Zwingli on Baptism:

His Incipient Philosophical Dualism as the Genesis of Iaith Only

By Mark Moore










Rel. 61: listory o Christianity and Judaism

Dr. Stan Burgess

Noember 8, 1999
Outline


I. Brie Summary o Zwingli as a Reormer
II. Consensus View o Baptism
A. Scriptural loundation
B. 1estimony o Church lathers
III. Zwingli`s View o Baptism
A. Zwingli`s Lmerging Deinition o Baptism
1. Assurance o laith
2. A Pledge o Allegiance
3. A Sign o Belonging
B. Zwingli and the Baptismal 1exts
1. Christian Baptism Is the Same as the Baptism o John the Baptist
2. Separate 1ypes o Baptism in the New 1estament
3. Synecdoche as the Solution to Problematic 1exts
C. Reasons or lis Position
1. Soereignty o God in Llection
a. Only the Blood o Christ Can 1ake Away Sins
b. God must Be lree to Act \heneer and loweer le Chooses
c. Salation Is Dependent Ovt, upon One`s Llection
2. Incipient Philosophic Dualism
a. 1he llesh is Lil and Larthly, the Spirit is Good & rom God
b. A Material 1hing Such as \ater Cannot Cleanse the Soul
IV. Lcclesiastical Ramiications o Zwingli`s 1heological Innoation
A. A Shit rom Sacrament to Cognition
B. A Shit rom Community to Indiidualism
C. A Shit rom Coenant to latalism

1
Zwingli on Baptism:
His Incipient Philosophical Dualism as the Geneses of Iaith Only


luldrych Zwingli stands in the third position behind Luther and Calin in the trilogy o
Protestant reormers. \et in some ways his inluence is een more important than the other two.
1hat is certainly true in the area o aith only.` le was clearly the irst to espouse the iew that the
sacraments o baptism and the Lucharist had nothing to do with salation. I these two sacraments
are reinterpreted, suddenly the church is ery dierent than it once was. 1his paper will examine
Zwingli`s iews on baptism in particular and suggest seeral ramiications his iews hae had on the
Langelical world.
I. A Brie Summary o Zwingli as a Reormer
1heology generally emerges out o the caldron o lie eents. 1hus, to understand Zwingli`s
theology, one must hae at least a cursory knowledge o his lie and work. 1hereore, beore
addressing his iews on baptism, we will take a whirlwind tour o his biography.
1

Ulrich Zwingli was born in 1484 in \ildhaus, Switzerland to a prominent middle class
amily. le was the third o eight sons who distinguished himsel at an early age by his precocious
genius. 1his child was obiously special and needed to be educated. Beore all was said and done, his
amily would enroll him in three schools: Berne ,1496-1498,, Vienna ,1498-1502,, and Basle, under
1. \yttenback, ,1502-1506,. le was then ready to be ordained as a priest. lis irst pastorate was at
Glarus ,1506-1516,. lere he concentrated on Biblical preaching and humanistic studies. Lrasmus
was the major inluence on him during these years ,Luther`s writings, howeer, would become a

1
lor a brie reiew o his lie, see Zwingli` in Ofora Dictiovar, of tbe Cbri.tiav Cbvrcb. Ldited by l. L. Cross,
,194,: 1514 or Zwingli` in 1be Catbotic vc,ctoeaia. lor a ull length treatment, the three premier works are
Ulrich Gbler, vtar,cb Zrivgti: i. ife ava !or/, ,Philadelphia: lortress, 1986,, Samuel Macauley Jackson,
vtareicb Zrivgti: 1be Reforver of Cervav ritertava, ,New \ork: G. P. Putnam`s Sons, 192,, and G. R. Potter,
vtar,cb Zrivgti ,New \ork: St. Martin`s Press, 19,.

2
greater inluence on him by 1519,.
2
le was a deout Catholic and een sered as chaplain to the
Swiss mercenaries or the Papal serice in 1513 and 1515.
1hings began to take a turn in 1516. le let Glarus or Linsiedeln. lere he encountered
rampant abuses o the pilgrimage to the amous local shrine. 1his quickened his desire or reorm.
By 1518 he distinguished himsel as a preacher and was elected the People`s Preacher at Zrich
where he would remain or the rest o his lie. 1he community loed him. 1his gae him the
inluence and protection he needed to carry out his gradually deeloping reorms. lirst, he began
preaching exegetically through the New 1estament ,1519, rather than the assigned readings which
led to scriptural attacks on purgatory, inocation o saints, and monasticism. 1his latter issue was
piotal or him. \hile Luther concentrated on indulgences, Zwingli ocused on a priest`s right to
marry. In act, some time in 1522 he secretly married Anna Reinhart, the widow o lans Meyer on
Knonau, a woman o higher social class than he. 1his, o course, coincides with two letters dating
July 2 and 13, 1522, requesting permission to marry ,see Appendix A,.
At this point, Zwingli`s iews were no longer a secret. le published his amous tract 6
1heses` in January o 1523 and disputed them with Johann laber on January 29. 1his was a decisie
ictory o Zwingli, at least in Zrich. Ater a second disputation on October 26, 1523, steps were
taken to abolish the Mass in Zrich and to remoe images and pictures rom churches.
Now that there was a clear break rom the Catholic church, Zwingli began to deelop his
particular iews o the sacraments o the Lord`s Supper and Baptism. It is here where he and Luther
parted ways. In act, their ruitless colloquy ,September - October, 1529,, exacerbated their
disagreements, and both sides were coninced they could not cooperate with the other. Zwingli was
not just engaged in debate with the Catholics and Lutherans, howeer. Some o his iercest rhetoric

2
Cross, oc. Cit., suggests, howeer, that Luther was not as major a actor in Zwingli`s thinking as some
suggest and that when he is mentioned there tends to be a hint o jealousy.

3
is resered or the Anabaptists. In act, the Council o Zrich settled one dispute or Zwingli in 152
by putting to death an adamant Anabaptist leader.
Zwingli`s moement spread rapidly. \et his own lie was cut short when he was killed on the
battle ield on October 11, 1531. le was sering as chaplain or the orces o Zrich. Symbolically,
he was carrying the banner or the troops.
II. Consensus View o Baptism
1he assertion o this paper is that Zwingli was the key igure or introducing a brand new
thought into Christendom, namely, aith only.` 1hat is quite a claim! loweer, it is a claim that
Zwingli himsel makes. le said, In this matter o baptism - i I may be pardoned or saying it -
I can only conclude that all the doctors hae been in error rom the time o the apostles. . . . All the
doctors hae ascribed to the water a power which it does not hae and the holy apostles did not
teach.`
3
By this he meant that there was no saing eicacy in the sacraments. 1o eriy what Zwingli
asserts one needs to reiew both the scriptural statements that connect baptism with salation as
well as the major claims o church athers.
A. Scriptural oundation
1he New 1estament requently connects baptism with salation. Zwingli, o course, will
explain these texts dierently than the church athers had. But the texts themseles will require
some ancy exegetical ootwork ,as we shall see,, to extricate salation rom immersion.
In Mark 16:16 Jesus says, \hoeer beliees and is baptized will be saed, but whoeer does
not beliee will be condemned.` Again at the Great Commission` he taught, 1hereore go and
make disciples o all nations, baptizing them in the name o the lather and o the Son and o the
loly Spirit` ,Matthew 28:19,. 1his was ulilled on the Day o Pentecost when Peter told his would-

3
luldrych Zwingli, On Baptism,` Zrivgti ava vttivger, in 1he Library o Christian Classics, Vol. 24, Ldited
by G. \. Bromiley, p. 130.

4
be conerts what to do in response to his sermon, Repent and be baptized, eery one o you, in the
name o Jesus Christ or the orgieness o your sins. And you will receie the git o the loly
Spirit` ,Acts 2:38,. Again, Ananias instructed Paul at his baptism, Now what are you waiting or
Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name'` ,Acts 21:16,.
Paul himsel has much to say about baptism and its relation to salation. Romans 6:3-4,
Don't you know that all o us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death
\e were thereore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was
raised rom the dead through the glory o the lather, we too may lie a new lie.` Colossians 2:11-
13:
In him you were also circumcised, in the putting o o the sinul nature, not with a
circumcision done by the hands o men but with the circumcision done by Christ, haing
been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your aith in the power o
God, who raised him rom the dead. \hen you were dead in your sins and in the
uncircumcision o your sinul nature, God made you alie with Christ. le orgae us all our
sins.

1itus 3:5 continues along this line, le saed us, not because o righteous things we had
done, but because o his mercy. le saed us through the washing o rebirth and renewal by the
loly Spirit.` Peter joins Paul with perhaps the strongest statement on the saliic eicacy o
baptism, 1his water symbolizes baptism that now saes you also--not the remoal o dirt rom the
body but the pledge o a good conscience toward God. It saes you by the resurrection o Jesus
Christ` ,1 Peter 3:21,.
1hese erses hae obiously spawned olumes o commentary, and many hae ollowed
Zwingli`s lead to debate the exact meaning o these texts. Suice to say here, howeer, that a cursory
reading o the biblical material leaes one with the impression that baptism has something to do
with salation. It is not surprising, then, to read similar statements peppered throughout the early
church athers.


5
B. 1estimony o church athers
Selectie citations can proe almost anything and thereore practically nothing. 1hus, great
care must be taken to choose releant and representatie data. At the risk o sounding pretentious,
the ollowing material is such a list.
4
\hile quotations could be multiplied, these major church
athers express the primary tenets o the historic Christian aith. Zwingli was correct, he was blazing
an entirely new trail with his non-sacramental iew o baptism.
Justin Martyr ,C.L. 110-165, said that new conerts were to be instructed to ast and pray.
1hen they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated. . . . lor . . . they then receie
the washing with water.` le quotes John 3:5 in relation to this practice, stating that we hae
learned rom the apostles this reason . . . in order that we . . . may obtain in the water the remission
o sins.`
5

1ertullian ,C.L. 145-220, wrote an entire tract on baptism, the earliest extant manuscript
deoted to the subject. le opens the piece with these words: lappy is our sacrament o water, in
that, by washing away the sins o our early blindness, we are set ree and admitted into eternal lie.`
6

le is not suggesting that the act o baptism is magical. le clariies that 1he act o baptism . . . is
carnal, in that we are plunged in water, but the eect is spiritual, in that we are reed rom sins.`

Cyril o Jerusalem ,c. C.L. 315-386, said these words to baptismal candidates:
Great is the Baptism that lies beore you: a ransom to capties, a remission o
oences, a death o sin, a new birth o the soul, a garment o light, a holy

4
1he ollowing material is adapted rom Jack Cottrell, 1he Biblical Consensus: listorical Backgrounds to
Reormed 1heology,` in ati.v ava tbe Revi..iov of iv.: .v i.toricat Per.ectire, Ldited by Daid lletcher,
,Joplin: College Press, 1990,, pp. 28-32.
5
Justin Martyr, 1he lirst Apology o Justin,` 61, tr. Dods and Reith, in 1be .vte^iceve atber., ea. .teavaer
Robert. ava ]ave. Dovata.ov ,Grand Rapids: Lerdmans reprint, 199,, I:183.
6
1ertullian, On Baptism,` tr. S. 1helwell, in 1be .vte^iceve atber., ed. Alexander Roberts and James
Donaldson ,Grand Rapids: Lerdmans reprint, 198,, III: 669.

bia. VII, p. 62.

6
indissoluble seal, a chariot to heaen, the delight o Paradise, a welcome into the
kingdom, the git o adoption! . . .
8


Gregory o Nyssa ,C.L. 334-394, added this, Despise not . . . the Diine laer, nor think
lightly o it, as a common thing, on account o the use o water. lor the power that operates is
mighty, and wonderul are the things wrought thereby.`
9
le goes on to describe just what those
wonderul things` are: remission o what is to be accounted or, release rom bondage, close
relation to God, ree boldness o speech, and in place o serile subjection equality with angels. lor
these things, and all that ollow rom them, the grace o Baptism secures and coneys to us.`
10

Perhaps his clearest assertion is this, Baptism, then, is a puriication rom sins, a remission o
trespasses, a cause o renoation and regeneration.`
11

Augustine ,C.L. 354-430, argued that baptism was the point in time in which God applied
grace to the repentant sinner. le did not teach that baptism merited God`s aor, but that it
coincided with the disposal o that aor on the conert. 1hus baptism is the sacrament o . . .
redemption.`
12
It is equated with salation itsel.
13
loweer, Augustine clariies that baptism is the
work o God, not the work o the recipient. Conerts accept what God does through and grants in
baptism. ,1his is one o the keys to understanding Zwingli`s reersal o the traditional iew o

8
Cyril o Jerusalem, Procatechesis |Prologue|,` tr. Ldward l. Giord, ^iceve ava Po.t^iceve atber., ed.
Philip Scha and lenry \ace ,Grand Rapids: Lerdmans reprint, 198,, 16, p. 5.
9
Gregory o Nyssa, On the Baptism o Christ,` tr. l. A. \ilson, ^iceve ava Po.t^iceve atber., ed. Philip
Scha and lenry \ace ,Grand Rapids: Lerdmans reprint, 198,, VII: 15.
10
bia., p. 518.
11
bia.
12
Augustine, On the Soul and Its Origin,` II: 13, 1be !or/. of .vretiv. .vgv.tive, 1ot. `: 1be .vtiPetagiav
!or/., 1ot. ii., ed. Marcus Dods, tr. Peter lolmes ,Ldinburgh: 1. & 1. Clark, 184,, p. 25.
13
Augustine, A 1reatise on the Merits and lorgieness o Sins,` I: 34, 1be !or/. of .vretiv. .vgv.tive, 1ot.
1: 1be .vtiPetagiav !or/., rot. i., ed. Marcus Dods, 1r. Peter lolmes ,Ldinburgh: 1. & 1. Clark, 182,, p.
35.

7
baptism. le portrayed it as a work o a person beore God rather than the work o God in the
conert., As a result, Augustine was emphatic on the necessity o baptism. Apostolic tradition, by
which the Churches o Christ maintain it to be an inherent principle, that without baptism . . . it is
impossible or any man to attain to salation and eerlasting lie.`
14

1homas Aquinas ,c. C.L. 1225-124,, closer to Zwingli`s day, argued in his vvva 1beotogica
that baptism is necessary or salation:
Men are bound to that without which they cannot obtain salation. Now it is
maniest that no one can obtain salation but through Christ. . . . But or this end is
baptism conerred on a man, that being regenerated thereby, he may be incorporated
in Christ. . . . Consequently it is maniest that all are bound to be baptized: and that
without Baptism there is no salation or men.
15


le, too, clariies that baptism is a git o God and the point in time in which God coners his grace
upon the conert.
16
Baptism opens the gates o the heaenly kingdom to the baptized in so ar as it
incorporates them in the Passion o Christ, by applying its power to man.`
1

Martin Luther ,C.L. 1483-1546,, the ather o the Protestant Reormation, is oten credited
with the theology o aith only.` 1rue enough, he belieed and taught that aith, apart rom works,
justiies a person. loweer, his iew o aith was not antithetical to sacrament as a ehicle through
which God`s grace was bestowed. 1his is particularly true o baptism. \hile he diered with the
Catholic Church on what he considered some excesses in their iew, he still ollowed the historic
position o Christianity in regard to baptism. In his small catechism, Luther answers the question,

14
bia. Martyrs were the only exception to this rule.
15
1homas Aquinas, vvva 1beotogica, ol 2., tr. lathers o the Lnglish Dominican Proince ,New \ork:
Benzieger Brothers, 194-1948,, 68:1, p. 2398.
16
bia. 68:1, p. 2399.
1
bia. 69:, pp. 2413-14.

8
\hat gits or beneits does Baptism bestow` 1o this he said, It eects orgieness o sins.`
18
Or
again, 1hrough Baptism he is bathed in the blood o Christ and is cleansed rom sins.`
19
In his
large catechism, Luther summarizes his answer to \hat Baptism promises and brings` with these
words: Victory oer death and the deil, orgieness o sin, God`s grace, the entire Christ, and the
loly Spirit with his gits. In short, the blessings o Baptism are so boundless that i timid nature
considers them, it may well doubt whether they could all be true.`
20
Now Luther knows that there is
no magical power in the water or een the act itsel.
21
1he word o God testiies to a promise that he
trusts God will keep. 1herein lies the power o baptism.
1hese citations leae little doubt about the church`s traditional, een unequiocal, belie
about baptism. ,1, It was connected with the orgieness o sins. ,2, It was the point in time that a
conert contacted God`s grace. \et, ,3, it was God`s work, not any person`s, which caused God`s
grace to be applied to the sinner.
III. Zwingli`s View o Baptism
It would be unair to suggest that the Church`s iew o baptism had been absolutely
monolithic. It would be air to say, howeer, that it was thoroughly sacramental - baptism had the
power to remit sins. Zwingli`s ideas completely altered this iew o baptism. In his typical bellicose
style he says, 1hey are wrong, thereore, by the whole width o heaen who think that sacraments

18
Martin Luther, 1he Small Catechism,` in 1be oo/ of Covcora, tr. And ed. 1heodore 1appert et at.
,Philadelphia: lortress Press, 1959,, p. 340.
19
Martin Luther, Kleine Antword au lerzog Georgen,` !er/e, \eimar Ldition, Vol. 38, p. 14, cited in
!bat vtber a,.: .v .vtbotog,, ed. Lwald M. Plass ,St. Louis: Concordia, 1959,, I: 46.
20
Luther, 1he Large Catechism,` IV: 41-42, in 1be oo/ of Covcora, tr. and ed. 1heodore 1appert et.
at.,Philadelphia: lortress Press, 1959,, pp. 441-442.
21
Luther, 1he Babylonian Captiity o the Church,` tr. A. 1. \. Steinhauser et. at. 1bree 1reati.e.,
,Philadelphia: lortress Press, 1960,, pp. 188-189.

9
hae any cleansing power.`
22
Again, 1his was a ain inention, as i, orsooth, when a man is wet
with the water something happens in him which he could not possibly hae known unless water had
been poured oer him at the same time!`
23
It is clearly riolous to teach that . . . the sacraments
can remit sins or coner blessings.`
24
\ater-baptism cannot contribute in any way to the washing
away o sin.`
25

low did Zwingli come to such a radically dierent understanding o Baptism In short,
Zwingli was so committed to the soereignty o God that he was orced to redeine baptism. le
works under three basic presuppositions: ,1, \e can only be saed by grace, apart rom anything we
do. In a sense, Zwingli was unair to his predecessors here ,particularly Augustine and Luther,. 1he
biblical and historical consensus did not argue that the act o baptism saes, but that God saes a
person contemporaneously with the acts o baptism. ,2, 1o limit salation to any gien act would
constrict God in such a way that soereignty will not permit. ,3, Physical actions can hae no
bearing on spiritual transormation.
Because o Zwingli`s rejection o the historic iew o baptism, he had to gie it a dierent
deinition. 1his redeining process took years and it ricocheted him between two groups. As lurcha
and Pipkin note: Zwingli`s doctrine o baptism was orged against two ronts: the ecclesiastical
displacement o baptism by the Anabaptist innoation and the sacramental objectiism o Roman
Catholic and Lutheran practice.`
26


22
luldrych Zwingli, Covvevtar, ov 1rve ava at.e Retigiov, ed. Samuel Macauley Jackson ,Durham: Labyrinth
Press, reprint 1981,, p. 182.
23
bia.
24
luldrych Zwingli, An Lxposition o aith,` Zrivgti ava vttivger, p. 248.
25
luldrych Zwingli, On Baptism,` Zrivgti ava vttivger, p. 153.
26
L. J. lurcha & \. Pipkin ,eds.,, Probet, Pa.tor, Prote.tavt: 1be !or/ of vtar,cb Zrivgti .fter ire vvarea
Year., ,Allison Park, Pennsylania: Pickwick Publications, 1984,, p. 2. See also \. P. Stephens, 1be 1beotog, of

10
A. Zwingli`s Lmerging Deinition o Baptism
1. Assurance o aith. Between 1523-1524 Zwingli`s main emphasis on baptism was that it
proided assurance or a person`s aith. 1hat is, these sacraments sered to bolster, een increase
one`s aith. 1his was primarily or those with weak aith and eeble minds. In a letter to 1homas
\ittenbach, dated June 15, 1523 he said:
I someone is so strong that his assurance and certainty are independent o time,
place, person and such like, then he has no need or sprinkling with water, but i he
is a little stupid or thick-headed he needs some demonstration, so then that kind o
belieer is baptized because he is cleansed inwardly by aith in the same way as he is
outwardly by water.
2

Now, i baptism is to strengthen one`s aith, then it would be unnecessary to baptize inants. 1hat is
exactly what Zwingli argued in this early period. le will soon take an about ace and deend inant
baptism ,mostly as a reaction against the Anabaptists,. le will also repudiate this whole notion o
baptism as an assurance o aith in March o 1525 in his Commentary on 1rue and lalse
Religion.`
28

2. A pledge o allegiance. Zwingli once again needed a whole new deinition o baptism or
the old one could no longer support his theological or political agenda. 1his time he used the Latin
deinition o .acravevtvv, which was earlier used to signiy an initiatory oath o allegiance sworn by

vtar,cb Zrivgti, ,Oxord: Clarendon Press, 1986,, p. 215: It was primarily because o the controersy with
Anabaptists that Zwingli has to deelop his doctrine o baptism.`
2
luldrych Zwingli, art, !ritivg., ed. Samuel Macauley Jackson, ,Durham: Labyrinth Press, reprint 198,, p.
95.
28
luldrych Zwingli, Commentary on 1rue and lalse Religion,` p. 19.

11
inductees o the Roman army.
29
\ith this deinition baptism came to mean an oath o allegiance
sworn to the church to lie a lie as a soldier o the true king. Suddenly the emphasis o baptism
shited rom what God promised to do or us to what we promise to do or God. As he says,
Baptism is an initiatory sign or pledge initiating us to a lielong mortiication o the lesh and
engaging or pledging us like the soldier at his enlistment.`
30
Or again, lence the meaning o the
words baptizing them` is this: with this external sign you are to dedicate and pledge them to the
name o the lather, the Son and the loly Ghost.`
31

3. A sign o Belonging. 1his second deinition o baptism became insuicient in and o
itsel or two reasons. lirst, Zwingli increasingly engaged the Anabaptists on the issue o inant
baptism. Obiously babies can not pledge idelity to Christ. 1hus an additional deinition is need to
include inants as well as adults. Second, Zwingli has been deeloping an idea that there is really only
one coenant o grace stemming rom Abraham, not two coenants stemming rom Moses and
Jesus.
32
1hus all o God`s people as saed by grace through aith in likeness to Abraham. 1his has
important ramiications or his iew o sacraments in general and baptism in particular.
I we only hae one coenant, then circumcision and baptism are unctionally identical ,c.
Colossians 2:11-14,. 1hus, i inants o Israelites were circumcised, how much more should the
inants o Christians be baptized As Zwingli says, lor how is the testament and coenant the same
i our children are not equally with those |o the Jews| o the church and people o God Is Christ

29
bia., pp. 180-81, le oers three deinitions o the word: ,1, Pledge which litigants deposited at some altar,
,2, an oath, ,3, an initiatory military promise o aithulness. So I am brought to see that a sacrament is
nothing else than an initiatory ceremony or a pledging.`
30
Zwingli, On Baptism,` p. 14.
31
bia., p. 145.
32
luldrych Zwingli, Notes on Reuting Baptist 1ricks,` in etectea !or/., ed. Samuel Macauley Jackson,
,Philadelphia: Uniersity o Pennsylania Press, 1901,, p. 228-236.

12
less kind to us than to the lebrews God orbid!`
33
lurthermore, lebrew children were saed prior
to haing aith in \ahweh. 1hey were saed because o their election, not because o their aith.
Likewise, children o Christians are saed by election prior to aith.
34
Moreoer, een i they are not
elect, they should, nonetheless be baptized. Ater all, Lsau was circumcised een though he was not
elect -- it is not ours to judge.
35
1hus, baptism is a sign o belonging to the church, a badge, so to
speak. 1his sign is just as appropriate or inants as it is or adults.
B. Zwingli and the Baptismal 1exts
Zwingli`s exegesis o biblical texts on baptism diered rom all his predecessors throughout
the history o the church.
36
1his is not normally a good thing. I no one has eer taken a gien
position it is usually because it is indeensible. Zwingli was aware o how precarious it is to stand
alone. 1hereore he went to great lengths to justiy himsel and deend his iews on baptism. le
makes three general arguments.
lirst, Christian baptism is the same as the baptism o John the Baptist. Much o Zwingli`s
argument hinges on one simple idea: 1here are not two coenants o the Old and New 1estaments
,i.e. Moses and Jesus,. Rather, there is only one coenant, that o Abraham, which is the coenant o
grace. I this is true then there truly is only one baptism, whether we call it o John or o Christ, or
there is one aith, one baptism,` ,Lphesians 4:5,.`
3
le argues that both were or orgieness o sins
symbolically but eected nothing in actuality. Both called or repentance, both were initiatory rites,

33
bia., p. 236.
34
bia., p. 242.
35
bia., p. 24
36
1his sounds like an exaggeration, but it is not. Karl Barth once said concerning Zwingli`s understanding o
Baptism: Among his contemporaries he was a lonely igure` Cbvrcb Dogvatic., ,Ldinburgh: 1 & 1 Clark,
195-,, IV,4, 128.
3
Zwingli, Covvevtar,, p. 190.

13
etc.
38
One might argue that John himsel drew a distinction between them saying, I baptize you
with water or repentance. But ater me will come one who is more powerul than I, whose sandals I
am not it to carry. le will baptize you with the loly Spirit and with ire` ,Matthew 3:11,. Zwingli
categorically denies any dierence between them, howeer, saying, 1here was no dierence
between the baptism o John and that o Christ, as ar as the nature, eect, and purpose are
concerned.`
39
\hy then did John distinguish between them According to Zwingli, John was not
comparing his water baptism to Jesus` water baptism. Rather he was comparing his ,and Jesus`,
water baptism to a separate Spirit baptism that only Jesus could supply. Part o his argument was
that the Apostles were baptized by John but nowhere does the book o Acts state that they were
rebaptized, as i John`s Baptism was no longer suicient. Zwingli recognizes the problem this
creates with Acts 19:1-10.
But this iew seems to be opposed by what is written in Acts 19:1-10 and Matthew
28:19. lor this passage o Acts plainly bears witness that twele men were baptized
oer again in the name o Jesus, who yet had been preiously baptized with the
baptism o John. But i the baptism o John and that o Christ are the same, there
was no need o their being baptized with the baptism o Christ. \e must, thereore,
consider the character o both baptisms.
40


1o sole this dilemma, Zwingli will hae to make a second proposal about baptism.
Second, there are dierent types o baptism in the New 1estament. Clearly the baptism o
John was in some way insuicient in Acts 19. But Zwingli can no longer concede that the orm was
inalid because he had united John and Jesus` baptism. 1hus, according to Zwingli, Luke must be
speaking about something other than water baptism.

38
bia., p. 189.
39
bia., p. 192.
40
bia.

14
In that regard, Zwingli began to teach that there were, in act, our dierent baptisms taught
in the New 1estament.
41
1he irst is baptism in water through which we pledge indiidually to the
Christian lie ,John 3:23,. It is in this sense that baptism unctions in the church. Second, there is an
inward enlightenment which is called the baptism o the loly Spirit ,Acts 1:5,. Spirit baptism is truly
rom Jesus and is entirely separate rom the rite o water. 1hird, external baptism can represent an
internal aith and thus be spoken o as the whole conersion experience by synecdoche ,1 Peter
3:21,. It is only by synecdoche that baptism could be connected with salation in biblical texts.
42

1his is an important key or Zwingli that will be taken up more ully in a moment. lourth, teaching
o salation is called baptism ,Acts 19:4,. le says concerning this text,
Notice how he here uses baptism` or teaching,` as does also Christ, Matthew
21:25, when he asks the Jews, 1he baptism o John, was it rom man or rom
God` lere it is maniest that Christ is not speaking o baptism o water, or that is
decidedly o the earth, whereas the teaching had come down rom heaen.
43


1his is Zwingli`s way out` o Acts 19:4. But here he stands on some pretty slippery exegetical
grounds. It would appear that without his presuppositions there is no way one would come to that
conclusion on textual grounds alone.
44


41
Zwingli, Ov ati.v, p. 133-34.
42
lor example, when dealing with Romans 6:1-3 he says, I Christ redeems us rom all sin, and i the grace o
God is maniested most clearly where the sin is greatest, we will continue in sin. 1hereore Paul is not
speaking about external baptism, but internal. lor immediately ater it reads: knowing this, that our old man
is cruciied with him, that the body o sin might be destroyed, that henceorth we should not sere sin,` etc.
1hese words make it quite plain that he is not speaking about external baptism, but internal, that is, true
baptism.` |Zwingli, Ov ati.v, p. 151|. \ater baptism, thereore, unctions as an earthly illustration o a
spiritual reality.
43
Zwingli, Covvevtar,, pp. 194-95. See also Ov ati.v, p. 11, It ollows, then, that Paul is not asking them
about their external baptism but about their instruction and aith.`
44
lurcha and Pipkin, O. Cit., p. 81, agree: At points ,in arguing or inant baptism, he appears to be skating
on pretty thin exegetical ice, as in his surmise that John baptized inants in the Jordan, or his claim that the
disciples o John who sought rebaptism ,Act 19, had only receied a baptism o teaching` not o water.`

15
1hird, understanding synecdoche is the solution to problematic texts. Acts 19 was not the
only problematic text or Zwingli. 1here was Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Romans 6:3, 1 Peter 3:21,
among others. Most o these could be simply dismissed through the igure o speech called
synecdoche. 1his is when a part is spoken o or the whole. lor example, Israel ,literally the man
named Jacob,, stands or the whole nation. \hat Zwingli asserted was that baptism stood or the
whole process o conersion while, in act, the person was saed` long beore they eer got wet.
le argued that God elects who will be saed or damned.
45
1he saed are then granted aith by the
loly Spirit. 1he belieer, who was saed by election beore eer being born, is then baptized as a
symbol and a pledge. 1hus, the Bible is not to be taken literally when it says baptism saes a
person.
46

C. Reasons or lis Position
\hy would Zwingli take such an unprecedented stand on Baptism Clearly he was drien to
it by his iew o the soereignty o God. It was his contention that God`s soereignty was absolute
een to the point that God alone decided, without human response or input, who would be saed
and who would be damned. Stephens puts it this way:
lundamental elements in Zwingli`s theology make him deny that baptism is a means
o grace or that it is necessary to salation. A contrary position would or him deny
the soereignty o God, the centrality o Christ and the reedom o the Spirit. . . .
Zwingli`s whole understanding o God and o salation is bound up in his doctrine
o baptism, as well as his understanding o man, which would not allow that the soul
could be aected by what is bodily.
4


45
"1hus election is attributed to those only who are to be blessed, but those who are to be damned are not
said to be elected, though the Diine \ill makes a disposition with regard to them also, but le rejects, expels
and repudiates them, that they may become examples o lis righteousness` luldrych Zwingli, Ov Proriaevce
ava Otber ..a,., ,Durham, NC: Labyrinth Press, 1922,, p. 186.
46
bia., p. 195
4
Stephens, O. Cit., p. 214.

16
In this regard, Zwingli made three theological commitments that would shape his theology o
baptism.
lirst, ovt, tbe btooa of Cbri.t cav ta/e ara, .iv.. 1here is nothing a person can do to contribute
in any way to his or her own salation. It is completely and unquestionably a git o God alone.
1hus, there are no sacraments that can be done by a human being that would in any way enable that
person to participate in eicacious saliic acts. Zwingli says, I we were to trust in the creature, the
creature would hae to be the Creator. I we were to trust in the sacraments, the sacraments would
hae to be God. Not the Lucharist only but baptism and the laying on o hands would be God.`
48

Or again, But i God himsel did not gie to created things the power which we ascribe to them, it
is clearly riolous to teach that the saints or the sacraments can remit sins or coner blessings. lor
who can orgie sins sae God alone`
49

Second, Coa vv.t be free to act rbeverer ava borerer be cboo.e.. I an indiidual participates with
God in the saing act, then their actions would control God`s as to the time o salation. 1o this
extent, God would not be soereign in that ,a, he would hae to wait on humans to respond to his
call, and ,b, a non-elect person might get the bright idea o being baptized and orcing God`s hand
to remit grace. lor in this way,` says Zwingli, the Liberty o the diine Spirit which distributes
itsel to indiiduals as it will, that is, to whom it will, when it will, where it will, would be bound.`
50

1his was a major contention or Zwingli against the Anabaptists. ,Although it seems
paradoxical that one would need to deend the soereignty o God!, le railed against them or
assaulting God`s soereignty.

48
luldrych Zwingli, An Lxposition o laith,` Zrivgti ava vttivger, in 1he Library o Christian Classics,` Vol.
24, Ldited by G. \. Bromiley, ,Philadelphia: \estminster Press, 1953,, p. 24.
49
bia., p. 248
50
Zwingli, Covvevtar,, p. 183.

17
1hey conceal justiication by works, and though they admit remission o sins
through Christ here, they clearly deny it elsewhere. lor they who trust in works make
Christ o no eect. lor i justiication is by the works o the law, Christ has died in
ain . . . lor when they say that remitted are the sins o all who wish to walk in the
resurrection o Christ and to be buried with him in death, they eleate ree will, and
next to that justiication by works. or if it i. iv ovr cboice or orer to rat/ iv tbe
re.vrrectiov of Cbri.t, or to be bvriea ritb biv iv aeatb, it i. oev for av,ove to be a Cbri.tiav ava
a vav of erfect ecettevce.` ,Italics added,.
51


lis apology against the Anabaptists went beyond mere words. lurcha and Pipkin describe the
1avfregi.ter o each parish in Zurich.
52
1his deice was used to record the inant baptism o citizens.
Anyone not submitting their babies to be baptized would be expelled. Moreoer, there was a death
penalty or rebaptising. Obiously, Zwingli was doing more than theologizing. lor him, this
reormation was an execution o the isible kingdom o God on earth.
1hird, .atratiov i. aeevaevt only vov ove`. etectiov. Strictly speaking, Zwingli did not beliee in
aith only.` le belieed in election only.` laith was not what saed a person, rather it was the
election that preceded aith. So when Paul says, lor it is by grace you hae been saed, through
aith,` it, like baptism, is merely synecdoche.
53
le goes so ar as to say that a person can be saed
without aith so long as they are elect by God: 1he elect were chosen beore they were conceied,
they are at once then sons o God, een i they died beore they beliee or are called to aith.`
54

1hus the proper order o salation is election, aith, and works. \e are wrong to attribute salation
to aith aboe election and een more misguided to attribute it to works aboe aith.
lurthermore, this aith we hae in Christ is not what we deelop. It is what God imparts to
us through his Spirit, according to Zwingli. le relies heaily on John 6:44, No one can come to me

51
luldrych Zwingli, Reutation o Baptist 1ricks` in |tricb Zrivgti: etectea !or/., tr. Samuel Macauley
Jackson, ,Philadelphia: Uniersity o Pennsylania Press, 1901,, pp. 19-180.
52
lurcha and Pipkin, O. Cit., 82.
53
Zwingli, Refvtatiov, p. 239.

18
unless the lather who sent me draws him.` 1hus, all is rom God: election, aith and een
obedience. Zwingli says, \hen Paul writes to the Romans ,10:1, that aith comes rom hearing
|the \ord| he attributes in the same way to the nearer cause that is better known to us what belongs
only to the Spirit, not to external preaching, as the sacramentarians are apt to contend.`
55
\ell, i all
our good deeds are o God, what about our sin \es,` says Zwingli, that too is rom God. 1he
sum total o the whole matter is that all things which hae to do with man, either as to his body or
as to his soul, are so completely rom God as their only real cause, that not een the work o sin is
rom any one else than God, though it is not sin to lim, as I said early in this discussion.`
56
\ith
Zwingli`s particular brand o God`s soereignty, it is not diicult to see why he balked at the idea o
baptism haing any saliic eicacy.
All this raises an interesting question. Zwingli was not the irst theologian to hae a strong
iew o the soereignty o God. Augustine and Luther are two others that come immediately to
mind, both o whom touched Zwingli deeply. \et neither o these, nor any other theologian or that
matter, sensed a tension like Zwingli between soereignty and sacraments. 1hus, one concludes that
there was something else in Zwingli`s equation other than his iew o God.
1hat something else` is his incipient philosophic dualism. Simply put, Zwingli belieed that
the lesh was eil, the spirit was good, and ne`er the twain shall meet.` le was not a complete
dualist in the Manichaean sense. Neertheless, based on passages such as John 6:3 and Galatians
5:1, he saw a yawning chasm between the spirit and the lesh. As long as we are in the lesh, we

54
bia., p. 241. Or again, 1hose who hae been elected and do not come to a knowledge o aith, like inants,
attain eerlasting happiness none the less` Zwingli, Proriaevce, p. 199.
55
Zwingli, Proriaevce, p. 203.
56
bia. p. 203-204. le has earlier gien an elaborate deense o his notion that God can cause us to sin but it is
not sin or himsel: ,1, le is the author o the law but not under the law. ,2, Men perorm these acts with eil
moties but God`s motie is to gloriy himsel. In short, God instigated the killing, but le instigates the
judge just as much to sacriice the slayer to justice` pp. 182-183.

19
are neer without sin. lor the lesh and the spirit are contrary the one to the other, so that we do
not do the things which in the spirit we would do. . . . All who are in the lesh are sinul.`
5
1his is
because the lesh is always eil. As he says, 1he lesh is mire, hence whateer comes rom man is
stained.`
58
Or again,
1he body inclines to its natie clay, and ollows the nature o the lesh. 1hus i you
wish to compare man with something, he would seem like nothing so much as a
lump o muddy earth plunged into a ery clear, pure brook. 1he stream which had
lowed with limpid waters now becomes clouded and we cannot een hope or the
ormer clearness as long as the lump o earth stays immersed in it.
59


On the other hand, the spirit is always good. le goes so ar as to say that the Spirit deries rom
God while the lesh is made rom earth.
1he mind yearns or light, purity and goodness, inasmuch as its nature is light, its
substance pure and deoted to the right, seeing that it deries its origin rom the
Godhead, the body inclines to idleness, laziness, darkness and dullness, and it is lazy
and indolent by nature, and without reason and intelligence, seeing that it consists o
earth.
60


1he Spirit is receptie or holy things, but the lesh resists, as I hae said . . . lor i the lesh laid
aside its dullness and rebelliousness at the coming o the spirit, or i the spirit upon union with the
lesh sank to its leel, man would be either an angel or a brute.`
61
lor what diers more widely
rom the clearness and light o the mind and intelligence than the dull inactiity o the earth and the
body`
62


5
Zwingli, Ov ati.v, p. 140
58
Zwingli, Ov Proriaevce, p. 13.
59
bia., p. 161. 1hat there is nothing good in our perishable lesh` is a act that een a blind man can see`
,Covvevtar,, p. 81,.
60
bia., p. 162. le goes on to say that the soul is inspired, ostered, ruled, and ed by God, consisting o the
Spirit o God,` and lowing orth rom the Godhead itsel` ,p. 161,. 1he mind loes truth and, thereore,
worships the Deity, rom whose substance it deries its kinship` ,p. 161,.
61
bia., p. 11.
62
bia., p. 160.

20
Gien this incipient dualism, it is no wonder Zwingli diorced salation rom baptism. Ater
all, baptism was earthly, salation was heaenly. 1hereore, No material thing can purge the
conscience.`
63
Again, It is clear and indisputable that no external element or action can puriy the
soul.`
64
1hus he says o Baptism, \ater-baptism cannot contribute in any way to the washing away
o sin.`
65
O the Lucharist he says, It is wrong or us to be so dull as to attribute to a material thing
what belongs to God alone, and to turn the creator into the creature and the creature into
Creator.`
66

It becomes clear that Zwingli`s iew on baptism stems rom two streams. 1he irst is his
theological commitment to the ultimate soereignty o God. 1he second is his incipient
philosophical dualism. 1he irst alone is insuicient to explain his radical diorce o the sacraments
rom salation.
IV. Lcclesiastical Ramiications o Zwingli`s 1heological Innoation
Obiously Zwingli`s iew o baptism is theologically important. In act, among those who
still cling to the bible as God`s inspired word, it continues to be a serious debate.
6
loweer,
theology is not the only leel at which Zwingli`s position is signiicant. Christianity is a social entity,
not merely a spiritual one. As such, her doctrines hae a way o impacting sociology - the way

63
Zwingli, Ov ati.v, p. 154. le uses lebrews 9:9-10 as biblical proo that no external thing can hae
anything to do with our cleansing beore God ,p. 130,.
64
bia., p. 156.
65
bia., p. 153.
66
Zwingli, Ov Proriaevce, p. 192.
6
L.g. John Stott, 1he Langelical Doctrine o Baptism,` Cbvrcbvav 112,1 ,1998,: 4-49. And the response,
1homas larey, Baptism as a Means o Grace: A Response to John Stott`s 1he Langelical Doctrine o
Baptism,`` Cbvrcbvav 113,2 ,1999,: 103-112. Lxamples such as this could be multiplied by the hundreds i
not thousands.

21
groups orm, act, and think about themseles. At this leel, Zwingli`s baptismal iews hae at least
three important social ,or ecclesiastical, implications.
A. A Shit rom Sacrament to Cognition
Lery religious adherent needs some means o measuring their aithulness.` 1here must be
some standard by which a person can say, \es I am a good Christian` or I am not quite where I
should be.` listorically the sacraments unctioned in such a capacity ,among other things, o
course,. 1hey were clear markers o one`s idelity. Zwingli took that away. Something else had to
replace it. Solution: Adherence to doctrine. Protestants in general, Zwingli in particular, preached
particular tenets o the aith that the truly aithul accepted, conessed and then taught to others.
1his shit rom a sacramentally based spirituality to a cognitiely based spirituality is not unlike what
happened in Judaism ater the destruction o lerod`s temple in 0 A.D. 1he sacriicial and
ceremonial systems were replaced with an educational system. Both Judaism and Christianity had a
acelit when this happened. \hat it meant to practice religion and how that was done was radically
changed. 1he aith` o aith only` was no longer a lie lied but a doctrine accepted.
68

B. A Shit rom Community to Indiidualism
1he sacraments were practiced in community. \hile that can be said or teaching as well, it
is not a necessity. As a result o this shit rom sacrament to education, Christianity also shited rom
community to indiidualism. Granted, there was also a good deal o indiidualism in the Catholic
church, particularly among the Monks. Granted, there was a good bit o community among the
Protestants. Granted, Zwingli was not the only one responsible or this shit. Neertheless, he
played a signiicant role in this massie shit. Among Langelicals, spirituality is thought o in terms
o priate prayer, indiidual bible study, and personal aith rather than corporate participation in
sacraments and the church`s liturgy. Certainly there are some positie things about this. \et there are

68
1his concept deseres a discussion in and o itsel that or obious space limitations it will not receie here.

22
also some grae dangers in the rampant indiidualism o modern Protestantism as an outgrowth o
this shit ,among other things, rom sacraments to cognition.
C. A Shit rom Coenant to latalism
1he historic position o Judaism ,including the Apostles o the New 1estament, on salation
was the idea o coenant. God made agreements with humans. 1here were obligations or God`s
people to keep. 1here were rights as well as responsibilities, consequences as well as rewards. 1his is,
in no way, a denial o God`s soereignty. But it is an admission o ,wo,mens` dignity. \e were
inited to participate with God and treated as capable o doing so.
Zwingli`s radical iews o election ,een to the point o God orcing us to sin,, remoes
rom humanity all rights, responsibilities, and ,I dare say,, dignity. \e do not make choices, we do
not reely oer worship, we do not een oluntarily loe God. 1his is an unortunate and unbiblical
iew o humanity. It is a degrading and negatie anthropology. Indeed, Zwingli desires to exalt God
as the ultimate soereign. Unortunately, howeer, he portrays a God who is manipulatie and either
unwilling or unable to lay aside his own soereignty in order to grant humans enough ree-will to
choose to loe him.
By remoing baptism rom salation, Zwingli also remoes its greatest glory - we hae
been gien the ultimate honor o choosing to loe the creator and participate with him in an eternal
relationship. 1hat God becomes ulnerable to our choices does not diminish his dignity or power
but exponentially increases his beauty and compassion.

23
BIBLIOGRAPHY OI SOURCLS CONSUL1LD


Aland, Kurt. ovr Reforver.: vtber .fetavcbibov Catriv Zrivgti. Augsburg Publishing louse. 199.

Augustine. A 1reatise on the Merits and lorgieness o Sins,` I: 34. In 1be !or/. of .vretiv.
.vgv.tive, 1ot. 1: 1be .vtiPetagiav !or/., rot. i., ed. Marcus Dods, 1r. Peter lolmes.
Ldinburgh: 1.& 1. Clark, 182.

Augustine. On the Soul and Its Origin,` II: 13. In 1be !or/. of .vretiv. .vgv.tive, 1ot. `: 1be
.vtiPetagiav !or/., 1ot. ii., ed. Marcus Dods, tr. Peter lolmes. Ldinburgh: 1. & 1. Clark,
184.

Aquinas, 1homas. vvva 1beotogica, ol 2., tr. lathers o the Lnglish Dominican Proince. New
\ork: Benzieger Brothers, 194-1948.

Barth, Karl. Cbvrcb Dogvatic., tr. G. \. Bromiley. Ldinburgh: 1 & 1 Clark, 195-.

Bromiley, G.\., ed. Zwinizli and Bulliner. Library o Christian Classics. Philadelphia:
\estminster Press, 1953.

Cottrell, Jack. "1he Biblical Consensus: listorical Backgrounds to Reormed 1heology." In ati.v
ava tbe Revi..iov of iv: .v i.toricat Per.ectire, pp. 1-38. Ldited by Daid lletcher.
Joplin, MO: College Press, 1990.

_______________. "Baptism According to the Reormed 1radition." In ati.v ava tbe
Revi..iov of iv.: .v i.toricat Per.ectire, pp. 39-82. Ldited by Daid lletcher. Joplin, MO:
College Press, 1990.

Cross, l. L. ,ed.,. "Ulrich Zwingli." Oxord Dictionary o the Christian Church. ,194, : 1514.

Cross, Richard. .ttio.i. in the Christology o Zwingli," ]ovrvat of 1beotogicat tvaie. 1,1 ,Apr 1996,:
105-122.

Cyril o Jerusalem. Procatechesis |Prologue|,` tr. Ldward l. Giord. In ^iceve ava Po.t^iceve
atber., ed. Philip Scha and lenry \ace. Grand Rapids: Lerdmans reprint, 198.

lurcha, L. J. & Pipkin, \. ,Lds.,. Probet, Pa.tor, Prote.tavt: 1be !or/ of vtar,cb Zrivgti .fter ire
vvarea Year.. Allison Park PN: Pickwick Publications, 1984.

Gbler, Ulrich. vtar,cb Zrivgti: i. ife ava !or/. Philadelphia: lortress, 1986.



George, 1imothy. "1he Presuppositions o Zwingli's Baptismal 1heology." In Probet, Pa.tor,
Prote.tavt: 1be !or/ of vtar,cb Zrivgti .fter ire vvarea Year., pp. 1-8. Ldited by L. J.
lurcha and \. Pipkin. Allison Park: Pennsylania: Pickwick Publications, 1984.


24
Gregory o Nyssa. On the Baptism o Christ,` tr. l. A. \ilson. In ^iceve ava Po.t^iceve atber., ed.
Philip Scha and lenry \ace. Grand Rapids: Lerdmans reprint, 198.

larey, 1homas. Baptism as a Means o Grace: A Response to John Stott`s 1he Langelical
Doctrine o Baptism,`` Cbvrcbvav 113,2 ,1999,: 103-112.

linke, \. J. 1be ativ !or/. of vtareicb Zrivgti. Philadelphia: leidelberg Press, 1922.

Jackson, Samuel Macauley. luldreich Zwingli: 1he Reormer o German Switzerland. New \ork:
G.P. Putnam's Sons, 192.

Jackson, Samuel Macauley, ,Ld.,. 1be ativ !or/. of vtareicb Zrivgti. 3 Vols. New \ork: G.P.
Putnam's Sons, 1912-1929.

______________. ,Ld.,. |tricb Zrivgti: etectea !or/.. Philadelphia: Uni. Pennsylania Press, 1901.

Locher, Gottried \. Zrivgti. 1bovgbt: ^er Per.ectire.. Leiden: L. J. Brill, 1981.

Luther, Martin. 1he Babylonian Captiity o the Church,` tr. A. 1. \. Steinhauser et. at. In 1bree
1reati.e.. Philadelphia: lortress Press, 1960.

_______________. Kleine Antword au lerzog Georgen.` In !er/e, \eimar Ldition, Vol. 38, p.
14, cited in !bat vtber a,.: .v .vtbotog,, ed. Lwald M. Plass. St. Louis: Concordia,
1959.

_______________. 1he Large Catechism,` IV: 41-42. In 1be oo/ of Covcora, tr. And ed. 1heodore
1apper et. at. Philadelphia: lortress Press, 1959.

_______________. 1he Small Catechism.` In 1be oo/ of Covcora, tr. And ed. 1heodore 1appert et
at. Philadelphia: lortress Press, 1959.

Martyr, Justin. 1he lirst Apology o Justin,` 61, tr. Dods and Reith. In 1be .vte^iceve atber., ea.
.teavaer Robert. ava ]ave. Dovata.ov. Grand Rapids: Lerdmans reprint, 199.

Noll, Mark A. ,Ld.,. Covfe..iov ava Catecbi.v. of tbe Reforvatiov. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1991.
Potter, G. R. vtar,cb Zrivgti. N\: St. Martin's Press, 19.

Steinmetz, Daid. "1he Baptism o John and the Baptism o Jesus in luldrych Zwingli, Balthasar
lubmaier and Late Medieal 1heology." In Covtivvit, ava ai.covtivvit, iv Cbvrcb i.tor,: ..a,.
Pre.evtea to Ceorge vvt.tov !ittiav. ov tbe Occa.iov of bi. :tb irtbaa,, pp. 169-191. Ldited by
l.l. Church and 1imothy George. Leiden: L. J. Brill, 199.

Stephens, \. P. 1be 1beotog, of vtar,cb Zrivgti. Oxord: Clarendon Press, 1986.

Stott, John. 1he Langelical Doctrine o Baptism.` Cbvrcbvav 112,1 ,1998,: 4-49.

1ertullian. On Baptism,` tr. S. 1helwell. In 1be .vte^iceve atber., ed. Alexander Roberts and
James Donaldson. Grand Rapids: Lerdmans reprint, 198.

25

Zwingli luldrych. Covvevtar, ov 1rve ava at.e Retigiov. Jackson, Samuel M., ed. Durham:
Labyrinth Press, 1981, reprint o 1929.

_______________. art, !ritivg.. Jackson, Samuel M., ed. Durham: Labyrinth Press, 198,
reprint o 1912.

_______________. An Lxposition o laith.` In Zrivgti ava vttivger, in 1he Library o Christian
Classics, Vol 24, Ldited by G. \. Bromiley. Philadelphia: \estminster Press, 1953.

_______________. On Baptism.` In Zrivgti ava vttivger, in 1he Library o Christian Classics, Vol
24, Ldited by G. \. Bromiley. Philadelphia: \estminster Press, 1953.

_______________. Ov Proriaevce ava Otber !ritivg.. Jackson, Samuel M., ed. Durham: Labyrinth
Press, 1983, reprint o 1922.

_______________. Reforvatiov, Pa.torat ava vcbari.tic !ritivg. ,1r. L. J. lurcha,. Allison Park,
PN: Pickwick, 1984.

_______________. it, erev .rticte. ,1r. L. J. lurcha,. Allison Park, PN: Pickwick, 1984.



26
APPLNDIX A: Writings of Ulrich Zwingli Available in Lnglish

1510 Autumn 1he lable o the Ox. A Commentary on the Present Course o Aairs

1510 Autumn 1he labulous Poem o the Priest Zwingli Concerning an Ox and Many
Other Animals

1516 Spring 1he Labyrinth

1520 Summer Adice o one who desires with his whole heart that due consideration be
paid both to the dignity o the pope and to the peaceul deelopment o the
Christian religion.

1521 Zwingli's Preaching Against the Mercenary Serice o the Swiss

1522 April 16 Concerning Choice and Liberty Respecting lood

1522 April Letter to Lrasmus labricius Concerning the Proceedings o April -9, 1522,
o the Delegates sent to Zurich by the Bishop Constance

1522 May 16 \arning Against loreign Lords

1522 July 2 Petition o Certain Preachers o Switzerland to the Most Reerend lugo,
Bishop o Constance, 1hat le \ill Not Suer limsel to be Persuaded to
Make any Proclamation to the Injury o the Gospel, Nor Lndure Longer the
Scandal o larlotry, But Allow the Priests to Marry \ies or at least would
\ink at their Marriages.

1522 July 13 A lriendly Request and exhortation o some priests o the conederates that
the preaching o the loly Gospel be not hindered, and also that no oence
be taken i to aoid scandal the preachers were gien permission to marry

1522 Aug 22-3 Archeteles: Reply to the Bishop's Admonition

1522 Sept 6 O the Clarity and Certainty or Power o the \ord o God

1523 January 6 1heses

1523 January Acts o the lirst Zurich Disputation

1523 O the Upbringing and Lducation o \outh

1523 July Diine and luman Righteousness

1523 No Short Christian Instruction

1524 March 1he Shepherd

27

1524 Aug 20 Reply o luldreich Zwingli to Jermome Lmser, Deender o the Canon o
the Mass

1524 No Letter to Matthew Alber Concerning the Lord's Supper

1525 March Commentary on 1rue and lalse Religion

1525 May 2 O Baptism

1525 June 1he Preaching Oice

1525 August Subsidiary Lssay on the Lucharist

1526 leb 23 On the Lord's Supper

1526 Aug 15 Declaration o luldreich Zwingli regarding original sin

152 lebruary Lxposition o the Matter o the Lucharist

152 Reutation o the 1ricks o the Catabaptists

1530 July 3 An Account o the laith o luldreich Zwingli

1530 July 1 Reutation o John Lck to lis Imperial Majesty

1530 Aug 1 Reutation o John Lck to the Princes o Germany at Augsburg

1530 Aug 20 A Sermon on the Proidence o God, Dedicated to Philip o lesse

1531 July A Short and Clear Lxposition o the Christian laith