres sucht, der verachtet und verwirft die Ordnung des Sohnes Gottes und Mit für besser und schöner, was Sünde und Verachtung Gottes ist”, Zuschrift an. Frau Anna, p. 552.

71. “Dan do Christus selbst mid am ersten diss sacrament ein setzt und die ersten mess hielt und übet, da war kein platten, kein casell, kein singen, kein prangen, sondern allein dancksagung gottis und des sacraments prauch … The neher nu unsere messe der ersten mess Christi sein, ihe besser sie on zweiffel sein, und ihe weitter davon, ihe ferlicher”, Ein Sermon von dem, neuen Testament, WA 6: 354–355.

72. During the 1550 Vestiarian Dispute with Bishop John Hooper, Peter Martyr told the latter: “In ceremonies I would come as neere as might be unto the holie Scriptures, and would continue in the imitation of the better times of the Church”, Vermigli, Pietro Martire, The Commonplaces … with a large addition of manie theologicall and necessarie discourses, trans. Marten, A. (London, 1583), 2: 133Google Scholar. All the same, Martyr considered the vestments adiaphora, see Ibid., pp. 117–118. For a further development of Martyr's adiaphorism, see Ibid., pp. 161–174. Bucer was involved in the same Vestiarian Dispute and also wrote to a Lasco, who had sided with Hooper, that he would have the church brought into positive accord with Scripture. See Strype, John, Ecclesiastical Memorials (Oxford 1822), 2, 2:44, 445, 450Google Scholar; also Bucer's letter to Hooper in November of 1550, Ibid., pp. 456, 464. Bucer nonetheless also insisted that the vestments were “free things”, Ibid., pp. 445, 447, 459–462. It may be noted in passing that John S. Coolidge has made quite a lot of Thomas Cartwright's contention that there is a considerable difference between saying that something is “not repugnant” to Scripture and saying that it is “according to” Scripture. Coolidge concludes that the latter manner of speaking betrayed a psychologically peculiar Puritan attitude toward the Bible in The Pauline Renaissance in England, Puritanism and the Bible (Oxford, 1970), pp. 6–12Google Scholar. But, as the above citations illustrate, these two manners of speaking are found repeatedly throughout the reformation period, and it would be difficult to prove that either of them was the exclusive characteristic of one or the other of the conflicting parties in England. For this and other reasons, Coolidge seems a bit rash in writing off the common conclusion of past historians that the Puritans were biblical reductionists, Ibid. p. 6n.

73. See Tertullian, , De Spectaculis 3: PL 1, 634Google Scholar; De Corona I: PL 2, 77.

74. “Sed quod non prohibetur, ultro permissum est”, De Corona 2: PL 2, 78.

75. Ibid.

76. “Et facile est statim exigere, ubi scriptum sit, ne coronemur. At enim ubi scriptum est, ut coronemur”, Ibid.

77. “Imo prohibetur quod non ultro est permissum”, Ibid.

78. See Luther's, letter of 1524 to the Christians at Augsburg regarding Karlstadt, WA 15: 391–397Google Scholar; also Wider die himml. Proph., WA 18: 111–116, 137; Pred. des Jah. 1522, WA 103: 1–64. For the best English discussion of Karlstadt's position, see Rupp, Gordon, Patterns of the Reformation (Philadelphia, 1969), pp. 47–153Google Scholar. Rupp sees “the difference between reformation and Puritanism” as lying in the distinction between “the evangelical may” and the “legalistic must” (Ibid., p. 109), and, significantly, classifies Karlstadt as a “puritan.”

79. Conrad Grebel and other Anabaptists wrote to Thomas Müntzer in 1524 that what has not been taught by the clear word and example found in Scripture is to be thought of as forbidden: “Was wir nit gelert werdened mit claren sprüchen und bispilen, sol unss alss wol verbotten sin”, Müntzer, Thomas, Schifiten und Briefe, hgb. Frantz, G. (Gütersloh, 1968), p. 439.Google Scholar

80. “Soll das gellten … so will folgen, das wir dis abendmal nirgent mussen hallten denn zu Jerusalem im gepflasterten saal … Item weil wir nicht wissen und der text nicht gibt, ob es rot odder blank wein gewesen, ob es semlen oder gersten brot gewesen sei, werden wir im dem zweiffel die weil mussen das abentmal lassen austehen, bis wirs gewis werden”, Wider die himml. Proph., WA 18: 115. Both Bucer and Martyr used the same argument to prove to John Hooper that the disputed vestments ought to be considered adiaphora, “Bucer to à Lasco”, Oct. 20, 1550, in strype, 2, 2, p. 449; “Martyr to Hooper”, November 4, 1550, Commonplace and Additions, pp. 118–119.

81. “Wo sich an em than odder lassen findet, da Gott nicht von geleret, gepoten noch verpoten hat, da sol mans frei lassen bleiben, wie es Gott seibs hat frei lassen sein…dean wir haltens dafur, das nicht von notten sei, alles zu thun und zu lassen, was Christus gethan und gelassen hat”, Wider die himml. Proph., WA 18: 112, 114.

82. Decades, d. 5, s. 9, t. 3, p. 422.

83. Ibid., p. 424.

84. Ibid., p. 414.

85. Ibid., p. 410.

86. Ibid., p. 418, 423; also Ibid., d. 3, s. 8, t. 2, pp. 263–264.

87. Ibid., d. 5, s. 9, t. 3, pp. 418–420

88. Ibid., p. 421. Bullinger stated that the Roman vestments, to the extent that they were imitations of the garments worn by the priests of the Old Testament, were to be rejected. Some of his English friends took this to mean that Bullinger was opposed to the wearing of any distinctive garment by the clergy, and this gave rise to the various vestiarian disputes in that country. In the 1550 controversy, which involved principally John Hooper, Bullinger lent the latter some general support in his struggle against the vestments. See Burcher to Bullinger, Jan. 21, 1551, in Original Letters Relative to the English Reformation, ed. J. Robinson (Cambridge, 1847), p. 676Google Scholar. But during the Elizabethan vestiarian controversies of the 1560s, Bullinger clearly sided with the bishops against the “puritans.” Asked “whether the dress of the clergy is a matter of indifference”, Bullinger replied: “It certainly seems such, when it is a matter of civil ordinance, and has respect only to decency and order, in which things religions worship does not consist”, Bullinger, to Humphrey, and Sampson, , 05 1, 1566, TheZurich Letters, ed. Robinson, H. (Cambridge, 1842), 1: 349Google Scholar. “No one can reasonably assert that Judaism is revived”, he said, by the introduction of the disputed cap and gown, Ibid., p. 347. Since the latter have been required by the authorities only for sake of dignity and order, and not as a means to salvation, the “puritans” have no reason to claim that their consciences have been enslaved, Ibid., pp. 346–348, 351–352; see also Bullinger to Bishop Horn, Nov. 3, 1565, Ibid., p. 343. That these vestments have been prescribed is not inconsistent with Christian liberty, for “matters of indifference admit sometimes of prescription, and therefore of being imposed by force, as far as their use, so speak though not their moral effect is concerned”, Bullinger to Humphrey and Sampson, May 1, 1566, Ibid., p. 351. Their objection to the should not, therefore, canse the “puritans” to break with the English church or to leave the ministry, Ibid., p. 354.

89. Ibid., d. 5, s. 5, t. 3, pp. 190–197.

90. Ibid., pp. 203ff.

91. Ibid., d. 5, s. 10, t. 3, p. 504. Consistent with the Zwinglian taste for interiority and simplicity, Bullinger will go on to say that in all these matters moderation should be the rule, Conf. Helv. Post 27: 302; 22: 296–297; Decades, d. 5, s. 5, t. 3, pp. 196, 204; Ibid., d. 5, s. 9, t. 3, pp. 418–421.

92. Bullinger, to Humphrey, and Sampson, , 05 1, 1566, Zurich Letters, p. 352.Google Scholar

93. “Denn wir sehen, dass hier Ort und Zeit genau berücksichtiget worden; was jedoch hier nicht so zu verstehen ist, dass man, mit hintansetzung des wahren natiürliehen Sumies an dem nacketen Buchtstaben hangen müsse”, Christliche Antwort, OS, p. 251.

94. Ibid., pp. 251–252.

95. Ibid., p. 252.

96. “Kurz der Evangelist hat uns in diesen äserliehen Dingen nicht einschränken oder an eine bestimmte Vorschrift binden, sondern uns nur eine anständige Ordnung anempfehlen wollen, denn es wäre auch rein unmöglich, ganz nach der Schnur die Weise der Einsetzung jetzt Zu befolgen”, Ibid., p. 254.

97. Ibid., p. 252.

98. “Also mag ouch niemands verbieten, das er nit verbotten hat”, Die Erste Baslerconfession, OS, p. 469.

99. “Hie schryend sy mordio über mich unnd sprechend: ‘Du hast dich all weg gegen alien Bäpstleren erwert, was in gottes wort nit grund hab, das sölle nütz, und ietz sprichst, es stand vil nit in gottes wort, das denocht mit gott sye. Wo ist ietz des starck wort, damit du dem wychbischoff Faber und allen niensehen yngeredt has [Matt. 15:9]? ’” Von dem touff, SW 4: 296.

100. “Was ich ye unnd ye geredt hab, das red ich noch bis in den tod … Bsehend minen worten des heffte bas”, Ibid.

101. “Ich sprich nit, wie ir mir nflegend, sunder ich red allein von underecheiden der elementisehen dingen”, Ibid.

102. “Die habend wir in vil dingen mit nit gheinem hällen wort; noch so bruehen wir’s mit allen underscheiden, unnd tunds mit gott. Byspil: Nemend das nachtmal oder dancksagung Christi für üch. Hie habend wir ein häll wort unnd ynsatz, das es ein widergedechtnus sye; da mag man nuts anders darns gemachen … Das ist aber nit also ein element, das ist: also ein usserlich ding, das es unentseheiden sye … Das aber daby das element oder usserlich ding, das die wyber die widergedechtnus ouch söllind begon, das stat nit mit gheinem hällenn wort. Noch so tut man imm recht, das man sy ouch by dem nachtmal lasst. Also redend ouch vom kindertouff umb gotzwillen! ”, Ibid., pp. 298–297. A paragraph earlier in the treatise, Zwingli had written similarly: “Von dem ursprung des kindertouffs kan ich, noch gheiner anderst, sagen uss gheinem hällen wort, denn das es ghein andrer touff ist weder der einig, war touff Christi, glych also ouch vil andre ding, die mit worter nit underscheiden sind, und denocht wider gott nit sind, sunder mit gott, als: Das wir wyber ouch lassend zu dem nachtmal und daneksagung des herren gon, und lesend aber nit, des wyber by dem nachtmal Christi syind gewesen”, Ibid., p. 296.

103. Ibid., p. 298.

104. “Hie boehend sy: ‘Zimpt mir aber nit nach dem gotswort ze leben?’ Ja, läb darnaeh …”, Ibid., p. 255.

105. “… so wirstu in den dingen nüts anlheben, das zerrüttung bringt; denn es lert dich, das du vor allen dingen gheinen anetoss dinem bruder in ‘n wäg legist, Ro. 14, in den usserlichen dingen, die fry sind”, Ibid.

106. “Wie vil weniger sol man nit anstoss legen in den usserlichen dingen, die in gottes wort kein erloubnus habend, als der widertouff?”, Ibid.

107. “Denn Paulus redt am selben ort ] von underscheid der spysen, die aber mit hällen gotswort fry sind, das aber der widertouff gheinen weg nit its; deen der touff ist ein cerimonien und pflichtszeichen, das die spysen nit sind”, Ibid. Zwingli ”s argument becomes somewhat nebulous here, but it seems that he is simply trying to establish a distinction between those things which Scripture explicitly identifies as adiaphora and those things which may be considered indifferent but not on the grounds of any clear scriptural text.

108. “Also soltend ir im gethon haben, den widertouff, ob er glych under die mitlen ding ghorte … in andren dingen derglychen, als in erkiesen der spysen”, Ibid., p. 256.

109. “Weun man dasselb anheben wil, sol der biachoff oder prophet die kilchen vorhin wol leren, und demnach der gemeind das urteil und erloubnus lassen”, Ibid. See also Ibid., pp. 254–255, where Zwingli states that no innovations should be made by the private mdividual, except with the common consent of the churches.

110. “So wellend ir die kilchen zwingen; und sol aber sy das wort des lerenden urteilen, und er nit zwingen”, Ibid., p. 256.

111. “Leer du für und für getrülich, und gebruch dich ouch christenlicher fryheit heimlich und by denen, die nitt verletzt werdend”, Ibid.

112. “Gott wirt demnach sin wort wol in die hertzen der gleubigen geben und vilen … Lass du nun inn machen! Aber in den usserlichen dingen, die zu zerrütung der christliehen gemeind dienend, darumb du kein häl wort hast, da hut dich als vor gifft, das du selbs ützid fürnemist one der kilchen urteyl ”, Ibid.

113. McNeill, pp. 39, 43.

114. See supra, footnotes 99 and 100.

115. “Gebent ir das zu, das man allein sol halten, was im euangelio ist versehryben und sunst nüts”, Handlung der Versammlung in Zurich 29 Januar 1523, SW 1: 552.

116. “… darumb wil ich mit sölichen geschwindikeiten oder stricken gefangen werden”, Ibid.

117. “Ir erbarmeut mich, das ir so mit sophistischen spitzfündigen oder nachgültigen reden komment”, Ibid.

118. “… ceremoniis et patrum institutis”, Apolog. Archet., SW 1: 267, n. 41.

119. “Id autem si imperfeetum prestitit Christus, fuerit Mose nimirum longe inferior, qui vetus ita absolverat, ut vetaret vel addi quicquam vel demi Deut. 4. et 12”, Ibid., pp. 304–305. Zwingli had used this same argument before to prove that the matter of foods was “free”, Von Erkkiesen, SW 1: 134.

120. “Attamen aliud non dicunt, quicunque humanas traditiones hoc pretextu [that is, that the Scriptures do not contain all that Christ and the apostles taught], quemadmodum diximus, divine legi vel equant vel preferunt, aut necessarias ad salutem esse contendunt”, Apolog. Archet., SW 1: 305.

121. “Im euangelio lernet man, das menschen lere und satzungen Zn der säligkeit nüt nützend”, Die 67 Artikel, SW 1: 459; Usslegen, SW 2: 78–102; see also De Vera et Falsa religione, SW 3: 895–897.

122. “Non nego servanda esse que communi omnium consensu decreta sint, sed iis qui decreverunt, sed tum etiam cum omnium consensus accessit”, Apolog. Archet., SW 1: 309.

123. “Negavi tamen me in ea esse sententia, ut putem, nulla humana praecepta vel servanda esse vel statuenda. Quis enim non alacriter laturus sit, quicquid muversorum Christianorum concors sententia decreverit?”, Acta Tiguri, SW 1: 149.

124. ‘Aequum eat iccirco legibusque et consuetudine sancitum, ut in ore maioris partis stet omne communitatis judicium; in iis saltem, quae divine legi non repugnant”, Apolog. Archet., SW 1: 268.

125. See Bernard’s letter to the monk Adam, Ep. 7,4: PL 182, 95. The Consilium issued by the theological faculty of the University of Prague against Hus stated: “The clerical community in the kingdom of Bohemia, along with the whole community of the clergy in the world and of the entire Christendom, has held and faithfully believed as the Roman Church does and not otherwise, that according to the evangelical and apostolic doctrine as well as that of the holy doctors, inferiors must be obedient to the Apostolic See, the Roman Church, and the prelates in all things whatsoever, where they do not prohibit anything purely good or prescribe anything purely evil, but the intermediate‘ cited in Spinka, Matthew, John Hus’ Concept of the Church (Princeton, 1966), p. 143.Google Scholar

126. “Nam si de mediis vobis est sermo, que iuxta philosophorurn opiniones nec bona sunt nec mala”, Apoiog. Archet., SW 1: 312.

127. “… cur hic istas tractatis nugas, ubi negocium Christi vertituri? ”, Ibid.

128. “Ergo si cum his mediis estis, non estis curn Christo”, Ibid.

129. “Haec igitur vestra si a deo profecta sunt, bona aunt. Si a deo non sunt profecta, ut et non sunt, vobis etiam testibus, ergo mala sunt”, Ibid., p. 313.

130. De Vera et Falsa Religione, SW 3: 904.

131. “Ubicunque imagines in templis prostant, imminet adorationis et cultus periculum”, Ibid., p. 905.

132. “ … evidentius futurum, ut nullae prorsus imagines possint servarl, quam ut adiaphora sint; ubi citra speciem mali esse non possunt”, Ibid., p. 902. For Zwingli’s argument from Scripture, see Ibid., p. 903.

133. “Juxta haec non putamus eas esse deturbandas, quae fenestris ornatus causa insertae sunt, modo nihil turpe prae se ferant; nemo enim istic colit”, Ibid., p. 905.

134. “Das alles, so Got erloubt oder nit verbotten hat, recht ist; dannen har die ee allen menachen zimmen erlernt wirt”, Usslegen, SW 2: 261.

135. “Der erst tell ist richtig [clara]”, Ibid.

136. Das das, so er nit verbotten hat, recht sye, wellend wir mit kundschafft bewären”, Ibid

137. See Ibid., pp. 261–262.

138. “Was got nit verbotten hat, das ist nit unrecht; was nit unrecht, ist nit slind; was nit sünd ist, das ist recht”, Ibid., p. 262.

139. “Doch redend wir hie nit von rechtem, des so recht unnd gut ist, das es gottes wirdig ist … sust mag von uns nüt rechts kummen; dann wir sind ze vil verwust”, Ibid.

140. Contra Juiianum 4. 21: PL 44, 749. According to Augustine, the “off icium” is that which Is done, the “finis”, that for which it is done. It is the latter which determines whether an action is truly good.

141. See Lottin, pp. 422ff.