² Hagen, Kenneth, ‘From testament to covenant in the early sixteenth century’, Sixteenth Century Journal 3/1 (1972), 1–24.Google Scholar

³ See Oberman, Heiko A., The Harvest of Medieval Theology (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1963), pp. 132, 148, 167–70, 246–7 and hisGoogle ScholarForerunners of the Reformation (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1966), pp. 136–137Google Scholar. See also Ozment, Steven E., Homo Spiritualis (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1969), pp. 25, 45–6, 55–8Google Scholar, and Preuss, James S., From Shadow to Promise (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1969), pp. 131–132, 232CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Like Baker and Cottrell, I remain unconvinced of any substantive connection between late Medieval Nominalist thought and Reformed covenant thought. Both Zwingli and his successor, Heinrich Bullinger, were products of the via Antiqua and not of the Nominalist via Modema. As well, The Nominalist conception of the pactum is essentially ahistorical, whereas Reformed thought stressed the historical unity of the covenant and the people of God throughout both testaments. Finally, Nominalist theologians, such as Gabriel Biel, appear to have viewed the Old and New covenants as two separate covenants which were similar. Zwingli's conception of the covenant is founded upon the hermeneutical unity of the two testaments. For a thorough discussion, see Cottrell, Jack Warren, Covenant and Baptism in the Theology of Huldreich Zwingli (Ann Arbor: Princeton, 1971), pp. 375–386Google Scholar, and Baker, J. Wayne, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant (Athens: Ohio University, 1980), pp. 23–24.Google Scholar

⁴ See Hollifield, B., The Covenant Sealed (New Haven: Yale, 1974)Google Scholar, Moller, Jens G., ‘The beginnings of Puritan covenant theology’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 14 (1963), 47–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Trinterud, Leonard J., ‘The origins of Puritanism’, Church History 20 (1951), 37–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵ This position was first asserted by von Korff, Emanuel Graf in Die Anfange der Federaltheologie und ihre erste Ausgestaltung in Zurich und Holland (Bonn: Emil Eisele, 1908)Google Scholar. See also Schrenk, Gottlob, Goltesreich und Bund im alteren Protestantismus vornehmlich beiJohannes Coccejus (Gutersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1923).Google Scholar

⁶ Cottrell, Jack Warren, Covenant and Baptism in the Theology of Huldreich Zwingli, unpublished ThD (Ann Arbor: Princeton, 1971).Google Scholar

⁷ Baker, J. Wayne, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant (Athens: Ohio University, 1980).Google Scholar

⁸ Snyder, Arnold, ‘Word and power in Reformation Zurich’, Archiv fur Refonnationsgeschichte 81 (1990): 263–285Google Scholar; Packull, Werner O., Hutterite Beginnings (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1995).Google Scholar

⁹ Packull, , Hutterite Beginnings, p. 18.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Ibid.

¹¹ Snyder, , ‘Word and power in Reformation Zurich’, pp. 269–270.Google Scholar

¹² See Augustijn, Cornelis, Erasmus: His Life, Works, and Influence (University of Toronto: Toronto, 1991), pp. 110–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³ The most recent work on Erasmus' anti-Semitism contends that his polemics were articulated as much against contemporary, living Jews as they were against an abstract metaphor of Judaism as an overly ceremonial spirituality. See Pabel, Hilmar M., ‘Erasmus of Rotterdam and Judaism: A Reexamination in the Light of New Evidence’, Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte 87 (1996), 9–37.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Hagen, , ‘From testament to covenant in the early sixteenth century’, p. 6.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Ibid., p. 7.

¹⁶ Augustijn, , Erasmus: His Life, Works, and Influence, pp. 48–49.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Although most traditional (Medieval) biblical interpretation involved, on some level, a contrasting of Old to New Testaments, this fact does not account for the peculiarly critical attitude toward the Old Testament held by Erasmus and, at least initially, Zwingli. As Hagen noted, Erasmus was willing to ‘… give up the Old Testament …’ in order to safeguard the primacy of the Gospel as the touchstone of the philosophia Christi, Hagen, ‘From testament to covenant in the early sixteenth century’, p. 7. Moreover, for Zwingli's part, his statements concerning the Old Testament during this early period appear all the more striking when compared to his insistence in the mid-1520s on the absolute canonicity of the Old Testament scriptures against his Anabaptists opponents.

¹⁸ Works I, p. 84.

¹⁹ Works I, p. 107.

²⁰ Works I, p. 111.

²¹ Works I, p. 141.

²² Writings I, pp. 99–100.

²³ Writings I, p. 43.

²⁴ Writings I, p. 372.

²⁵ Writings I, p. 106.

²⁶ Cottrell argues that Zwingli's eucharistic theology in An Exposition operates on two distinct levels. First, as already mentioned, it is a remembrance or an outward pledge. However, in terms of the eucharist's interrelationship with Christ's atonement on the cross it is also a covenant of grace. The content of the covenant is twofold: first, it is a promise that Christ will forgive one's sins if one believes in him; second, there is the corporative aspect of belonging to this Covenant that Cottrell calls ‘sonship’. In this way, Christ is both the pledge (in terms of sacramental symbol) and confirmation (in terms of satisfaction) of this covenant. Cottrell, Covenant and Baptism in the Theology of Huldreich Zwingli, pp. 52–6.

²⁷ Writings I, p. 106.

²⁸ The theme of utilizing the Mosaic Law as representative of the carnal, temporal and therefore inferior nature of the Old Testament is a common motif in Erasmus' writings, particularly in his Paraphrases on the New Testament. Pabel, ‘Erasmus of Rotterdam and Judaism’, pp. 23–7.

²⁹ This is exactly the definition given to ‘testamental theology’ by Kenneth Hagen in his article ‘Form testament to covenant in the early sixteenth century’, p. 12.

³⁰ Zwingli displays detailed knowledge of and agreement with Luther's position: ‘Therefore I called several years ago, the eating of this food a memorial of the suffering of Christ and not a sacrifice. But after some time, Martin Luther called this food a testament I gladly concede the point; for he named it after its nature and characteristics. I have named it according to the manner of the eating of the food. There is no real difference in the two names.’ Writings I, p. 111.

³¹ Baker, , Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant, p. 2.Google Scholar

³² Z, III 227.11–14.

³³ Cottrell, , Covenant and Baptism in the Theology of Huldreich Zwingli, pp. 71–72, 74.Google Scholar

³⁴ Zwingli stated this principle in both in the Archeteles and On the Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God of 1522, and again at the First Zurich Disputation. Snyder, ‘Word and power in reformation Zurich’, pp. 268–9.

³⁵ Zwingli addressed the question of proper biblical interpretation by holding up the scriptures themselves in Hebrew, Greek and Latin, then to the exegetes capable of interpreting them, and finally to the general assembly of ‘Christian hearts’ who could judge between varying interpretations. Ibid., p. 271, note # 32.

³⁶ Packull, , Hutlerite Beginnings, pp. 17, 19–20.Google Scholar

³⁷ Ibid., p. 16.

³⁸ Stephens, W. P., The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli (Oxford: Clarendon, 1986), p. 195.Google Scholar

³⁹ Writings I, p. 213.

⁴⁰ Sources, p. 319.

⁴¹ Sources, p. 287.

⁴² Werner Packull has demonstrated that the Old Testament became available in the vernacular piecemeal over the years 1525–7, and not in its completed form until 1529. As the Anabaptist community worked solely from vernacular texts, their challenge to infant baptism had to stand on an exclusively New Testament foundation. Packull, , Hutlerite Beginnings, pp. 27–28.Google Scholar

⁴³ Cottrell, , Covenant and Baptism in the Theology of Huldreich Zwingli, p. 86.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Sources, pp. 304, 319.

⁴⁵ Sources, pp. 304–5.

⁴⁶ Sources, pp. 306, 319–20.

⁴⁷ Sources, pp. 309–10.

⁴⁸ Sources, p. 306.

⁴⁹ Sources, p. 307.

⁵⁰ Sources, pp. 306, 308, 310, 319–20.

⁵¹ Works III, p. 233.

⁵² Works III, p. 194.

⁵³ LCCXXIV, p. 131.

⁵⁴ Ibid.

⁵⁵ Z, IV 318.7–9.

⁵⁶ Z, IV 299.9 – 300.4, 314.6–8.

⁵⁷ Zwingli had, as early as An Exposition of 1523, denied the sacramental efficacy of water baptism, and conversely, the damnation of unbaptized children. See Writings I, p. 372.

⁵⁸ By May 1525, however, Zwingli had become more apprehensive with regard to the salvation of non-Christian children. In On Baptism he writes: ‘I leave these same [non-Christian children] to the judgement of God… ’ Z, IV 313.23–7.

⁵⁹ Z, IV 326.31 – 327.8.

⁶⁰ Z, IV 325.19–22.

⁶¹ Z, IV 327.27–9, 329.17–25.

⁶² Z, IV 293.19–20.

⁶³ Z, IV 293.20–3.

⁶⁴ Zwingli goes on to state that the ‘pflicht’ (as represented in circumcision) could therefore only represent external teaching and training so that Abraham's descendants would have no other God. Z, IV 293.23–7.

⁶⁵ Z, PV 326.24–9.

⁶⁶ Cottrell, , Covenant and Baptism in the Theobgy ofHuldreich Zwingli, pp. 163–165.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Hobbs, Gerald R., ‘Zwingli and the study of the Old Testament’ in Huldrych Zwingli, 1484–1531: A Legacy of Radical Reform (Montreal: McGill, 1985), 145–146Google Scholar. It appears that Hobb's hesitancy to assign this work solely to Zwingli stems from the author's concern to establish an exegetical method that is undeniably Zwingli's, rather than a denial of his substantial contribution to the content of the commentary.

⁶⁸ Baker, , Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant, p. 222.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ The Prophezei lectures began with the Latin text of the Old Testament being read aloud by a student. Then the resident Habraist would address the philological issues arising from the Hebrew text. Subsequently, Zwingli would provide an overview of the Greek text of the Septuagint and present a critical lecture based on the three translations. Lastly, one of Zwingli's fellow priests would present the day's findings in German to the assembly. Hobbs, ‘Zwingli and the Study of the Old Testament’, p. 145.

⁷⁰ Kunzli's work drew upon the strong presence of classical/rhetorical language consistent with Zwingli's style, the marginal notes in his ‘Hausbibel’, and the key presence of the Septuagint in support of his case for Zwingli's authorship of the commentary. Edwin Kunzli, ‘Zwingli als Auslegers des alten Testamentes’ in Z, XFV, pp. 869–99.

⁷¹ Z, XIII 67.19ff.

⁷² Z, XIII 89.11–21.

⁷³ Z, XIII 105.20–33.

⁷⁴ Z, XIII 105.34 – 106.4.

⁷⁵ Z, XIII 106.4–13.

⁷⁵ Z, XIII 107.4–9.

⁷⁶ Z, XIII 106.13–15: ‘Therefore one faith is Abraham's and ours; for just as he trusted in God through his seed which had been promised to him, so we too, [trust] that which has now been performed …’

⁷⁸ Z, XIII 106.15–18.

⁷⁹ Z, XIII 105.18–20.

⁸⁰ Cottrell, , Covenant and Baptism in the Theology of Huldreich Zwingli, pp. 212, 315.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Writings II, p. 224.

⁸² Particularly when discussing the eucharist, Zwingli can still be found contrasting Old and New Testaments and making comments which appear to question the worth of the Old Testament: ‘But why do I labour to bring forth illustrations when both testaments are here before us and one was but a shadow of the other, and those men of old looked at everything through figures? Let us then, letting everything else go, compare the words of the old lamb with those of the new and everlasting one. …’ Ibid, p. 211.

⁸³ Writings II, p. 223.

⁸⁴ Writings II, p. 224.

⁸⁵ Ibid.

⁸⁶ Ibid.

⁸⁷ Ibid.

⁸⁸ Ibid.

⁸⁹ Packull, , Hulterite Beginnings, p. 22.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Snyder, , ‘Word and power in Reformation Zurich’, p. 276.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Packull, , Hutterite Beginnings, p. 23.Google Scholar

⁹² Ibid.

⁹³ Sources, p. 394.

⁹⁴ Ibid.

⁹⁵ Sources, p. 401.

⁹⁶ Ibid.

⁹⁷ Sources, p. 402.

⁹⁸ Ibid.

⁹⁹ Z, IV 588.9–10, 595.16 – 596.3, 625.13–15.

¹⁰⁰ Z, IV 629.2–7.

¹⁰¹ Z, IV 630.2–639.11

¹⁰² Z, IV 634.17–24.

¹⁰³ Z, IV 634.32–635.1.

¹⁰⁴ Z, IV 635.22ff., 636.15ff.

¹⁰⁵ Z, IV 636.6–12.

¹⁰⁶ Z, IV 637.27–9.

¹⁰⁷ Z, IV 636.24–6.

¹⁰⁸ Z, IV 630.26–7.

¹⁰⁹ Z, IV 636.30–3.

¹¹⁰ Z, IV 638.8–20.

¹¹¹ Z, IV 637.16–17.

¹¹² Z, IV 635.2.

¹¹³ Z, IV 638.20–4.

¹¹⁴ Z, IV 638.21–639.11.

¹¹⁵ Z, IV 639.5–6.

¹¹⁶ Z, IV 637.6–7.

¹¹⁷ Z, IV 637.3–4.

¹¹⁸ Z, VI/I 155.22ff.

¹¹⁹ Z, VI/I 157.25ff.

¹²⁰ Zwingli introduces the theme of election in an attempt to answer the Anabaptist argument, based on Romans 9:13, that since God had loved Jacob but rejected Esau from birth the covenant argument was false. Zwingli responds first by stating that God's providence is unknown to us, and therefore should not be questioned, and second, that since election precedes faith, God must have foreordained that Esau would fall into reprobation. Sources, p. 502. Though this is the first appearance of election in the baptismal controversy, it is first introduced into the covenant argument in the 1526 work On Original Sin. See Works II, pp. 19–27.

¹²¹ Ibid., p. 476.

¹²² Ibid.

¹²³ Gabler, , Huldrych Zwingli, His Life and Work, p. 129.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Packull, , Hutterite Beginnings, p. 30.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ Sources, p. 486.

¹²⁶ Ibid.

¹²⁷ Ibid.

¹²⁸ Zwingli's specific comments concerning the theme of the covenant in the period following the Refutation until his death are limited to two instances, neither of which displays the maturity of expression or detail found in late 1525 or 1527. The two passages appear in the Account of Faith of July 1530; Works II, pp. 45–8, and the Sermon on the Providence of God of August 1530; Works II, p. 195. Zwingli's brief remarks in both instances relate to the fact that baptism, as a sacrament, is a means of inclusion into the visible church through either the personal confession of a believing adult, or the divine covenant promises of God and that Christian children were to be accounted as part of God's people the same as the children of the Old Testament Hebrews.