Martin Bucer: Reforming Church and Community

Martin Bucer (1491-1551) was one of the most important sixteenthcentury Reformers, who was leader of the Reformed churches in South Germany, and a tireless conciliator among divided Protestants. He was made Regius Professor of Divinity by Cranmer subsequent to his arrival in Cambridge in 1549. To mark the 5OOth anniversary of his birth, an international team of specialists on Bucer (several of them involved in the new critical edition of his works) highlight his contribution in thought and practice to building the community of the church - in Strasbourg, but also elsewhere in Europe, and in England, where he spent the last years of his life. The issues discussed emphasize Bucer's distinctiveness as a Reformer of the church and its ordered life, as well as raising matters of contemporary significance, such as church-state relations, ProtestantCatholic unity, and tensions between a church of true believers and a 'people's' church. No other work in English deals with these themes, and the book as a whole provides a much-needed critical survey of some of Bucer's major concerns.

Martin Bucer Reforming church and community

Martin Bucer Reforming church and community Edited by

D. F. Wright Senior Lecturer in Ecclesiastical History, University of Edinburgh

CAMBRIDGE

UNIVERSITY PRESS

Published by the Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 1RP 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA 10 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, Melbourne 3166, Australia © Cambridge University Press 1994 First published 1994 Printed in Great Britain at the University Press, Cambridge A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress cataloguing in publication data Martin Bucer: reforming church and community/edited by D. F. Wright. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references (pp. 176-82) and indexes. ISBN 0 521 39144 X (hardback) 1. Bucer, Martin, 1491-1551. I. Wright, David F. BR350.B93M358 1994 284\092^dc20 [B] 93-28910 CIP ISBN 0 521 39144 X hardback

VN

Contents

Notes on contributors List of abbreviations

page ix xii

Introduction 1

Martin Bucer and the Old Church

1 5

Peter Matheson

2 The relation between church and civil community in Bucer's reforming work

17

Martin Greschat

3

Bucer's influence on Calvin: church and community

32

Willem van 't Spijker

4

The church in Bucer's commentaries on the Epistle to the Ephesians

45

Peter Stephens

5

Church, communion and community in Bucer's commentary on the Gospel of John

61

Irena Backus

6

Eucharistic communion: impulses and directions in Martin Bucer's thought

72

Ian Hazlett

1

Martin Bucer and the ministry of the church

83

James Kittelson

8

Infant baptism and the Christian community in Bucer

95

David Wright

9

Bucer's ecclesiology in the colloquies with the Catholics, 154(M1

107

Cornelis Augustijn

vii

viii

Contents

10 The Strasbourg Kirchenpfleger and parish discipline: theory and practice

122

Jean Rott

11 Ecclesiological motifs behind the creation of the 'Christlichen Gemeinschaften'

129

Gottfried Hammann

12 Martin Bucer in England

144

Basil Hall

13 Martin Bucer and the Englishing of the Psalms: pseudonymity in the service of early English Protestant piety

161

Gerald Hobbs

Bibliography Biblical index Index of Bucer's works Index of modern authors General index

176 183 185 188 190

Notes on contributors

is shortly to retire from the chair of Church History at the Free University of Amsterdam. He has published numerous studies of the Reformation and the nineteenth-century Netherlands, with major concentration on Erasmus, Bucer and the Catholic-Protestant colloquies of 1538-41. A contributor to the Opera Omnia of both Erasmus and Bucer, he is also editing Calvin's correspondence for the new critical edition (Droz, Geneva, 1992-). He is a member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, and holds an honorary doctorate of the Reformed Academy in Debrecen, Hungary.

CORNELIS AUGUSTIJN

is titular Professor at the Institut d'histoire de la Reformation in the University of Geneva. A member of the editorial board for the new Opera Omnia of Calvin, she edited Bucer's commentary on John's Gospel in the Strasbourg Reformer's Opera Latina (Leiden, 1988), and is now preparing a critical edition of Erasmus' Paraphrases on the same Gospel for the Amsterdam edition of his works. Her many other studies have focused especially on sixteenth-century exegesis and the reception of the Fathers in the Reformation era.

IRENA BACKUS

has been Professor at the Institut fur Evangelische Theologie at the Justus-Liebig-Universitat in Giessen, Germany, since 1979. He previously held a chair of Church History at the University of Minister. He is a member of the editorial team of the Deutsche Schriften of Bucer, and the author of the most recent full-scale biography, Martin Bucer. Ein Reformator und Seine Zeit 1491-1551 (Munich, 1990). His other scholarly writings have dealt with Pietism in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, as well as with Reformation and more modern themes.

MARTIN GRESCHAT

was formerly Dean and Fellow of St John's College, Cambridge, and before that Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the Victoria University of Manchester. His many meticulous sixteenthcentury studies, partly collected in Humanists and Protestants (Edinburgh,

BASIL HALL

x

Notes on contributors 1990), have displayed a continuing engagement with Martin Bucer's reforming work, as well as with the English Reformers. He has two essays on Cranmer's relations with continental reform in Thomas Cranmer, Churchman and Scholar, ed. Paul Ayris and David Selwyn (Woodbridge, 1993). He is an honorary D.D. of St Andrews University. is a pastor of the Lutheran Church in Alsace who has long served in Switzerland, since 1986 as Professor of Church History in the University of Neuchatel, and also now as Dean of the Faculty of Theology. He is the author of the most significant monograph bearing on the themes of this volume of essays, Entre la Secte et la Cite, Le Projet d'Eglise du Reformateur Martin Bucer (Geneva, 1984; in German, Zwischen Volkskirche und Bekenntnisgemeinschaft, Speyer, 1989). He is presently working on the church history of Neuchatel, and on the contemporary value of the heritage of the Reformation.

GOTTFRIED HAMMANN

IAN HAZLETT is

Senior Lecturer in Ecclesiastical History in the University of Glasgow, having previouly been Maitre-assistant in the Institut d'histoire de la Reformation in Geneva. His doctoral thesis at Minister dealt with the development of Martin Bucer's thought on the Lord's Supper, 1523-34. The author of several essays on Bucer and other Reformation topics, including the Scots Confession and John Knox's First Blast of the Trumpet, he is editing Bucer's Defensio adversus Axioma Catholicum. . . Roberti Episcopi Abrincensis (1534) for the Opera Latina.

has held the chair of Church History at the Vancouver School of Theology since 1977, after working at the Institut d'histoire de la Reformation in Geneva. He is the editor of the forthcoming critical annotated text of Martin Bucer's massive commentary on the Psalms, and also serves on the international committee overseeing the publication of Bucer's collected works. He has written a series of articles on the renaissance of Old Testament and Hebrew studies in the early sixteenth century.

GERALD HOBBS

is Professor of History at the Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio, and a leading contributor to Reformation studies in the USA. He is the author of Wolfgang Capito. From Humanist to Reformer (Leiden, 1975) and Luther the Reformer (Minneapolis, 1986), and co-edited Rebirth, Reform and Resilience. Universities in Transition, 1300-1700 (Columbus, 1984). He is currently at work on a book on The Consolidation of the Reformation in Strasbourg.

JAMES KITTELSON

has been since 1983 Professor of Church History and Christian Doctrine at Knox College, Dunedin, New Zealand. He was

PETER MATHESON

Notes on contributors

xi

also Dean of the Faculty of Theology in the University of Otago 1990-92. His wide-ranging publications have had their chief focus in Thomas Miintzer, whose Collected Works he has translated into English (Edinburgh, 1988). Polemic and dialogue in the Reformation period have also long interested him, as seen in his Cardinal Contarini at Regensburg (Oxford, 1972). He is also working on an English edition of the writings of Argula von Grumbach. JEAN ROT T is the doyen of historians of Martin Bucer and the Strasbourg Reformation. He was Conservateur at the Bibliotheque Nationale et Universitaire de Strasbourg from 1946 to 1976. A major selection of his essays and articles is assembled in Investigationes Historicae (two volumes, Strasbourg, 1986). He was co-editor of the four volumes covering Strasbourg 1522-52 in the Quellen zur Geschichte der Ta'ufer (Giitersloh, 1958-89), and is editing the letters of Bucer in the Opera Omnia. The first two volumes have appeared (Leiden, 1978-89) and the third is in preparation. has been since 1972 the Professor of Church History and Church Principles at the University of the Christian Reformed Churches at Apeldoorn in The Netherlands. The author of a major study of De Ambten bij Martin Bucer (Kampen, 1970), he has also translated into Dutch the first (1536) edition of Calvin's Institutes. He is a member of the Praesidium of the International Congress on Calvin Research, and involved editorially in the current collected editions of both Bucer and Calvin. He has written widely on Reformation history and theology.

WILLEM V A N ' T SPIJKER

has been Professor of Church History in the University of Aberdeen since 1986, and was also Dean of the Faculty of Divinity 1987-9. He is the author of The Holy Spirit in the Theology of Martin Bucer (Cambridge, 1970) - based on his Strasbourg doctoral dissertation - and of The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli (Oxford, 1986). He is a prominent figure in British Methodism, and has represented Methodism ecumenically in dialogue with both Roman Catholics and Lutherans.

PETER STEPHENS

DAVID W R I G H T is Senior Lecturer of Ecclesiastical History at New College in the University of Edinburgh, where he was also Dean of the Faculty of Divinity 1988-92. The translator of Common Places of Martin Bucer (Appleford, 1972), he is editing Bucer's Quid de Baptismate Infantium (1533) for the Opera Latina. He is a member of the Praesidium of the International Congress on Calvin Research. A student of the Fathers as well as of the Reformers - and of the latter's reception of the former - he has published several articles on Augustine.

Abbreviations

AMS ARC ARG AST BCor

BDS

BOL

xii

Archives Municipales de Strasbourg Acta Reformationis Catholicae, ed. G. Pfeilschifter (Regensburg, 1959-) Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte Archives du Chapitre de St Thomas de Strasbourg (on deposit in AMS) Martini Buceri Opera Omnia, series III: Correspondance de Martin Bucer (Leiden, 1979- ) I: Jusqu'en 1524, ed. J. Rott (1979) II: 1524-1526, ed. J. Rott (1989) Martini Buceri Opera Omnia, series I: Deutsche Schriften, ed. R. Stupperich et al (Giitersloh and Paris, 1960-) 1: Fruhschriften 1520-1524, ed. Stupperich (1960) 2: Schriften derjahre 1524-1528, ed. Stupperich (1962) 4: Zur auswdrtigen Wirksamkeit 1528-1533, ed. Stupperich (1975) 5: Strassburg und Milnster im Kampf um den rechten Glauben 1532-1534, ed. Stupperich (1978) 6:2 Zum Ius Reformationis: Obrigkeitschriften aus dem Jahre 1535. Dokumente zur 2. Strassburger Synode von 1539, ed. Stupperich (1984) 7: Schriften der Jahre 1538-39, ed. Stupperich (1964) 17: Die Letzten Strassburger Jahre 1546-1549, Schriften zur Gemeindereformation und zum Augsburger Interim, ed. Stupperich (1981) Martini Buceri Opera Omnia, series II: Opera Latina, ed. F. Wendel et al (Paris, Giitersloh, Leiden, 1955- ) I: [De Caena Dominica; Epistola Apologetica; Refutatio Locorum Eckii], ed. C. Augustijn, P. Fraenkel and M. Lienhard (1982) II: Enarratio in Evangelion Iohannis (1528, 1530, 1536), ed. I. Backus (1988)

Abbreviations III: IV:

BSHPF CH CO CR E EE Herminjard In Ioh. JTS LB LCC OL OS PS QBI QGT

RHPR STC

Xlll

Florilegium Patristicum, ed. P. Fraenkel (1988) Consilium Theologicum Privatim Conscriptum, ed. P. Fraenkel (1988) XV: De Regno Christi, ed. Wendel (1955) XVbis: Du Royaume de Jesus-Christ, ed. Wendel (1954) Bulletin de la Societe de VHistoire du Protestantisme Francais Church History Joannis Calvini Opera quae extant Omnia, 59 vols. ( = CR 29-87), ed. G. Baum et al (Brunswick, 1863-1900) Corpus Reformatorum Bucer, Epistola D. Pauli ad Ephesios. . . Commentarius (Strasbourg, 1527) Bucer, Praelectiones doctiss. in Epistolam D.P. ad Ephesios . . . (Basel, 1562) A. L. Herminjard (ed.), Correspondance des Reformateurs dans les Pays de Langue Francaise, 9 vols. (Geneva and Paris, 1866-97) Bucer, Enarratio in Evangelion Iohannis (1528, 1530, 1536), ed. I. Backus (1988) - see BOL II above Journal of Theological Studies Erasmus, Opera Omnia, ed. J. Le Clerc, 10 vols. (Lugduni Batavorum = Leiden, 1703-6) Library of Christian Classics, 26 vols., ed. J. Baillie et al. (London and Philadelphia, 1953-70) Original Letters Relative to the English Reformation, tr. and ed. H. Robinson, 2 vols. (Parker Society, Cambridge, 1846-7) Joannis Calvini, Opera Selecta, ed. P. Barth and W. Niesel, 5 vols. (Munich, 1926-52) Parker Society Bucer, Quid de Baptismate Infantium . . . Sentiendum (Strasbourg, 1533) Quellen zur Geschichte der Tdufer, VII-VIII, XV-XVI: Elsass I-IV: Stadt Strassburg 1522-1532/1533-1535/ 1536-1542/1543-1552, Nachtrdge zu I-III, ed. M. Krebs and H. G. Rott (I—II), M. Lienhard, S. Nelson and H. G. Rott (III-IV) (Giitersloh, 1959-60, 1986-8) Revue d'Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses A. W. Pollard and G. R. Redgrave, A Short-Title Catalogue of Books Printed in England, Scotland, and Ireland and of English Books Printed Abroad 1475-1640, revised W. A. Jackson, F. S. Ferguson and K. F. Pantzer,

xiv TA TRE WA WABr Z

Abbreviations 3 vols. (Oxford, 1976-91) Martini Buceri Scripta Anglicana fere omnia . . . a Con. Huberto. . .collecta. . .[TomusAnglicanus](Basel, 1577) Theologische Realenzyklopddie, ed. G. Krause and G. Miiller (Berlin, New York, 1977- ) D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar, 1883-) D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe: Briefwechsel, ed. O. Clemen et at., 16 vols. (Weimar, 1930-80) Huldreich Zwinglis Sdmtliche Werke (=CR 88ff.), ed. E. Egli et al. (Berlin and Leipzig, 1905- )

Introduction

Martin Bucer has not always been given his due in the country where he spent the last years of his life. Two editions of The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church have carried an article on him which fails to mention Strasbourg, where he worked for a quarter of a century - virtually his entire career as a Reformer.1 A generation of Anglicans decreasingly appreciative of Thomas Cranmer's legacy is unlikely to be well informed about Bucer's contribution to the revised Book of Common Prayer of 1552.2 Too few English church historians are aware that the most comprehensive blueprint for a Christian society produced anywhere in the sixteenth-century Reformation - not excepting Calvin's Geneva - was Bucer's The Kingdom of Christ, a late New Year gift for Edward VI in 1550.3 So it is gratifying to record that on 12 November 1991, a service in Great St Mary's, Cambridge, marked the quincentenary of the birth (on St Martin's Day, 11 November 1491) of Martin Bucer, one of the University's earliest Regius Professors of Divinity. And it is appropriate that Cambridge University Press, whose productive history stretches back a couple of decades before Bucer's Cambridge years, should publish a commemorative set of essays on the most distinguished continental Reformer to cross the Channel. They display something of his versatile contribution to English church reform,4 but they bear chiefly on what he taught and did in his quest for an authentically Christian church community in Strasbourg and beyond. Herein lay a bundle of concerns that were nearest to Bucer's heart and most determinative of his distinctiveness among the magisterial Reformers. Bucer's most recent biographer, Martin Greschat, has put it thus: 2 Evans is similarly silent: see Evans 1985, p. xix. See Whitaker 1974. Translated in Pauck 1970, who notes (pp. 159—60) how directly Bucer addressed himself to the peculiarities of the English scene - religious, political, social, even economic. See also Wright 1992, and the same author's paper, 'Martin Bucer and England - and Scotland', in Martin Bucer and Sixteenth Century Europe, ed. C. Krieger and M. Lienhard (Leiden, 1993), vol. II, pp. 523-32. Bucer's influence in Scotland deserves treatment in its own right.

1

2

Introduction

Bucer was fascinated by the vision of a truly Christian-ordered society, in whose creation state and church co-operated. But he did not simply reproduce the concept of the 'corpus christianum', but developed an ecclesiology which not only reckoned with the independence of the church but was also based on the personal responsibility of every Christian.5

It would be difficult to find a sixteenth-century churchman and theologian with more to say to the churches of Europe now living through the disorienting transition between the old order of the Christian establishment and the emergent ex-Christian (rather than post-Christian) pluralistic world. Bucer was of an inexorably inclusivist cast of mind, and could not assent to the Radicals' narrowing of the church to fellowships of the committed. Nor, on the other hand, would he abandon the aspiration that the church in Strasbourg be a congregation of true believing, practising Christians. To this end he embarked on a remarkable attempt to develop 'Christian communities' - anticipations, it might be thought, of the Wesleyan class-meetings or today's house groups. But was it possible for a church to be both 'national and confessing'?6 Bucer at least believed that it was not a hopeless endeavour. There are few more acute questions facing the church of the old world today - in the former Soviet Union's sphere of influence no less than in the West. Some will be tempted to retain their national character at the expense of their Christian identity, and others to retreat too readily into a minority that relishes persecution. Bucer's more complex, and indeed inconstant, vision demanded that one neither sat loose to the objective of embracing the whole population in the service of Christ nor was satisfied with what could be expected of an all-inclusive people's church. The same tensions are encountered in Bucer's efforts to reunite the churches. No one took as seriously as this 'great theologian of dialogue'7 the challenge of reconciling Catholics and Protestants in Germany. But he was by no means devoid of non-negotiable principles, even though in the interests of agreement many thought he stretched generosity and charity to the point of compromise. Two sharp essays in this collection reveal the subtle differentiations of his engagements with the Old Church. The Bucer renaissance is now in full tide, with all three series in the collected edition of his writings making productive progress.8 No doubt by the time of the 450th anniversary of his death scholars will have full access to a much larger body of material, especially letters and biblical commentaries. These present essays, several of whose authors are involved in the new edition, reflect in part the fresh impetus and light that it is already furnishing. They collectively pay tribute, in the language of his last adoptive country that he could not himself understand, to a Reformer who, 5 7

Greschat 1990, p. 259. Greschat 1990, p. 258.

6 8

Cf. the popular presentation by Britton 1989. For details see pp.xii-xiii.

Introduction

3

precisely because he did not become the pride or the prey of any one school or tradition, deserves to be heard by all. I wish to acknowledge the patience of Mr Alex Wright of Cambridge University Press, the typing services of May Hocking of the Department of Ecclesiastical History in New College, Edinburgh, the assistance of Martin Dotterweich with the proof-reading, and the hospitable facilities of the Center of Theological Inquiry in Princeton, New Jersey, where this volume was completed. D. F. Wright

Martin Bucer and the Old Church Peter Matheson

The term 'the Old Church' was not one which Bucer used for the continuing Catholic Church. It was Catholic controversialists such as John Faber who claimed for themselves the title of 'the old religion' ('vetus religio'). 1 Although on occasion he would speak of the 'innovations' ('neuwerungen') introduced by the Reformers, Bucer would hasten to add that they were in reality only the restoration 2 of 'das recht, alt und ewig',3 the ancient, original form of the church, before it succumbed to eight hundred years of Roman abuse and tyranny. Like all the Reformers, especially those of some humanist provenance, he claimed apostolicity and antiquity for the reformed pattern, 'our order' ('ordo noster'). He insisted on, and indeed practised, great respect for tradition. It was not the Reformers who had removed the 'ancient landmarks', 4 but the papists who, for all their claims to continuity ('langen prauch'), 5 had continually introduced new teachings, laws, miracles,6 superstitious practices. The term 'prisci' (ancient, of former times) seems always to refer to the people of the early church. His preferred terms for Catholicism were 'the church of Antichrist', 7 'the mob of priests',8 the 'religion of the pope', 'the so-called Roman church', 9 'the churches still subject to the tyranny of the pope', 10 'the false church' ('pseudoecclesia'), 'your synagogue'. 11 Almost always his attention was focused on the hierarchy and the clergy and the orders, with all their scandalous pomp 12 and impossible vows,13 rather than on the face of 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13

Strasbourg preachers to Faber, 3 June 1526, BCor II, p. 118. 'restituens tyrannide Satanae ereptos in regnum Filii sui'. A favourite term, perhaps borrowed from Tertullian, for this restoration is 'postliminium': BCor II, p. 148; I, p. 77. Grund und Ursach, sig. C2v (BDS 1, p. 208). Refutatio Locorum Eckii, BOL I, p. 241. Bucer and Capito to Strasbourg Council, end July-end September 1524, BCor II, p. 205. 7 Epistola Apologetica, BOL I, p. 203. Wright 1972, p. 209. 'der genant geistlich hauff, Grund und Ursach, sig. B2r (BDS 1, p. 201). 'religio papae et Christi', BCor II, p. 188; 'in Romana quam iactant Ecclesia', De Caena Dominica, BOL I, p. 18. 'Ecclesias papae tyrannidi adhuc servientes', BOL IV, p. 131. Epistola Apologetica, BOL I, p. 104: De Caena Dominica, ibid., p. 29. 'prachts und iippikeit': he criticizes also the theologians 'in samat und scharlach bekleidet', Grund und Ursach, sig. A3v, 4v (BDS 1, pp. 197, 199). Epistola Apologetica, BOL I, p. 110.

6

Peter Matheson

Catholicism as a whole. The hierarchy could not speak in the name of the church, because in reality, as opposed to words, they did not minister to it. Representative status meant nothing if the vocation to preach the Word of God were neglected.14 Bucer stood four-square in the anticlerical tradition,15 but he was not anti-Catholic, a term which had no meaning for him. With his vivid eschatological faith in the kingdom of Christ, he thought not of two churches competing for universality, but rather in regional terms. In some areas the gospel had already triumphed; in others the one church of Christ was still under the tyranny of the pope and his cohorts, but he was careful not to deny these regional churches the title of Christian, knowing that many sheep of Christ were among them.16 From his earliest days of dreamy-eyed admiration for Luther to the sadder wisdom of his maturity he assumed that it was only for a short, interim period that the one church of Christ would be, in practice, divided. Already Antichrist could sense his doom.17 Bucer could perhaps be called a situation theologian,18 and this gave his thought great variety andflexibility.He admitted, for example, that early church councils had generally been attended by bishops, but not by the laity, who were, at the time, unlearned. But now the situation was reversed; it was the clergy who were ignorant, while the laity knew what to do.19 A new approach, therefore, was required. He was a passionate believer in the 'offentlicher verhor', the 'public hearing' in the disputation or colloquy, whether at civic or imperial level.20 This meant engaging in all seriousness, and not seldom at inordinate length, with the views of his partners in debate. Thisflexibilityhas in the past earned him as much abuse as praise, but it certainly need not be attributed to lack of clear convictions, or to a systematic subordination of doctrinal concerns to moral. It does mean, however, that we have to be cautious about attributing to him any one fixed and timeless view of the Old Church. His attitude to the Old Church reflected his obstinate insistence on rethinking his strategies as ecclesiastical and political constellations changed.

14 15

17 18 19 20

'Audiendum esse non simpliciter competit sacerdoti, sed in quantum est sacerdos, et eloquia Dei loquitur', Refutatio Locorum Eckii, BOL I, p. 239. Cf. his letter to the humanist Beatus Rhenanus, second half of August 1525: 'lam ipse nosti colluviem sacerdotum, quam longe sit a cordibus eorum Deus, quam inutilia sint onera 16 terrae', BCor II, p. 34. Epistola Apologetica, BOL I, p. 104. Bucer to Zwingli, 9 June 1523, BCor I, p. 196. We cannot, for example, simply cite Augustine on following the judgement of the church, but need to see the context in which this was said. Refutatio Locorum Eckii, BOL I, p. 244. Ibid, p. 249. Cf. his cordial letter to his Old Church opponent in Strasbourg, Conrad Treger, 15 March 1524, inviting him to an open discussion, free from popular pressure. BCor I, p. 223.

Martin Bucer and the Old Church

7

Polemicist Bucer is not infrequently seen as the prime example of a sixteenth-century 'ecumaniac'. Yet the ferocity of Bucer's critique of the Old Church tends to be forgotten. The term 'Antichrist' was never far from his lips. 21 The work of the papists was that of the Devil, their enforced celibacy the doctrine of demons,22 their ceremonies the impostures of Satan. 23 When he saw the abuses flowing from the sacrifice of the mass, the chief basis or pillar of Antichrist,24 he literally trembled in his whole being, and could not understand why God had not exercised terrible and catastrophic vengeance on what he regarded as - proh dolor! - blasphemous, idolatrous, illusory and mercenary worship. 25 It was astonishing that the earth had not swallowed up such scoffers,26 who confounded heaven and earth, donned the outward garments of Jewish and heathen priests, 27 and affronted the majesty of Christ.28 Christ's righteousness was denied or effectively displaced by the ascription of salvation to the masses, prayers, indulgences of the 'mass-peddlers' ('messmacher'), the priestlings. 29 As if our prayers could massage God - 'What darkness and death!' ('O tenebras, o mortem!'). 30 Salvation is of God alone. 31 The licentious lives of the proponents and beneficiaries of the mass, the sexual immorality and hypocrisy of a 'fornicating' clergy, elicited from him polemic of the most undifferentiated and ungoverned variety. 32 The mass was most fecund not in producing superstition, dreadful as that was, but in propagating rampant greed for money, status, power. 33 His moralizing tone is, in fact, frequently tedious. It particularly infuriated and frustrated Bucer that his opponents refused an open discussion of the issues, and damned the Reformers unheard. Since the whole controversy ('der zanck') was about whether the papists or the latter were preaching the Word of God and acting according to God's law, and since every Christian had to answer for his/her faith, it was unnatural 21 22 24 25 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

So many fine minds are enlisting for the gospel that soon Christ will slay Antichrist 'spiritu oris sui': Bucer to Capito, 27 August 1521, BCor I, p. 170. 23 BOL I, p. 110. Ibid., p. 88. De Caena Dominica, BOL I, pp. 50. 54. Throughout this writing the polemic is swingeing; common terms are 'horrendae abominationes', 'idolatriae', 'blasphemiae', 'pestes'. Epistola Apologetica, BOL I, pp. 101,107-8; he cites biblical examples of divine vengeance 26 on false worship. Ibid., p. 113. Grund und Ursach, sig. C lr (BDS 1, p. 205). The thought of the mockery of the divine majesty recurs again and again, e.g. BOL I, p. 106; terms frequently used: 'blasphemia', 'contumelia', 'illusio', 'irridere', iudibrium'. Strasbourg preachers to Council, before 2 May 1526: BCor II, p. 108; BOL I, pp. 98-9. Ibid., p. 106. 'Vere, vere papa nullum habet paradisum': De Caena Dominica, ibid., p. 32. Ibid., pp. 99-101. 'non tarn superstitionum foecunda quam feraci quaestus'; the cult of saints, masses for the dead, purgatory are all devices to bring in money: ibid., pp. 100, 101.

8

Peter Matheson

as well as unchristian to deny proper discussion of the issues and a free council.34 It indicated that their life could not stand scrutiny and that their case was rotten to the core ('im grund fauP).35 Instead they resorted to 'gewalt', violence; this is contrasted again and again with the freedom which is the birthright of the Christian believer. The campaign to extirpate Christ's followers by the fathers and shepherds, popes and bishops, who should have been protecting them, outraged him. 36 Not much better was the character assassination of the Reformed leaders by an endless barrage of hate and lies.37 Spiritualist Bucer's emphasis on the right and duty of individuals, including the laity, and women among the laity,38 to develop their own understanding of faith, based on the Scriptures alone and guided by the Spirit, swept aside the traditional claims for the magisterium of the church; in Christ there was no distinction among Christians. 39 Authority resided in the church as a whole; its exercise on behalf of the whole people by presbyters and bishops must be according to the Spirit of Christ. 40 The certainty of our faith rested on the work of the Spirit, not on councils or popes. 41 There was, therefore, no formal guarantee for orthodoxy. What gave a council authority was not the mere fact that it had convened but, in philosophical terms, the 'accident' that it was true and holy and preached the Word of God. 42 It was a petitio principii, begging the question, to assume that the councils were guided by the Spirit of Christ. If something were false it could not be part of the consensus of the church. Human beings, including the councils, the Fathers and popes could always err. 43 The church, then, had to be believed, not 'seen'. The majority was, in any case, seldom right. God alone knew his children. 34

36 37 38 39 40

41 42

It shows a lack of any decency, is contrary to all 'natiirlicher billigkeit', Grund und Ursach, signs. B 1ff.,C 3r (BDS 1, pp. 199ff., 208); Bucer to Zell, before 16 September 1523, BCor I, 35 p. 201; BOL I, p. 103. Grund und Ursach, sig. B 3r (BDS 1, p. 203). BOL I, pp. 103, 199ff. Grund und Ursach, sig. B 3r (BDS 1, p. 203); 'criminibus infamant', BOL I, p. 76; 'quantis nos mendaciis conspuant', BCor II, p. 163. After his instruction at Wissembourg even women had vanquished their adversaries from Scripture: Bucer to Zwingli, 9 June 1523, BCor I, p. 195. Bucer to Zell, before 19 September 1523: BCor I, p. 201. Wright 1972, p. 239; cf. Bucer's emphasis on the simple and the foolish as Christ's disciplines, Bucer and Capito to Strasbourg Council, end July-end September 1524, BCor II, p. 222; Stephens 1970, especially ch. 7. 'die gewisse vnsers glaubens stot an der wurckung des geist Gotes . . . vnd vff dem wort Gotes . . . ob schon kein concilium nie gewesen wer', BCor II, pp. 210, 207, 217. 'Praedicatum non competit per se, sed est secundum accidens, ut sit "sanctum"': Refutatio 43 Locorum Eckii, BOL I, p. 241. Ibid., p. 245.

Martin Bucer and the Old Church

9

This was a highly spiritualistic, or rather covenantal, ecclesiology. Teaching and defining the faith was the prerogative of those gifted with the Holy Spirit.44 At the heart of the church was the covenant between God and his people, the new testament, proclaimed in Word and sacrament alike, not the sacrifice of the mass. 45 Bucer had no hard and fast design for the future structure of the church. The bishop of Rome and his followers could remain, and exercise their powers, prerogatives and laws, as long as they lived good lives and allowed the gospel to be preached. 46 The reality, however, was quite other. 'O Jesus, what an atrocity it would have seemed to the holy Fathers of old . . . that anyone occupying the seat of a bishop should exercise such tyranny and flood the whole world with so vast a sea of wickedness and outrage.' 47 The Roman clergy had trampled on the rights of the laity, deceived and patronized and seduced them. 48 It encouraged a false piety based on externals, dressing up stone and wooden images in costly garments while the living members of Christ suffered hunger and poverty. 49 By encouraging the laity to think that the mass would remedy any sins they committed, especially if they made a financial gift, it brought about the ruin of all innocence, and excused all manner of crimes, while at the same time loading the laity down with a mountain of useless burdens. 50 It was like a cancerous growth.51 Truth had been swamped by mendacity, the preachers of Christ by the flatterers of the Roman pope, a servant church by a hierarchy so power-crazed that it even wanted to use violence against the political authorities and subvert the divine order completely. 52 The Strasbourg clergy's defence of their legal immunities was simply an evasion of the duties of citizenship and an excuse for a cowardly and indisciplined life.53 There could, therefore, be no compromise between Christ and Belial, between the elect and the reprobate. 54 It was no comedy that contemporary Christians were involved in, as the 'modestia', timorousness, of the trimmers and peace-lovers would suggest, but a costly battle for 'a Christ uncontaminated by papalism' ('purum Christum, cui nihil papae sit 44 45 47 48 49 51 52 53 54

'Supremum iudicium . . . Spiritus sibi retinet. Ipse regit ecclesiam: Definire, docere, etc. competunt donatis Spiritu sancto': ibid., pp. 242, 250. 46 De Caena Dominica, BOL I, p. 39. Epistola Apologetica, BOL I, pp. 98, 170. In Sacra Quatuor Evangelia, Enarrationes (1553), f. 135v; Wright 1972, p. 247. Grund und Ursach, sig. B 3v (BDS 1, p. 203); 'Sumus omnes vivi lapides in ecclesia: claves pertinent ad totam ecclesiam', Refutatio Locorum Eckii, BOL I, pp. 252, 255. 50 BOL I, p. 109. Ibid., pp. 107-8, 52. 'qui papistici gregis carcinomata sunt': ibid., p. 57. Grund und Ursach, sig. B 2v (BDS 1, p. 202); Wright 1972, p. 240. A mere excuse for 'eim solchen losen feygen gesind': Grund und Ursach, sig.B 3r (BDS 1, p. 202). Ibid., sig. C lr (BDS 1, p. 206).

10

Peter Matheson

admixtum').55 Erasmus' increasingly desperate calls for moderation and tolerance and unity at the end of the 1520s were based on a total misreading of a crisis: piety had been totally extinguished.56 Twenty years later, with the Council of Trent in full swing, Bucer will say the same. The church of Antichrist had resisted all decency and right order and one had no choice but to leave it.57 Bucer, then, subjected the Old Church to a penetrating theological and moral critique, which reflected his own bitter struggles to launch and maintain the reforming cause on the local and regional and imperial scene. The eschatological note is seldom absent. In the name of Christ, our King and Lord, we have to defy the Antichrist; in the name of God, the Devil.58 He had himself experienced the cost of alienating friends and allies, facing tension, intimidation and awesome incrimination, while trying all the time to distinguish between personal pique and the cause he represented. The vehemence and moral outrage of his writings reflect, too, the drastic nature of the radical reform programme Bucer championed, as a founding father of the Reformed camp.

Bridge-builder

All the more remarkable, then, that this piratical, cutlass-swinging Bucer should be complemented by another, who appears to contradict virtually everything said above, and to plead for reconciliation, compromise and patience, and to swing nothing but olive-branches. Clearly, it will not do to portray this as a pragmatic or Erasmian obsession with the media via. How, then, is it to be explained? What was it, political and tactical considerations apart,59 that made him, by inclination, a bridge-builder, a peace-maker? Bucer, of course, had a long track record of attempting to mediate within the Protestant camp, between the South Germans and Swiss and the Wittenbergers. He had quite unusual gifts of empathy. He could discern behind the implacable words of opponents what he took to be their genuine intentions, and explain one side to the other. In 1521, for example, he interpreted Luther to Glapion, Charles V's confessor, in a Catholic manner; if he had understood Luther aright, the Emperor should have no 55 56 58 59

Bucer to Hans Sapidus, 7 July 1522: BCor I, p. 185. The military metaphor is frequent: Bucer hopes his reader 'desertis castris impiorum ad signa Christi transfugiet': BOL I, p. 21. Classically in the Epistola Apologetica, but anticipated e.g. in his letter to Beatus Rhenanus, 57 second half of August, 1525: BCor II, p. 32. Wright 1972, p. 209. BCor I, p. 239. On occasion he could offer far-reaching concessions which he never meant to accede to, but pinned them to conditions he knew the other side could not fulfil either, in order to push them on to the defensive; cf. Seidel 1970, p. 102.

Martin Bucer and the Old Church

11

quarrel with Luther's views.60 In the negotiation of the Wittenberg Concord he sought untiringly to explain Luther's views in a manner acceptable to the Swiss and the South Germans, admitting his own previous misunderstandings, ignoring Luther's furious attacks, finding formulae which avoided both the symbolist and naturalist extremes.61 His 'stupendous learning'62 enabled him to transcend the often narrow bickering of the period, going beyond Erasmus and Luther to the Fathers, and beyond them to Scripture itself.63 Clearly, too, there was a warmth and breadth about his personality as well as his scholarship which succeeded in dispelling distrust. His aim, as Wilhelm Pauck puts it, was that all Christians should recognize and embrace each other in love.64 Yet it is still surprising, even shocking, to find him squaring up against the emerging Reformed camp at the end of the 1530s on the question of Nicodemism, much to the discomfiture of his young disciple, Calvin. And remarkable also to see how at the Diet of Regensburg in 1541 he threw all caution aside and engaged in a prolonged flirtation with reforming Catholicism. How can this be reconciled with his uncompromising attitude to the Old Church as outlined above? Whereas in his Grund und Ursach ('Ground and Basis') he had excluded any possibility of the new gospel co-operating with the 'impostures' of superstition, of Christ supping with Belial, now he denies that such a sharp alternative is posed.65 A letter to Zwingli on 19 April 152466 affords some clues. It illustrates how erroneous it is to imagine that Bucer's undoubted concern for reform, and swingeing critique of the Old Church, rested on a legalistic reading of Scripture.67 Like Zwingli he was in no doubt that images should be abolished, as the impostures of Antichrist and an offence to the weak. But Old Testament prohibitions were not the reason. 'Truly, my brother, listen to me!'68 The law, both ceremonial and moral, has lost its prescriptive hold on the Christian. We become entangled in endless problems if we take a literalist view. 60

63

65 67

68

'si Lutherus sua intelligat, ut ego interpretatus sum nihil est quod queretur de Luthero Caesar', Bucer to Spalatin, 9 October 1521: BCor I, p. 152. As the papal nuncio, Aleander, reports: 'Ma el frate apostata disputo de le hore sei in favor di Martino, parte per defension de lo che ha scritto, partim per dar senso catholico', Balan 1884, pp. 159-60, quoted in 61 BCor I, p. 153, n. 21. Cf. Brecht 1993, pp. 42-51. " Stupperich 1981, p. 266. 'ut primum ex libris Erasmi, deinde Lutheri, turn utriusque monitu et ex scriptis sanctorum patrum, maxime vero ex divinis literis, quae vera esset religio et quae ad earn pertinerent, cognovi', De Vera Ecclesiarum in Doctrina, Ceremoniis et Disciplina Reconciliatione et Compositione, ed. Friedensburg 1934, p. 169. It is hard to see how Greschat (1978, col. 85) can use this quotation to argue that Bucer valued Erasmus' influence on his intellectual M development above that of Luther. Pauck 1961, p. 97. 66 BOL IV, pp. 173, 147. BCor I, pp. 224^37. For a different view cf. McGrath 1986, vol. II, p. 34: 'Bucer's preoccupations are clearly moralist, as may be seen from his reduction of "doctrine" to "ethics" on the basis of his philological exegesis of the concept of torah; for Bucer, the whole of scripture is thus lex.' 'Verum, mi frater, audi!': BCor I, p. 228.

12

Peter Matheson

Hence if it were in the interests of our neighbour and of social harmony to retain some images for the moment, that would be neither hypocritical nor unfaithful to God. Spiritual prudence is required lest precipitate action alienate some who are not yet ready for it. For in fact such images have no hold over the true believer. They can even be used as useful props to memory or to excite piety ('ad exhilarandum animum').69 As long as they are not adored, or Christ's poor defrauded because of them, images can remain for the time being. Not images, but idolatry is the problem, for to the pure all things are pure. To insist that faith would be endangered if such externals remained would be to attribute to them 'numinis aliquid', a degree of power, which they do not in fact possess. God has made us lords over all created things. 4

A community person9

One notes here the strength of the social nexus of discipleship. In Jacques Courvoisier's terms Bucer was 'a community person' ('homme de la communaute').70 The individual must take the interests of the whole community into consideration. Martin Greschat points out that for Bucer the salvation, as well as the welfare, of one's neighbour could be put above one's own.71 Secondly, and closely connected with this, one must be led by the Spirit, who works through the church of Christ. The motivation must come from within, led by a new Elijah, by the Spirit of God.72 Thirdly, the eschatological motif is powerful: the horizon of hope in the kingdom prevents one having to sacrifice people to principles in the interim. Again, in the abortive negotiations with Francis I in 1534, Bucer showed an extraordinary degree of flexibility, using the norm of Scripture and the Fathers and even Aquinas to find common ground with the Old Church.73 His justification was not only the communitarian one of a settlement which will be of value to the people as a whole, but our solidarity in faith with those who 'call upon Christ in the remaining churches'; what K. J. Seidel calls his 'missionary and ecumenical principles'.74 The gospel has to be preached to every nation. Similar considerations led Bucer in 1540 to advise Protestants in 69 71

72 74

70 BCor I, p. 232. Courvoisier 1933, p. 43. 'dass die echte christliche Liebe also die Seligkeit des anderen hoher stelle als die eigene', citing 'Quod ubi inficiaremur atque adfirmaremus perfecto Christiano, uti Paulo, maiorem curam salutis proximorum esse quam propriae', WABr 1, p. 615; Greschat 1978, col. 85. 'per Helyam aliquem, hoc est eo divino spiritu; per ecclesiam aut certe Heliam'; BCor I, pp. 73 228, 235. Pollet 1958-62, vol. I, pp. 509-18; cf. Seidel 1970, pp. 35-41. 'Non sunt nobis abiiciendi, qui Christum in reliquis ecclesiis invocant, ergo videndum, quomodo possimus cum illis convenire, quid eis concedere, quid propter eos in nos recipere': Schiess 1908-12, vol. II, pp. 813-14, cited by Seidel 1970, pp. 97, 167.

Martin Bucer and the Old Church

13

Catholic territories to exploit the pastoral and missionary opportunities available to them, even if this meant a tactical and temporary toleration of some abuses and even the mass.75 He advised against a rigorist condemnation of any dissimulation, of anything which smacked of Nicodemism, as this would leave martyrdom or exile as the only alternatives. The heroic alternative might be appealing to the individual conscience, but would leave others unshepherded. Since Antichrist's reign would not last long and the inner integrity of the believer would not be touched by such external abuses, one had to think in corporate, ecclesial terms as well as in personal ones.76 Hence he had to dissent respectfully from, for example, Bullinger's or Calvin's assessments of the responsibilities of diaspora Protestants. Distinctions could and should be made between central and peripheral issues. If the spirit of the gospel were to continue to spread, if education and preaching were to be given time gently to subvert the structures from within, Christians must abide by their vocation, remain within their God-given relationships. There is a strong faith that the external abuses will gradually be eroded away by quiet but insistent teaching and witnessing. It is this which will bring about the kingdom of Christ.77 To rage against the sincerely held superstitions of ordinary believers would only make them defensive or drive them to resignation and despair; moderation, not severity, was required.78 The difficult calling of the Protestant, harder even than exile, was to maintain a low profile for the moment. Again the social nexus was important. It was not for the individual to challenge and disrupt the social and political structures.79 The magistrates and rulers had a God-given vocation to decide on such matters. Certainly the confessing Protestants had to do much more than wait and pray. It was not a passive role which was recommended. They had to work to spread the true gospel in appropriate ways, which did not disrupt the social harmonies.80 But one could not 'desert' the church; Christian solidarity and communion remained a duty.81 It was not as if a totally new, pure church had to be created ex nihilo. The church of Jesus Christ was already there, 75 76

77 78 80

81

The detail of this case has been argued elsewhere by Matheson 1989; cf. the new edition by Pierre Fraenkel of Bucer's Consilium Theologicum Privatim Conscriptum in BOL IV. He had always preferred to be 'weak with the weak', but previously had judged that the crimes and errors were too prevalent for there to be any hope of maintaining one's integrity in the Old Church; cf. BOL I, p. 104. 'regnum suum instituere; ad instaurationem regni eius': BOL IV, pp. 175, 176. 79 BOL IV, p. 167, 176. Ibid., p. 107. When he was forbidden in 1523 to practise exegesis of the New Testament in Wissembourg, he had submitted, knowing that refusal would have led to a 'tumultus plebis', and to the gospel being branded as seditious; Bucer to Zwingli, 9 June 1523, BCor I, p. 195. BOL IV, pp. 7—8,173, and passim; cf. Fraenkel's comments on the prevalence, on the eve of Regensburg, of this theme of the 'desertio ecclesiae': ibid., p. xxii.

14

Peter Matheson

despite all the blemishes and tyrannies which disfigured it. Christ had never neglected and would never neglect his Bride. The question was not what individuals should do to salve their own consciences, but how they could contribute best to the imminent emergence in God's good time of the kingdom of Christ.82 The perspective is ecclesial, social and eschatological. A colloquy person

Thus, in the colloquy era at the turn of the 1540s, Bucer struggled, as a situation theologian, to discern the signs of the times. As the Turks hammered at the back door of Christendom, as the weaknesses within the Protestant camp became ever more apparent, and as an olive-branch was offered from the least expected of directions - from Rome! - he felt impelled to take the risks of mediation. Loyal as only a citizen of an imperial city would be to the waning imperial dream, and loyal, too, to Philip of Hesse, compromised by bigamy and anxious for Charles V's favour, he discerned a window of opportunity which might never again recur.83 At the colloquy planned by the Emperor for the Diet of Regensburg in 1541, progressive Catholics and moderate Protestants would, Bucer believed, hammer out a doctrinal base broad enough to permit the gospel to be preached freely. The very fact that Protestants were no longer being dismissed unheard, and a colloquy was being offered, met a long-standing concern. Temporary concessions could be made on peripheral questions of church practice and piety, and a joint programme of reform could be launched. This, in turn, would enable Christendom to unite and push back the Turkish threat. Gradually reconstituted from within, the Old Church would become a true instrument for the kingdom of Christ. A great missionary opportunity was opening up. Thus the dark, apocalyptic vision of the old Luther and of the young Calvin, which tended to demonize the opponent and to identify the kingdom of Christ with particular doctrinal formulations or pure patterns of worship, was not shared by Bucer. Whether it was the eucharist or justification or the right use of ceremonies that was being debated at Regensburg, he distinguished between battles of substance and of words,84 and earned the sobriquet 'Klappermaul' ('bletherer') as a reward. If he trusted people, as he did Catholics like Johann Gropper, he allowed his language to be elastic enough to accommodate them. In a confessional age he had a sense of the relativity of all particular formulations and pieties. He remained implacable in his denunciation of immorality, and of the 82 84

Ibid., p. 132. " The detail has been argued elsewhere by Matheson 1972. 'Nobis igitur persuasissimum, in re ipsa nullam esse controversiam. De verbis est': Pollet 1958-62, vol. II, p. 514.

Martin Bucer and the Old Church

15

tyranny of pope or council or any human authority in matters of faith. He was crystal-clear about the sole validity of Scripture as an infallible norm for the church, and about the sovereign role of Christ in our salvation. Perhaps he was most clearly the humanist, not only in his respect for the early church, but in his deference to the political powers, who were, as he so often said, 'like gods'. Where he had, or believed he had, the support of magistrate or ruler or emperor, he presented the most detailed blueprints for reform, classically of course in De Regno Christi {The Kingdom of Christ). For Bucer the kingdom of Christ extended far beyond the church and embraced the whole of social and political life.85 It was the vision glorious of emperor and reform movement co-operating which in large part explains his support for the Regensburg colloquy process. Where the support of the political authorities was lacking, however, he was prepared to play a waiting game, working within the Old Church until the time was ripe. Defying categorization

The undoubted shifts in Bucer's attitudes to the Old Church suggest that no one categorization will do him justice. He was Erasmian, Lutheran, and Reformed; he was motivated by biblical, moral, social, spiritualist, ecumenical, missionary and eschatological concerns. At the end of the day, it was not the Old Church that he rejected. The eschatological struggle could not be identified with the institutional one. He could not speak, as some of the Swiss theologians could, of two competing religions. The Protestant cause was itself in need of correction and could not be identified with the kingdom of Christ, nor could the Old Church be dismissed as that of Antichrist. How could it, when Christ himself had never done this? It was within the Old Church that the struggle between the tyranny of Antichrist and the kingdom of Christ was actually being fought. The former could never cancel out the latter. Bucer never forgot that the vast majority of the members of Christ's kingdom were lay people, though in his view they were misled and ill-taught.86 The local parish church and people remained. Bible and worship and Christian community remained. The godly ruler remained. Christendom itself remained. It was the clergy and the orders, and above all 85

86

Cf. Greschat 1978, col. 89: 'Und ebenso wurzelte darin seine Uberzeugung, dass das geistliche und weltliche Amt zusammen die Untertanen regieren mussten, war beider Aufgabe doch untrennbar, d.h. ein geistliches Wohl ohne das weltliche ebensowenig denkbar bei diesem Ansatz wie das Umgekehrte. Dieser Eifer fur eine umfassend neue Gesellschaftsordnung nach dem Willen Gottes hat Bucer so lange er lebte in Atem gehalten.' A theme particularly prominent in Bucer's Consilium; there are very many who despite an ignorant use of superstitious ceremonies 'tamen viva sint fide in Christum', BOL IV, p. 5 and passim.

16

Peter Matheson

the hierarchy and the papacy itself, on which he concentrated his fire. And even they, if they abandoned their tyranny and pretensions and became true pastors, could be tolerated. In God's good time the Old Church could become God's new church, a covenant people again, renewed with the Spirit of Elijah, representing the very hinge between earth and heaven, preparing the way for the kingdom of Christ.

The relation between church and civil community in Bucer's reforming work* Martin Greschat The civil authorities, who exercise the sword and the highest outward power, are servants of God; they ought, therefore, to direct all their abilities, as God in his law has commanded and as the Spirit of Christ himself teaches and urges in all whom he leads, to the end that through their subjects God's name be hallowed, his kingdom extended and his will fulfilled - so far as they can serve thereto by virtue of their office alone. Therefore the spirit of those who want the authorities not to concern themselves at all with Christian activity, is a spirit directed against Christ our Lord, and a destroyer of all good.1 In these sentences we encounter the fourteenth of the articles, sixteen in all, that Bucer drew up in the spring of 1533 as a basis for discussion at the Strasbourg synod.2 It expresses the fundamentals of the new ordering of the church's life in the free imperial city of Strasbourg. Even if Bucer succeeded neither on this occasion nor later in implementing his ideals and objectives, this article outlines both concisely and precisely his conception of the relationship between the church and the representatives of the civic community, and hence of the political power. The role of civil authority According to Bucer's persuasion, God has entrusted an essential task to the authorities: they are responsible not only for the earthly welfare of their subjects, but also for their blessedness, their eternal salvation - although admittedly within defined limits. The political power does not replace the spiritual; on the contrary it assumes it. This means that the authorities, who are entitled to undisputed sovereignty in all earthly concerns and must accordingly command full obedience from their subjects, have only a subordinate role when it comes to facilitating and realizing spiritual life. In The Kingdom of Christ, his last great work, Bucer spelt out these same ideas This chapter was translated by Penelope R. Hall of New College, Edinburgh, and the Editor. 1 BDS 5, p. 392. On the synod the fundamental study is Wendel 1942. On Bucer's life and work in general, and further on the subject addressed in this chapter, see Greschat 1990.

2

17

18

Martin Greschat

as follows. The Christian naturally obeys the commandments and instructions of Christ. But equally he obeys the authorities, conforming to the prevailing political and social standards and laws. As a rule, so Bucer thought, no conflict developed between the two, since even the rulers - if they wanted to be successful - submitted themselves to the Lordship of Christ: Further, as the Kingdom of Christ subjects itself to the kingdoms and powers of this world, so in turn every true kingdom of the world (I say kingdom, not tyranny) subjects itself to the Kingdom of Christ, and the kings themselves are among the first to do this, for they are eager to develop piety not for themselves alone, but they also seek to lead their subjects to it.3 The authorities therefore - precisely like the spiritual office in its own way - have an important and essential duty to fulfil for the public good. That meant in concrete terms, in the context of the Strasbourg synod of 1533, that the implementation and stabilizing of the Reformation in the city was the responsibility of the political power. The authorities must confer legal force on the fundamental doctrine of the church set forth by the theologians. To them fell the obligation, again according to Bucer's understanding, to monitor the people's observance of the religious, ecclesiastical and ethical standards formulated in concert with the preachers, and thus to exercise church discipline. But that was not enough. It also belonged to the God-given commission of government to extend the kingdom of God, as this article expresses it - which came about through living and acting under the Lordship of Christ. This statement binds together the roles - at that time differentiated - of minister, teacher, social worker and pastor with the equally manifold roles of government; it also gives the whole community a responsibility to discharge. For the implementation of the kingdom of God, every Christian in his place in society has to devote his life and all his resources. Thus far, then, the civic and the ecclesiastical community are co-terminous. I shall be discussing this more thoroughly below. Theological foundations How did Bucer arrive at this conception? Certainly not by chance. In that fourteenth article, which is still the subject of our discussion here, he talks about the law of God and the Spirit of Christ. Thus he refers for his assertions to the theological foundations which permeate and shape the whole of his work, and which one can truly describe as the two supporting columns of his religious and ecclesiastical thought and also activity: first, the law of God, implanted in all creation as the order of all being but finding 3

The Kingdom of Christ I:ii; BOL XV, p. 14; tr. Pauck 1970, pp. 186-7.

Church and civil community

19

its expression above all in the Bible; and secondly, the Holy Spirit, who enables human beings both to know and also in particular to assent gladly to this law, and hence to fulfil it. These distinctive theological conceptions must be discussed further. For the present what matters is simply the recognition that Bucer's statements concerning the function of the Christian authorities with regard to church and society belong to the centre of his theology and are in no way merely peripheral questions. Only when this much is realized can one understand why Bucer in this fourteenth article attacks so sharply all who would exclude the cooperation of the political powers in the quest for ecclesiastical and communal renewal. Because this involves the nerve-centre of his theology, Bucer is able to recognize in such opponents only adversaries of the Spirit of Christ and destroyers of all the good that God purposes, and hence thinly disguised agents of the Devil. These accusations were not advanced indiscriminately, but at that time (in 1533) were aimed at specific personalities well known in Strasbourg. The fact that Bucer had previously been closely connected with most of these individuals, whom he now attacked as 'Epicureans' - people who believed in nothing and merely wanted to enjoy life - greatly intensified the conflict. Now in the dock were the learned former monk, Otto Brunfels; the clever previous head of the Latin School at Selestat, Hans Sapidus, on whose side Bucer found himself in his younger years; and the erstwhile suffragan bishop Anton Engelbrecht, through whom in 1521 he had been declared free from his vows as a monk in the Dominican order. They all fundamentally denied - in harmony at this point with spiritualists and many Anabaptist groups - the right of political powers to embroil themselves in religious questions and concerns. To faith, they stressed, belongs freedom in an all-embracing sense - it being essentially a matter of something personal and inward. Consequently every regulation and (even more so) every external pressure and constraint on faith - understood as the subjective conviction of conscience - must be restrictive and burdensome. The spokesman of this group, Anton Engelbrecht, who defended his own position against Bucer in writing, 4 was able to accommodate him only so far as to allow the Christian to hold government office as an individual, and on this basis to canvass for the expansion and the acceptance of his faith but not on the basis of government as an institution. We have here, unmistakably opposed to each other, two utterly different views of the nature of the church, reflecting mutually exclusive conceptions. At the time Bucer was for once in the ascendant in Strasbourg. His opponents were isolated, and in part ousted from the city. Nevertheless, the 4

Cf. BDS 5, pp. 432-501 ('Bucer's Refutation of Engelbrecht's Report').

20

Martin Greschat

future belonged to them with their emphasis on freedom of conscience, the inwardness of piety, and subjective religious experience. Bucer's model, on the contrary, at least at first glance, appears hopelessly obsolete today. Perhaps it really is so. Yet independently of this question, it seems worthwhile first of all to examine somewhat more closely the thought of the Strasbourg Reformer. Reformation as co-operation

From the outset Bucer confronts us as a person who understood and described the establishment of the Reformation and his own share in it in terms of co-operation with other forces - and especially political forces. A few examples must here suffice to illustrate this fact. Immediately upon his arrival in Strasbourg, the married and excommunicated priest declared, in June 1523, that 'as a layman I will in every respect recognize the civil authority and render it obedience with all my means, as concerning honour, body and possessions - to which I and many are bound according to divine law'.5 Less than a year later, persuaded by pressure from the members of the parish of St Aurelie in Strasbourg, Bucer ventured to preach to these people, defying the unequivocal will of his ecclesiastical superiors no less than the disapproval - albeit not quite so clear - of the political authorities. He straightway informed Nicholas Kniebis, one of the most committed adherents of the reform movement on the city council, and asked him to defend his action. He had been obliged to obey the pressure of the people for the preaching of the Word of God. But, Bucer added at once, he had preached to the congregation precisely that faith which makes one able and ready to endure and suffer injustice.6 This combination of basic theological conviction and pragmatic political action is extremely characteristic of Bucer's mind. It pervades and stamps his entire work. Bucer was therefore never a political opportunist. But no more, as a rule, did he lose sight of the political dimension of the upheaval caused by the Reformation. One should always bear in mind, in connection with Bucer's conception of close co-operation between ecclesiastical and political representatives, that beyond any doubt he saw the real situation with extraordinary clarity and lucidity. Hardly anywhere was the old faith allowed to collapse without the more or less open approval of the rulers, but above all, nowhere could the new faith be introduced, let alone be properly organized, without the co-operation of the current political power. This insight imprinted itself very early on Bucer's theological and church-political thought. 5

'Reply to the Council'; BDS 1, p. 297.

6

BCor 1, pp. 216-18, no. 58 (21 February 1524).

Church and civil community

21

It is from this standpoint that Bucer's reforming activity in Ulm in the spring of 1531 should be understood.7 Of the eighteen articles on ecclesiastical and social renewal, no fewer than four deal with the rights and duties of the authorities - with regard to the reorganization of the church on the one hand and, on the other, the full establishment of a Christian social order.8 Bucer's many-faceted reforming activities in a number of city-states as well as secular and spiritual territories present the same picture. Of particular interest is his related activity in Augsburg, the imperial city of Fugger and Welser, in the year 1535.9 Here too Bucer composed some basic articles - there were ten in this case - wherein he again granted considerable rights and duties to the political power in respect of not only the reorganization but also the direction of the church.10 What Bucer envisaged here can be described only as the establishment of a state church. Together with these articles he compiled, in the 'Dialogues',11 a detailed account - certainly as eloquent as it was wide-ranging - of the basis of the power of the city rulers, even to carry out church reform independently of the pastors, in exercise of their proper responsibility. Bucer here adapted and applied his governing theological principles in a very instructive way. Not only against the adherents in the city of the spiritualist Sebastian Franck, but also against the Catholics and all who simply wished to abide by tradition, Bucer formulated the right of the power of the state to undertake reform of the church. In so doing he achieved a twofold objective. On the one hand he provided good arguments to the group on Augsburg's city council who wanted to take independent action, and were not prepared to allow things to drift any longer or to wait for an initiative from either the Emperor or the bishop. On the other, this promotion of a state church would crush the internal evangelical hostility and discord which until then had prevented the formation of a strong and effective reforming party in the city. Now the two sides were brought together: the preachers with their congregations, and the authorities. Now they could and must act to implement the reform movement led by the theologians - who exerted pressure on the politicians but also supplied them with arguments and justifications for pressing ahead. Once again Bucer adapted himself very skilfully to the prevailing conditions. He continued, however, to hold to the theological model which was fundamental to his thought - the intrinsic necessity of collaboration between ecclesiastical and political authorities - and merely accented some points afresh. It was not on the co-operation of these two leading forces 7 9 10

Cf. Endriss 1931; Pollet 1958-62, vol. II, pp. 163-220; BDS 4, pp. 183-305 (Ulm Church 8 Order), 365-98. BDS 4, pp. 375-9 (Draft for Ulm Church Order). Cf. Roth 1901-11; Wolfart 1901; Pollet 1958-62, vol. II, pp. 221-74; Kroon 1984; Schwarz 1988. u BDS 4, p. 399^08 (Bucer's 'Sermon in Augsburg'). BDS 6:2, pp. 39-188.

22

Martin Greschat

that Bucer placed his emphasis - without on that account relinquishing it but on the fatherly responsibility of the superior and stronger to care for those entrusted to them: Thus, because the authorities are a father, they must truly and even zealously ward off every trouble from their community, just as a particularly conscientious father is duty bound to keep all trouble away from his house, because the authorities are subject to a higher command and in a wider sense are fathers of the fatherland. They should therefore take responsibility for what individual fathers neglect or are unable to accomplish by way of Christian discipline and urgings toward piety. 12 The Moravian brethren

How flexible and versatile Bucer could be in developing his understanding of the proper relation between the spiritual and political exercise of authority and power in the community, is conclusively illustrated in his correspondence with the Moravian brethren during the years 1540 to 1542. This small community, a moderate offshoot of the fifteenth-century Hussite movement, had sought contact with Bucer. They had above all been impressed by his book 'On True Pastoral Care', which appeared in 1538.13 Here they found their own views laid out in a convincing manner. The church is the body of Christ with many members, i.e. it consists of vital, active Christians. Therefore, this must produce many offices in the congregation, such as leadership and proclamation, preaching and pastoral care, nurture as well as service. With this outline, Bucer again pursued a double objective. On the one side he sought the creation of vital, independent and hence self-confident congregations. And on the other he built thereon to make such congregations genuine partners of governments, and thus able to influence the latter towards the construction of a genuinely Christian social order and especially the establishment of church discipline. At this point Bucer laid every emphasis on the basic importance of ecclesiastical action, whereas the political clearly faded in importance: All Christians, because they are members and instruments of Christ, and Christ must live in them all and not they themselves (each appropriately according to his vocation and abilities, as Christ lives in each one), all should serve the Lord above all else and with the utmost diligence, to such effect that all his lost sheep are faithfully sought after, led back to him and brought into the community of his church.14

To all of this the Moravian brethren, as mentioned, gave their full and complete agreement. However, they vehemently opposed Bucer's conviction that the co-operation of the ecclesiastical power with the civil was absolutely essential. For them this meant handing the church of Christ over 12

Ibid., p. 177.

13

BDS 7, pp. 67-241.

14

Ibid., p. 146.

Church and civil community

23

to an alien force. Bucer, on the other hand, saw in their viewpoint a false restriction of the Lordship of Christ solely to the church. In reality, he stressed, all powers and institutions must serve him, including the earthly and the political, since in them works 'the same Holy Spirit who rules in every ecclesiastical institution and ministry'.15 That was and remained his basic theological stance. But at the same time Bucer saw, correctly enough, that conditions in Moravia were different from those in Strasbourg and accordingly the little oppressed minority there could not hope for the political support on which he counted. Therefore, he permitted the Moravians to omit the disputed paragraphs about the authorities in the Czech translation of his book 'On True Pastoral Care'. However, that Bucer had not at all changed his conviction is impressively demonstrated by his manifesto on The Kingdom of Christ (mentioned on pp. 17-18 above). Of course the church should be independent, and should constitute an autonomous spiritual force over against the political. But, no less obviously, the two must work together, to construct from their differing resources a true Christian society, where everyone and everything would really be under the Lordship of Christ. It is worth establishingfinallythat Bucer's theology was in no way bound to one fixed constitutional or legal form of political power. He could, therefore, seek to commit not only autonomous urban councils but also princes, secular or spiritual, to the cause of putting into effect the revealed truth of God in his name. Bucer's close and intensive ecclesiastical, church-political and political collaboration with Landgrave Philip of Hesse is well known,16 and the same goes for the Cologne archbishop, Hermann von Wied.17 In the 1540s Bucer hoped that with the help of the imperial estates a comprehensive church reform could be introduced into the Empire. Only very hesitantly was he ready to let himself be harnessed to imperial diplomacy for the religious policy of Charles V. Bucer's hope was still for a national German council, where the secular and spiritual estates of the Empire might resolve the passionately disputed questions of church reform without involving Rome. To that end Bucer dedicated himself even after the failure of all the reunion negotiations and colloquies on religion.18 Let us summarize: according to Bucer's conviction, the co-operation of state and church rests upon a fundamental theological claim. In order to be able to fulfil their own tasks meaningfully, both parties must submit themselves to Christ and recognize that he has called them into his service. In implementing these views Bucer showed himself remarkably imaginative. He understood that political rule assumed the most diverse forms, and he 15 17 18

16 Molnar 1951, p. 145. Cf. Lenz 1880-91; Heinemeyer 1986; Sohm 1915. Cf. Varrentrap 1878; Kohn 1966; Pollet 1985, vol. I, pp. 96-234, vol. II, pp. 33-162. Cf. Stupperich 1936; Fraenkel 1965; Augustijn 1967.

24

Martin Greschat

was in a position to use differing situations according to his own judgement. Certainly the immaturity and frailty of political structures in Germany in the early modern era proved advantageous to him. Many politicians showed themselves simply helpless in the face of complicated questions concerning the teaching, organization and life of the church. On these issues Bucer unquestionably had the better of them. But to choose to see in his endeavours merely the pursuit of influence and power amounts to a failure to recognize reality. First and foremost what counted for Bucer was the implementation of divine truth, i.e. commitment to the Lordship of Christ. For that he stood accountable - as unwavering as he was flexible, no less steadfast than versatile and astute. The whole community under God

On the basis of what has been said thus far, it is clear that Bucer was not only concerned for the reform of the church. His goal was continually the comprehensive renewal and Christian transformation of the whole of society - the church community as much as the civic commune, in other words, the respective spiritual and secular realms. Therefore, for Bucer the responsible collaboration of the rulers belonged inseparably to this programme - not merely out of various practical considerations, but from very fundamental theological reasoning. At this point not only individuals but also institutions were subject to the Lordship of Christ. All of them, each in its place and with its particular capacities and resources, were to serve the triune God. This conception undoubtedly gave expression to markedly traditional understandings behind the idea that a community can only flourish when its people properly serve God and obey his commandments; otherwise severe punishment will be the result. Not only was Bucer familiar with these notions, but his contemporaries naturally adhered to them. So Bucer could repeatedly admonish the representatives of the government, for example in Strasbourg, about their responsibilities toward the church. The idea was familiar to everybody; 'with what dreadful, intolerable anger God will smite an entire land and no less a city, where a ruling authority does not punish and eliminate with the utmost severity such blasphemous wickedness, so pernicious for the people, so shameful, and worse, even bestial'.19 When Bucer wrote this text in 1547, he was no longer speaking in general, but was rather filled with concern, even anxiety, about the future of the Reformation in Strasbourg and in Germany as a whole, and also about political freedom in the Empire and the independence of his free imperial city on the Upper Rhine. Then came war, and the defeat 19

BDS 17, p. 230 ('Considerations on the Eradication of Graver Vices').

Church and civil community

25

of the Protestants loomed. Bucer now radicalized his earlier viewpoint that God habitually punished the authorities and the people for moral lapses in a community - so that he not only rebuked the citizens of Strasbourg for indifference towards the manifold immorality in the city, but also reproached them for their lack of religious fervour and all too feeble piety, indeed for their contempt of the gospel and God's truth. That must provoke God's anger and harsh punishment in unusual measure. In Bucer's judgement, disaster was already taking its course. Therefore everything must be done to prevent the city and its inhabitants being consumed. This meant that the rulers, like all other Strasbourgers, must recognize that they had been ungrateful towards the goodness of God and careless towards his sacred claims. They must all, therefore, turn back, repent, and seek to follow the truth of the gospel anew with wholehearted sincerity and zeal. In this alone - and not in political considerations and negotiations - there still lay a chance actually to escape the catastrophe at the last minute. Bucer wrote likewise in February 1549 to the city council, after the majority of the citizens had agreed to the introduction of the Interim in Strasbourg: But unfortunately what now matters has so far been neglected much too much, not only in the time of peace but also thereafter. True repentance for the old idolatry and the scandalous life people led in the face of the gospel, and for the atrocious ingratitude and the gravest sins people committed against the gospel, in respect of entering properly and wholeheartedly into covenant with God and obeying him (which almighty God demands so strictly in his Word) - this is absent, latterly as before, even though the Lord pours out his anger on us more heavily each day. All other ways and means of preserving peace, freedom and the faith have been sought and pursued. But they have only made things even more difficult. But the one correct way and the really fruitful method - this alone people have not tried: namely, true repentance, conversion to God, earnest supplication, fasting and prayer, whereby alone has almighty God promised to give these his highest gifts, which no one can give save he alone.20 We encounter the same acceptance and the same sharpened insistence on the traditional idea in Bucer's endeavours to push as far as possible to the fringe of the community - in every case at least to isolate or even press right out of the community - all who refused to assent to the approved Reformation doctrine. By way of an example, Bucer formulated this standpoint in a petition deriving probably from 1532: Finally, however, nobody here should or ought to be tolerated - without provoking the severe wrath of God and bringing about the destruction of the city as well as the church - who refuses to take an oath not to slander our Christian religion, to entice 20

Ibid., p. 618 ('Advice: the Company of Pastors' Further Clarification').

26

Martin Greschat

no one away from it, but rather to hear the Word of God, to direct his family to the same end, and also to pray with other Christians for God's grace.21 Certainly this is to a great extent the task of the authorities. Together with the teachers and preachers of the church, they must take every measure to ensure that the truth of God is exalted, honoured and lived out with all one's strength. Once again Bucer underlined the fact that through the Reformation, i.e. the revelation of the gospel as the message of God's unconditional and unmerited love toward humankind, the responsibilities and obligations of rulers, as of church leaders, were enlarged and raised. But the commitment to service, and thus submission to the Lordship of Christ, are by no means theirs alone but belong to every Christian in the city. Basic to the Reformation faith is that everyone is given the possibility as well as the commission to work for the well-being of the Christian community - and in so doing, indeed, also for that of the civil community. Discipline the key

Thus Bucer adopted the medieval ideal of the city community, which is concerned precisely with this realization of earthly welfare and eternal salvation, and at the same time deepened it through his Reformation understanding of faith and new behaviour applied to the individual. Bucer also struggled, out of profound theological conviction, for a harmonization, as far-reaching as possible, of the Christian and civil communities. As the most important and effective means of attaining these goals he fastened on education. It remained the case that any who sharply opposed the organization and establishment of a Christian social order should leave the city, that is, its related territory. That applied to the immoral as well as unbelievers. The gradual isolation and eventual displacement of the 'Epicureans' from Strasbourg, in conjunction with the synod of 1533, were briefly mentioned above. Certain Anabaptist leaders, spiritualists or other sectarians repeatedly experienced the same fate, both before and after the synod. Indeed Bucer understood this pattern of procedure rather as a form of self-defence; through it the wicked were surely not saved, but merely driven away - and thereby set free for a possible new start at other places. But at the same time a different approach also appeared imperative to the Strasbourger. Through this it would be possible to subject all contradictory and recalcitrant persons firmly to the rule of the present political power - to instruct them intensively and seek to convert them, but at the same time supervise and control them as strictly as needed, and thus, by praise and 21

BDS 4, p. 453 ('On the Defects of Religion').

Church and civil community

27

censure, by pressure and harshness on the one hand, and by loving persuasion and manifold public demands on the other, to educate them to their wholeness and salvation - and thus in their own best interests. The extent to which the richness and diversity of Bucer's ecclesiology were shaped through his thinking on this educational programme is not to be pursued further here.22 Yet it is important to record that, nevertheless, coercion and punishment played a significant role. The individuality of human beings (which was deeply rooted in the Reformation understanding of faith), together with their personal freedom, find their unmistakable limits at the point where the religious and social well-being of the community is concerned. And the political and ecclesiastical superiors have a far better grasp of what that comprises than the simple citizen and Christian. Therefore, the political authorities - in concert, of course, with the ecclesiastical - should and must use force in the process of establishing the Christian order of society. Characteristically Bucer spoke frequently in this context of his fellow Christians as young people and children: once they were grown up, or in other words, had 'reached the age of discretion', they would show themselves unquestionably grateful for the 'strokes' inflicted on them.23 The importance and necessity of coercion and punishment for the building of a true Christian community were summed up by Bucer as follows, in his aforementioned 'Dialogues' from the year 1535: Therefore, appropriate punishment is nothing but love, compassion and salvation, not only for the poor community, which through the punishment will remove the offence that led to their insidious ruin. But it will also instil fear into the careless, to make them abide by the truth that much more constantly. And in the end it is worth it also for those who are punished. They will be deterred from causing themselves still greater misfortune and misery, and thereby bringing down the eternal wrath of God more heavily upon themselves.24 Thus, everything serves the process of educating the community. The thrust of this process is towards obedience to the commands of God - and that is likewise brought about through having official discrimination and legitimate suppression of all recalcitrants carried out openly in public. The Jews of Hesse How Bucer conceived of this programme in detail is made particularly clear in reading through his plan for the treatment of Jews. 25 When in 1538 Landgrave Philip enquired of Bucer whether and under what conditions 22 25

23 24 For the details see Hammann 1984. BDS 5, p. 476. BDS 6:2, p. 127. 'Advice Whether Christian Authorities May Properly Tolerate Jews Living Among Christians', BDS 7, pp. 319-94; see also 6:2, pp. 149-54.

28

Martin Greschat

the Jews could continue to live in his territory, the townsman declared himself resolutely against their expulsion. One such action would indeed signify that the authorities were refusing to establish God's order and law! The Landgrave should rather make every effort to bring them to reverence and obedience within the sphere of his rule. This meant that the political power, together with the ecclesiastical, must ensure that the gospel was preached to everybody - including the Jews. At the same time these authorities were obliged, according to Bucer's conviction, publicly to exclude from the community open unbelievers or false Christians - and so the immoral no less than Anabaptists, spiritualists, Catholics and even Jews - by depriving them of their rights and inflicting specific punishments. In his 'Dialogues' of 1535 Bucer asserted that the authorities should compel such subjects to do useful work for the general public. In an opinion given at the same time he demanded the imposition of compulsory labour on stubborn Anabaptists. 26 On this occasion Bucer wanted the Jews to be forced into 'the most menial, most laborious and most difficult work'. 27 Anti-Jewish stereotypes are certainly not absent from these opinions, but the emphasis does not lie there. Just as Bucer wanted to see a large number of measures used in church discipline - from individual pastoral conversation to exclusion from the Lord's Supper - so the Anabaptists should be treated in various ways, beginning with soliciting their return to the church, through exposition of their theological errors to punishment. At this very time, in 1538, Bucer was successful in winning the Anabaptist leader, Peter Tesch, together with his adherents, to his side and to the side of the church of the region of Hesse.28 Bucer's plans for the treatment of the Jews thus did not aim at the creation of a separate status for them alone, but were fully part and parcel of his programme for healing the ills of the municipal and ecclesiastical communities under the Lordship of Christ. So the gospel is to be preached to the Jews, and they must be contended with in love - but in the end, like all other stiff-necked and stubborn people, they must be coerced and punished by the authorities. According to Bucer's thinking, the authorities execute already here on earth the future eternal punishment of God. They do so basically to deter and warn, and thus ultimately out of love. Bucer, then, kept the conviction that punishment also is an important means of education, in the sense of amendment of life, as much for those involved as for the rest of society. And that holds in general, with regard to the immoral as well as Anabaptists, sectarians and even Jews. Therefore Bucer could, after all, reject the criticism of his advice about the treatment of the Jews in Hesse with a statement of fundamental principle: 26 28

21 QGT VIII, p. 462 no. 673. BDS 7, p. 356. Franz 1951, pp. 98-146; Battenberg 1983.

Church and civil community

29

Wherever a true God-fearing regime exists, those who belong to the household of faith must continually be favoured and the despisers of the faith disadvantaged. And the authorities, which have to administer not their own but God's justice, should treat unbelievers in such a way as to provoke horror.29 The co-operation of both powers, the political and the ecclesiastical, is, according to Bucer's conviction - as we have seen - fundamental to the establishment of a comprehensive Christian social order such as God wills. In this the controlling powers lead the way insofar as each one, in his place and with the means at his disposal, sets an example in effecting what all Christians and all citizens in the community in their own way are given to do. And in so doing, all are embraced in a comprehensive educational process, which the rulers, together with the preachers and theologians, must promote, but in which they are also themselves at the same time involved. In Bucer's intention, church discipline should stop at no one. The authorities have to submit to it, as do the pastors. It follows from all of this that office-holders, both political and ecclesiastical, are quite definitely raised above the community - but primarily in the sense of setting a precedent in what is laid on everyone in the community, that is, promoting the establishment of the Lordship of Christ in the society to the best of their ability, and guiding others by reminder and warning, by persuasion and punishment - in short, by education. We are dealing here not with just one of Bucer's beliefs among others. Rather we encounter here the fundamental structure of his theology, which all his life he held fast, developed, deepened and varied. Order of creation and order of society Bucer's first book, published in 1523, already dealt fully with this theme T h a t No One Should Live for Himself but for Others'. 30 In continuity with, among others, the theology of Thomas Aquinas, in whose thought Bucer had immersed himself for about ten years as a Dominican monk, the Strasbourger here described a law of being that was implanted in creation by God. Accordingly all created things - from inanimate nature right up to the angels - are thereby impelled to prove themselves useful and helpful to one other, and thus to serve the good of the whole. Bucer described this principle - borrowing from and interacting with diverse theological traditions - as love of one's neighbour. This he saw essentially, in the nature of things, as what directed human thoughts, feelings and aspirations to contribute towards the well-being of others. It is true that this wholesome structure was shattered by the Fall. Since then, human beings have first and foremost thought of themselves, striven 29

BDS 7, p. 388.

30

BDS 1, pp. 29-67; tr. Fuhrmann 1952.

30

Martin Greschat

for self-realization at the cost of others, and had regard ultimately to their own interests. Yet through Christ's death on the cross the original order of creation was in principle restored: 'it pleased God through Christ also to bring all things into the position and order in which they had at first been created'. 31 In respect of human beings this means that now they not only know about this good purpose of God, but also have at their disposal the gift of the Holy Spirit which faith in Christ receives, and thus the power to follow that divine law. The life of the Christian no longer aims at his own advantage and profit, but rather at the well-being of his fellow human beings and the whole community. This has nothing to do, Bucer stresses, with trying to please God through one's own achievement, thus relativizing justification on the basis of faith alone. Rather such action has to do with the gratitude of the one who knows himself accepted by God in spite of guilt and failure. And therefore, Bucer emphasizes, we permit ourselves also heartily to rejoice that serving and showing our neighbours all tender consideration is required of us, for thereby we are allowed to show a little gratitude to our most gracious Father and Saviour and with confident hearts to expect from him wider loving kindness since we now apply - a little at least - to do his will.32 The responsibility of every Christian for his fellow human beings, thus his neighbour, and his duty to promote and advance the good of others in an all-encompassing sense, imply attentiveness, watchfulness - and even a pedagogical effort. In his early years Bucer had placed almost his entire emphasis on the power of the Holy Spirit. He certainly continued to underline its fundamental significance, but later on he stressed more strongly the persistent force of sin, and accordingly the necessity to construct barriers against it, and so to create structures which would hold and stabilize people while also securing and re-ordering them. Education understood in the widest sense - improving and challenging all, but also monitoring them - this now became even more Bucer's great theme. In The Kingdom of Christ he demanded therefore, 'that everyone, a private person as well as one appointed to public service, has his watchman, inspector, and observer who will urge him to do his duty if he should fail it in some manner or if he should sin in any way'. 33 Every Christian in the community is, in fact, jointly subject to the Lordship of Christ and thus responsible for the health and well-being of the whole, while still remaining bound to his place in society, corresponding to his location in the hierarchically structured corporate social order. This was for Bucer the basis on which an order of existence, assumed by him to be divine, was stabilized and made legitimate. The drive implanted in 31 33

32 BDS 1, p. 60; tr. Fuhrmann 1952, p. 42. BDS 1, p. 63; tr. Fuhrmann 1952, p. 46. Kingdom of Christ Ililvii; BOL XV, p. 276; tr. Pauck 1970, p. 368.

Church and civil community

31

creation to help and benefit others always assumes the connection to a fixed and clearly defined position in life - from inanimate nature via the peasant, manual worker, merchant, politician and clergy and finally up to the angels. The political powers were allotted, therefore, an important place, though still in no way the dominant one. Dialogue This position of Bucer's can be expressed in the following way: throughout his life he was corporately minded and an opponent of every absolutism, both in political life and within the church. One of his main arguments against the papacy was that it was an illogical and abnormal notion that a single unique member of the church could serve it better than the many with their multifaceted gifts. Consistently with this, dialogue played a central role in Bucer's thought and work, not only as a literary form but almost as a principle: in this way, the rights and the elements of truth in different positions, groups and convictions within the church, and also in society in general, could find appropriate expression. This principle of dialogue assumed the independence of the respective partners, on the side not only of the authorities but also of the church. On this Bucer would allow no bargaining. In fact, he deliberately helped by organizing in Strasbourg 'Christian communities', in which people freely committed themselves to a godly life of discipleship with mutual pastoral care and church discipline. Yet by no means did Bucer intend by this arrangement to instigate the emancipation of the church from the authorities. Certainly one must insist 'that the worldly authority restrict itself to its own sphere and arrogate to itself no greater power than is imposed and ordered by God, in other words, that it have no desire to hinder the concerns of the church'. 34 Nevertheless, according to Bucer's deepest conviction, the political and the spiritual power remained essentially related to each other. They must of necessity co-operate with one another - as must all other groups, ranks and forces in accordance with the divine order of being which Christ had restored, so that now all things be subject to his Lordship: This first part should have made it clear: that, according to the order and commandment of the Creator, no one should live for himself but each should out of love for God live for his neighbour and by all means be of service to him in matters pertaining to both the spirit and the body; and that this obligation rests above all on those who were called and established to promote public utility, both spiritual and secular.35 34 35

BDS 17, p. 164 ('On the Church's Defects and Failings'). BDS 1, p. 59; tr. Fuhrmann 1952, p. 40.

3

Bucer's influence on Calvin: church and community Willem van 't Spijker

Bucer's influence on Calvin rested on two factors which go hand in hand. First, there was a reciprocal respect which is clearly manifested in their correspondence. This respectful posture toward each other, however, is supported by a second element which relates to the heart of their theology, i.e. the work of the Holy Spirit in causing us to live in communion with Christ. The 'communio' that existed between Bucer and Calvin was based on their shared 'communio cum Christo'. Joint esteem is clearly evident from the start in the letters which have been preserved from Bucer to Calvin as well as from Calvin to Bucer. Calvin personally felt deeply indebted to his friend from Strasbourg, as he acknowledged to Bullinger in these words: 'I will not proclaim at this moment the rare and manifold virtues which this man possesses. Let me just say that I would do a great deal of injustice to the church of God if I were to hate or despise him. I will remain silent as to how he made himself serviceable to me personally.' 1 The nature of the friendship between Calvin and Bucer was such that they knew, pointed out and also tolerated each other's weaknesses. This mutual regard and appreciation was deepened in an extraordinary way during Calvin's stay in Strasbourg from 1538 to 1541, where he gave shape to Bucer's ideals while in charge of a small French refugee congregation. Mutual influences Above all, this harmonious relationship can be accounted for by a strong theological and religious affinity which enabled each to influence the other. Calvin's respect for Bucer rested on the acknowledgement that the latter was in possession of great theological and exegetical abilities. It was definitely not simple politeness that made him praise Bucer's gift, especially in relation to exegesis of the Bible. Calvin's word of praise, written to Grynaeus, which precedes his commentary on Romans is well known: 'No 1

Calvin to Bullinger, CO XII, col. 729.

32

Bucer's influence on Calvin

33

one has to our knowledge exerted himself so precisely and diligently in biblical exegesis.'2 Calvin followed Bucer's example in his Harmonia Evangelical Both desired to be students of Holy Scripture. Their exegetical work, however, was placed in service of the church. And it is on this point that Calvin and Bucer understood and appreciated each other. In the first letter we have from Bucer to Calvin, written on 1 December 1536, Bucer shows his respect for the young theologian. He has high expectations of him and would like very much to meet in order to discuss the 'entire administration of the teaching of Christ'. 4 Capito had the same idea, as is evident from a letter of the same date. He too raises topics that are related to church government and discipline, matters which were hotly debated in the 1530s in Strasbourg. 5 These were issues that remained relevant until the very end of their correspondence. A significant part of Bucer's last letter to Calvin is devoted to the issues of the doctrine and discipline of the church. 6 Bucer and Calvin were theologians of the church. Their work was placed in the service of the church, which is the dominion of Christ. However, not all has been said concerning what bound them together. Both have rightfully been called theologians of the Holy Spirit. It is at this crucial point in their theology that they were most analogous. The Confessio Fidei de Eucharistia, drafted by Calvin and co-signed by Bucer and Capito, may illustrate that. 7 In it, Calvin offers an explanation of the mystery of the Lord's Supper which Bucer wholeheartedly endorsed. Calvin wrote that spiritual life is communicated to us through Christ. By his Spirit, he makes us share in the power of his life-giving flesh in heaven. This is how the 'communio' which unites us with him originates. The Spirit is the bond of that fellowship between Christ and his own. But the same Spirit is also the bond of fellowship which is determinative for the church. Both men found each other at this central point in their theology. Did Bucer influence Calvin in that? No doubt. Nevertheless, as time went on this influence grew reciprocally. Calvin realized Bucer's ideals when the latter was hindered from doing so in Strasbourg. Bucer applied the same vision in his labours for the church as well as in society. He conceptualized his final thoughts in this field in his well-known De Regno Christi {The 2 3 4

5 6

CO Xb, col. 404: 'hanc sibi propriam laudem habet, quod nullus hac memoria exactiore diligentia in Scripturae interpretatione versatus est'. 'Bucerum praesertim sanctae memoriae virum et eximium ecclesiae Dei doctorem sum imitatus, qui prae aliis non poenitendam hac in re operam meo iudicio navavit': CO XLV, col. 4. 'Libenter itaque veniemus quo tu voles, ut in Domino, summa cum observantia veritatis Christi, et tui, de tota administratione doctrinae Christi conferamus': Herminjard IV, pp. 118-19, with note on the date (cf. CO Xb, cols. 67-8). Herminjard IV, pp. 115-16; CO Xb, col. 75; Millet 1982, p. 219. 7 CO XIII, col. 574, letter of 25 May 1550. CO IX, col. 711; OS I, p. 435.

34

Willem van't Spijker

Kingdom of Christ), which contains ideas that sought realization throughout the entire Reformed tradition. These ideas can be captured in one notion: communion. It contains three different levels. First, there is fellowship with Christ. This can be distinguished but not isolated from the fellowship of the saints, which we call the church. This communion exists within a greater fellowship, the living community of a society, which seeks its life in the gospel itself. In this way, the fellowship with Christ and that of the saints can be developed within society and the latter will be sanctified through it. There exist then, three dimensions: communion with Christ, the body of Christ ('corpus Christi'), and the Christian society ('corpus christianum'). Communion with Christ

When Bucer and Capito sought contact with Calvin during the last months of 1536 it was undoubtedly on the basis of trust created by the publication of the first edition of Calvin's Institutio. The Confessio Fidei de Eucharistia really contains no elements different from those present in the Institutio. Calvin's theological development can be traced in this book, and also the influence on him of Luther, Zwingli and Bucer. However, he shows particular independence in the way he assimilated the material he had received from others. His connection to Luther is rooted in the idea in which one can well recognize Luther's reforming discovery - 'the blessed exchange and contest', from Luther's book The Freedom of the Christian. What is Christ's becomes ours, and what is ours is accounted to him. However, this thought of imputation is powerful only because it is inseparable from the reality of the communion with Christ. Luther talks about a union of the soul with Christ. Calvin maintains this concept and develops it in his theology in a manner for which Bucer offered the ingredients - incorporation in Christ ('insertio', 'incorporatio', 'insitio', 'inplantatio'). 8 These are the concepts that have become characteristic of Calvin's thinking. 9 The remarkable exchange of the gospel takes place 'in Christ', i.e. in communion with Christ. Here it is that we see the work of the Holy Spirit revealed in all its richness. One could assert that Calvin nourished this idea for his confession concerning the Lord's Supper. He himself declared in 1536 that if the question had been phrased properly, the conflict concerning the Lord's Supper would not have broken out. After all, the issue is not how Christ is present in the bread. 10 Rather, we ought to ask how Christ's body and 8 9 10

OS I, p. 137: 'quod sic Christum nobis, sic nos illi vicissim insertos esse agnoscimus, ut quidquid ipsius est, nostrum vocare, quidquid nostrum est, ipsius censere liceat'. Van 't Spijker 1988, pp. 73-106. 'quomodo in pane praesens adsit Christi corpus': OS I, p. 139.

Bucer's influence on Calvin

35

blood become ours. Calvin believed that the Supper-strife arose from an incorrect posing of the problem. The real issue is: how do we receive a share in Christ; how do we have communion with Christ? This matter, however, was not limited to the confession of the Lord's Supper. To Calvin, the question of how Christ's beneficence becomes ours was central to theology as a whole. The answer is because Christ does not live outside of us, but within us through his Spirit, and we in him. Calvin's theological contemplation was permeated and dominated from the start by this Christological and pneumatological perspective. There is never any communion in the church without communion with Christ. Therefore Christ's presence in the Lord's Supper is not a sacramental event that stands on its own, but is to be viewed ecclesiologically. The church can be explained only through this 'communio'. Behind this concept lies election, which is particularly connected to the church in the first edition of the Institutes.11 One could say that communion with Christ through the Holy Spirit is nothing other than the fruit of election made visible in the church. This communion with Christ appears to be effective in the sanctification of life in accordance with God's decrees. Election comes to pass in Christ. Sanctification of life is the result of this communion with Christ. However, it also occurs in Christ. Thus, 'in Christ' guarantees the gratuity of grace. In him we are also justified. It is apparent that Calvin worried as little about the chronology of the 'ordo salutis' (order of salvation) as did Bucer. All of salvation is locked up in our communion with Christ. 12 The question which presents itself at this point is how this view of being 'in Christ' can help to realize the same salvation in church and society. The first edition of the Institutes, published in 1536, approached the church specifically as the total number of the elect.13 It emphasized her invisibility and described her as the mystical body of Christ ('corpus Christi mysticum'). 14 It is especially after 1536 that we can see Bucer's influence on Calvin as he shifts his emphasis to consider also the visible stature of the church. 15

Corpus Christi: body of Christ In his early writings, Bucer's view of the church had a strong social aspect. A Christian, he asserted, does not live for himself but for others. 16 The idea of communion played a major role here. We can now mention the four 12 OS I, pp. 86-91. Stephens 1970, pp. 37-41. OS I, p. 86: 'Primum credimus sanctam ecclesiam catholicam, hoc est, universum electorum numerum, sive angeli sint, sive homines.' OS I, p. 92: 'Haec est ecclesia catholica corpus Christi mysticum.' See further Anrich 1928; Pannier 1925; Courvoisier 1933; Hammann 1984. Das Ym Selbs Niemant . . . (1523), in BDS 1, pp. 29-67; tr. Fuhrmann 1952.

36

Willem van't Spijker

factors which gave substance to Bucer's conception of the church. First, his resistance to Rome and its stress on the church's visibility made him consider the spiritual side of the church of Christ. The priesthood of believers is especially nourished by pneumatology. Bucer never had genuine leanings towards spiritualism; but his conflict with the Anabaptists, in which Strasbourg was involved in the 1530s, resulted in a more balanced view. Secondly, Bucer stresses the church as an instrument of salvation in which grace is mediated through Word and Spirit. A third factor is the strife over the Lord's Supper. Strasbourg's role was geared to conciliating Zwingli and his successor Bullinger on the one hand, Luther and his associates on the other. The Concord of Wittenberg (1536) resulted in a theological turn toward Luther. At that point, Bucer acknowledged that grace is the work of the Holy Spirit, but that he makes use of people. This is merely a difference in emphasis, but it remains a difference nonetheless. 17 In his 'Retractationes', which were made part of the third edition of his commentary on the Four Gospels, Bucer gave an account of this change. 18 One cannot doubt the sincerity of his intentions. After 1536, Bucer's theology experienced no further changes. The fourth factor significant for his view of the church relates to the realization of church discipline. His conflict with the Anabaptists called attention to the character of the church as a community of discipline. The emergence of 'Epicureanism' in the second generation in Strasbourg impelled Bucer to place a stronger accent upon ecclesiastical discipline. The Synod of 1533 in Strasbourg strove to stop the advance of the Anabaptists. 19 A strong church organization was to administer discipline. The government, however, opposed Bucer's activities. The preachers were allowed to press for church discipline, as Oecolampadius had advocated in Basel, but the government did not want to take that route. We find a strong plea for a private ecclesiastical structure, whereby the congregation gathers itself around the Lord's Supper, in the well-known publication from 1538, 'On True Pastoral Care' (Von der Waren Seelsorge).20 Here Bucer sees the congregation as a loving, redemptive and disciplinary community. Despite the fact that Christ utilizes office-bearers, he is present himself, and so does what he has promised. The dynamic church structure is of service to the grace which Christ confers through his Spirit. In advancing this ideal Bucer did not stand alone. His colleagues were favourable and supported his efforts with vigour. At this time, Calvin came to Strasbourg. Undoubtedly he hinted at this 17 19

Stephens 1970, p. 262: T h e difference between the two periods in his theology is essentially l8 one of accent, but it is nonetheless a difference.' Also in TA, pp. 642-8. 20 Wendel 1942; official documents in BDS 5, 6:2. BDS 7, pp. 90-241.

Bucer's influence on Calvin

37

aspiration of Bucer and his proponents when he wrote to Farel in October 1538: 'Our people continue to strive for the installation of discipline energetically yet very cautiously.' 21 Bucer's ideas expounded in Von der Waren Seelsorge could not be realized in the large people's church in Strasbourg. Outside Strasbourg they became a tool for church order that would gain a vast influence in later history. In Hesse a church order was introduced in which discipline was given a place. 22 In the Kassel Church Order the congregation was seen as a disciplinary community around the Lord's Supper. Through confirmation the young confessor enters into the circle of that fellowship. A place is appointed to him in the congregation, which is Christ's body, through the laying on of hands. What Bucer was unable to establish in Strasbourg succeeded in Hesse. Within the commonwealth of Strasbourg the French refugee congregation acquired an exemplary role. Inside that circle Calvin was able to realize his own ideals, which had also been Bucer's. Soon Calvin reported to Farel that he had celebrated Holy Communion with his small congregation in accordance with the Strasbourg ritual. 23 He also followed Bucer's ideas and instituted church discipline in relation to Holy Communion. Calvin gives an account of these affairs in his letters. 24 Discipline bears a pastoral character, but it also serves to do justice to the church's sacredness. An article drafted by Calvin and Farel, intended to bring about reconciliation with Geneva, proved how much the above-mentioned views were also Calvin's.25 Both men call for an active application of church discipline. To that end the city ought to be divided up into small pastoral units, so that the shepherd will know his sheep. The 'administrate' of the congregation takes place by means of the pastorate. The office-bearers in charge of this receive a clear job description. Thus Calvin could organize his congregation in Strasbourg according to his own ideals, which he shared with Bucer. He first drew up this model in the Institutio of 1539. Whereas the edition of 1536 stressed the invisibility of the church, which is the mystical body of Christ, the 1539 edition viewed the church particularly as the mother of believers ('mater fidelium').26 From her we receive life. By her care we must be fed. 'She is the mother of us all. The Lord desired that by her the treasures of his grace should be 21

23 24 25 26

Calvin to Farel, CO Xb, col. 279: 'Nostri in disciplinae instaurationem magno conatu sed dissimulanter incumbere pergunt, ne si intelligant improbi, inter ipsa principia impedimentum 22 afferant.' Ziegenhainer Zuchtordnung, in BDS 7, pp. 260-78. Calvin to Farel, October 1538: 'Nos primam in ecclesiola nostra coenam secundum loci ritum celebravimus, quam singulis mensibus instituimus repetere': CO Xb, col. 279. CO Xb, col. 437. See Nauta 1965. Articuli a Calvino et Farello Propositi adPacem Genevae Restituendam, CO Xb, cols. 190-2. The articles date from the beginning of May 1538: Herminjard V, p. 3. Ganoczy 1968, pp. 149-57.

38

Willem van't Spijker

preserved.' 27 Through her service we partake of salvation. When we desire to enter into the kingdom of God it is necessary to accept the church through faith.28 Calvin never let go of the idea of the church as the whole company of the elect ('universus electorum numerus'), but connected it with the visible church. One can embrace the multitude of the elect in faith and heart, but this will not suffice. We need to have a conception of the unity of the church that is simultaneously persuaded of our incorporation into her. The notion of 'insitio' in Christ is linked directly with 'insitio' in the church. 29 Our communion with Christ as our Head cannot be detached from unity with all his members. 30 Cyprian's saying is given a biblical character by Calvin: 'For the Scriptures say that outside of the unity of the church there is no salvation.' In 1539 Calvin draws a close relationship between the church and the communion of the saints. Through this association the 'politicus ordo', the public peace, remains undisturbed. Calvin apparently sought to defend himself against the accusation of having an Anabaptist tendency. 31 The church seeks to be visible. We are talking of the church as she can be known by us. 32 The contours of the church become manifest. Her form of appearance develops before our eyes.33 She is identifiable by signs and symbols: the administration of the Word and sacraments as pledge and seal ('pignus et arrhabon') show that one can genuinely speak of a true church. Where these two - Word and sacraments - are present they do not remain without fruit. God's promise cannot fail. 'Where two or three are gathered in my name there I am in their midst.' Thus Bucer's influence is obvious in the edition of Calvin's Institutes of 1539, which places great emphasis upon the church's visibility, communion and discipline. Bucer's influence appears to be even stronger in the edition of 1543. Here Calvin devotes much attention to the church order that serves to build up the congregation. God himself reigns in the church. He exercises his rule by means of the Word. 'But since he does not dwell among us in a visible manner he institutes the service of people . . . in order to do his work through them.' 34 Calvin, like Bucer, described church office as a means to 27

28 29 30

32 33 34

CO I, col. 539: 'Est enim nostra omnium mater, penes quam gratiae suae thesauros depositos esse voluit Dominus, quo et eius fide conserventur, et per eius ministerium dispensentur.' Ibid.: 'Proinde si in regnum Dei ingressum nobis patefieri volumus, ecclesiam fide apprehendere opus est.' Ibid.: 'Id autemest, non modo electorum multitudinemcogitatione animoque amplecti, sed talem ecclesiae unitatem cogitare, in quam nos esse insitos vere persuasi sumus.' Ibid.: 'Nam nisi Christo capiti nostro, per hanc cum omnibus eius membris conjunctionem, compacti, nullam coelestis haereditatis spem cernere possumus; quando extra ecclesiae 31 unitatem nullam esse salutem scriptura pronuntiat.' Ibid., col. 541. Ibid., col. 542: 'Enimvero de ecclesia visibili, et quae sub cognitionem nostram cadit, quale iudicium esse debeat, nunc est dicendi locus.' Ibid., col. 543: 'Hinc nascitur nobis et emergit conspicua oculis nostris ecclesiae fades.' Ibid., col. 561.

Bucer's influence on Calvin

39

the church's unity when he wrote: T h e service of people whom God uses in the government of his church is the chief sinew through which believers grow together in one body.' 35 In his analysis of the offices Calvin agrees closely with Bucer. He too distinguishes between temporary and permanent offices. The latter are the teachers and the shepherds. 36 Calvin includes the work of the deacons and differentiates between the two kinds, i.e. caring for the poor and caring for the sick. In the caring for the sick, Calvin also allows a place for the ministry of women. 37 In his theological understanding of the offices, Calvin joins ranks with Bucer, as we see clearly in his large commentary on the Gospels and in his exposition of the Letter to the Romans. The congregation is the united assembly of those who are being led by the Word and Spirit. It is inside this community that the Spirit of Christ works. Office and church are mutually related. Charisma and office, however, belong together as well. Within this visible, identifiable church Christ himself exercises his dominion. He does not totally leave this to human beings even though he takes them into his service. All that takes place in the church is subservient to her edification ('aedificatio ecclesiae'), a concept that would saturate the Reformed ecclesiological tradition from Bucer and Calvin onward. The structure of the church is given in the Word of God. This basic conviction resulted from serious investigation of Scripture. Anyone who compares Calvin's commentary on Ephesians 4 with his sermons on the same text will notice how the concept of order ('ordo') plays a dominating role. We are to conform ourselves to the order as established by Christ, in which the Spirit labours for the church's edification.38 Christ reigns through his Word, and the structure of the church must be in accordance with the Word. 39 It is out of this conviction that Calvin's church orders came into being. The congregation groups itself around the Lord's Supper. Bucer gave a similar formulation in 1527 and patterned it after Luther's ideals, expressed in his German Mass in 1526. Luther wrote that if there were enough people 'who wanted to be sincere Christians' the congregation might be constituted around the Supper table. Yet he had to admit that he did not have the 35 36 38

39

Ibid., col. 562: 'His verbis cum illud ostendit, hominum ministerium, quo Deus in gubernanda ecclesia utitur, praecipuum esse nervum, quofidelesin uno corpore cohaereant 37 Ibid., cols. 563-6. Ibid., col. 567. CO LI, col. 199: 'Requiri ministerium Paulus docet, quia ita placet Deo. Pro eo quod dixerat constitutionem sanctorum, mox subjungit aedificationem corporis Christi, eodem sensu. Nam ilia est legitima nostra integritas et perfectio, si coalescamus omnes in unum Christi corpus . . . Nam si ecclesiae aedificatio a solo Christo est, ipsius etiam sane est praescribere quam aedificandi rationem esse valit.' Especially in his sermons, Calvin operates from the notion of order: 'Et de faict, l'ordre qu'il a constitue en son Eglise le monstre.' Everybody, great and small, is to conform to the order that Christ instituted: CO LI, cols. 553-92. See Osterhaven 1978. For Bucer's influence on Calvin's exegesis regarding the offices of elder and deacon, see McKee 1984 and 1988.

40

Willem van't Spijker

people for that. 40 As a result, Luther ceased his efforts in this direction. Bucer spoke in similar fashion in his commentary on Matthew, but urged simultaneously that the smaller circle work earnestly on the administration of church discipline.41 Not until twenty years later did Bucer proceed to establish small 'Christian communities' in Strasbourg. 42 Calvin, on the other hand, had been successful in organizing his French refugee congregation in Strasbourg after this ideal. When we compare the church order of 16 January 1537 with the Ordonnances ecclesiastiques of 1541, there is a clear difference. Bucer's influence is apparent in Calvin's treatment of the four offices: pastors, teachers, elders and deacons. That influence, however, is equally manifest in the structure of the congregation as a disciplined community around the Lord's Supper.43 Particularly striking is that Calvin adopted Bucer's view concerning the disciplining of office-bearers. The list of sins that appears in Calvin's design can be deduced from Bucer's concept of the Regensburg plan for the church's reformation. 44 It obtained a place in the Genevan church order and thence in the reformed church orders of Wesel (1568 and 1571).45 In retrospect, the relationship between Calvin and Bucer can best be defined as one of mutual influences.46 Bucer's views of the church as the community of saints, where mutual brotherly discipline is exercised under supervision of the officers, were shaped by his study of the Scripture and church Fathers. They were tested, because Calvin could put them to the test among his congregation. They were put into practice in the unusual circumstances of the Interim within the 'Christian communities'. Bucer drafted his views about the community of the saints in a separate publication. Permission to publish it was never granted to him, however. We assume that most of his ideas are traceable in the writings of his English period.47 In this respect, De Regno Christi and De Vi et Usu Sacri Ministerii ('On the Significance and Practice of the Sacred Ministry') come to mind 40

41

42 43

44 45 47

WA 19, p. 75: 'Kurtzlich, wenn man die leute und die personen hette, die mit ernst Christen zu seyn begerten, die ordnunge und weysen waren balde gemacht. Aber ich kan und mag noch nicht eyne solche gemeyne odder versamlunge orden odder anrichten. Denn ich habe noch nicht leute und personen dazu, so sehe ich auch nicht viel, die dazu dringen.' Bucer, Enarrationum in Evangelion Matthaei... (1527), pt II, f. 214v. Bucer writes that the 'pax publica' did not make the maintaining of ecclesiastical discipline very possible. Therefore it was necessary for those who 'plenius Christum receperunt' to introduce this holy ordinance of Christ. Small community congregations could develop, centred around the Supper and accessible only to those who had wholeheartedly surrendered to Christ. Bellardi 1934; BDS 17; Van 't Spijker 1970, pp. 313-21; Hammann 1984. See 'Articles concernant l'organisation de l'eglise et du culte a Geneve', OS I, pp. 369-77; CO Xa, cols. 5-14; 'Projet d'ordonnances ecclesiastiques', CO Xa, cols. 15^44; OS II, pp. 325^5; Cornelius 1892; Calvin, homme d'eglise 1936, pp. 1-13, 2 7 ^ 6 . Bucer, Ada Colloquii. . . (1541), p. 229. 46 Van 't Spijker 1970, pp. 235-8, nn. 84^-7. Ibid., p. 231. Bellardi 1934, pp. 60-1; Van 't Spijker 1970, pp. 329-30.

Bucer's influence on Calvin

41

48

first. The first of these appeared as early as 1558 in a French translation in Calvin's circles at Geneva.49 In it we see how closely Bucer's mind agreed with Calvin's. Communion with Christ takes place through the preaching of the gospel in the congregation. It is based upon God's gracious election and realized through the operation of the Holy Spirit. It is manifest in a life in which sanctification becomes clearly visible. Communion with Christ is fundamental in the communion of the saints who have a shared concern for one other, in order that the mutual edification of the church may become a reality. Everyone is involved in that process, validated by a divine call. The officers are to promote this collective nurture so that the church may become a most active, vibrant community of love. The conflict over church discipline, in which both Calvin and Bucer were involved, is a clear signal that 'communio cum Christo' is not self-evident and is worked out in the 'corpus Christi'. Ecclesiastical discipline is difficult to achieve in Bucer's formulation as well as Calvin's. It is necessary, but is it also possible? Is it mere Utopia? This is a question that was to remain relevant in the Reformed tradition, but also in Puritanism, which is indebted to both Bucer and Calvin for its impetus.50 If the 'communio cum Christo' caused such a stir within the church, would it ever be realized in the wider reaches of society? Corpus Christianum: the Christian society Bucer's gift to Edward VI, his De Regno Christi, contained a broadly drawn plan for the reformation of the English church and society. Already, in his Von der Waren Seelsorge, Bucer had explained his view of the relation of church and state. Each Christian has his or her own calling with respect to his or her neighbour in society. Christ works in everyone, but in particular he appoints shepherds, by which Bucer understands the government officials and the spiritual leadership of the church. He views the magistrate as the 'highest shepherd'. He should govern in such a way as to prompt his subjects to live a Christian life. All must be involved in that according to their office and calling. 'For only the Christian life is a happy and blessed life.'51 The ecclesiastical office-bearers, the pastoral caretakers in the real 48 49 50

51

TA, pp. 1-170, ed. F. Wendel, BOL XV; De Vi et Usu Sacri MinisteriU TA, pp. 553-610. Thus Wendel in his edition, BOL XVbis, p. vii. [Travers] 1574, f. 3r: 'Quanquam enim multi ad abolendam illam Papisticam tyrannidem, quae turn adhuc in Ecclesiae regimine remansisset, et iustam atque legitimam gubernandi rationem ex Dei verbo constituendam hortarentur, in primis autem vir clarissimus Martinus Bucerus (qui turn forte in Anglia peregrinabatur) eo libro quern De Regno Christi conscripsit...' On Walter Travers and his authorship, see Knox 1962, pp. 28-40; Lake 1988. Von der Waren Seelsorge, in BDS 7, p. 204.

42

Willem van't Spijker

sense, are called to minister the Word of God with the spiritual authority of the church. They have been especially appointed to this task. To them belongs the church's power of the keys. The magistrates as well as the servants of the church stand together under the great Shepherd of the sheep, the Lord Jesus Christ. Bucer's ideal is clear. The worldly sword is in the service of the spiritual sword, i.e. in the service of the Word of God. When the magistrate listens to the minister of the church he hears Christ speaking through the minister's voice.52 All of society must in this way be organized in submission to the Word of God. Bucer consequently dedicated his writing to the Christian government of Strasbourg. Zwingli contended that the Christian city is nothing other than the Christian church.53 Bucer, on the other hand, made a clear distinction between the magistrates' jurisdiction and that of the ministers of the church. His starting point was the concept that the Word of God is clear and powerful. If the government guaranteed the freedom of the church, the entire city would benefit. Bucer's broad vision, which he stated so well in his De Regno Christi, is well known.54 In it the church is central. She is Christ's body, within which communion with Christ is realized through the Holy Spirit. The offices are to serve in building up the church. It is there that the doctrine of the gospel is administered, the sacraments are distributed, mutual discipline is ensured, the poor are cared for. Christ's kingdom becomes visible in this church. Bucer devoted the first part of De Regno Chris ti to a description of it, offering a clear picture of the church in which there is a role for all. Its strength appears from its wide diffusion throughout society. Ecclesiastical laws are linked with the power of the keys in the congregation, but civil laws seek to subject society to the discipline of the Word. Bucer attempts to show King Edward VI the way to a radical Christianization or reformation of the entire people. To that end there must be evangelization, and the academies need to be reformed in order to provide good preachers. The government's role in this is to supervise education by means of the catechism, preaching and the renewal of all church life. Church property may not be alienated from its proper purpose. The poor must be cared for. Bucer discussed elaborate legislation concerning matrimony in which he attempted to bring together all he wrote about this subject. There follow other areas of social life: pedagogy, career choice, the influence of the Word of God in trade and 52 53

54

Ibid., p. 236; see Kroon 1984. Z XIV, p. 424: 'ut iam dixisse olim non poeniteat Christianum hominem nihil aliud esse quam fidelem ac bonum civem, urbem christianam nihil quam ecclesiam Christianam esse'. Zwingli relates the Christian character of the city to the 'prophetae libertas', which was to give guidance to the citizens so that the city would be a 'locum verae pietatis'. Harvey 1906; Pauck 1928; Hopf 1946.

Bucer's influence on Calvin

43

labour, recreation, legislation, criminal law and all the spheres where Christ's Lordship must be made manifest. It is difficult to know whether to be more surprised about the radicalness whereby every area will be brought under the yoke of Christ or the ease with which Bucer almost abstractly gives free rein to his illusions. Should this be attributed to the feeling which he suffered while in England of being outside of the main course of the Reformation? 55 His work has been called a Utopia.56 It cannot be denied, however, that the deepest motives of his theology and work come to their full development here. If Christ is truly King, where does he not reign supreme? He reigns in the heart which he conquers through his Spirit and in the church which he permeates through his presence. This is true in the same degree for all society, however, which must bear a Christian character in order to be ready to receive him when he returns. Here it becomes clear that Bucer's notion of mystical union with Christ does not arise from, and is not an expression of, the dualistic spiritualism he met with in the Anabaptists. Nor is it a matter of a duality of two kingdoms (realms) in the way Luther's vision developed. It is a matter of Christ's kingship. In Bucer we meet not only a theology of the cross whereby the saints stay hidden (Luther's 'latent sancti'), but also a theology of the cross on which Christ gained victory, exerting its power over all of life. The totalitarian command of Christ is being turned into an allinclusive calling of believers. As with Calvin, so with Bucer: the concept of 'vocatio' plays a decisive role in this context. 57 Each Christian has his or her own calling. There is no conceivable part of life in which he or she owes no obedience to that calling. This results in very elaborate social ethics in Bucer.58 The depth of the heart and the breadth of all that happens in society fall under the calling of God. Is it different for Calvin? Mystical union with Christ is no less basic for him, but it forms no antithesis to what transpires in the 'corpus christianum' through submission to God's laws. There also Christ is fully King, and there too the Christian is to fulfil his calling in all respects. 59 In Geneva, Calvin himself attempted not only to preach the realm of Christ but also to make it visible. Communion with Christ must influence the 'corpus christianum'. Society as a whole must be saturated with it. Yet Calvin, possibly from the beginning, differentiated between spiritual and temporal jurisdiction. 60 This first has to do with instructing the conscience 55 57 58 59 60

Bucer to Calvin, 25 May 1550, CO XIII, cols. 574-7; to Farel, 12 Jan. 1550, in Hopf 1946, 56 pp. 253-6. Pauck 1928. Well elaborated upon in De Vi et Usu Sacri Ministerii; cf. Van 't Spijker 1970, pp. 335-41. Nottingham 1962. Institutes 111:10:6; see McNeill and Battles 1960, vol. I, p. 724 n. 8. OS I, pp. 232, 258.

44

Willem van't Spijker

for piety and the service of God, i.e., the inner being and life eternal. The political form of government aims to preserve humanity in civil society. Calvin, like Bucer, never disconnected these two, yet he did sharply distinguish one from the other. In a letter to Olevianus, who had sought his advice on the institution of a congregation, he differentiated between the way a church council governs and the way a civil government does. The former may never obstruct the continuation of the latter.61 The church stands in the middle. She is called to preach the Word. 'When I entered this church thefirsttime, there was virtually nothing. There was preaching, but that was all.' This is what Calvin stated in his farewell to his colleagues just before his death. He could look back upon a great change. The Reformation had established a church that permeated all life within the society of Geneva. The communion with Christ, proclaimed in the community of the saints, sought effective fruit in the community of sixteenth-century society - the 'corpus christianum'. Bucer and Calvin helped build that community out of their common fundamental conviction. Subsequently, many others have adopted this same ideal. The 'corpus christianum', however, has almost totally vanished in the twentieth century. Yet when communion with Christ through faith is proclaimed in the preaching of the gospel, even in this century new patterns will be created based on the communion of the saints. Though these patterns are new, they will still be clearly recognizable as marks of'newness of life'. 61

Calvin to Olevianus, November 1560, CO XVIII, cols. 235-7: 'Ea autem est consistorii ratio, ut civilis iurisdictionis cursum nihil moretur.'

The church in Bucer's commentaries on the Epistle to the Ephesians Peter Stephens The differences between the various editions of Bucer's commentaries on the Synoptic Gospels have long been a source of interest. They have been used, often uncritically, to show the changes or developments in his theology between 1527-8,1530 and 1536. By contrast his commentaries on Ephesians have been neglected.1 Bucer lectured on the Pauline Epistles in Strasbourg in the 1520s and in 1527 published a commentary on Ephesians.2 He lectured on Ephesians again in Cambridge in 1550-1 and notes of these lectures were published, after his death, in 1562.3 It is in fact remarkable that after his early biblical commentaries (on the Gospels, Ephesians, St John, Zephaniah and the Psalms) in the years 1527 to 1529, Bucer published no other commentary except on Romans in 1536 and on Judges. Yet on Ephesians there are two commentaries, even if one was published from his notes after his death. Among reasons for choosing one book rather than another as the subject for lectures or exposition are the needs or concerns of the listener or the lecturer. For example, in Zurich in the 1520s Zwingli preached on the books in the New Testament which he saw as meeting the situation in Zurich and the needs of the people there.4 The concerns of the hearer or situation are clear in both of Bucer's commentaries on Ephesians, especially in the second. But Bucer's own concerns and emphases are also evident. It is not just that the doctrine of election, which is so vital an element in his theology and which figures prominently in the opening chapters of the Epistle, would lead him to 1

3

4

Courvoisier 1933 ignores the Ephesians commentaries. Stupperich 1940 deals in part with the earlier commentary but not the later. Hammann 1984, in his magisterial study of the church, takes account of the earlier but refers only briefly to the later. Stephens 1970 refers to 2 both. Epistola D. Pauli ad Ephesios . . . (Strasbourg), cited as E. Praelectiones doctiss. in Epistolam D.P. ad Ephesios... (Basel), cited as EE. Two extracts are translated in Wright 1972, pp. 107-18 (Election), 201-34 (Church). A version of chapter 4 was published in 1577 in TA, pp. 504-38, Explicatio Martini Buceri in Illud Apostoli Ephes. IIII. Tolerantes vos invicem . . . After expounding Matthew and Acts, Zwingli turned to 1 Timothy, Galatians, 2 Timothy, 1 and 2 Peter, and Hebrews (Z I, pp. 133, 284-5). 45

46

Peter Stephens

expound Ephesians, nor indeed that the Epistle offers a summary of Paul's teaching. There is also the fact that Ephesians has a strong emphasis on the church, the strongest perhaps of any book in the New Testament. Bucer's choice of Ephesians may therefore reflect the emphasis on the church in his theology, as of course it may have helped to mould that emphasis. 5 Bucer himself published his earlier commentary, whereas the later one was published posthumously. This has inevitably raised questions about it or some parts of it, which a critical edition will eventually help to resolve. More interesting for us in many ways is the enormously increased place given in the later commentary to the church, and the ministry and sacraments of the church. This finds expression in a series of extended discussions, especially on Ephesians 4. They show how much a commentary is shaped by the context in or for which it is written, as well as by the content of the text on which the author is commenting. The Ephesians commentary of 1527 was written in Strasbourg in a context of controversy with papists and Anabaptists as well as Lutherans. The importance of the first two comes out in frequent references to both together. (Lutheran views were attacked, but not by name.) Although there are references to the Anabaptists in 1550-1, it is primarily with Roman doctrine and practice that Bucer engages in his second commentary. There are similarities, but also important differences between the context of the two commentaries - Strasbourg in the late 1520s and Cambridge in the early 1550s. Reformation preaching had begun in Strasbourg before Bucer's arrival in 1523, though he became the natural leader. Although it was contact with Luther at the Heidelberg disputation in 1518 which was the turning point in Bucer's life, differences with Luther on the sacraments emerged in the middle of the 1520s. They appear in the 1527 commentary on Ephesians, though they are not a prominent feature of it. His links in Strasbourg were much closer with Zwingli. Their friendship was important until Zwingli's death in 1531 and influential beyond that. The impact of the Radicals began in 1525. In 1526 there was debate with Hans Denck and Ludwig Hatzer. 6 Controversy with Catholics was a constant feature of the 1520s (and beyond), with the mass being abolished in Strasbourg in 1529. References to Anabaptists and papists in the Ephesians commentary of 1527 show that they were both of concern to Bucer in the late 1520s. (Interestingly there are more references to Anabaptists than papists in the first commentary and far fewer in the second.) Bucer went to England in 1549 with years of experience as a Reformer 5 6

Among the texts central to Bucer's understanding of the church Hammann 1984, pp. 89-101, refers to Eph. 1:22-3, 4:11-16, 5:27. In the disputation with Bucer in December 1526, Denck argued for the freedom of the will, the sinlessness of true Christians, and universal salvation (Eells 1931, p. 58). Bucer addressed these issues in the Ephesians commentary of 1527.

Bucer's commentaries on Ephesians

47

behind him. The establishment of the Reformation there was relatively new. Although English churchmen had had contacts with the continental Reformers and their writings from the early days, there had also been vigorous opposition, not only up to the death of Henry VIII in 1547, but also after that. The theological, ecclesiological and practical issues raised by the Reformation were still being vigorously debated when Bucer arrived in 1549. He had therefore to argue the fundamental case for reformation in theological, ecclesiological and practical terms (for example, in 1549 he debated the issue of justification with Young at Cambridge), as well as engaging in questions, such as the understanding of the sacraments, which divided the Reformers from one another. Bucer himself had developed between 1527 and 1550-1, not least in ways that affected his view of the church. He had assisted the Reformation in other places, beginning with the disputation in Berne in 1528. He had been concerned with the organization of the church, not only in Strasbourg (especially in the 1530s), but also in other cities. He had sought reconciliation among Protestants, as at the Marburg colloquy in 1529, and between Protestants and Catholics in meetings at Leipzig, Hagenau, Worms and Regensburg, with the consequent clarifying and often sharpening of theological positions which that produced. He had struggled against Anabaptists and other Radicals, especially in the 1530s in Strasbourg, but had also integrated them in the national church in Hesse. The Ephesians commentary of 1527 Bucer's views on the church had found expression before 1527, in particular in his debate with Conrad Treger, with whom he was to debate again in Berne in 1528. Some of these issues were to emerge in the 1550-1 lectures. But just as significant is the strongly corporate sense of the Christian life which was manifest in his first publication, 'That No One Should Live for Himself...' {Das Ym Selbs...), and which characterized all his later writing. In it he stressed that people were created not for themselves but for others. This undergirds his understanding of the church and fits closely with his stress on being members of the body of Christ. There is no systematic exposition or discussion of the church in Bucer's 1527 commentary on Ephesians, unlike his later one. The elements of Bucer's view emerge, however, though sometimes in what appears as little more than a repetition of the biblical text. Yet even a bare repetition is a reaffirmation of the text. The opening section of Bucer's commentary on Ephesians 1 offers, almost incidentally, an illuminating and comprehensive picture of Bucer's view of the church. Moreover, the naturally corporate way in which Bucer describes the Christian life at the very beginning of his commentary

48

Peter Stephens

underlines the centrality of the church in his theology. The Epistle is addressed to 'the saints who are at Ephesus, to wit, those who have faith in Christ Jesus' (1:1). For Bucer the saints are thereby depicted as those who have faith in Christ. Thus from the start the church (or the saints) is defined in terms of faith, and in the paragraphs which follow that is related at once to election which precedes it and to love whichflowsfrom it, as well as to Christ, in whom one is elected and to whom one is united as a member to the head, and to the Spirit, who leads the heart both to faith in Christ and to love of others.7 All this is set in a framework which points back to Abraham as the father of a believing people (E, f. 19v) and forward to the completion of God's purpose not here, but hereafter. The emphasis on election and faith in relation to the church in Bucer was not new. Already, in his controversy with Treger, he had challenged a view that defined the church in terms of the baptized and argued instead for a definition in terms of election and faith. Election is important in Bucer as pointing not only to the source but also to the purpose of the Christian life. It points to the source of the Christian life in God, rather than in ourselves. It stresses what God has done for us in Christ, rather than what we have done for him, his work rather than our works. The saints were elected in Christ before the foundation of the world. To be in Christ means that we are united to him as members to the head and that our salvation comes from the merit of the head (E, f. 25rv). Alongside the divine source of the Christian life is the stress on its divine purpose. People have been elected in order to believe and to be holy, in order to be drawn to Christ and as sons of God to be conformed to the image of the Son. The process begins in this life, but will be completed hereafter.8 7

8

This reference to the head and members comes before and independently of their first mention in Eph. 1:22-3. McGrath contrasts Calvin's use of grafting into Christ with Bucer's use of twofold justification, an element in Bucer's theology which he overemphasizes (McGrath 1982). Long before Calvin, however, Bucer refers to grafting into Christ and roots the Christian life in that. (He does not, any more than the New Testament, use the idea exclusively or dominantly.) The Ephesians commentary of 1527 speaks of the grafting into Christ which makes the believer 'a partaker of his fruitfulness in good works' (is, f. 54v). In different forms this is present in Bucer from the beginning. Thus in 1523 in the 'Summary' he states, 'What Christ is, has, and does, is all theirs because they are one with him, he in them and they in him' (BDS 1, p. 92). McGrath misinterprets the role of sanctification in Bucer in part through lack of reference to Bucer's early works, such as the Ephesians commentary of 1527, and in part through misreading the secondary sources. He says, for example, that 'there is no justification whatsoever for including sanctificatio in the ordo salutis' (McGrath 1982, p. 13; cf. McGrath 1986, vol. II, pp. 34-9). In the Ephesians commentary of 1527 the reference to an order has election or predestination, adoption or vocation, holiness, and the glory of God (E, f. 26v; cf. f. 20v). In the first use of the term 'order of salvation' in the commentary on St John in 1528, holiness is included in the sequence (Enarratio..., f. 239r = BOLII, p. 476). In the Ephesians commentary of 1550-1 the final causes of election are seen as 'sanctification and the glory of God' (EE, p. 19; cf. p. 21).

Bucer's commentaries on Ephesians

49

The church, like the new life, is related not only to Christ but also to the Spirit. However, it is related to the Spirit not in a merely inward sense, but to the Spirit linked with the outward preaching of the gospel, even if the stress is on the Spirit rather than the outward preaching (is, f. 20v). It is the Spirit who persuades the heart and so produces faith and love and a will to please God in all things (is,ff.20v, 27v). What Bucer says about the order of salvation expresses the same concern (is, f. 26v). It is the Spirit who enables the elect to live for their neighbours (is, f. 25rv). The relationship of the church to Christ and the Spirit, and the interrelation of election, faith and holiness, mean that the church as the elect is marked positively by the presence of the Spirit and the love of one's neighbour, and negatively by their absence or, indeed, by the sin against the Holy Spirit (is, ff. 26r, 35r, 39v; Bucer is aware, however, of the apparent ambiguity of the thief on the cross). People may speak with tongues and work miracles, but if they lack love they are seen to be hypocrites (is, f. 26rv). The strong emphasis on the Spirit, and on love which is the fruit of the Spirit, is part of what underlies Bucer's thinking of the church in terms not only of Word and sacrament but also of the discipline of Christ. This sanctifying of the church by Christ and by the Spirit of Christ indwelling us is referred to later, especially in relation to Ephesians 5:26 (is, f. 98rv).9 It is, however, present in a variety of contexts, which reveal Bucer's corporate sense of the Christian life. It is related to the way in which faith leads to our being united with Christ and therefore our sharing in his fruitfulness in good works (is, f. 54v). We are grafted or incorporated into him, we become his members (is, f. 53 v). Indeed, in the description of Christ and the church in Ephesians 5, Bucer speaks of the marriage of Christ and the church and of our becoming flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone. He draws the comparison with Adam and Eve and the two becoming one flesh, one person (is, ff. 101r-2r). However, he also sets this vision in the context of our future blessedness in heaven, for it is only there that God's purpose with his church is fully realized. Here on earth the church is not perfect, but mixed, though this element is not as prominent in the Ephesians commentary of 1527 as elsewhere. Bucer draws on a number of images of the church, some of which are in the text he is expounding. It is the flock of Christ (is, f. 82v), the flock of the elect (is, f. 53r), the people of God (is, f. 69v), the temple and dwelling place of God (is, f. 68r).10 However, he places greatest emphasis on the metaphor 9 10

Bucer had already dealt with the issues raised by Eph. 5:26 in his debate with Treger (BDS 2, pp. 15-173). The sense of the life of the elect as corporate is reflected also in life before salvation: 'Hac [fide] namque initium salutis in nobis fit, hac ex turba perditorum, in gregem electorum traducimur' (is, f. 53r). Compare 'e grege peccatorum' (is, f. 94v).

50

Peter Stephens

of the body or on Christ as the head and the church as the body or sometimes simply the members. These related images of the head and the body are used repeatedly and throughout the commentary (E, ff. 25v, 43v, 45v, 69v, 77v, 82r, 87r, 97v). That Christ is the head means that what we have comes from his gift and power (E9 f. 87v). That conviction underlies Bucer's rejection of the idea that the pope is head of the church, for unlike Christ he is not the source of life and power (E, f. 45 v). It also leads to living the life of Christ in the church (£, f. 25v). Our relation with Christ as head means not only that we share in his life, but also that without us he will not enjoy felicity (E, f. 45v). Bucer draws also on the Petrine reference to our being sharers of the divine nature (E, f. 26r). Our being members of Christ's body fits Bucer's strong sense of our mutual care and responsibility, something indeed which he makes explicit on occasion, particularly in his exposition of the gifts of the Spirit (£, f. 87r). Unity is a strand in Ephesians and is in different ways a theme that Bucer takes up. According to John 11, the purpose of Christ's death was to gather people into one. It is in the light of this that Bucer interpreted the recapitulation of all in heaven and on earth in Ephesians 1:10. Already, through the Spirit and the preaching of the Word, the sons of God who were scattered abroad are being gathered into one. This will ultimately be complete, as once more Bucer sets the church in the context of the end (E, f. 34rv). The references to unity in John 11 and John 17 are quoted in the exposition of Ephesians 2:13-16. Here again as a fruit of Christ's death there is the pouring out of Holy Spirit upon all flesh, that is every kind of person, to gather together the children of God who are dispersed among the nations or Gentiles (E, ff. 59v-60v). Here, as elsewhere, there is the sense of continuity between Israel and the church. In expounding the first verse of the Epistle, 'to the saints who are at Ephesus, to wit, those who have faith in Christ Jesus', Bucer refers to the people of Israel and to Abraham as the father of a believing people (E, f. 19v). The reference to the saints reaches back to include Noah and Adam, for whom Christ was also mediator (£, f. 73v). Israel is described as a type of the church, of a people made up of the elect from Jews and Gentiles (E, f. 83r), with Ephesians 4:8 seen as pointing to Christ and the church. Besides the unity which unites the children of God scattered throughout the world, there is the internal unity of the church. This Bucer emphasized in his exposition of the opening verses of chapter 4. God's purpose was to make as it were one person, one body (£", f. 81v), but he is also concerned for unity within the church. There is unity of spirit, with no one seeking his own. Here again the figure of the body is used. We are one body and

Bucer's commentaries on Ephesians

51

individually members of it - and the body is Christ. By one baptism, moreover, we have been incorporated into the flock of Christ, so that we may live not for ourselves but for our brethren. Indeed the one God and Father of all has created us to love one another (E, f. 82rv). With this double vision of unity and with his sense of the church as not perfect here but only hereafter, Bucer is critical of the Anabaptists' separatism. At the end of his exposition of Ephesians 5:11-14 comes a sudden reference to their separating from those who are evil, of which there is no mention in Paul. Rather the evil are to be admonished, the fruit of which can be their repentance (E, f. 95r). His opposition to them comes out in his insistence that children belong to the church and should be baptized. Baptism replaces circumcision, so that infants are now to be baptized (E, ff. 99v-100r). The opposition of the Radicals strengthened Bucer's sense of the importance of the ministry. He is critical of those who 'despise these holy gifts of God, wanting to learn everything from the Spirit' (E, f. 6v). In expounding Ephesians 1:13 Bucer attacks those who subvert the outward preaching of the gospel. It is through this that the elect are led to Christ. Bucer could therefore describe the preachers of the gospel as fellow workers of God, but he is quick to add both that their works are not as it were a vehicle for the Spirit and that the increase comes from the Spirit of God. After attacking what he sees as distortions on the part of Radicals and Lutherans, he adds a characteristically Buceran reason for the outward ministry, that of binding the elect together more closely in friendship (E, f. 37r). A similar attack on those despising the outward ministry of the Word is made in his exposition of chapter 4:11-14, for they miss the source and purpose of the ministry. All the various gifts and ministries were given by Christ, that in the church people might grow in the Lord and increase in knowledge and faith (£", f. 86v). These various elements recur in the commentary. The ministry is God's gift (most clearly in Ephesians 4:8, 11; E, ff. 83v, 84v-85r). He uses it. Indeed it is God, or Christ, or the Spirit who is active in it. The ministry of human beings is frequently referred to as planting and watering, a phrase that is followed by an insistence that it is God who gives the growth, or a similar statement that what is vital is the work of the Holy Spirit (E, ff. 6r, 20v, 45v, 84v). The ministry does not convey the Spirit ('ceu vehiculo') but is a bond among the elect (is, f. 37r). References to the ministry are not limited to the discussion of Ephesians 4, though that is the key passage, as it was to be in 1550-1. Here in 1527 the exposition of the various ministries is brief, initially only two lines each for apostles and prophets. Apostles are missionaries to the world. Doctors

52

Peter Stephens

(teachers), who form the life of the church, are distinguished from prophets, who teach from revelation, and from evangelists, who publicly preach the gospel. Pastors (also called bishops) rule particular churches (E, ff. 84v-85r). The purpose of the ministry, which is to build up the church, concerns building it up in numbers as well as in piety. 11 The gifts of the Spirit are conferred individually, but for the common good, for unity and love (E, f. 82v). They are given by Christ to draw people to himself (E, f. 83v). Bucer distinguished his time from that of the early church. God does not now give languages as a miraculous gift, any more than he gives food and drink for the body. The sacraments do not feature largely in the Ephesians commentary of 1527, and where they do there is the same caution as with the Word. They are 'symbols'. In implicit opposition to Lutherans, Bucer states that they are not 'vehicles of the Holy Spirit and of faith' (E, f. 4r). A similar view is expressed in a sustained exposition of Ephesians 5:25-7. Bucer regards baptism as an 'outward symbol, by which we are received into the outward church'. It is something common to the impious and those who believe. If it happens with faith, then we are received into the church of those who are regenerated. Again in implicit attack on Lutheran teaching, but in explicit opposition to papists, he states that the sacraments are not 'instruments or causes of grace'. He adduces his much-loved text that planting and watering are nothing. 'Faith and the Spirit are the gifts of God' (E,ff.98r-99r). He raised the question what baptism could have brought to the believers whom the apostles baptized, as they already had the Spirit and faith. The Lutheran view, that God does not give inward faith and the Spirit without the outward Word and sacraments going before, he repudiates as contrary to Scripture and the analogy of faith. Then finally he attacks the Anabaptist order derived from Matthew 28:18-20, a text which is to be interpreted in terms of the Gentiles. He defends the place of infants in the people of God and of infant baptism as succeeding circumcision (E, ff. 99r-100r). Bucer's exposition of Ephesians in 1527 is clearly presented in opposition to the Roman view. The emphasis is on the true church - those who are elect, who have faith in Christ, who have received the Spirit - and not on the church as the baptized. Moreover the ministry and Word and sacrament are not automatically effective, for it is God who gives the growth. But Bucer is equally defending his position against the Radicals - with the church viewed as mixed and as including children, and with an outward ministry which is not to be despised. The church is not entirely holy now, but will be so only at the end. Alongside the views he opposes there are also characteristic emphases on the church as the body of Christ, on unity and on mutual care. 1

* 'Sic et aedificium corporis Christi incrementum accipit, dum continuo gregi Christi, et novi adducuntur, et adducti ad omnem pietatem erudiuntur' (E, f. 85r). 'Ut scilicet Christus in nobis vivat, non infans, non puer, sed vir plene adultus ...' (E, f. 85v. Compare E, f. 86rv).

Bucer's commentaries on Ephesians

53

The commentary of 1550-1

This is not the place for a detailed comparison of the two commentaries, but a comparison of the exposition of chapter 1 shows their independence of each other. Sometimes a similar comment is made, for example, about sharing the divine nature, but in a different context (Eph. 1:4, E, f. 42r; Eph. 1:17, EE, p. 31). Sometimes an idea common to both commentaries may be present in the exposition of a verse in only one of them. For example, the reason that our fellow Christians are our flesh and our members was used in 1550-1, but not in 1527, in expounding love of the saints in Ephesians 1:15 (E, f. 41r; EE, p. 29). The idea of the church as mixed, which is strong in the commentary of 1550-1, appears in the comment on Ephesians 1:1 in 1550-1 with a reference to the presence of hypocrites in the church of Christ on earth, but not in 1527 (E, f. 19r; EE, p. 19). Sometimes different interpretations are given. Thus on Ephesians 1:10 in 1527 Bucer attacks the Anabaptist error of the redemption of the reprobate and speaks rather of the unifying of the elect, both Jew and Gentile, in Christ; but neither of these features in 1550-1 (E,ff.32r-6r; EE, pp. 25-6). Sometimes the same point is made but with different scriptural references. Thus in expounding Ephesians 1:13-14 in 1527 Bucer refers to Romans 8 in speaking of the Spirit as a sign of the elect, whereas in 1550-1 he refers to 1 John 2, 2 Corinthians 1, and Galatians 6 (E, f. 39v; EE, p. 28). Sometimes - and this shows change or development between the two commentaries - there is a different theological emphasis, as in the strong sense of the church and the Word and sacraments as means of grace in 1550-1 (EE, p. 28). There is nothing comparable to this anywhere in 1527, although at points Bucer affirms both Word and sacrament against Anabaptists (E, f. 37r). Yet in both commentaries there is the repeated insistence that our planting and watering effect nothing until the Holy Spirit persuades the heart (E, f. 20v) or unless God gives the growth (E, f. 25r). There is no need for a comprehensive presentation of Bucer's understanding of the church in the commentary of 1550-1, as it is in general similar to that in the commentary of 1527. There are, however, some important differences in emphasis and a wider application to the life of the church. This can be shown briefly in terms of the ministry and the sacraments, and at greater length in the terms of his exposition of the church. The most striking contrast between the two commentaries is the way in which the second has extended separate discussions of certain subjects, whereas the earlier one includes its relatively brief discussions in its running exposition of the text. In 1550-1 there arefifteenpages on the church at the end of chapter 1, arising in particular out of the reference to the church as the body in Ephesians 1:22-3, on which Bucer also comments briefly in

54

Peter Stephens

direct exposition of the text. In the 1527 index there is only one reference to the church and that is to the union of Christ and the church in Ephesians 5. There is the same appeal as in 1527 to the New Testament and the apostolic church (e.g. EE, p. 124; TA, p. 531), but there is now an appeal to the practice of the early church and to the Fathers as well (e.g. EE, pp. 8, 118).12 Bucer also makes specific reference to the situation of the church in England (EE, p. 118; TA, p. 522). Defining the church

In the excursus on the church at the end of Ephesians 1, Bucer presents his own view before dealing with that of his opponents, though the latter clearly influences his own presentation.13 Bucer's point of departure is the definition of the church as the body of Christ.14 By analogy with a human body which is governed by the head, the body of Christ is 'governed by the Spirit and word of Christ'. The church, consisting therefore 'of the elect and regenerate', is known only to God. This means that we cannot have recourse to it 'for determining the consensus and mind of the church'. The only record of this is the canon of Scripture. Nor can we have recourse to the universal church to interpret Scripture, as it is never gathered at the same time in the same place (EE, p. 36; Wright 1972, p. 202). On earth the church is both universal and particular, and it is 'by virtue of their common faith' that the particular churches, whether in a home, or city, or region, 'constitute the one universal church'. The only head of the church is Christ (EE, p. 36; Wright 1972, p. 203). What distinguishes the church as a body from all other bodies is that it is Christ's. He gathers it, cleanses it, quickens it and rules it. Moreover, 'although he makes use of various ministries in it, yet he is himself its first and foremost and most powerful minister' (EE, p. 37; Wright 1972, p. 204). This description of the church applies as much to particular churches as to the universal church. In Matthew 18:17 we are enjoined to 'pay heed to the church'. Bucer points out, however, that if we are to do that we must know whether a church is a true church, and to know that we must examine its character. Bucer recognizes that the church on earth is always mixed, and includes goats as well as sheep. However, discipline, where it is practised, enables people to repent, and if they do not, then they are to be treated 'like pagans', as they do not belong to the church. There arefivemarks of the 12 14

For example, presbyters in Egypt ordained, although ordination belongs to bishops (EE, 13 p. 122). EE, pp. 36-50; Wright 1972, pp. 202-27. Several of the points expounded here (including the church as the kingdom) are present in the section 'Quid sit ecclesia?' at EE, pp. 11 Iff. Most of them are also present at various points in the exposition of the text.

Bucer's commentaries on Ephesians

55

true church: heeding the shepherd's voice, the ministry of teaching, suitable ministers of the Word, the lawful dispensation of the sacraments, and righteousness and holiness of life (EE, pp. 37-8). Without these marks a church is not to be called the body of Christ; even if it contains many members of Christ, 'it is not a fellowship gathered by the Spirit of Christ, comprising clergy, ministers and people'. Those who turn from God are not part of his people. In returning to Matthew 18:17, Bucer states that the church is to be heeded 'because God uses its ministry in calling us'. Bucer rejects an abstract idea of the church. It is made up of individuals, and just as a school is judged by its scholars and a city by its citizens, so the church is described in the light of its members (EE, pp. 38-9; Wright 1972, pp. 206-8).15 The unity of the church comes from its being gathered into one by the Spirit, and is not a matter of natural or political affinity (EE, p. 37). It does not consist in ceremonies or in dress, but 'in the unity of the Spirit, of love, the word of God, Christ, the sacraments, and the sharing of gifts, that we may aspire together to the same goal, and hold and express the same beliefs' (EE, p. 39; Wright 1972, p. 208). It is only what is scriptural (and not human tradition) which establishes or conserves the unity of the church. Fellowship in the church is with God and one another, and this involves a sharing in spiritual and temporal goods, such as one sees in Acts 2 (EE, p. 41). Bucer addresses eight arguments used by his opponents against his teaching. First, they define the church not as the elect but as the baptized, who are subject to the Roman church, regardless of their faith and life. For Bucer, however, the church consists not just of the elect in the sense his opponents give to that term - to include people both before they believe and when they lapse - but of the elect and regenerate, in other words, the elect who believe and live accordingly (EE, pp. 41-2). Second, their church has an earthly head in the Roman pontiff. Bucer uses both Scripture and the Fathers to refute the arguments they draw from the role of Peter. He quotes the words of Gregory the Great: 'The man who makes himself universal bishop is the precursor of antichrist.' In a reference to the church as the kingdom of God, an image he sometimes uses, he states that God alone is able to do what is involved in being the universal bishop and monarch of the church (EE, pp. 42-3; Wright 1972, pp. 213-14). Bucer then tackles three arguments which - with the apparent support of Scripture and the Fathers - speak of the church as being before Scripture, having authority over Scripture, and (in a reference to Augustine) as moving us to faith in the gospel. Bucer responds equally in terms of Scripture and the Fathers to show that the Word (which later became the 15

'Ecclesia nulla in universali subsistit, ut neque ullus universalis homo: ideo Ecclesia dicitur peccare, quia singuli in ea, ex quibus universalis ipsa constat, peccant' (££", p. 99).

56

Peter Stephens

written Word of Scripture) existed before the church, that the church simply recognizes the authority of Scripture and does not give authority to it, and that the church only sets forth the gospel, whereas faith in it comes from God (EE, pp. 43-5). As in his debate with Treger, the relation of the church to Scripture is central. The claim that the church cannot err, Bucer says, is true of the church triumphant or of genuine members of Christ, but not of those whom the papists regard as the church, whether the church is defined as all the baptized or as the so-called representative church. For Bucer, however, the bishops who make up the representative church are all heretics because they became bishops through simony, 'the first of heresies'. Even the Galatians and Corinthians erred, but 'true members of Christ' are helped so that they do not 'perish in error, whether of faith or of life'. There is, moreover, no difference between the church and her members, and 'what has been promised or given to the whole church has certainly been similarly promised and given to her particular members' (EE, pp. 45-7; Wright 1972, pp. 218-21). Bucer disallows the claim that the church has equal authority in every age, so that we must heed what the church decrees now no less than what the apostles decreed. For him the test is conformity with Scripture, the criterion by which the Roman view of the church is always tested (EE, p. 47). The eighth point is 'the catholic consensus of the churches'. Bucer claims that it is his opponents rather than the Reformers who depart from it. He gives examples from the early church, such as the authority of Scripture and its availability to all; interpretation by those with the gift (even lay people like Origen); its being read in church; justification by grace through faith; the reverent celebration of the sacraments; the absence of images and purgatory; and the practice of discipline (EE, pp. 47-50). The roots of Bucer's position here are present in the Ephesians commentary of 1527 or in his dispute with Treger. There is the understanding of the church as the body of Christ, made up of the elect, who live in faith and love. Christ and the Spirit are the source of its life. Its head is Christ, not the pope. The church is mixed here and now, but will not be hereafter, when it will be perfectly holy. It is subject to the Word, not lord of it. There is a stress on the unity of the church, with a sense that we are united to each other because we are united to Christ (EE, p. 75). It is a community where there is a sharing and mutual care between the members. But now, in the Cambridge lectures, his view of the church is elaborated and set in a strongly anti-Roman context. Moreover, there is a strongly institutional sense of the church and the important sense of its continuity with the early church. Consequently we find wide-ranging references to and the drawing of support from the Fathers and the early church, though the Fathers are

Bucer's commentaries on Ephesians

57

criticized for being unscriptural at times. The abuses of the church in life and doctrine are noted - and at points Protestants are also shown to fail, as for example in fasting. It is significant that the main exposition of the church is in terms of the body, which is the dominant image also in the 1527 commentary. Stronger emphasis on ministry

A major area where Bucer's understanding of the church developed between the two commentaries is the ministry. The ministry is now explicitly portrayed as integral and necessary to the life of the church. The church is described as 'a fellowship gathered by the Spirit of Christ, comprising clergy, ministers and people' (EE, p. 38; Wright 1972, p. 206). Although Bucer would not limit God's sovereignty by saying that he could not act apart from the ministry, yet the emphasis on God's using the ministry is now stronger. He states that God makes what we have planted grow, rather than that our planting and watering effect nothing without God.16 God humbles us by making us dependent on his ministers for the preaching of his Word (EE, pp. 94-5). Both the papists and Anabaptists are in error about the ministry. In expounding chapter 3 Bucer refers to the passages which talk of planting and watering, binding and loosing, and remitting sins. Here the papists err in ascribing salvation to the outward ministry of human beings and not to God, whereas Anabaptists deny what is said in Scripture and despise the ministry. By contrast we should esteem the ministry as Christ enjoined, and acknowledge and use it as his ministry (EE, p. 96). Somewhat differently in chapter 4 he claims that the papists err as their ministry is not the pure ministry of Christ, in doctrine, sacraments and discipline. With their masses and indulgences they promise remission of sins even to those who persist in evil. The Anabaptists by contrast despise the pure and true ministry of Christ as something outward and dead. But in despising what Christ instituted they despise and repudiate Christ. Bucer offers the middle way in ascribing our salvation to God and recognizing that he has willed to use his ministers in this, and that we hear him in hearing his ministers (TA, pp. 519-20).17 As faith comes from hearing the Word, we are to hold the ministry in high regard (TA, p. 535). In his discussion of the ministry in lecturing on Ephesians 4 Bucer sounds 16

17

'semperque illorum plantationi et rigationi suum adiicit incrementum, quos ipse ad hoc munus amandarit' (TA, p. 517); 'sed Dominus fecit ea crescere, quae ego plantavi, et ille rigavit' (TA, p. 519). 'Quicunque non audit veros Christi ministros, Christum non audit' (EE, p. 110); 'Ministerium fuit a Christo institutum, et maximo illi constitit: maximi igitur illud faciamus. Tot gradus et ordines in eo constituit, ne uspiam Electis deesset' (EE, p. 163).

58

Peter Stephens

notes not present in 1527. He speaks of three kinds of ministry, of doctrine, sacraments and discipline, and of temporary and permanent ministries.18 The offices cf apostle, prophet, speaking with tongues, exorcism and healing are temporary, as the Lord did not impart them to the churches for all time. The offices of pastor, bishop, presbyter and deacon, however, are permanent and for every church (EE, p. 115).19 It is interesting that Bucer does not speak here of the so-called fourfold ministry. The three orders of the sacred ministry are given to the church today, together with deacons. Their task is to increase the church in members and in godliness.20 The evangelists and doctors do this by preaching, the pastors, bishops and presbyters by administering additionally the sacraments and discipline of Christ, the deacons by caring for the poor (EE, p. 117). Bucer's concern for the life of the church is expressed in the detailed way he now describes the various and essential tasks that belong to the ministry, which are related to Christ's ministry. Thus in the ministry of the Word there are various elements such as catechizing, and the reading and interpretation of Scripture, which are all necessary.21 The task of interpretation belongs to bishops and presbyters, but may sometimes be exercised by deacons and sub-deacons, and indeed by lay people if they are equipped for this by the Holy Spirit (EE, pp. 118-20). His description is in implicit and explicit contrast with that of the Roman church. But the stress on the ordered ministry of the church is not at the expense of the centrality of Christ's ministry or the ministry of every member of the church. Christ is 'the one saviour, teacher, doctor and high priest' (TA, p. 521). He is 'its first and foremost and most powerful minister' (EE, p. 37; Wright 1972, p. 204). He exercises his ministry through his ministers. Moreover, gifts are given to every member of the body. The Spirit leaves no one idle, and we are urged not to despise the gift given to anyone, but to test the gift (EE, p. 13). They are given 'so that all are useful and necessary to all' (EE, p. 89). Those who are truly members of the church 'gladly share with the church, for the salvation of each and all, the gifts they have received from the Lord' (EE, p. 36; Wright 1972, p. 203). This is related to the analogy of the limbs in a human body. He states in the Explicatio that Christ gave and gives certain ministers: 'Ita dedit, et dat hodie Evangelistas', 'Dedit et dat semper etiam Pastores', 'Dedit denique et dat etiam Doct.' (TA, p. 509). He speaks, moreover, of ministry being a 'ministerium' not a 'magisterium' (EE, p. 116). 'Atque hoc quidem est opus Christi servatoris proprium: tamen dum illud perficit per suorum ministerium, dicit et illos corpus suum augere, atque aedificare' (EE, p. 114). He later expounds discipline (ministerial and lay) with its various elements (EE, pp. 122 ff.; cf. TA, pp. 51 Iff.).

Bucer's commentaries on Ephesians

59

Focus on the sacraments In the 1550-1 lectures, there is also a strong shift in the emphasis and place given to the sacraments. Bucer now gives extended discussions of baptism and the Lord's Supper, whereas they received little more than passing reference in 1527, for the text itself does not obviously demand it, except in Ephesians 5:26.22 There is also a discussion of the laying on of hands, which comes from the example of Christ and the apostles and is used in confirmation, ordination and the reconciliation of those who have sinned gravely. The administration of these three belongs principally to bishops and presbyters (EE, p. 121). Baptism and the Lord's Supper are - in Augustine's words - 'visible signs by which the invisible gifts of God are communicated' (EE, p. 120). However, in expounding Ephesians 5:26 Bucer distinguishes his position on the sacraments, as he has done on the ministry, from that of sacramentarians and papists - from Schwenckfeld, who, looking only to the outward and not to Christ's institution, separates what is signified from the sign; and from the papists, who confuse them. God, however, knows our nature and that we have need of outward signs, and Christ 'washes with the Word, of which the washing with water is the outward sign' (EE, p. 180).23 This emphasis on the sacraments is not limited to the extended discussions or a directly relevant passage in the Epistle, but is present for example in the exposition of chapter 1:14.24 The stress now - as in Ephesians 4:5 - is on what is communicated to us: 'regeneration, incorporation in Christ, the communion of his body and blood, the gift of the Holy Spirit'. The sacraments are not 'bare signs, but exhibit what they declare'. But here, as always with Bucer, their effectiveness is limited to the elect (EE, pp. 104-5, cf. p. 27). Elsewhere this is expressed in terms of faith receiving what is offered by Word and sacrament (EE, p. 64).2S Yet the strong language used of the sacraments, including a word like 22

23 24

25

EE, pp. 143ff. and 146ff. The title in each case begins significantly 'De Vi et Efficacia ...' The final paragraph of the section on baptism shows Bucer's mature position: 'Nee minus efficax est horum omnium donorum Dei instrumentum, baptisma Electis Dei, quos eo statuit sibi Dominus regignere, quam est ullum remedium quantumvis efficax ex natura ad conferendam sanitatem corpori, ad suscipiendum hunc effectum maxime parato et accommodato. Ex Dei enim verbo pendet effectus utriusque rei. Imo multo certius percipiunt Electi Dei enumerata Dei beneficia per Baptisma, quam corpora humana sanitatem suam per ilia, quae vocantur remedia naturalia' (EE, p. 146). Note also: 'docetur peccati originalis reatum remitti in Baptismo, vitium remanere, quod in nobis non debet regnare, quia malum est' (EE, p. 57). 'Sed in praesenti vita, Ecclesia, per praedicationem Evangelii, et sacramentorum usum innovat, instaurat, et perficit hanc redemptionem, communicat nobis corpus et sanguinem Christi, ut magis in nobis maneat, et nos in eo' {EE, p. 28). See also EE, p. 146 (cf. note 22 above).

60

Peter Stephens

'instrument' (EE, p. 145), must be balanced by statements that could have been uttered in the 1520s, in which God does not bind the power of saving the elect to any words or signs (EE, p. 136). Moreover, although God can act without signs, it is for him to prescribe and not us {EE, p. 155). Appropriately, given the central role of the head and the body in Bucer's ecclesiology, Christ's sharing with his members in the sacraments is likened to the way the head empowers its members (EE, p. 35). There is a fundamental coherence between Bucer's two Ephesians commentaries in their understanding of the church and its ministry and sacraments, and manifest continuity between them. There are also important differences of emphasis, however. These derive less from the exegesis than from the context in which he was writing and from the development in his theology and in his work as a Reformer of the church. His views are expressed in opposition to particular opponents and their views and practices. But they also reflect a deepening sense of the institutional life of the church and of the contemporary church's continuity with the early church.

5

Church, communion and community in Bucer's commentary on the Gospel of John Irena Backus

In his work on Bucer's concept of the church, published in 1984, Gottfried Hammann underlined the importance of the Reformer's biblical commentaries which, he claimed, allow us to grasp the nature of the church as Bucer understood it from his reading of the Old and the New Testament. According to Hammann, Bucer's concept of the church isfirstsketched out in his commentaries and merely elaborated upon in his other works.1 Unfortunately, Hammann does not investigate any of the biblical commentaries in detail and so does not tell us how the Reformer's basic theology of the church is developed in them. This curious-seeming lacuna in Hammann's work will not appear curious at all to those familiar with the sheer length and lack of structure of the commentaries and with Bucer's notoriously complex and unattractive Latin style. This, added to the fact that so far only one of Bucer's commentaries, that on the Gospel of John, has been made available in a modern critical edition,2 will explain why students of Bucer's thought have been reluctant to tackle them or, in the case of the Synoptic commentary, have fallen back upon August Lang's classic but partial study of 1900.3 My aim in this essay will be to examine Bucer's commentary on the Fourth Gospel to see whether and how Bucer's concept of the church, communion and community is developed in it; and secondly how the themes of communion and community, as they appear in the commentary, can be linked with the theme of the church. The scope and purpose of the commentary

Together with most writers of the period but against his Lutheran adversary Johannes Brenz, whose commentary on John4 had appeared in a 1 2 3

4

Hammann 1984, p. 31. Enarratio in Evangelion Iohannis (1528,1530,1536), ed. Irena Backus in BOLII (Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought, 40; Leiden, 1988). Hereafter referred to as In Ioh. Lang 1900. For unpublished dissertations on the Romans and Psalms commentaries see Roussel 1970 and Hobbs 1971. Critical editions of the commentaries on the Synoptics (1527, 1530, 1536) and on Ephesians (1527) are in preparation. In D. Iohannis Evangelion Iohannis Brentii Exegesis per Autorem Diligenter Revisa ac Multis

61

62

Irena Backus

revised version only a few months before Bucer's own, the latter considers the Fourth Gospel as the most spiritual: it was written by John with the express purpose of exposing the divinity of Christ, which had been hinted at rather than properly explained by the other Evangelists ('indicatam ab aliis Evangelistis magis quam praedicatam'), 5 and which was already being attacked by heretics such as Cerinthus, Ebion and Carpocrates. Faced with this introduction the reader would perhaps expect the church militant to play a relatively small part in Bucer's Enarratio. This, however, is far from being the case. It is important to remember that the work did not arise in a theological vacuum, nor was it considered by the Strasbourg Reformer as yet another 'learned' commentary intended to gather dust in libraries, although that was to be its fate! The most immediate inspiration for the composition of Bucer's Johannine commentary was the adoption of the Reformation by the Swiss canton of Berne as a result of the disputation held in the city in January 1528. This is stated by Bucer himself in the preface addressed to the Bernese ministers: 6 the success of the disputation which he attended moved him to write the commentary, which, he hopes, will prove to be of use to those ministers who have not yet acquired a complete mastery of the Scriptures. 7 Given that the first thesis of the Berne disputation concerned Christ's headship of the church and was argued with the aid of John 1:42, and that the second thesis stated that the precepts of the church were to be based on Scripture only, the link between Bucer's Johannine commentary and his concept of the church becomes immediately apparent. Moreover, it is useful to remember that the eucharist was the object of the fourth Bernese thesis, and that the commentary was composed against the background not only of the eucharistic controversy with the Lutherans 8 but also of struggles over infant baptism not only with the Anabaptists proper but with various other sects and individuals who advocated adult baptism. The second edition of the commentary appeared in 1530 after the Marburg colloquy and the third, much revised, in 1536 after the Wittenberg Concord. Both those editions appeared together with the commentary on the Synoptic Gospels under the common title Enarrationes

5 7

8

in Locis Locupletata (Hagenau, 1528). Bucer uses this commentary both as source and as theological adversary even after 1536, when his own attitude towards the Lutherans becomes theoretically more sympathetic as a result of the Wittenberg Concord concluded on 29 May of that year. For further details, see In Ioh., especially Introduction. 6 In Ioh., BOL II, p. 18. Ibid., pp. 1-15. Ibid., p. 13: 'Equidem ut testarer quanti mihi sit, viri fratres observantissimi, vestra ad Deum tarn plena conversio, nuncupare vobis decrevi quam hisce diebus in Evangelion Ioannis Enarrationem scripsi, sperans non omnino absque fructu legendam a plerisque ecclesiarum vestrarum ministris qui in Scripturis nondum adeo sunt exerciti.' On the eucharistic controversy see my bibliography in In Ioh., BOL II, pp. lxix-lxxxv, especially Brecht 1966, Gollwitzer 1937, and Hazlett 1975.

Bucer's commentary on the Gospel of John

63

in Quatuor Evangelia, 'Commentary on the Four Gospels'. In fact, the Commentary on John was a sort of supplement to the Synoptic commentary, and a question such as the power of binding and loosing is discussed in the latter (at Matthew 16:19) with only the briefest reference appearing in the Johannine commentary at John 20:23. Given the background of the composition it is hardly surprising that chapters 1 and 6 of the commentary are devoted to the questions of baptism and eucharist respectively. Moreover, much of the commentary is devoted to defining the correct (i.e. anti-Anabaptist) conception of the church, to the link between the church and the Holy Spirit, to the relationship between the elect and the reprobate and to the relationship between church and society. The theme of koinonia occurs in a restricted eucharistic context which I shall discuss separately at the end of this essay. The theme of communion is not mentioned explicitly and it seems that in general Bucer assimilates the notions of 'communion' and 'community' to that of 'church'. Before embarking upon an analysis of the various themes to do with the church, a word about Bucer's exegetical method. As he says himself in the Preface to the Bernese ministers, he set out to comment on all of the Evangelist's narrative and not merely to annotate certain chapters or verses,9 intending thus to arm his brethren against the errors of Satan. In fact Bucer did not comment on every single verse of every single chapter, although the commentary is quite exhaustive. For chapters 1-17 the text of every chapter is divided into sections. Each section is then commented on in three ways: it is first of all paraphrased, 10 then annotated with more detailed textual and philological remarks, and finally provided with observationes which take the form of either an excursus on systematic theology or a series of moral and practical injunctions. Bucer very rarely names his sources on particular points. Having implied in the Preface to the Bernese ministers that the commentaries of Chrysostom, Augustine and Erasmus have served him as models (in 1536 the Lutherans, Brenz and Melanchthon, are added to the list!), Bucer rarely refers to authors in the body of his commentary. Neither his sources nor his adversaries, however, are difficult to identify for anyone familiar with his theological preoccupations and the historical background of the composition of the commentary on John. 11 9

10

11

In Ioh., BOL II, p. 13: 'Dedi namque operam omnia Evangelistae suo ordine synceriter enarrare, non tantum in quaedam annotare et contra eos quos modo Satan immittit errores, diligenter fratres munire.' Sections considered as easily comprehensible are not paraphrased, only annotated and furnished with observationes. Chapters 18-21 are commented on by a Gospel Harmony, taken over practically word for word from Bucer's commentary on the Synoptics. This Harmony is considerably abridged in the final version. Identifications are indicated in the footnotes to my edition of In Ioh.

64

Irena Backus Baptism and eucharist

Lack of rigidity in the citing of sources, and the system of observationes, meant that Bucer was able to devote much more space to the questions of baptism and eucharist than was warranted by the text; a large portion of observationes on section seven of chapter 1 is devoted to infant baptism as one of the expressions of the true, that is the reformed, church. In fact Bucer considers that in Old Testament times the church was already defined by two sacraments, baptism and eucharist, although these were known to the Old Testament fathers in a less perfect form than after the coming of Christ.12 Three traditions are amalgamated in this doctrine: first, the orthodox Roman Catholic definition of the church as put forward in the Decree of Gratian ('the unity of the church is that which extends widely in the communion of the sacraments');13 secondly, the equally orthodox doctrine, developed particularly by Aquinas,14 of Old Testament ceremonies and rituals as prototypes of the 'sacraments of the new law'; and, thirdly, the idea that pagans also had certain rites to do with cleansing which could be considered as precursors of baptism. This notion, although to some extent present in the writings of the early church, e.g. Eusebius' Preparationfor the Gospel, found its full expression in the works of Erasmus of Rotterdam.15 Why this appeal to heterogeneous elements of the Christian tradition to insist on the continuity and universality of the church as defined by what are for Bucer its only authentic sacraments? The answer slowly emerges as we read the rest of the excursus in the first chapter of the commentary. Bucer concentrates on baptism which he considers to be the 'first sacrament' by which 'we are inducted into this communion of Christ' (the eucharist, having been mentioned at the beginning, is in fact not referred to again). It is plain that he considers Anabaptism a major threat for two reasons. First, and most importantly, with the doctrine of covenantal baptism the traditional Augustinian notion of the church as mixed body is destroyed. Although Bucer does not cite the relevant excerpt from Augustine's De Baptismo as reproduced by the Decree ofGratian, it is plain that his doctrine of the church corresponds to it: 'The unity of the church is that which extends in the communion of the sacraments; it includes both the wheat and the chaff, it supports both as a mixture so that neither do the just avoid the chaff nor are they avoided by it. There are bad men in the church just as in the human

In Ioh., BOL II, pp. 71ff. For the Latin see n. 16 below. Cf. Decreti 3a pars, dist. 4, can. 49 (Friedberg 1879-81, vol. 1, col. 1381; in fact an excerpt from Augustine's De Baptismo). Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae la 2ae q. 102 a.5. Cf. Lingua (1525), LB 4, col. 747.

Bucer's commentary on the Gospel of John

65

body there are bad humours which will leave it in due course.' 16 Secondly, by denying the fundamental continuity between the Old and the New Testament, the Anabaptists refuse to acknowledge circumcision as a precursor of baptism and thus do away with one of the few scriptural proofs for infant baptism. This reason only makes sense if considered as subordinate to thefirstreason: Bucer is trying to safeguard all evidence, be it from Scripture or tradition, which would militate in favour of his understanding of the church as a mixed body. Even Origen, condemned elsewhere for his excessive allegorizing,17 is cited in the 'baptism excursus' in support of the practice of infant baptism in New Testament times. 18 Bucer harshly condemns the Anabaptist interpretation of'Suffer the little children to come to me' (Matt. 19:14). According to Balthasar Hubmaier and Martin Borrhaus, 19 whose De Operibus Dei ('On the Works of God') had appeared some months before the publication of the commentary on John, the 'little children' are to be linked with 'of such' in the second phrase and the verse made to refer to childlike (i.e. pure) adults. Bucer pro tests vehemently against this doctrine of baptism. The church is not a community of the pure; it is a mixed community and some of the children baptized will necessarily turn out to be reprobate. Moreover, infant baptism is a natural continuation of the Old Testament rite of circumcision. Several paragraphs of the excursus are devoted to refuting Borrhaus' doctrine of all Old Testament rites and ceremonies as merely shadows ('umbrae'), imperfect and carnal prototypes of the spiritual perfection of the New Testament. Bucer takes up the view expressed by Zwingli in 1527 in his Von der Taufe, von der Kindertaufe undvon der Wiedertaufe ('On Baptism, Infant Baptism and Rebaptism') and argues for a continuity, albeit not a total continuity, of rites and ceremonies between the Old and the New Testament. He explains the difference thus: We do not maintain circumcision as such, which was administered to male infants only, on the eighth day of their life. It is not seemly to confine the Spirit of freedom to a particular day, nor is it appropriate to assign to Christ a male or a female but 16

17

18

19

'Est unitas ecclesia quae late patet, in sacramentorum videlicet societate et communione quae complectitur cum granis etiam paleas, quando eas corporaliter mixtas ita patitur, ut neque illas iusti vitent neque ab illis iusti vitentur. Sic sunt in ecclesia homines mali, ut in corpore humano humores mali, qui interdum exeunt ex corpore' (Friedberg 1879-81, vol. 1, col. 1381). Cf. In Ioh., BOL II, p. 146: 'Apostolos igitur libeat magis quam veterum quosdam Origenem, Hieronymum ac alios - in typorum explicationibus et eorum quae veteribus contigerunt ad nos translationibus imitari. Manifestam enim et certain habent illorum translationes et anagogae similitudinem; Patrum vero pleraeque, maxime Origenis, aut nullam aut valde obscuram.' Ibid., p. 74: 'Neque adultos solum qui fidem Christi palam confiterentur, sed et horum infantes ac pueros etiam apostoli baptismo in Christi ecclesiam receperunt. Nam Origenes testatur hanc traditionem ab apostolis ecclesiae commendatam.' On him see further Backus 1981.

66

Irena Backus

only the new creature. However, as we have seen that it is useful and pleasing to offer our children to God, we took over the nucleus of the rite of circumcision.20 A similar continuity is maintained with the eucharist. The church, as a mixed body composed of the elect and the reprobate, together with its sacraments, is thus grounded in the Old Testament, although it will gradually become more spiritual in accordance with the Augustinian doctrine of the 'three ages of the people of God' mentioned already by Thomas Aquinas in his Commentary on John.21

In commenting on John 3:5 Bucer further specifies that baptism is also a purification of the church. In 1536, after the Wittenberg Concord signed with the Lutherans, the role of the minister in baptism is emphasized. Bucer adds the sentence: 'Hunc vero Spiritum Dominus dignatur suis ministerio ecclesiae in baptismate exhibere atque largiri' (The Lord deems it worthy to present and impart this Spirit to his people by the ministry of the church in baptism'), as well as a long excursus on the crucial role of the church in administering God's gifts to the faithful. Infant baptism serves to confirm the Augustinian doctrine of the church as a mixed body, already instituted by God in Old Testament times and becoming progressively more spiritual, without ever losing its original significance. Eucharist, as we have seen, is considered by Bucer as the other sacrament that defines the church along with baptism. In an excursus devoted to it in the sixth chapter of his commentary Bucerfirstof all, that is in 1528 and in 1530, emphasizes the unimportance of the minister. Against Brenz, who in his commentary on John 6 had stated that the sacraments are 'evangelii appendices' ('appendages to the gospel') and therefore he who has the authority to preach has also the authority to distribute them through the preached Word, Bucer affirms that the minister's aid in distribution of the eucharist is incidental and dispensable. Whatever he does or does not do, only the faithful, i.e. the elect, will receive the eucharist in any true sense.22 In 1536, after the Wittenberg Concord, all references to the unimportance of the minister disappear, and although the question does notfigurewithin the terms of the Concord itself, Bucer does refer to it in his retractatio of the 20

21 22

In Ioh., BOL II, p. 85: 'Sic in circumcisione quod octavo die et maribus tantum adhibebatur, missum facimus. Illud: quia indignum esset libero spiritu alligari certo tempori; hoc: quia convenit signo initiativo testari in Christo neque marem neque foeminam, sed tantum novam creaturam aestimari. Quia autem experti sumus, ut utile sit ad pietatem, ita et Deo gratum ab incunabulis ipsi nostros liberos offerre, hoc tanquam nucleum in observatione circumcisionis nobis desumimus.' Ibid., p. 88. Ibid., p. 265: 'Minister dum evangelion annunciat - quod pluris et vos facitis quam panem eucharistiae quia hie sine illo esse non potest - Domino quidem cooperatur, sed ita ut, si separes quod eius est ab eo quod Domini, nihil ipsi relinquatur et iure quidem, cum a se in his rebus nihil possit cogitare, 2 Corinth. 3 [5].'

Bucer's commentary on the Gospel of John

67

more polemical passages of his commentary. 23 He explains: 'Agnovi et illud: ministros verbis et symbolis Domino cooperari [cf. 1 Cor. 3: 6-7], frustraneo licet metu adhuc horrerem quasdam loquendi formas, ut quibus vererer statui aequo crassiorem Domini in coena praesentiam et ministro tribui plus quam par esset.' ('I also acknowledged that the ministers by their words and rites work with the Lord, although up until now, moved by a groundless fear, I have avoided certain expressions, which I was afraid would establish the real presence in a more physical sense than was appropriate and give the minister more power than he in fact has.') Bucer does not attempt to systematize this shift of emphasis. Elsewhere in the commentary, particularly in the observationes on the second section of chapter 10,24 he insists even in the post-Concord version that ministers, although they are indeed God's 'cooperarii', can do nothing unless their sheep are already convinced by the same Spirit of God which inspires the minister's preaching. This passage is strangely at odds not only with the retractatio but also with the addition to chapter 3, where Bucer in the light of the 1536 Concord stresses that although God remits sins and gives life, men and women cannot be made aware of this without the ministry of the church which has been specially instituted by God for the purpose. 25 Elect and reprobate as the Christian community In his discussion of the two sacraments scattered throughout the commentary Bucer raises most of the main themes to do with his doctrine of the church: the distinction between the elect and the reprobate which cannot be realized on this earth (hence his absolute insistence on the church as a mixed body); the relationship between ministers and the imparting of the Holy Spirit; the continuity between the faithful of the Old Testament and those of the New. These themes, particularly that of the elect and the reprobate, are expanded upon elsewhere in the commentary. In addition, other themes to do with the church are developed. Among the most important are: excommunication, ceremonies, alms and social (in-)equality, asceticism, the relationship between civil and ecclesiastical authority. While insisting that the church is a mixed community, Bucer nonetheless claims in commenting on the Samaritan woman (whom he counts among 23

25

Ibid., pp. 284—5. He considers this retractatio as subsidiary to the full statement published in the 1536 version of his commentary on the Synoptics (there printed together with the one 24 on John) on pp. 483-92. Ibid., pp. 345-6. Ibid., p. 132: 'Ita apud Deum peccata hominibus remissa sunt et regeneratio collata, simul atque illos Deus in vitam elegerit. Ut autem homo haec apud se etiam vere percipiat et sentiat, eadem ecclesiae ministerio percipiat oportet, postquam Deus in hoc ipsum ecclesiae ministerium instituit.'

68

Irena Backus

the elect) that the elect can be distinguished from the reprobate already on this earth. 26 They are by no means free from sin, but they tend to commit sins which are lascivious and harmful to themselves rather than pernicious to others. Elsewhere he tends to identify the reprobate with those who deny Christ and his message in spite of all evidence to the contrary. In the observations on section five of chapter 8 he states that the reprobate are incapable of receiving Christ's message even if they set out with good intentions, while the elect cannot but adopt Christ even if they initially intend to resist him.27 The elect naturally consist of both Jews and Gentiles;28 they can be distinguished, but must not be separated, from the reprobate. Excommunication

It is no surprise to find Bucer extremely critical of the Anabaptist doctrine of excommunication as expressed in the Schleitheim Confession.29 This Confession, compiled in 1527, specified that excommunication should extend to all those who were part of the rebaptized community and who nonetheless found themselves 'surprised by sin'.30 In other words it was a device to keep the rebaptized community pure and exclusive. In chapter 17 of his commentary Bucer sets against this notion the Augustinian doctrine: those in the community who are 'more spiritual' ('spiritualiores') should admonish and motivate the other brethren not to fall into sin and only resort to excommunication when all brotherly love has failed.31 This doctrine seems to be the kernel of the later doctrine of 'Christliche Gemeinschaften' described by Gottfried Hammann. Ceremonies

Apart from some very general criticisms of the Roman Catholic church, Bucer tends to use the commentary as a vehicle against Anabaptists and Lutherans. A good instance of this is his criticism of ceremonies in John 4:21.32 Against the affirmation of Brenz and others, that ceremonies are good or bad according to whether the Spirit is present or not, he argues that with the coming of Christ the ceremony-dependent form of worship has been replaced by one 'in Spiritu et veritate [John 4:23] quem prorsus nullis caerimoniis et externis rebus (quae et impiis possunt esse communes) addictum esse oporteat' ('carried out in Spirit and in truth which need be given over to practically no ceremonies and external things; in any case those can also be shared by the impious'). 26 30

27 Ibid., p. 188. Ibid., p. 326. 31 Ibid. In Ioh., BOL II, p. 484.

28

29 Ibid., p. 344. See Jenny 1951, p. 11. Ibid., pp. 185-6.

32

Bucer's commentary on the Gospel of John

69

Alms, social (in-)equality and asceticism

The church sets the ethical criteria for everyday life, and these criteria are discussed particularly in the observationes on chapter 12 in connection with the anointing of Christ.33 Bucer, going against the diverse radical tendencies of his time, opposes social equality and exaggerated care for the poor. There is nothing wrong, he claims, with some having more than others; the rich should naturally, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, succour the poor, but this does not mean that they should give away all their possessions. God did not want all men to be equal; he wanted some to be free, others to be slaves, some to be rich, others to be poor. The rich man in the Gospel of Luke 16:19 is not to be reprehended for his riches but for his meanness and unwillingness to help. The Christian community is thus mixed and does not embody perfect justice. Moreover, it should not strive for any ascetic ideal. Bucer's approval of a certain amount of luxury is expressed also in his interpretation of the miracle at Cana in John 2.34 Christ's production of a large quantity of wine, when there were many people who had nothing, showed us that there is place for luxury within a Christian community. 'Luxum vita, temperatam hilaritatem ne damnato, condi autem illam, ubi adfueris, sermonibus ad fldei aedificationem facientibus' ('Do not condemn luxury in life or moderate enjoyment, but if you are present when it is taking place, season it with words that strengthen faith'). Relationship between civil and religious authority

Christians can and should exercise public office, as is shown by the example of Nicodemus in John 7, who averted the worst of the Pharisees' attack on Jesus. In his observationes on the woman taken in adultery, Bucer emphasizes that Jesus' indulgence does not mean that adultery should go unpunished or that civil jurisdiction should be relaxed. It is the magistrate's God-given duty to punish all malefactors. The punishment thus administered stems from God and has nothing to do with the personal probity or improbity of the magistrate. Because of this God-given power, Bucer elaborates a propos of John 10:34, magistrates and princes are called gods (cf. Psalm 81:6). This divinity, however is borrowed ('fiduciaria') and they are deprived of it if they misuse their power. In direct contradiction of this view of the state-church relationship seem to be Bucer's comments on the Jews' motives for the crucifixion and his emphasis on the otherworldliness of Christ's kingdom in his exegesis of John 18:36.35 No attempt is made to reconcile the two positions, and 33 35

34 Ibid., pp. 374ff. Ibid., p. 113. Ibid., p. 521: 'Regnum Christi non est de hoc mundo [Io 18, 36], id est situm in extemo

70

Irena Backus

nowhere in the commentary does Bucer define the exact function of the magistrate in the introduction of the Reformation. Koinonia

Although it is by now clear that in the Johannine commentary no distinction is made between church, community and communion, the more restricted meaning of the term koinonia as discussed by Bucer in the Preface and in his exegesis of John 6, is worth mentioning.36 During the Berne disputation the Lutherans argued that koinonia in 1 Corinthians 10:16 should be taken in the sense of 'distributio' on the analogy of Romans 15:26. The Zwinglians, including Bucer, argued against this, maintaining that koinonia in both passages should be understood to mean 'societas/ communio'. Their source for this translation was Erasmus, who in his Annotations on Romans 15:26 emphasized the sharing of the common good in all gifts of charity. In commenting on 1 Corinthians 10:16 Erasmus showed himself sceptical of the Vulgate rendering 'participation saying that the habitual (Vulgate) rendering 'communio' was perfectly adequate: 'ad quid conducat ista copia non video. Interim lector graece ignarus comminiscitur aliquod discrimen inter communicationem etparticipationem frustra' ('I do not see the point of trying to vary the style here, when the reader who does not know Greek will only search in vain for some difference of meaning between "communicatio" and "participatio"'). The same argument is repeated by Bucer in his exegesis of John 6. Questions of real presence apart, the interpretation of koinonia as community of Christ's body and blood served to point up the value of the sacrament as defining the true Church. The power of binding and loosing

Although Bucer at John 20:23 simply refers the reader to his exegesis of Matthew 16:19 in the Synoptics commentary, so that the power of binding and loosing does not constitute a theme in the Johannine commentary proper, I should like to conclude with a brief summary of Bucer's view of it as expressed in the final (1536) version of the Synoptics commentary. It is particularly interesting in that it explains certain aspects of Bucer's doctrine of the church, left implicit in the commentary on John.

36

dominatu. Unde et gloria divitiis et potentia externa usque destituitur, ut in capite Christo, ita et membris. Ergo hie reiectamenta mundi nos esse oportet, in regeneratione demum cum Christo regnaturos.' Ibid., pp. 10,271. The passage in John 6 is removed from the 1536 version, but the report of the fourth thesis of the Berne disputation (p. 10) remains unaltered even after the Wittenberg Concord!

Bucer's commentary on the Gospel of John

71

Bucer begins by stating that the keys were given to the whole church, which is governed in a manner analogous to a republic. Priests and bishops are equivalent to the people and senate of Rome, while Christ is equivalent to the supreme lay ruler ('princeps'). It is true that this supreme ruler gave the power of the keys to Peter, thus singling him out. This was, however, only because of Peter's faith and had nothing to do with his successors. Bucer then cites several church Fathers, notably Jerome and Origen, in support of the doctrine that Christ's words, although addressed only to Peter, were intended for all the church with her true ministers. However, Peter remains special and Bucer, contrary to what might be expected, does underline the fact that he was chief among the apostles. This authority, however, had nothing to do with the universally accepted concept of authority: 'nullo quidem dominio uti inter ethnicos fuit, sed cura et solicitudine paterna veroque pastoris ministerio et inuitatione proprii exempli' ('his was not to exercise power as pagans do but care, fatherly concern, true ministry and the incitement of his own example'). One is thus almost tempted to say that Peter for Bucer in 1536 fulfils the function of a 'Christliche Gemeinschaft'! Peter himself, continues the Strasbourg Reformer, referring to 1 Peter 5:1, never considered himself as more than a 'compresbyteros' ('fellow presbyter'). Bucer then cites Cyprian in support of the doctrine of the equality of all bishops and their submission to the pious prince, who saw to it that they acquitted themselves correctly of their office.37 Conclusion

Certain doctrines left implicit in Bucer's commentary on John are clarified by his excursus on Matthew 16:19; more particularly his ideas on papacy, church government and the role of lay rulers. For the rest, his commentary on the Fourth Gospel reveals much about his doctrine of the church as a mixed community consisting of the elect and the reprobate, evolving to reach a greater spirituality, yet maintaining an unbroken continuity with the Old Testament. The community is defined by its sacraments, baptism and eucharist; it does not exemplify perfect social justice; perfection is not to be required either from its ministers or from its members. Excommunication is not to be rigorously applied, but the more pious should motivate those who are weaker. This conception of the church is heavily influenced by the Latin church Fathers (particularly Augustine and Cyprian), even though their names are hardly ever mentioned explicitly. 37

Cf. the 1553 Genevan edition of Enarrationes in Quatuor Evangelia, ff. 133v-6r, on Matt. 16:19. A somewhat different account of Bucer's exegesis of this passage is given by Fraenkel 1980, pp. 599ff.

Eucharistic communion: impulses and directions in Martin Bucer's thought Ian Hazlett This study will be confined largely to one of Bucer's writings illustrating his alleged transition from a view of ministry, eucharist and communion apparently akin to that of Zwingli to one apparently more akin to, or at least compatible with, that of Luther. The tract in mind is Bucer's Bericht auss der Heyligen Geschrift ('Advice from Holy Scripture') of 1534.l But in addition, some comparisons will be made with statements from much later in his career. The ostensible purpose of the tract was to commend the necessity of the visible church, ministry and sacraments to the anti-ecclesiastical, antiministerial, anti-sacramental Anabaptists in the city of Miinster in Westphalia. But a hidden agenda in the book was to advance further his distinctive mediation theology in the eucharistic controversy between Lutherans and Zwinglians; yet it could be said that Bucer's formulations in this tract are essentially pitched to appeal more to Lutheran than to Zwinglian ears. His development and basic consistency after 1530 until his death in 1551,2 which resulted in a degree of passive estrangement from the early Zurich theology - or at least its proponents - substantiate this. In 1537 Bucer wrote to Bullinger that he had nothing to add to what he had written in the Bericht three years previously, and that there were no grounds for mistrust.3 Yet Bullinger had every reason to be sceptical, since in 1536 Bucer and the Tetrapolitan churches of Strasbourg, Constance, Memmingen and Lindau had established formal concord or a modus vivendi with the Lutherans, but without the Swiss and the Zwinglians. And the fact of the matter was that it had been the palatable nature of Bucer's sacramental expatiations in not only his Bericht, but also his tract defending Reformation theology against Robert Ceneau, the Bishop of Avranches, later in the same year,4 which had convinced the Lutherans, especially Melanchthon and Osiander, that Bucer could be at least accommodated. While the core of the Bericht is actually devoted to the vindication of 1 3 4

2 In BDS 5, pp. 119-258. Cf. Lang 1900, pp. 285-6; Wright 1972, p. 387. Cf. BDS 5, p. 117. Defensio adversus Axioma Catholicum . . . R. P. Roberti Episcopi Abrincensis.

72

Eucharistic communion: impulses and directions

73

infant baptism, the tract is accompanied with sections on the Christian congregation as the body of Christ, on the sacraments in general, and on Communion or the Lord's Supper in particular. Wider ramifications of the eucharistic question

In considering the content and context of this work, three things have to be borne in mind. First, for Bucer by now the issue of the presence of Christ in Communion goes far beyond fixing one's attention on the elements of bread and water, and pondering on the relationship between them and the body of Christ. It is within a much wider constellation of concepts that the matter is to be considered, namely faith, Christian community, the (mystical) body of Christ, ministry, the Holy Spirit, love, the promises of Christ, edification and nurture, covenant, thanksgiving, remembrance, the Word of God, the church, and so on. The apparent focussing of the debate on the elements in the 1520s concealed to some extent the fact that on many of these wider issues there was also dissonance, even among the Reformers themselves. Few of the Reformation theologians, Calvin perhaps excepted, managed to present the gamut of issues involved in a systematically integrated fashion, possibly partly as a reaction against traditional 'scholastic' methodology. Yet what is striking in the Bericht are indeed strong gestures at least in the direction of trying to come to terms with the question in its totality, even if in the end Bucer never quite manages to shake off a characteristically random and desultory manner of exposition. Secondly, the particular concept which had originally aroused Bucer's distinctive notions of a mediating eucharistic theology was that of the 'unio sacramentalis' (sacramental union) between the bread and the body of Christ. He had taken the concept from Luther's definitive sacramental writing of 1528, Vom Abendmahl Christi, Bekenntnis ('Confession on Christ's Supper').5 In his own Dialogus6 of the same year, Bucer flew the sacramental union concept as a conciliatory kite, though with no great success. He applauded the fact that with Luther's use of'unio sacramentalis', the Wittenberger explicitly eliminated any presence of Christ which could be construed as empirical, physical, material, or carnal; but he deplored the fact that Luther still talked about an 'invisible corporal presence'. Further, he could not accept Luther's explicit insistence in this writing that the sacramental union of the body and the bread is objectively indissoluble as a work of God, so that believer and non-believer alike receive Christ's body an idea anathema to Bucer. This problem was to be resolved, if not solved, 5

WA 26, p. 442.

6

BDS 2, pp. 305-83 (Vergleichung . . .).

74

Ian Hazlett

in the Wittenberg Concord of 1536,7 but suffice it to say for the moment that Bucer continued to see great potential in the sacramental union idea; it enabled him to make distinctions which he found to be of great value in his subsequent discussions of baptism and the ministry of Word and sacrament in the church. It is no accident that in the previous year Bucer had drawn up various memoranda on the question of the distinction between the internal and the external Word. 8 Further, always within the framework of a dualistic anthropology, 9 his mature eucharistic conception is characterized by a dualism or parallelism: in Communion there is a double eating; just as the mouth eats the bread, so the mouth of faith feeds off the body of Christ; in the Lord's Supper, there are 'duae res' (two realities), one earthly and one heavenly or spiritual. There is therefore a synthesis between the offering of representative bread by the minister and the self-offering of Christ himself, a synthesis also grasped in the formula 'unio sacramentalis'. And so this essential parallelism is conveyed in the word typically, though not uniquely, employed by Bucer, namely 'exhibit' ('exhibere'). This embraces both the figurative representation and the actual offering of Christ's body.10

Responding to the Anabaptists

Thirdly, the Bericht suggests strongly that a vital factor enabling Bucer to come to terms with the Lutherans (and they with him?) was the common danger presented by a diverse body of Anabaptist and spiritualist thinking. In this, an unbalanced attitude to things external had manifested itself, ranging from indifference to destructive contempt. It was often related to a form of monism, which usually engendered perfectionism and the endeavour to re-establish prelapsarian righteousness. For the Reformers, the ultimate objection to this way of thought was that it seemed to make the incarnation superfluous, that it subverted the distinction between flesh and spirit, and between external and internal. The ecclesiological implications were plain: the visible church as a mixed community of saints and sinners (or in terms of Reformation theology, sin and sanctity) was endangered by the notion of the church as a gathered community of saints exercising their free will in order to enhance realized sanctification. To the radically Augustinian Reformers, this was perceived as blatant works-righteousness. Further, the traditional ministry of Word and sacrament was metamorphosed out of all recognition. In some cases, even Scripture could be dropped, or at best relativized, in favour of the belief that the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the soul was direct and exclusive. In short, the 'Radicals' fought 7 8

Cf. Bizer 1972; Kohler 1924-53, vol. II; Wright 1972, especially pp. 357-74. 9 l0 BDS 5, pp. 422-31. Kriiger 1970. Cf. Hazlett 1975, pp. 413-4.

Eucharistic communion: impulses and directions

75

shy of traditional Catholic Christianity's belief that salvation is mediated by, or at least with the aid of, or accompanied by, external institutional and liturgical means and instruments. 11 Through the confrontation with the Anabaptists in Strasbourg in 1532-3, Bucer and his church had come to learn of the ominous developments along the Lower Rhine, but especially in Minister in Westphalia. Here the Reformers of the city were succumbing to radical and revolutionary influences, chiefly from the Netherlands. Bernard Rothmann, for example, had within a short period gravitated from being a Catholic priest to a Lutheran, then a Zwinglian, and finally an Anabaptist! In response, and as an expression of his increasingly anti-Anabaptist polemics, Bucer composed a tract on church order, ministry and sacraments - the Bericht. He addressed the work to the city and church of Minister. 12 Though Bucer's book was published too late to have any influence on the course of events in the city, it nonetheless attracted widespread attention and approval. While less famous than Luther's Against the Heavenly Prophets or Zwingli's Refutation of Baptist Tricks in the previous decade, Bucer's tract can notwithstanding be counted among the major initial literary responses of the Reformers to the Anabaptist and spiritualist phenomenon. Bucer's developed thought As regards Bucer's treatment of Communion and the ministry of the sacraments in his work, we shall confine ourselves to four points of interest. The first of these reveals how far his definition of sacrament had developed from his pseudo-Zwinglian days, when he was reluctant to ascribe more to it than to a human rite, designed to enable believers to profess and exercise publicly their faith, practise mutual communion, invoke Christ's spiritual presence by the power of contemplation, remember Christ's sacrifice and give thanks. These elements are of course not eliminated or banished from Bucer's concept. But now the emphasis shifts from the subjective to the more objective side of the ceremony: The sacraments are divine actions of the church instituted by the Lord; through them, the gift of God and the redemption accomplished by the Lord Jesus Christ are, by virtue of divine promises, offered and conveyed with words and visible signs to those who acknowledge the church as having the competence [to proffer] such redemption by virtue of God's promise.13 The sacraments, then, are divine institutions, and the church has been entrusted with their administration. The gifts are granted and bestowed by 11 Cf. Sebastian Franck, Letter to John Campanus, in Williams and Mergal 1957, pp. 147-60. Also Williams 1962, pp. 821-8. 12 Cf. Stupperich 1974. 13 BDS 5, p. 160.

76

Ian Hazlett

Christ; but the church as the bride of Christ can act on his behalf in accordance with his Spirit and Word, just as she does in the forgiveness of sin. Bearing in mind Bucer's conception of the Last Supper as the 'prima eucharistia' (first eucharist), we note that in the eucharist the minister is vice Christ. The ministers of Word and sacrament are used by God simply as 'an instrument of our salvation'. 14 In the sacrament, the redemption of Christ is offered, but both the minister and the sign which he exhibits remain utterly subordinate to, and are not to be confused with, the reality which is offered. Bucer's thinking is grounded in a fundamental and positive dualism: he emphasizes that he has never taught that in se the sacrament is an 'instrument, canal, or vessel of the grace and Spirit of God' 15 in any inherently automatic sense. But it may be regarded as a mediator and means of salvation when it is accompanied by the action and co-operation of God on the one hand, and by true faith on the part of the receiver on the other. But 'it is God who gives the growth'. 16 Bucer thereby gives prominence to the idea that the sacraments are works of God. Yet his Zwinglian scepticism and Augustinian good sense always enable him to refrain from attributing too much virtue to the external rite and symbols. If, indeed, his eucharistic thought is characterized by a parallelism and a duality, there is no parity between the parallel realities offered. The earthly, the visible and the human are all wholly subordinate to the heavenly, the invisible and the divine; hence Bucer's frequent recourse to the Augustinian definition of a sacrament as a visible sign of invisible grace, or insistence that the sacrament is the visible Word and gospel - sacrosanct indeed, though what is visible and illustrative has by no means the same value as what is invisible. 17 And so, because of the nature of humankind, God condescends to deal with people in a concrete, earthly way: '[God] likes to speak and deal with us in a human way, just as he wanted to become a true man for our sake.' 18 Through such an analogy, Bucer established further contact with the Lutheran notion of the sacrament as a form of extended revelation and of God's incarnation. However, he is careful not to detach the efficacy of the sacraments from their proper contextual use in the congregation. The criterion of faith ensures that the real gift of the sacrament is not and cannot be appropriated by all and sundry: God wants to help us in and throughout his community with and by means of the Word and sacrament, that is, by giving and gifting himself to us . . . Quite rightly, 14 17

15 16 Ibid., p. 164. Ibid., p. 166. 1 Cor. 3:7; cf. Stephens 1970, pp. 177-85. In his Handlung gegen Melchior Hoffmann, Bucer wrote: 'sichtbare wort und Evangeli, wie das der h. Augustinus gar fein dargibt' (BDS 5, p. 95). Cf. Augustine: 'quid enim sunt aliud quaeque corporalia sacramenta nisi quaedam quasi verba visibilia, sacrosancta quidem 18 verum tamen mutabilia et temporalia?', Contra Faustum XIX: 16. BDS 5, p. 162.

Eucharistic communion: impulses and directions

77

God does not bind his grace and his work to the ministry of the church in such a way that anyone, who only externally without faith hears the Word and receives the sacrament, automatically (gleich) would have possession of Christ and his redemption.19

With this, Bucer reiterates the affirmation which caused constant misgiving among the Wittenbergers, or rather to Luther: that unbelievers do not receive the body of Christ, but only the bare sign of it. A mediating theology

The second point of interest is that while it can be argued that the balance of Bucer's utterances in the Bericht tilts towards the Lutherans, it is still the case that he is advancing a mediating theology and not just making a series of concessions or pragmatic adaptations. The following juxtaposition of what in his mind are two ways of presenting the same truth is a classic illustration of his thesis: The one party [Bucer and the Swiss] also confesses that the Lord in the Holy Supper gives and gifts above all his true body and true blood, not just mere bread and wine; the other party [the Lutherans] confesses that the bread and the body of the Lord do not become one reality in a natural manner, but rather in a sacramental manner. As the former party says, we receive the body of Christ in the Supper spiritually or by faith, understanding by this not an empty fiction, but rather a true, complete enjoyment of the Divine, as offered by the body of Christ in the Supper corporally, orally, tangibly, though they do not want to make the body of Christ into food for the stomach. They [the Lutherans] also openly admit that the body of the Lord in its natural form {an im selb) is not seen, touched or digested like other flesh and food, but what happens to the bread is that it becomes sacramentally united with the body of the Lord, so that it is considered as the body of the Lord for the sake of the sacramental union.20

However plausible this formulation might be, it cannot really be said that both parties at that time could have unreservedly assented to it. The Zwinglians were loath to consider Communion as an occasion at which a gift, that is, something lacking or extra, was received. For them it was ritual, passive communion with something already possessed. The Lutherans would wonder about unresolved issues like whether Christ's presence is constituted by the Word or by faith, that is, by virtue of the divine promise or by virtue of the contemplative invocation of the participants. Thirdly, it is also noteworthy that Bucer's concern for concord led to no compromise in his understanding of the positive relevance of John 6 for the sacrament.21 This was denied by Luther, even if he considered that John 6 had a bearing on the actual use of the sacrament. Zwingli agreed with that, 19

Ibid., p. 254.

20

Ibid., p. 247.

21

Hazlett 1976.

78

Ian Hazlett

but unlike Luther he saw John 6 as providing the irrefutable evidence that there was absolutely no ritual eating of Christ's body and blood in the signs of bread and wine. 'The flesh is of no avail' (John 6:63) was Zwingli's proof-text, with 'flesh' understood as created matter. And in the entire sacramental controversy, Zwingli regularly affirmed that his point of departure was John 6.22 Bucer's argument, however, was that in John 6:55ff. and in the eucharist, Christ was treating of one and the same thing, namely the spiritual eating or enjoyment of himself. But for Luther, there is much more than spiritual eating in the eucharist, there is also oral eating or 'manducation'. In John 6, Bucer argues, Christ offers himself verbally, whereas in the eucharist he offers himself sacramentally as the visible Word: Perhaps some people object to our bringing the sixth chapter of John into this affair, on the grounds that there is nothing about the sacrament there. Yet we are only doing what the Christian church has always done, as all the writings of the Fathers show. While admittedly there is no mention of the sacrament in John 6, yet the Lord himself is giving instruction there on the true eating and drinking of his flesh and blood, in regard to which only later did he institute the sacrament; in this he also gives the food, himself, his true flesh and true blood, about which he had spoken and taught in John 6.23 For Bucer then, Communion is a ritual, sacramental, representative and concrete form of spiritual eating. He adheres to the inherent sacramental significance of John 6. Accordingly, Christ in the eucharist offers himself with the signs as bread for eternal life, food for the soul, which is effective when received in faith. Fourthly, a popular Anabaptist concept was a radicalized Anselmian doctrine of the all-sufficiency of Calvary, by which Christ's sacrificial death on the cross effects per se salvation for those who so believe. This reductionist externalization of Christ is then reinforced when it is also stressed that his body is now in heaven. Thereby Christ's continuing real presence among believers on earth is endangered, or in some way diminished. Such a way of thinking cannot be fairly described as typically Zwinglian. Yet one of the chief convictions among Lutherans about Zwinglian and putatively related 'sacramentarian' eucharistic doctrines was that the Christian faith was being emptied of its vital content, that the living Christ was excluded from the world, and that the faith was relegated to 'fides historica' (an historical belief). It was ultimately this anxiety which accounts for the intense vigour of Luther's objection to what he believed he detected as sub-Christian in the Zwinglian theology. 22 23

In his letter to Matthew Alber, Zwingli had written 'ex eo capite orsi sumus' so that it is 'munitissima fortissimaque acies', Z III, pp. 337, 336. BDS 5, p. 248.

Eucharistic communion: impulses and directions

79

Throughout Bucer's post-1530 writings, one can observe his efforts to avoid this pitfall. He strives to secure and maintain the intimate relationship between the Christian and the ascended body of Christ. His reading of the Greek Fathers has increased his confidence in this regard. Accordingly, in the Bericht he gives prominence to the point that not only justification, but more especially sanctification, depend on the extent to which the Christian is a participant in the body of Christ. It is this which leads him into a muted form of sacramental realism in his concern for active communion which yields something more than bare faith does: it confirms and strengthens faith, it enhances edification, it improves and benefits the believer in so far as the further communication of the substance of Christ's body engenders increased mutual love and service. He writes: For us it is not sufficient that he died for us on the cross. He himself must also live in us, and share with us the communion of hisfleshand blood. For our [natural] flesh and blood are not able to inherit the kingdom of God.24 And so, the ministry of Word and sacrament is intended to facilitate this communion with Christ so that he does not merely mediate for us with the Father, he also lives in us, suppresses our wickedflesh,and establishes a new, divine living; indeed he himself lives in us, after he has been presented, offered, and conveyed to us. Because normally (schlecht), it is by means of the church's ministry that he communicates to us himself and his gifts.25 The consistency of the later Bucer Moreover, select examples from a few of his later writings will verify that the older Bucer remained faithful to these fundamental concepts. In a book Bucer published in 154526 in defence of the Cologne Reformation programme which he had helped to draw up, he affirms that the communion wrought by Christ in the eucharist is enacted by the minister outwardly}1 Elsewhere, however, he can also still affirm that God is not tied to the ministry of the sacrament, though that cannot justify a lax attitude to it on our part: [God] can present his benefits to anyone he wills, without any signs. However, as long as he offers them to us in specific signs, our neglect of these signs means the repudiation of his benefits. For not we ourselves, but he himself prescribes to us how we are to receive his gifts.28 24 27

25 26 Ibid., p. 250. Ibid., p. 251. Bestendige Verantwortung . . . (Bonn, 1545). 'quamvis per ministrum externe absolutum, utile ac salutiferum est fidelibus', from the Latin translation published at Geneva in 1613, Constans Defensio ex S. Scriptura et Vera 28 Catholica Doctrina, p. 318. From Stephens 1972, p. 259 (altered).

80

Ian Hazlett

It is in Bucer's exchanges in the mid-1540s with the Zwinglian John a Lasco in East Friesland that Bucer's formulations crystallize significantly further. 29 While Bullinger, for example, was never enthusiastic nor convinced about Bucer's mediating theology, he did not take issue with it publicly. This may well have something to do with the fact that in the Bericht and elsewhere, Bucer had the original or early Zwinglian symbolist doctrine in mind, as Walther Kohler maintains. 30 But a Lasco was much less tolerant of Bucer. He challenges Bucer's concept of koinonia. For a Lasco, eucharistic koinonia or communion is understood passively as the fellowship between Christ and believers, whereas Bucer, even if he does take passive communion for granted, pleads for an active communion as well - which requires a positive distribution, with the aid of the minister, of the body of Christ and its benefits. In Bucer's highlighting of the normally necessary role of the minister, a Lasco sees a danger of 'Romanization', accompanied by adoration of the elements, processions and other abuses. 31 Bucer is not impressed by these allegations, and in his epistolary tract to a Lasco of April 1545, he unambiguously reaffirms his basic conception: In the sacrament, both Christ himself and the communion of hisfleshand blood are given and received; we become his members,fleshof hisflesh,bone of his bones, we remain in him, and he in us; the efficacy of the proceedings derives from the Lord himself, even if he operates through his ministry; the words and the symbols are the Lord's, not those of the minister as such, though they are received through the minister; the whole thing is the gift and the work of the Lord, but yet, he still retains freedom vis-a-vis the rite, since he is not bound to the ministry nor to ministers.32 But perhaps the most notable thing about this essay to a Lasco is that Bucer, in line with his characteristic ideas, devises a new formulation to clarify his thinking. This was 'unio pacti exhibitivi', a concept with which he wishes to shed further light on the nature of the sacramental union. Tactum' here is best understood as 'agreed means', that which (the symbols, the minister) has been stipulated or prescribed to accompany and administer the distribution of the body of Christ as food for the believing 29 30

31 32

Text in Pollet 1958-62, vol. I, pp. 222-34; cf. Hopf 1947. 'Wendet sich nun [in the Bericht] Bucer gegen die Abendmahlslehre der Miinsterschen, so bekampft er nichts anders als die urspriingliche zwinglische Abendmahlslehre', Kohler 1924^53, vol. II, p. 322. See his Epistola ad Amicum de Coena of 1544, in Kuyper 1866, vol. I, pp. 557ff. 'In sacramento utroque Dominum ipsum eamque carnis et sanguinis eius communionem dari ac percipi, qua sumus membra eius ex parte, et caro de carne eius, os de ossibus, qua manemus in ipso, manetque ipse in nobis; dari autem et percipi, dum Dominus ipse est in ministerio suo efficax, cumque verba et symbola ut Domini, non ut ministri, ut ab ipso Domino, quamquam per ministrum accipiuntur: quod totum Domini et donum et opus est, et dispensationis liberae, nullis ministris vel ministeriis alligatae.' Pollet 1958-62, vol. I, p. 224.

Eucharistic communion: impulses and directions

81

soul. The two different realities in each case are distinct, but not separate. 33 There is no confusion either, though there is a spiritual fusion. This new and profitable formulation was fully in accord with the logic of Bucer's position: that in eucharistic communion, it is Christ who is active and efficacious, and that the ministerial cooperation is altogether subject to that; that partaking believers experience and receive much more than the passive fellowship ofkoinonia or a firming up of esprit de corps, but rather 'the food of the new internal man, the food of eternal life, the strengthening of faith by which the just man lives, the increase of new life, the life of God in us'. 34 The ultimate value and effects of liturgical Communion above normal communion with Christ through faith are where Bucer's real interests lie. This is in enhanced Christian living in the church and community on the part of the recipients and beneficiaries. The added value is seen not in terms of personal benefit or privilege, but in relation to an improved quality of service and witness. Conclusion Bucer's eucharistic doctrine was and has been characterized in diverse ways, some none too sympathetic. The aim of this particular study has been to show that even if, as an ex-Dominican, he was understandably verbose and very flexible in his use of language, his basic concepts have an underlying integrity and solidity. There is indeed an underlying rationalizing, i.e. explicative, tendency, inevitable once the matter became a controverted issue. The evaluation of this is a matter of dispute. But apart from his inclusivist temperament and instincts, Bucer was forced into such an approach by his constant concern to negotiate a path between the Scylla of realist sacramentalism, with its notions of absolutely necessary and objective inherent efficacy, and the Charybdis of symbolist spiritualism, with its notions of introspective meditation on one's relationship with what is basically beyond. His 'mediation' theology (bequeathed to Calvin, it should always be remembered, as it usually is not) derived from this objective. Bucer's own paradoxical approach to the matter of eucharistic communion can be depicted as that of an analytical mystical realism. This is rooted in his concept that in this supreme moment of earthly Christian testimony, 33

'Sed quae est ista sacramentalis unio? Pacti est: ut qui hunc panem ita percipit, ut Dominus instituit, vere Christum percipiat, sicut Christo vere induitur eique incorporate, adeoque ipsum quoque recipit mansurum in se, ut is maneat in ipso'; ibid., p. 224. And 'nulla unione admissa quam pacti exhibitivi, quae vocatur unio sacramentalis. Percipi enim non ratione, non sensu, sed fide tantum, vel mente fide illustrata, quanquam perceptus fide viva Christus, non mortua, otiosa, vel temporaria, praesentiam explicet suam in totum 34 hominem'; ibid., pp. 228-9. Ibid., p. 229.

82

Ian Hazlett

there is a religious convergence of two realities, heavenly and secular, eternal and created, spiritual and material, personal and impersonal, Christ and minister, external and internal, reality and symbol, truth and sign, etc. - all distinct but not separate, yet involving no material fusion or hazy commixture. In the eucharistic happening, then, the person of Christ himself ('Christus ipse') manufactures a supernatural synthesis of ways and means by which he transmits himself into the flesh, bones, and souls of those who wish to be joined with him. This is indeed in contrast to the formulations of Luther - his conceivably mechanistic 'ex verbo locuto' (by virtue of the Word spoken), and of Zwingli - his conceivably psychological 'ex contemplatione fidei' (by virtue of the contemplation of faith).

Martin Bucer and the ministry of the church James Kittelson

On 14 October 1549 Martin Bucer wrote to a certain Johannes Marbach one of his anxious, agonized letters from England. Bucer wrote with real urgency, almost as if he sensed that Marbach might acquire greater responsibilities in the future, as he did. Fittingly enough, he left his most important message for the end of the letter. There he admonished Marbach always to remember that 'Nothing in this life is more sacred or greater . .. than those things that pertain to the sacrosanct evangelical ministry, the ministry of the eternal salvation of humanity itself.'1 Near the end of his life and now an emigre, Bucer meant what he wrote. Yet, and in spite of his clear statement, only three scholars - Jacques Courvoisier in 1933, Werner Bellardi in 1934, and Gottfried Hammann in 1984 - have devoted entire volumes to this aspect of Bucer's career. However, even these scholars subordinated Bucer's clear emphasis upon ministry as such to different, perhaps wider, interests. For Courvoisier, the issue was the origins of Calvin's concept of ministry; for Bellardi it was the beginnings of Pietism; for Hammann it is current discussions of the relationship between people's churches (Volkskirchen) and confessional churches (Bekenntniskirchen). Although in dissimilar ways, each of these works finally focuses on Bucer's ecclesiology rather than on ministry as such.2 It may therefore be profitable to turn the subject on its head and to approach Bucer and ministry from the point of view of his more down-to-earth descriptions of proper ministry and how he practised it. Seen from this direction, it becomes apparent that the 'fanatic for unity', as Margareta Blaurer put it, finally collided with a practising pastor who in the end was willing to divide not only his own flock but also the company of pastors over which he presided. Two clusters of events illustrate this seemingly schizophrenic aspect of Bucer's career. The first stretches from about 1528 to the publication of Von der Waren Seelsorge ('On True Pastoral Care') ten years later. It includes the institution of elders, the synods and examinations of Strasbourg's Radicals, the church order of 1

Fecht 1684, p. 17.

2

Courvoisier 1933; Bellardi 1934; Hammann 1984.

83

84

James Kittelson

1534, and its public defence both by Bucer and by his colleague, Wolfgang Capito. 3 The second centres on the years 1546-9 and features attempts to establish discipline, the tensions that surrounded the city's negotiations concerning the Interim, and the establishment of 'ecclesiolae in ecclesia' or 'Christliche Gemeinschaften' (Christian communities). Taken together, the two reveal an intensely practical practitioner of the pastoral arts and one for whom theological niceties finally yielded to the necessities of pastoral objectives. They also suggest that Bucer's practice may require further reconsideration of his ecclesiology, and perhaps even of his standing as a theologian. The new church order

There can be no doubt that Strasbourg's synods and initial church order were efforts to bring stability to an inchoate reform movement. Internally, the city found itself face to face in the late 1520s and early 1530s with an independent reform movement that opposed or disregarded the work of Bucer and Capito. Variously called the 'Radical Reformers', the 'left wing of the Reformation', or simply 'Anabaptists' or 'Baptizers', these figures denied that there was such a thing as a Christian magistrate.4 This rejection of the mythic foundations of Strasbourg's corporate life5 took many forms, if only because the city was well known for its relative tolerance and therefore attracted many religious dissidents. These people were a sharp thorn in the side of a society that viewed its chief characteristic as being of one God, one faith and one baptism. They troubled Bucer in particular. To him they were first and foremost divisive, and he could not bear them. On 17 April 1531 Capito wrote to Wolfgang Musculus that one of the city's most prominent politicians 'listens to the cruelty from the sermons of our brother Bucer, . . who always contends that absolutely everything is to be torn from [the Anabaptists]'. Bucer in fact favoured more direct action against the dissidents at least as early as 1527.6 In late November 1532 Bucer and Capito (who now saw the wisdom of his colleague's views) petitioned the Senate-and-XXI for a general synod of the church in Strasbourg that would define the doctrinal and organizational expectations of and for the pastors and all who claimed to be teachers of the church. In so doing they insisted that 'to make such commands and order is absolutely not, as some suggest, to compel belief, but to abolish clear abuse'.7 3 4

5 6

See the survey in Kittelson 1975, pp. 171-206, and the literature cited there. Chrisman 1967, pp. 201-31, summarizes the developments. See also Kittelson 1975, pp. 171^4, and Livet, Rapp and Rott 1977, pp. 491-535, for the articles of John Yoder, Klaus Deppermann and Daniel Husser. The role of this self-understanding is spelled out in Kittelson 1972. 7 Kittelson 1975, pp. 176ff. QGT VII, pp. 575-7, especially 576, no. 348.

Bucer and the ministry of the church

85

In and of themselves, circumstances, and the fact that religious reform was a political issue both within and outside the city, meant that the evolving evangelical church and its attendant institutions would necessarily have close and continuing ties to the civil authorities. John Calvin, who served there as pastor of the French parish in the following years, left the city in 1541 with a term for those who opposed this close association. 'Epicureans' was what he called them. 8 They were such a perceived threat that the Strasbourg Reformers could scarcely avoid attacking them. In 1535 Capito wrote a long book (published in 1537 and then reissued in 1541) that he called 'A Response Concerning . . . the Authority of the Magistrates in Religious Matters'. Initially dedicated to Duke Ruprecht of the Palatinate-Zweibriicken, Capito added another dedication for the published version, this time to Henry VIII of England. Here he declared that 'A Christian prince is someone who not only conducts affairs by making laws regarding good morals but also secures genuine piety among the people according to the Word of God - nay, he makes this the first concern, that true religion prosper among the people.' 9 Bucer was equally eager to defend what had been done at the synod and the new church order that evolved from it. He in fact led the effort. In 1538 he wrote 'On True Pastoral Care' and insisted that the subject was not merely an internal, purely 'spiritual' question (in Caspar Schwenckfeld's and Anton Engelbrecht's senses of the term), or even limited to the realm of spiritual counsel. Genuine ministry was also a matter of public order. For this purpose Bucer included in his discussion a section he called 'On the Selection and Installation of Pastors (Kirchendienery in which he maintained that 'the pastor should have the consent of the entire congregation, so that he is not only among them without their complaints and disapproval but is also trusted and loved by them'. Capito agreed, and declared that a pastor served 'with public assent'. 10 Pastors were thus public servants and rightly subject to discipline for the public good. For both Reformers and magistrates, true religion was a public issue and not just a matter for private consciences. It was most definitely not a subject for public discussion and debate but for agreed-upon public policy. Only with a clear and binding church order would it be possible to establish and maintain the unity of the church. However, for Strasbourg, it is also clear that both the synod and the new church order had their opponents. 11 Moreover, the opposition (or at least 8 9 11

Ginzburg 1970. Capito, Responsio de Missa, Matrimonio et lure Magistratus in Religionem (Strasbourg, 10 1537 = 1540), f. 6v. BDS 7, p. 137; Capito, Responsio, ff. 173r-^v. The standard treatment of the church order is Wendel 1942. The evidence for opposition appears in QGT VIII (see below).

86

James Kittelson

those who had doubts and second thoughts) came from beyond the ranks of the dissidents themselves and included many people who despised even the likes of Engelbrecht and Schwenckfeld but honestly questioned whether the government had any right to establish public norms of religious belief and behaviour. At least some of this vague and undefined resistance to the new order emanated from the government. The activities of the Reformers between the synod and the publication of the 'Kirchenordnung' (church order) of 1534 give some sense of the sort of opposition they faced. By no means everyone agreed that a church order was the best way to maintain unity. The annual seating of the new Senate-and-XXI with its officers was the occasion for a public religious ceremony that featured a special sermon - the 'Ratspredigt' - in the cathedral, which was across the central square and up a slight incline from the Tfaltz' or the government's meeting house. Caspar Hedio was the preacher on 14 January 1534 and chose to address the reciprocal religious duties of magistrates and citizens. His sermon came to a climax with the declaration that 'it is - yes - a shameful, poisonous opinion that Satan is presently putting forth . . . when he says that the authorities should not concern themselves with religious matters'. 12 Bucer, by now with the support of Capito, was the chief force behind the effort first to hold a synod and investigate the dissidents. Under his leadership, the next step was to formalize the results of these proceedings in a constitution or church order ('Kirchenordnung'), all in the name of unity. He and his colleagues nonetheless encountered real difficulty in persuading the Senate-and-XXI to act. Not until late June 1534, or about a year after the synod, did Strasbourg have its new church order even in principle, and it was not formally published until November. 13 Enforcement of unity On October 29 of the previous autumn, Bucer had reported to Heinrich Bullinger, the chief pastor in Zurich, that some were saying, it is improper to compel anyone to faith, because faith does not belong to the realm of the sword. All this is true, but it is not to the point. We have no desire to press faith itself [on people], but the doctrine of the faith; hence, to be coercive in cases not of faithlessness but of blasphemy. Faith and unfaith are matters of the heart, which no human being can judge.14 Unity - if not a degree of religious uniformity - was thus the objective 12 13 14

QGT VIII, pp. 262-3, no. 492. Chrisman 1967, pp. 201-31, summarizes the developments. QGT VIII, p. 202, no. 447.

Bucer and the ministry of the church

87

when the church order was finally issued in late 1534. Accordingly, Bucer began the published 'Kirchenordnung' by having the Senate-and-XXI declare that the ordinance was being promulgated because 'all manner of sects, conventicles, and divisions have invaded, to the splintering of the parish churches, the dissolution of brotherly love, and finally the destruction of civil order and peace'. After summarizing the city's formal confessions (the XVI Articles and the Tetrapolitan Confession), the document flatly declared that 'No teachings and sects that are contrary to the self-same doctrine will be tolerated here.' Furthermore, the pastors were henceforth 'to undertake no particular innovations [in the city's churches] without the foreknowledge of an Honourable Council, to which they should bring them'. 15 Both religious truth and public order were at stake. An enforceable unity of the church was a subcategory of each. The mandate also provided a mechanism to enforce this orthodoxy by making the wardens or elders ('Kirchenpfleger' or 'Kirchspielpfleger') the first line of defence against improper teachings and religious unrest. It declared, in the stiff language of legislation: And therewith in order all the better to maintain and bring forth the healthy teaching of Christ for many people here and to drive away and defend against all error and seductive doctrine, our Lords, Masters, and the Senate-and-XXI have also therefore . . . considered and ordered the following, that the elders should exercise faithful oversight so that the aforementioned and recognized teaching, as expressed in the often noted Confession and Articles of the Synod, will be everywhere faithfully taught and preached.16 Strasbourg now had the true Word of God and would not take lightly any challenges to it. It is certainly true that the Reformers were sensitive to the charge (repeated in almost unaltered form by some modern scholars) 17 that they were prohibiting the free movement of the Spirit of God. The general issue was expressed specifically in terms of making allowance for prophecy, and one of the church order's longest sections addressed this very question. Citing 1 Corinthians 14:29 ('Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said'), Strasbourg's politicians and pastors now declared, 'Whenever there might be someone who to this day has the gift of prophecy, people should listen carefully, and afterwards judge what is being said.' The context made it clear that the judging would be against the standards of the XVI Articles and the Tetrapolitan Confession. 18 Prophecy 15 16 17 18

AST 179a, sig. A h
88

James Kittelson

would be allowed, but it would also be judged. Strasbourg was not Minister, and it was not going to become Minister. One of the striking features of Strasbourg's first Reformation church order was its high level of lay participation. This much was Bucer's doing as one more means of developing unity between clergy and parishioner. The initiative, in terms of recruiting, examining, and proposing candidates for parish posts, resided with the clergy, but the decision on actual appointments rested with the laity (at least formally) in the persons of the elders, who were appointed by the Senate-and-XXI, and the twelve additional parishioners, who were presumably selected in consultation between the clergy and the elders. In theory, at least, the elders were to play a critical role in the conduct of the city's ecclesiastical life. As noted above, they were the first guardians of the new order. In addition, at least three of them were to meet with the pastors weekly for the purpose of reporting on their teachings and conduct of life. As time passed, it became increasingly difficult for the pastors to count on the elders to perform their duties, but at the very least they were explicitly designated as one of the church's central constitutive elements both within the city and in the countryside. 19 This high level of lay participation envisaged in the life of the church has been rather badly misunderstood in recent years. It was not basically a question of who - the clergy, the laity, or the government - would be controlling whom. 20 Instead, for Bucer the place of the elders in the daily conduct of ecclesiastical affairs and, with them, of parishioners and the 'commissioned examiners' in the selection of clergy was the practical (perhaps even constitutional) means for assuring that pastors served 'with public assent', as Capito put it a few years later.21 For Bucer, the desired product of this consent was, as he expressed it in the church order, that parishioners and their pastors would live together 'in the greatest love and friendship'. 22 The point is clear. Rather than one more encroachment on clerical privilege, lay and magisterial involvement in the selection and supervision of the clergy was something that Strasbourg's pastors themselves both sought and highly approved. It was the institutional and practical expression of their conviction that true religion was a public as well as a private matter, and it amounted to an attempt to bring the clergy closer to the laity. To be sure, Bucer wished to build a true church founded on true doctrine; but he also sought a unified civic religion. In this context, it is odd to encounter a pastor who is an alleged 'fanatic 19 20 21 22

See Wendel 1942 in general and for 'superintendents', Kittelson 1990. As in Abray 1985, pp. 43ff. Capito, Hexemeron Dei Opus Explicatum (Strasbourg, 1539), f. 173rv. BDS 5, p. 29.

Bucer and the ministry of the church

89

for unity' and who is also willing to divide congregations and the corps of pastors over the practice of personal spirituality. But Bucer did so. Well in advance of the defeat of the Schmalkaldic League, the Interim, and the religio-political problems they brought with them,23 Strasbourg's Reformers had fallen into fundamental disagreement with one another about the direction the city's Reformation should take. The conflict coalesced around the propriety of creating what were variously called 'ecclesiolae in ecclesia' or 'Christliche Gemeinschaften',24 that is, groups of the few self-consciously committed Christians within the larger Christian community, which were organized initially on a parish-by-parish basis and would meet weekly for mutual admonition, instruction, and discipline ('Zucht'). This brief movement (1547-8) was the outgrowth of the Reformers' abortive effort to institute discipline (complete with the ban or excommunication) city-wide. All the pastors at least subscribed to the initial proposal on discipline, but a majority of them were no more than lukewarm about the further step of forming 'little churches within the church', when the government refused to do their bidding. The 'core-church' movement The first undeniable evidence of this 'core-church' movement comes from exchanges between a few of the pastors and the government in April 1547. On 11 April Bucer, Matthew Zell, Paul Fagius (Capito's successor at Young St Peter's) and Marbach appeared before the Senate-and-XXI to defend the content of recent sermons, in which the four of them had emphasized the necessity for a more intense discipline and had urged their parishioners to submit themselves to it at least in preparation for the Lord's Supper. They defended their actions in part by declaring that they were speaking about a 'voluntary Christian community' and 'brotherly discipline' as commanded by the Scriptures. They insisted that their initiatives did not amount to an 'innovation' (expressly prohibited by the church order) and that they wanted 'to enter no one's house against his will'. The heart of their defence against the suspicion of engaging in unauthorized innovations was the voluntary ('freiwillig') character of the gatherings. But the government was not convinced. On 22 April 1547 the Senate-and-XXI established a commission of four prominent members, gave them the title 'superintendents', and ordered them to investigate the matter. The lack of evidence to the contrary suggests that the summer passed uneventfully, but a document from 9 November implies both that the movement was gaining momentum and that its leaders were now under 23

For the tensions that surrounded negotiations concerning the Interim, see Brady 1978, 24 especially pp. 259ff. Bellardi 1934, pp. 48ff.

90

James Kittelson

some sort of official pressure. This 'Short Instruction and Grounding for the Establishment and Maintenance of Christian Fellowships and Discipline' appeared first at St Thomas and Young St Peter's and then at St Nicholas, where Marbach was the pastor. It was thus something of a common charter for the core churches within each of these parishes. Its author (probably Bucer) described the undertaking as an attempt to create communities 'of faith and love' in accordance with the commands of Jesus. But he also laid special emphasis upon three ideas: that these 'core churches' would not divide the church as a whole, because they were voluntary; that they did not amount to a new papacy, because the ban would be exercised by all; and that they were not politically dangerous for the times, because such pious exercises were in harmony with God's will and would therefore help the city avoid his wrath. 25 The problem of potentially dividing the church proved to be important enough at least to divide Strasbourg's pastors. On 11 November, Bucer, Fagius, Lenglin, Schnell and Marbach did something that was very nearly unique in the history of Strasbourg's Reformation. They wrote a letter to their colleagues, Hedio, Zell (who had deserted the movement), Nigri and Steinlin. Heretofore, the city's pastors had occasionally communicated with one another in writing, but both the city and their number were small enough that their exchanges of views commonly occurred face to face and therefore in at least semi-privacy. In addition, the church order specified that the pastors were to meet weekly to discuss their mutual business. This letter's very existence thus testifies to the tension that then prevailed between what became two distinct parties in Strasbourg's corps of pastors. 26 Its content and fate speak even more eloquently about the situation. The author (probably Bucer) protested against the rumour that he and the others had committed 'the crime of schism' (which they called 'all too weighty'), and declared that 'we had never in our entire lives expected such a thing from you'. This plea of innocence followed a description of what they were doing that closely paralleled the 'Short Instruction' of two days earlier and that suggests a co-ordinated attempt to seize the initiative against outside criticism. It preceded a request that their critics respond substantively to the programme of creating core churches within each parish. 27 But the addressees ignored this request, only to receive another ten days later. On this occasion, the leaders of the fellowship movement complained specifically about being attacked from their opponents' pulpits 'as if we, too, did not direct [our parishioners] simply to Christ the same bulwark'. 28 25 27

26 QGTXVI, pp. 219-20, no. 1550; BDS 17, pp. 260-90. BDS 17, pp. 291-308. Ibid., pp. 291-308, where they complained, 'Crimen schismatis ist alzw schwer, lieben Bruder, wir hetten uns des auch von Eurem Keinem unser leben lang ye versechen [jemals 28 erwartet].' Ibid., pp. 308, 313-14.

Bucer and the ministry of the church

91

The division between the two groups of pastors was thus not only substantive but also public. In addition it was deeply felt. The second letter complained again about receiving no reply and added, 'from this we see with heavily burdened hearts that you have falsely judged us'. Theobald Nigri, who was one of the addressees, penned a short note at the bottom of this letter and observed, To all this we replied not at all, save with contempt.' He continued his rumination by noting that the two sides were in such deep disagreement that any reply would only have led to further recriminations.29 The core-church movement thus proved to be in fact religiously divisive, all the protestations of its sponsors to the contrary. There can be little wonder that it also became politically suspect. At the very moment the government faced the crisis of the Interim, Bucer was forming groups of the specially committed, organized on a parish-by-parish basis. He and his followers showed their hand in the most unmistakable way possible on about 30 November in a petition to the government that began with the biblical phrase, 'To the increase of the grace of God'. There Bucer and the others repeated their earlier disclaimers but put forth a proposal that could only have made the Senate-and-XXI very nervous. Of the existing elders, they complained that they 'either do not hear the Word or receive the sacrament or they live evil lives while using Word and sacrament'. Consequently, they requested that the government authorize each parish that had core-church groups to organize itself by streets and 'elect some of the most zealous and wisest in the Lord {eifrigsten und verstendigsten im herren) to have special oversight of the people in their streets...' These men of particular zeal and understanding would meet with the regular elders and the pastors each Sunday afternoon and then each month, monthand-a-half or 'at most' two months they would conduct a parish-wide meeting for 'teaching and admonition'.30 The fellowship movement thus became an attempt to revise the church order that had been developed with such effort and been in place for only a little over a decade. In this way Bucer abandoned even the pretence that the core churches were truly 'freiwillig' (voluntary). At the same time, they could also very easily become a popular political organization that would lie outside the oversight of the government, for these lay leaders were to be 'elected' without any specified magisterial participation. Strasbourg's politicians were not accustomed to dealing with spontaneous, voluntary groups of citizens, and they did not approve Bucer's proposal.31 The 'Christian fellowships' also became in fact politically divisive. The 29 30 31

For Nigri's note see ibid., p. 316. Excerpted at 0GTXVI, pp. 231-3, no. 1571, and in full at BDS 17, pp. 320-35. See Brady 1978, pp. 259ff.

92

James Kittelson

'zealots', both lay and clerical, were naturally the most outspoken opponents of the government's negotiations with Bishop Erasmus during the crisis of the Interim. These discussions came to a conclusion during November 1549 and required that the city tolerate the mass not only in the cathedral but also in Young and Old St Peter's. Moreover, the pastors were to be prohibited from preaching against it. With Bucer and Fagius in exile, the last semblance of leadership for the core churches fell to the young Marbach, who bitterly opposed the Interim much in the manner of Matthias Flaccius Illyricus, the celebrated author of the Magdeburg Centuries.32 There can be little wonder that the Senate-and-XXI suppressed the movement. On one occasion, the pastors of parishes with core churches were even accused of seeking to turn the city into another Minister. There was a certain truth to this accusation. The very defensiveness of the movement's leaders on the subject of sectarianism was in itself eloquent, and the charges did not come just from the magistrates but from their fellow pastors as well. In the petition of 30 November 1547 Bucer declared that 'every pastor has the power (Macht)... to withhold the sacrament from those who will not take Christian admonition for the improvement of life to heart and abstain from public sin'. Pastors may well have held this authority in principle, but they certainly did not hold it by virtue of the church order of 1534, which studiously ignored the subject of excommunication. The Senate-and-XXI's claim that certain of the pastors (Bucer in particular) were introducing 'innovations' was well taken, even if parishioners subjected themselves to them of their own 'free will'.33 Much of what they were doing flatly contradicted the assumptions of public and religious policy that underlay both the campaign against the mass, the synod, and the church order. Bucer's contradictions At the very least the core-church undertaking was - without respect to how Bucer characterized it - a contradiction in practice. Whether Bucer's words amounted also to a fundamental theological contradiction is another matter.34 It may nonetheless be that the ambiguities in Strasbourg's church life went so deep that Bucer finally lost his theological grip during the mid-to-late 1540s. At the very least, he included in the petition of 30 November 1547 several statements that were patently false. The one on the place of excommunication has already been noted. Perhaps it can be excused 32 34

Bellardi 1934, pp. 48ff. " QGTXVI, pp. 231-3, no. 1571. Ibid. Hammann 1984, pp. 379ff., insists they did not. Bucer bowed to the 'auf und ab' of the times but asserted that the true church must be experienced at the same time as both people's church and confessing community.

Bucer and the ministry of the church

93

on the grounds that he was there referring to the authority of pastors in principle rather than as it was spelled out in the church order of 1534. But no such explanations or excuses can be adduced to his reply to the question, 'Why, then, do other evangelical churches not practise such assemblies and fellowships' as the 'Christliche Gemeinschaften'? His declaration that 'One finds such fellowships taught (and put much more fully into practice than amongst us) in all properly evangelical churches and in those that maintain Luther's order' is simply untrue. 35 The closest one can come to such a notion in Luther's works is the comment in the preface to his German Mass of 1526 that he would prefer a voluntary church but could not contemplate bringing it into being, because 'there are not enough Christians in all of Saxony for even one such community'. 36 At that early date there was in fact no established Lutheran church whatsoever in Saxony or anywhere else. In desperation, Bucer simply invented precedents for his actions. Perhaps he was merely engaging in the common human tendency toward wishful thinking. But perhaps not. In the same petition - the most carefully developed of them all - he wrote words that suggest a profound departure from the basic doctrine that Christians live by grace alone and not by works. There he summarized his first point by insisting that It is, yes, the most telling word that all those who do not have true Christian love toward all men and in particular for those who are members of the faith, their brothers in God and fellow members in Christ, are as nothing in the presence of God, neither children of God nor members of Christ, but enemies of God and of Christ and destined to eternal damnation. Good works, or at least the appearance of a sanctified life, had somehow crept back into Bucer's religious thought with all the centrality they held in his first book, 'That No One Should Live for Himself but for Others, and How to Attain to this Ideal' (1523).37 Seen from the vantage point of the ministry of the church, Bucer's actions in the early 1530s and then in the late 1540s plainly contradicted one another. On the one hand he sought and achieved politically enforced unity of teaching; on the other he desired, but could not acquire, enforced spiritual practice. A simple tripartite question naturally comes to the fore, at least in a preliminary way: 'What sort of reform did Bucer have in mind, when did he have it in mind, and was it theologically informed in any consistent way?' 35

36 37

This fact is conveniently finessed by Courvoisier 1933, pp. 69-73, who notes 'two sides' to Bucer's ecclesiology and claims that the movement collapsed because of the Interim. In fact, Bucer and Fagius offered to resign over the core-church issue, and the offer was accepted. Bellardi 1934 ignored the problem, while Hammann 1984, pp. 379ff. (see n. 34 above), tends to paper it over in theological terms, and in much the manner of Courvoisier. WA 19, p. 75. See the treatment of Pauck 1961, pp. 144-5. BDS 1, pp. 44-67, which is remarkably similar to the remarks at Bellardi 1934, pp. 144-5.

94

James Kittelson

Pending further research, the answer to these questions will probably be something like the following: Bucer came to the Reformation as an Erasmian and he remained one. He acquired a certain theological orientation to evangelical ideas but his fundamental concern was for the conduct of the Christian life, and he remained true to it, no matter what the cost. His prescription for ministry from 'On True Pastoral Care' is telling in this regard. According to Bucer, the work of a minister (whether pastor or elder) was fivefold. Ministers were to call to the church those not in it, whether through fleshly arrogance or false doctrine; to recall those once in the church who had left it; to exhort to improvement of life those who were in the church but sinned egregiously; to strengthen those in the church who were weak in faith; to protect from anguish and error those who were in the church, but did not sin flagrantly.38 In a work published almost a decade before the core-church movement, Bucer thus established a gradation of religious life. These five categories of people, which corresponded to five kinds of ministerial work, presupposed the idea that degrees of sanctification were observable and even verifiable. By contrast, Luther insisted that 'progress' in the walk of faith was 'invisible'. 39 Conclusions Two tentative conclusions follow. In the first place, with respect to the conduct of ministry as such, Bucer's career reveals once again that even Luther's most intentional followers refracted his theological insight through the prisms of their own worlds of thought. With such thorough refraction occurring on such a fundamental issue as ministry, 'the' Reformation becomes a highly dubious idea. Another point may however be more important for future research. This study of Bucer and the ministry of the church suggests that the vantage point of theology alone may not be the best perspective from which to understand the establishment and functioning of the new Protestant churches. In Bucer's case, the assertion that the church must be both confessional and in some sense communal did not amount to an ecclesiology, but instead to a statement of religious and institutional intent. No matter what else may be said, theology alone does not explain what happened or what he did during his career. Bucer intended to create a unified church and corps of pastors. In fact, he finally divided them and left Strasbourg's church in utter disarray. Whatever merit his views of ministry may have had in theological terms, they were at last fundamentally contradictory and unproductive when they were put into practice in his own time and place. 38

BDS 7, p. 141.

39

WA 56, p. 249; 36, p. 173.

8

Infant baptism and the Christian community in Bucer David Wright

The practice of baptizing new-born babies, which was perpetuated by all the branches of the magisterial Reformation, was one of the deepest storm-centres of religious conflict in the sixteenth century, not least in Strasbourg. Inherited from the Old Church, it had to be purged, in the judgement of the non-Lutheran Reformers at least, of the Old Church's damaging theological legacy - focused in the Augustinian teaching that infants dying unbaptized were lost - and the more superstitious accretions of popular piety. At the same time, its very continuation without obvious biblical precedent laid the Reformers open to sniping from Catholic opponents who claimed to discern a hypocritical inconsistency with the appeal to 'Scriptura sola' (Scripture alone).1 In the life of the reformed churches there was surely no other observance of remotely comparable importance that was maintained with such an embarrassing lack of explicit biblical justification.2 To Radicals of every hue, whose variety and prominence created Strasbourg's religious kaleidoscope in the later 1520s and early 1530s, the retention of baby baptism was much more than a gift horse for controversialists. Bucer knew that people like Bernard Rothmann of Minister viewed paedobaptism as 'the seed-bed of the church's desolation and dereliction', responsible for causing 'the knowledge of God to perish from the earth, with scarcely a trace of the true church now visible in the world'.3 Yet his own deeply patristic formation made it almost unthinkable 1

2

3

In his 1533 treatise on 'What Should be Believed about the Baptism of Infants according to the Scriptures of God' {Quid de Baptismate Infantium . . ., cited hereafter as QBI), Bucer concedes that it does not belong to the 'engrapha Christi instituta', the 'things instituted by Christ that are recorded in Scripture' (sigs. A iiii v-vr). In his 1530 Gospels commentary he expresses his frustration that the Anabaptists 'read nothing but the Holy Bible' (Enarrationes, f. 20r). See my essay 'George Cassander and the Appeal to the Fathers in Sixteenth-Century Debates about Infant Baptism', forthcoming in Auctoritas Patrum. Beitrdge zur Bedeutung der Kirchenvdter im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert I Contributions to the Reception of the Church-Fathers in the 15th and 16th Century, edited by L. Grane, A. Schindler and M. Wriedt to be published for the Institut fur Europaische Geschichte, Mainz. Cf. Old 1992, pp. 111-44 ('The Defense of Infant Baptism by the Earliest Reformed Theologians'). QBI, sig. E ii™.

95

96

David Wright

to abandon a tradition observed by the universal church without a break apart from one or two hiccups - since primitive times. 4 Consensus was a central element in Bucer's appeal to the early Fathers. The notion of a pure patristic consensus which had been the basis of a continuing consensus in subsequent centuries (and offered the best hope for recovering acceptable agreement amid present divisions)5 reinforced Bucer's instinctive inclination to stand by the tradition of paedobaptism. Unequalled champion of infant baptism

These various factors combined with others to make Martin Bucer probably the most dedicated, and certainly the most prolific, champion of paedobaptism among the leading Reformers. He has been called 'the unparalleled master of a theology of infant baptism that placed the sacrament in its proper perspective as an ecclesial herald of Christ's saving presence within the church'.6 According to Francois Wendel, 'the baptism of infants found no more convinced apologist than Bucer in the years 1533-34'.7 His versatility certainly knew no bounds; Peter Stephens counted 'more than twenty specific grounds for the baptism of infants' advanced in the years 1524-36.8 And it is important to note that 'The single permanent element of coercion in the new order [the Strasbourg church ordinance of 1534] was the requirement, aimed at the sects, that all children born to citizens must be baptized as infants.'9 Of this settlement Bucer was naturally the chief architect. Babies must be brought for baptism within six weeks of birth, on pain of punishment, including banishment, for parents who refused. And if the Council of the city knew of such refusal, it would instruct the baptism on its own authority. The strictness of these measures reflects not only the peculiar vigour of the Radicals' protest in Strasbourg - in articulate sophistication more than mere numbers - but also the strength of the conviction that invariable paedobaptism was essential to the preservation of the unified Christian community. When paedobaptism was at issue, that tendency in Bucer's thought which assimilated the religious community to the civil was paramount.10 This perspective even allowed the justification - with an 4

5 7 9 10

Cf. QBI, sig. C viiv: 'what the universal church holds, and has always been retained without having been instituted by councils, is most assuredly believed to have been handed down not without apostolic authority'. See especially the Preface to the 1536 Gospels commentary, edition of Geneva 1553, ff. 6 *iir-iiiv, and Wright 1972, pp. 40-1. Lynch 1967, p. 244. Wendel 1942, p. 37. Hammann 1984, p. 207, speaks of his 'indefectible adherence to 8 paedobaptism'. Stephens 1970, p. 224 n. 3. Brady 1978, p. 247. For the text see BDS 5, pp. 31-2, and Wendel 1942, passim. See the essay by Martin Greschat in this volume.

Infant baptism and the Christian community

97

appeal to Plato - of the baptism of the offspring of godless parents on the grounds that they belong more to the 'respublica' ('der gemein und stadt') than to their own parents. 11 Yet although the social function of the rite, as providing the minimum basis for treating the whole population as a single, Christian, community, must be assumed to be a powerfully pervasive consideration, not least in the minds of Strasbourg's magistrates, it does not surface often in Bucer's writings. A developing baptismal theology Since the interest of this essay lies in the way Bucer related infant baptism to the church, there is no need to trace the general development of the Reformer's understanding of baptism. 12 But it will be worthwhile reminding ourselves of the remarkable distance his baptismal theology travelled, by comparing his earliest and his final standpoints. During the 1520s Bucer's discussions of baptism were mostly directed against Catholics. They were marked by a sharp distinction between two baptisms: 'By the baptism of water we are received into the outward church of God, by the baptism of the Spirit into the inward.' It is a matter of hope ('speremus') that 'those received into the church through baptism are Christ's and will be renewed by his Spirit' - for 'reprobate goats' as well as 'elect sheep' are alike baptized. 13 Of one thing Bucer was certain, that the rite of baptism conveyed no inward reality, and he seems to have believed that the baptism of Christ or the Spirit was rarely, if ever, imparted along with the water ceremony. He put it thus in his Ephesians commentary of 1527: Faith and the Spirit are God's gift; he bestows them when he sees fit, not at our word. Certainly those who, as believers already, were baptized by the apostles, had previously been sealed by the Holy Spirit and received faith: what then did baptism or the word of the baptizer confer on them? So too our infants: if they were chosen of God before the foundations of the world were laid, the Lord will grant them the Spirit and faith when he sees fit, but our washing them with water will not for one moment grant them faith or God's Spirit - as some important persons affirm, no less ill-advisedly than irreligiously.14 Thus the Bucer of the mid-1520s accommodated infant baptism by minimizing it. On hearing of Carlstadt's rejection of the observance, Bucer and his colleagues told Luther that 'In this controversy we take comfort from the fact that baptism is an external.' Although the baptism solely of 11

12 13

'Advice from Holy Scripture' (Bericht auss der Heyligen Geschrift, 1534), BDS 5, p. 234, cited by Wendel 1942, p. 175. In his Romans commentary of 1536 in a similar statement he calls Christ 'their greater parent' (p. 331; Wright 1972, p. 307). See Usteri 1884, Lynch 1967, Heine 1970, Stephens 1970, pp. 221-37, Bornert 1981, pp. 339-70, Hammann 1984, especially pp. 199-211. M In Ioh. (1528), BOL II, pp. 73, 72. Cited by Usteri 1884, p. 463 n. 2.

98

David Wright

adults confessing Christ would comply better with Scripture and the church's primitive usage (as well as undermine misplaced confidence in water baptism), 'nevertheless we should not be too reluctant to concede this to the general consensus, that we baptize infants'. 15 Capito and Bucer said much the same to Zwingli and Oecolampadius in the same month, November 1524.16 To Bucer in 1526 it was patent from Titus 3:5-6 and Ephesians 5:25-6 that 'purification and regeneration are ascribed to the Spirit and the Word, and in no sense to that weak and beggarly element of the world, water': For the apparently regular attribution by Holy Writ of cleansing from sin and renewal of life to baptism is done in such a way as to make it readily obvious to a sound eye that these are achieved by the baptism of Christ who baptizes with the Spirit, and not by the baptism of a human being baptizing with water.17 In the 1527 commentary on the Synoptic Gospels Bucer can still declare that, in the liberty won by Christ's blood, as now we baptize infants since the advantage of the churches requires it, so too, if it required something different, we would not be at all reluctant to delay baptizing infants, while ever acknowledging that our children are holy and belong to Christ's flock until as adults by their own lives they show it to be otherwise.18 By the later 1530s and thereafter, the distinction between the two baptisms, which Rene Bornert justifiably calls a 'rupture', has disappeared; 'Christ commended baptism as the means whereby participation in himself and heavenly regeneration should be imparted and presented through the church's ministry.' 19 In his Brief Summary of the Christian Doctrine and Religion Taught at Strasbourg, called by Wendel 'his theological testament', Bucer wrote as follows in 1548: We confess and teach that holy baptism, when given and received according to the Lord's command, is in the case of adults and of young children truly a baptism of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, whereby those who are baptized have all their sins washed away, are buried into the death of our Lord Jesus Christ, are incorporated into him and put on him for the death of their sins, for a new and godly life and the blessed resurrection, and through him become children and heirs of God.20 In England in 1550, in 'On the Significance and Practice of the Sacred Ministry', he rejects interpretations of John 3:5 ('Unless a person is born of 15 16 17 19 20

'attamen hoc tribuere communi consensui haud ita gravaremur, ut infantes ablueremus', BCor I, p. 292, no. 83. 'forte non gravatim ferremus parvulos baptizari', ibid., p. 285, no. 81. See Stephens 1970, p. 224, for a similarly grudging attitude on Bucer's part. !8 Apologia (1526), p. 12; Wright 1972, pp. 319-20. Enarrationes, f. 62v. Bornert 1981, pp. 341-2; 'Romans' (1536), p. 329; Wright 1972, p. 304. A Brief Summary, sig. C ii\ ed. Wendel 1951, pp. 11, 50-2; Wright 1972, p. 84.

Infant baptism and the Christian community

99

water and the Spirit . . .') which evade the plain sense of 'aqua', water, especially any which would treat it as a metaphor for the Spirit. 21

Use of 'exhibere' The advance in Bucer's doctrine of baptism from the mid-1530s is expressed particularly in his use of the Latin verb 'exhibere'. With the aid of Irena Backus's marvellous edition of the three recensions of Bucer's Johannine commentary, one can detect where 'exhibere' was added in 1536 to the 1530 text.22 Scholars speak of the emergence of'la notion exhibitive du sacrement',23 but the ready availability of derivative verbs in French and English has too often obscured the full force of Bucer's usage. It comes out inescapably in his discussion of ceremonies in his 1536 Romans commentary, in a brief sentence which both bears on our concern with infants in particular and reveals how far his baptismal teaching has progressed since a dozen years earlier: Infantibus exhibuit tantum, parentibus et Ecclesiae iuxta et significavit et exhibuit. To infants God only imparted [his blessings through the sacrament], to parents and the church he both signified and imparted them.24 Bucer is distinguishing between the different ways in which the 'intelligentes' and the 'non intelligentes' - the comprehending and the uncomprehending - receive sacraments, and illustrates them by circumcision. The point is clear. 'Exhibere' cannot mean anything less than 'confer, impart, bestow'. In my translations in Common Places of Martin Bucer I rendered it 'present', which may have in its favour that it preserves the two aspects of 'visually portray, depict' and 'give, confer' (somewhat as 'convey' does also). If the significative function of the sacraments is redundant without understanding in the recipients, the same must hold for any stronger function (for what is signified may be absent and future) expressed by 'exhibition' in French or English, i.e. concretely portraying, making present, visibly actualizing, but falling short of real impartation and 21

22 23 24

TA, p. 596. Stephens 1970, p. 236, seems to me to misread this passage; I have already expressed my view that the distinction between water-baptism and Spirit-baptism vanishes in the later Bucer. According to Bornert 1981, pp. 348-51, the distinction is transposed into one 'entre le signe exhibitif et la grace effective', and eventually into a unification which delivers Bucer from his sacramental dualism. E.g., In Ioh., BOL II, p. 81 lines 10-11, 'baptismate significatur et exhibetur' in place of 'baptismus significat'; and cf. p. 76 lines 13-14. Courvoisier 1933, p. 86; cf. Bornert 1981, p. 347, 'La theorie de l'exhibition . . .' Commentary on Romans, p. 161. Lang 1900, p. 261, muddies the waters by giving 'sacramentum' as the object of 'exhibuit' (and of 'significavit'?!).

100

David Wright

bestowal.25 If the role of baptism as signifier is lost on non-understanding babies, this can hardly be different for its 'exhibitive' role. Their only interest consists in their being actually given what to others the sacrament also signifies and portrays. It may well be that Bucer uses 'exhibere' with different nuances. It is in any case not to be denied that the baptismal rite does more than signify to the mind; it is essentially for the heirs of Augustine a 'visible word'. But pending more extended investigation, 26 it seems that by 1534, in his most developed treatise on infant baptism, Bucer was already using 'exhibere' in its fullest sense: Our baptism, then, is Christ's baptism, which the church must use, the symbol ('symbolum') of our acceptance before God. By this symbol for the first time our regeneration and renewal through the Holy Spirit are offered and presented ('exhibetur') by words and washing in water, out of God's kindness towards us in Christ earlier revealed to us. By it we are first consecrated to and ingrafted into the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.27 We must not miss what this clarification discloses about Bucer's changing baptismal convictions. It is conveyed by the word 'only' ('tantum') in the sentence from the commentary on Romans, 'To infants God only imparted . ..' The wheel has come full circle. Whereas originally Bucer allowed to baptism little more than a purely significative function ('Water baptism is an outward sign of the baptism of Christ'), 28 and was adamant that it actually imparted nothing, now he affirms that for infants the 'only' thing it does is actually impart God's blessings, even when its significative force is futile. Lest it be objected that the subject of'exhibuit' is God and not 'the sacrament', Bucer has said on the previous page that 'the sacraments of God are precisely what they are said to be since they really confer ('re ipsa exhibent') what they signify - the covenant of the Lord, the cleansing of sins, communion in Christ'. 29 From the mid-1530s Bucer instinctively attributed to the rite itself what a decade earlier he had steadfastly reserved for the baptism of Christ or the Spirit. Value of infant baptism for the church In his commentary on John's Gospel, in a passage that survives virtually unaltered through the three editions of 1528,1530 and 1536, Bucer unfolds the threefold benefit that accrues to the church from paedobaptism. 30 First, 25

26 28 29 30

Even Bornert 1981, p. 347, blurs the issue by assigning 'la signification et l'exhibition de la realite de grace' to the ministerial words and actions, and 'la communication effective du pardon des peches et de la vie nouvelle' exclusively to God. 27 See Lang 1900, pp. 258-66, for further material. QBI, sigs. A viiv-viiir. 'Ground and Basis' (Grund und Ursach, 1524), BDS 1, pp. 254^5. Commentary on Romans, p. 160. In Ioh., BOL II, pp. 76-7.

Infant baptism and the Christian community

101

the whole people of Christ is reminded that God is the saviour of their children. Students of Bucer are in turn reminded of the key role played in his ripening baptismal understanding by Genesis 17:7, 'where God promised to Abraham that he, God, would be his saviour and the saviour of his seed',31 and with it Acts 2:39. Bucer reasoned that if offspring were recipients of the promise, then there was every justification for giving them the sign of their inclusion in the covenant of the promise. The advantage of Genesis over Acts was the attestation of this by the circumcision of male babies, but then Bucer could employ an a fortiori argument to overcome the New Testament's silence on the baptism of babies: surely the new covenant could not bestow less than the old?32 Thus the first benefit listed in the Johannine commentary turns out to have indirect ecclesiological import. If the covenant promises applied equally to the children of the faithful, they must rightly be marked with the sign of membership of God's covenant people. It is worth stressing here that Bucer's arguments to this end lean on the divine promise rather than, and in clear distinction from, divine election. 33 In 'What Should be Believed about the Baptism of Infants', a marginal summary declares that in baptizing babies 'It is the church's task to follow God's promises, not election, not attitude of heart.' 34 The same point is made in the commentary on Romans three years later, in another marginal marker: 'In conferring sacraments, regard is to be had to God's promise, not to election.' 35 The distinction is significant, for it provided Bucer with one means of living with the tensions between his competing ecclesiological tendencies inclusivist and exclusivist. At the same time, it betrayed his continuing inclination to minimize the decisiveness of baptism in general and of infant baptism in particular. Although the dominical sacrament was meant to be the initial distinguishing mark of the people of God, Bucer was repeatedly reminded by the Radicals that numerous 'goats' were baptized alongside 'sheep'. Although he could retort that believers' baptism did not exclude them either ('How many did the apostles baptize who nonetheless were never aware of the baptism of the Spirit?'), 36 yet the charge was a much sharper one for paedobaptists to meet. Bucer's answer was to detach from baptism when given to infants much of its significance as the point of demarcation between the church and the world, and to reassign this to subsequent education and discipline and in due course to confirmation. Defenders of infant baptism in most centuries have found it difficult not to 31 32 33 34 36

QBI, sig. A vir. Ibid., sigs. B vv-viv. Cf. Hammann 1984, pp. 206ff. Here I differ from Lynch 1967, Stephens 1970 and Hammann 1984. 35 QBI, sig. B iiv. 'Romans', p. 162. Cf. Wendel 1942, p. 147, for other references. In Ioh. (1528-36), BOL II, p. 92.

102

David Wright

do something similar, denying in effect, if not explicitly, that infant baptism was truly or fully or really baptism as the New Testament intended. Bucer cited the precedent of the both Abraham's God and Jesus: God of old wanted to have a people that would be truly his people, and yet he ordered the infants of all to be indiscriminately (promiscue) marked with the sign of redemption. Likewise Christ himself made no distinction in blessing all the children offered to him. Accordingly, since God decided thus to offer his grace to his people from infancy and to delay the differentiation which is effected through us until an individual refuses to heed the church's admonition about sin, why do we wish to be wiser and more solicitous for the church's purity than God himself?37 The practice of admitting all infants indiscriminately into the church, based on Christ's example, God's promise and the observance enjoined on the patriarchs, could not obstruct the formation of a church of committed believers.38 Indeed, as we shall see, Bucer believed it greatly facilitated it. Whether he was right is highly doubtful. The attempt to pursue two ecclesiologies at the same time, one comprehensive and the other selective, was probably self-defeating. The requirements of the former must undermine the latter. Bucer's endeavours may here have something to teach the churches of Europe's ex-Christendom, and help them heed the protests against infant baptism of two of the twentieth century's greatest Reformed theologians, Karl Barth and Jiirgen Moltmann. Jesus' blessing of the children has been touched on only incidentally. It was, of course, a major plank in Bucer's defence of paedobaptism. He would not allow that 'such' ('tales') meant the childlike rather than the very youngest infants.39 In blessing them Jesus was welcoming them into the kingdom of God, which was the church. He was in fact baptizing them into the church, though without water. 40 He did, however, use 'the sacrament of the laying on of hands', which was thereafter to follow the initial symbol of grace, i.e. baptism. 41 Bucer's prominent contribution to the development of the reformed ceremony of confirmation is well known. 42 What is less familiar is his readiness on occasion to call the imposition of hands a sacrament. He does so in the reply on the sacraments to John a Lasco that he left unfinished at his death. Here he cites Jesus' blessing of the children as 'his administration of this sacrament'. 43 Bucer's references to the action reveal some confusion, but there can be little doubt that the interplay in his mind between what Jesus did to the infants, infant baptism and confirmation (which was integrally related to infant baptism) strengthened his conviction that Jesus' blessing was a clear dominical warrant for baptizing babies. 37 39 40 42

38 QBI, sig. B iiir; cf. similarly commentary on Romans, p. 162. Ibid., sig. B iiiv. He noted Luke's use of brephe, 'babies', In Ioh., BOL II, p. 85. In In Ioh. (1528-36; BOL II, p. 74) he argued that Christ did not baptize with water because 41 'Spiritus baptismus' was his prerogative. QBI, sig. B viiir. 43 See, for example, Bornert 1981, pp. 360-9. Pollett 1958-62, vol. I, pp. 294-5.

Infant baptism and the Christian community

103

Faith of church and parents

The last few paragraphs in this enquiry began with our noting that in his Johannine commentary of 1528-36 Bucer records, as the first of the three benefits accruing to the church from infant baptism, the reminder that God is the saviour of the church's children. The promise was prior, and from it was deduced the propriety of receiving the new-born into the covenant community by the covenantal sign. It was therefore essential for the church to have confidence in the divine promise, and to bring its faith to the baptism of infants. Bucer's accent normally falls on the parents' faith, but occasionally he will say, 'If the parents believe nothing and are hypocrites, the church believes, to which the children belong by fuller right than to their parents.'44 But this is an infrequent note in Bucer's numerous variations on the theme. There is little anticipation in the Strasbourg Reformer of that questionable shift in recent baptismal discussion which, in the face of tricky issues of pastoral discipline posed by requests for baptism from parents of little or no evident faith, emphasizes the church's rather than the parents' faith. The second benefit of infant baptism noted by Bucer in his commentary on John relates particularly to the parents or other close relatives. The ceremony impresses on them the need to train in godliness the children they have dedicated to God, and to recognize them not as their own but as God's sons and daughters.45 Bucer is realistic enough to acknowledge that not all parents will devote to the spiritual nurture of their infants the care that they have promised.46 Perhaps it is for this reason that he makes relatively little in this context of the Christian family as the basic building-block of the church. Nor does he very often use the image of the family for the church itself, although occasionally he will say that 'we receive babies into the family of Christ through baptism'.47 In his biblical apologetic for the practice a limited role is played by the alleged implications of the household baptisms in the Acts of the Apostles. More frequent appeal is made to 1 Corinthians 7:14, but again Bucer cannot be said to have developed even on this basis the theory and practice of the Christian family in the interests of paedobaptism. 'Sacrament of education9

The third fruit of the sacrament belongs especially to the children themselves, who from infancy belong to the company in whose midst worship and the preaching of God's Word flourish.48 With their milk they 44 47 48

45 46 QBI, sig. E viir. In Ioh., BOL II, p. 77. Ibid., p. 95. Ibid., p. 92; cf. QBI, sig. D v™, and Hammann 1984, pp. 255-61, on the family as 'lieu ecclesial'. In Ioh., BOL II, p. 77.

104

David Wright

drink in a reverence for God. In Courvoisier's happy phrase, Bucer turned infant baptism into a 'sacrament of education'.49 He rejected the Radicals' facile insistence that the apostles baptized only those solidly instructed in Christ. They often baptized people to whom they had spoken about Christ for scarcely an hour . . . By baptism they admitted them only into a school of piety and an apprenticeship in Christianity ('in scholam pietatis et Christianismi tyrocinium'). They were accustomed to expel them again when it was clearly enough established that teaching them was wasted labour.50

This emphasis on the educational process into which baptism initiated children becomes marked in Bucer's writings from the mid-1530s. Gottfried Hammann's exposition helpfully clarifies that for Bucer 'baptism did not install the baptized - infant or adult - in a state, but integrated him into a dynamic body, enrolling him as a candidate in a process of Christian formation and spiritual development'.51 This emphasis also informed the revision of the Strasbourg baptismal liturgy of 1537, with a direct address to the godparents to assist the parents in the nurture of the child and thus prove themselves 'spiritual fathers and mothers to him'.52 From another perspective, a scheme of Christian education was necessary if that differentiation between sheep and goats, whose delay an open-door policy of paedobaptism countenanced (as we saw earlier), was to come into sharp focus. Yet even if this were not achieved, Bucer would still have argued for the value of a residual 'cradle Christianity' fostered by a comprehensive practice of baptizing babies. He comments thus in his exposition of John: With their milk they drink in a reverence for God. Hence it happens that, even though not infrequently the leaders and the majority of the population lapse into idolatry, some kind of fear of God and regard for his Word survives in the people. Thus of old the prophets could summon the people back to repentance considerably more easily than if that sort of fear and reverence for the Word had died out among the people. And it would have died out if God's covenant had not been impressed on them from infancy. He adds from personal experience: And to us too it was especially useful that the whole of our people was from the cradle admitted to the church, whatever its condition ('in qualemcunque ecclesiam'). In this way some belief about Christ and some appreciation of Holy Writ were instilled. These had the effect of opening up a wide window for the recent recovery of the pure gospel, which could not have opened up if no respect for Sacred Scripture had been held by the people.53 49 51 52 53

50 Courvoisier 1933, p. 56. In Ioh. (1528-36), BOL II, p. 95. Hammann 1984, p. 57. Hubert 1900, p. 51; Fisher 1970, p. 41; Bornert 1981, pp. 525-30; Old 1992, passim. In Ioh., BOL II, p. 77; cf. p. 85: 'We know from experience how useful it is for godliness, and so how pleasing to God, that our children be offered to him from the cradle.'

Infant baptism and the Christian community

105

Only universal paedobaptism provides a safety-net, as it were, to prevent a community's irrecoverable descent into the abyss of godlessness. The validity of such an assessment for Strasbourg's religious history in the sixteenth century must be left to more expert minds to determine. Its applicability to the infant-baptized ex-Christian masses of Europe at the end of the second millennium cannot perhaps be fairly tested in the absence of some massive surge of theological and spiritual life comparable to the Reformation. But some sage heads reckon that the small dose of religion administered indiscriminately in infant baptism has effectively inoculated generations against catching real Christianity in later life. Concluding assessment Bucer's comment is that of the Reformer whom scholars have characterized as 'homme d'Eglise' par excellence.54 It embodies, no doubt, his gut conviction that the construction of a true Christian church and society in Strasbourg would be hampered from the outset if any of its population, young or old, stood beyond the claim of God's Word because unbaptized. Yet the ecclesial temper of Bucer's handling of infant baptism is not as strongly marked as might have been expected. Throughout the span of his writings the church has an instrumental role in giving baptism to the new-born, and this was heightened from the time in the middle of the 1530s when he began to speak more decisively of the sacraments as 'channels, vehicles and instruments of the Spirit and grace'. 55 But his commonplace on 'the nature, practice and efficacy of baptism' in his Romans commentary of 1536 is noticeably deficient in its ecclesiological dimension, 56 and from time to time his definitions of baptism are similarly inadequate, such as the one thus formally entitled in 'What Should be Believed about the Baptism of Infants' which has been given earlier in this chapter (see p. 100). My impression is that he does not make prominent use of 1 Corinthians 12:13, 'By one Spirit we were all baptized into one body', although it appears in his listings of proof texts - and it may be a healthily Christocentric bias that makes him say of this verse, at the end of this life, that it attributes to baptism 'incorporation into Christ the Lord, and in that Christ "concorporatio" with all the saints, and through the same Spirit'. 57 Certainly Bucer more instinctively speaks of baptism as incorporation into Christ rather than into his body the church. Yet at base one senses that Bucer is caught in various binds over infant baptism. At one level the divine promise to believers' children means that 54 55 56 57

Courvoisier 1933, p. 49. Preface to the Enarrationes on the Gospels, 1536 (edition of Geneva, 1553, f. *vi). Commentary on Romans, pp. 320-31; Wright 1972, pp. 285-311. 'On the Significance and Practice of the Sacred Ministry' (1550), TA, pp. 596-7.

106

David Wright

they already belong to God's covenant people, and that warrants their baptism into the visible community on earth. This is a standard structural feature of Bucer's apologetic for baptizing babies: the spiritual reality is theirs already, hence they must be given the sign and seal. But because the inscrutability of election means that not all those baptized into Christ are Christ's, a provisional character attaches to one's baptism. Although this was true also of adult baptism, as the disputes with the Radicals made it essential to insist, in fact for sixteenth-century Strasbourg baptism was almost invariably infant baptism. Bucer's own reasoning ascribed specifically to paedobaptism a containing role, the marking of an outer ring, within which another and more decisive line would be drawn, coming into quasi-sacramental focus in confirmation. The clamour of the Radicals in the city and other pressures turned him into an unreserved exponent of baptizing infants, but, as other essays in this volume demonstrate, it provided a boundary that was too accommodating for his dearest aspirations of Christian community.58 58

See the wider context sketched by Oberman 1992.

Bucer's ecclesiology in the colloquies with the Catholics, 1540-41 Cornells AugustIjn Reading the documents concerning the negotiations between Catholics and Protestants, drawn up in the course of the years 1540 and 1541, and realizing that many of them were compiled partly or in full by Bucer, one can but wonder at the versatility of the Strasbourg theologian and organizer. In one way or another all these papers deal with the German church, its structure, doctrines, ceremonies and polity. Comparing them with Bucer's major works on ecclesiological themes, his church orders and the reality of the Strasbourg church in his time means at first glance looking at two completely different designs. It is therefore not surprising that in the studies of Bucer's ecclesiology and of his activities in the field of church organization these documents are given little attention.1 Furthermore, the majority of Bucer's manuscripts and published writings on the negotiations are not yet available in modern editions.2 The temptation is strong to ignore them, with the excuse that in any case this whole affair could contribute to our knowledge only of the diplomat and negotiator Bucer, not to that of Bucer the theologian.3 In this respect there is a striking parallel to Bucer's role in the sacramentarian controversy, the difference being that in the latter field this view was abandoned in favour of the recognition that Bucer's activities were based on a firm theological conviction. In this chapter I intend to point out some aspects of Bucer's position in the colloquies of 1540 and 1541, and especially to treat several of his underlying ecclesiological ideas. The easy way - stressing Bucer's diplomatic abilities - has in my opinion to be given up in favour of an effort to 1 2

3

Important studies are Courvoisier 1933, Van 't Spijker 1970, Hammann 1984. The most important new edition is that of the Worms/Regensburg Book in G. Pfeilschifter (ed.), Acta Reformationis Catholicae Ecclesiam Germaniae Concernentia Saeculi XVI. Die Reformverhandlungen des Deutschen Episkopats von 1520 bis 1570, vol. 6 (Regensburg, 1974), pp. 21-88, quoted below as ARC 6. In cooperation with Dr M. de Kroon, of the Bucer-Forschungsstelle, Minister, I shall before long edit all the available material in BDSS. Hammann uses particularly the documents drawn up by the Protestants in reaction to the main documents; in doing so he presents as Bucer's ideas exactly those of Bucer's opponents in the Protestant camp. Van 't Spijker briefly discusses the right documents.

107

108

Cornells Augustijn

understand the connection between his activities and his theology, in this case his ecclesiology. As an introduction to the problems connected with these questions, I draw the attention of the reader to a statement in Bucer's commentary on Romans: 'While this appeal [i.e. to the general council] is pending, we do our best to organize everything just as Christ, the true head of the church, has prescribed, and as all those who in the early church had some authority have confirmed.'4 These revealing words on the church of Strasbourg were written in 1536. They show that Bucer did not intend to build church structures at Strasbourg for ages to come. He was well aware of the interim character of the newly introduced ecclesiastical regulations. In a sense it is a mysterious remark. Was Bucer really willing to put the new organization at risk, once the general council had dismissed the appeal of the Protestants? The issue raised in this essay is of both an historical and a systematic nature. Examining two pamphlets written by Bucer and one document drawn up by Bucer and Johann Gropper in close co-operation, dated from September 1540 to June 1541, I try to bring out Bucer's guiding ideas concerning the church of Germany and the ecclesiological lines of thought on which they were based. One of the difficulties we have to cope with is the varying nature of our sources: they range from a fervent appeal on behalf of the Protestant party in the Empire to a plan formulated in co-operation with the Catholic Johann Gropper. In my opinion it is nevertheless possible to depict a coherent whole. The study will consist of four parts. First I shall give a very brief overview of Bucer's contribution to the colloquies from 1539 to 1541, concentrating on the three writings which will supply the source material for the second and most important part of the study, a discussion of the main elements of Bucer's ecclesiology found in these writings. A third part will outline a general characterization of this ecclesiology. In a fourth part I shall ask whether this ecclesiology matches with Bucer's ecclesiology set forth elsewhere. The colloquies and the sources

In the 1530s the politico-ecclesiastical situation in Germany became more and more ominous. At the end of the decade the two parties were 4

Metaphrases et Enarrationes Perpetuae . . . in Epistolam ad Romanos, f. 373r: 'Quod itaque perpetuo in ecclesia Dei ius fuit eorum, qui iniquitate premerentur episcoporum, ad sacrosanctam synodum provocavimus. Quae cum supremum ecclesiae concilium sit, quis possit nos secessionis aut defectionis ab ecclesia Christi convincere? Nam pendente hac provocatione sic omnia administrare studemus, ut praecepit Christus verum caput ecclesiae, ut sanxerunt quicunque in veteri ecclesia Christi in aliqua authoritate fuerunt.. .'.I owe this quotation to Roussel 1976, p. 513.

The colloquies with the Catholics

109

diametrically opposed to each other. In the same period the kings of France and England, who were meeting with increasing difficulties with (crypto) Protestants in their countries, several times tried to negotiate with the Schmalkaldic League, the political organization of the German Protestant movement. One of the effects of this development was that among a small group of the intellectual elite in Germany the question arose whether an agreement between the two religious parties were conceivable, so that a definitive schism could be avoided. 5 Erasmus' De Sarcienda Ecclesiae Concordia ('On Repairing the Concord of the Church') of 1533 is a starting point. 6 The Strasbourg Reformers were among the first to promote the idea and Bucer became increasingly one of the moving spirits. His Furbereytung zum Concilio ('Groundwork for a Council') of 1533 was one of the first rather concrete proposals. 7 Much more outspoken was his Defensio adversus Axioma Catholicum ('Defence against the Catholic Principle') of 1534, in which he surprised friend and foe by accepting the Fathers of the church and the observances of the early church as authorities in cases where Holy Scripture was not explicit or was equivocal, particularly in nondoctrinal matters, such as many of the deep-rooted ceremonies and rites. 8 The year 1539 saw the beginning of negotiations between the Emperor and the Schmalkaldics at a meeting of the League in Frankfurt. 9 In an explosive atmosphere the League finally accepted the Emperor's offer of a meeting to be attended by all princes and estates of the Empire, to whom pious and peaceful men, both prudent laymen and lettered theologians, should be added, charged with the task of finding ways and means to solve the religious problems of Germany. This plan was put into effect in 1540 and 1541. A preparatory meeting at Hagenau in June-July 1540 met with no success. The parties could not reach an agreement concerning the basis of future religious negotiations. Should the Augsburg Confession in full be discussed, or only a few problems which had presumably remained unsolved in the talks during the Augsburg Diet of 1530, such as the celibacy of the clergy, the chalice for the laity and the position of the holy see? Nor could they agree on the exact nature of the forthcoming meeting. Should it be a diet or a German council? Did the Emperor indeed have the authority to convene a meeting in which religious affairs were to be settled? These last two questions were raised specifically by Conrad Braun, one of the leading members of the chancellery of the Reichskammergericht. In an elaborate pamphlet he launched a severe attack against the planned 5 7 8

See in general Stupperich 1936, Augustijn 1967. For a short treatment see Jedin 1957-61, 6 vol. I, pp. 355ff. New edition in Opera Omnia, vol. V:3 (1986), pp. 245-313. Stupperich 1952, no. 41; for the text BDS 5, pp. 259-362, with a good introduction. 9 Stupperich 1952, no. 45. Fuchtel 1931.

110

Cornells Augustijn

meeting.10 In Braun's opinion it was, Bucer aptly summarized, 'monstri quiddam',11 'monstrum' taken in the literal sense of monstrosity, neither a council nor a diet. If it were to be a national council, would the laity participate? And could such a council make decisions without the participation of the other Christian nations? Could it be held without the co-operation of the holy see? Bucer counter-attacked in Per Quos Steterit, quo minus Haganoae... Initum Colloquium Sit ('Who Were Responsible for Preventing a Colloquy Beginning at Hagenau...'), written under the name of Waremund Luithold and dated 31 August.12 It is the first of the writings by Bucer which I shall use henceforth, particularly in order to discuss the question what exactly 'church' means in Bucer's way of thinking and what place it occupies in society. Our second source is the so-called Worms (later, Regensburg) Book of December 1540.13 In the last months of 1540 the Protestants were disappointed in their hopes. At the end of the year it had become clear that the Catholic party would not accept the Augsburg Confession as a basis for negotiations. Bucer then half-heartedly agreed to co-operate with the Cologne canon Johann Gropper in drawing up a new document which could be used as a basis. The result, which they achieved during their negotiations at Worms, was to be submitted to the forthcoming Diet of Regensburg - hence the name - as a proposal to bring about the religious unity of the Empire. First it was to be discussed in a small committee of theologians in the presence of laymen. If this body could agree, the draft would then be submitted to the estates for official approbation. The Regensburg Book consists of twenty-three articles, of which 1-18 formulate a doctrinal agreement and 19-23 are a draft for the reformation of the German church. The whole determines the structure of the one German church, its doctrines, ceremonies, traditions and polity. Although the Book did not have the intended effect, and was rejected by the Protestants as well as by the Catholics, Bucer was fully convinced of its value and he stuck to his opinion. Its publication in the Ada Colloquii ('Acts of the Colloquy') edited by Bucer shows this sufficiently, especially in the comments he equipped it with.14 In using this second document in the second part of this study, I shall restrict myself to articles 6, 7 and 9, dealing with the church, and articles 19-23, expounding the ceremonies, traditions and polity of the church. The third source takes us to June and July 1541. By then it had become 10 11 12 13

Ain Gesprech aines Hoffraths . . . See Index Aureliensis, vol. V, no. 123.921. Ain Gesprech aines Hoffraths, sigs. G 2v-4v. The expression is not in the pamphlet itself. Stupperich 1952, nos. 66a, 66. The German version is always erroneously considered to be the original one. In fact it is partly a translation, partly a simplifying adaptation. 14 See n. 2 above. Stupperich 1952, nos. 69, 69b.

The colloquies with the Catholics

111

obvious that the far-reaching plans had met with no success. The theological committee discussing the Regensburg Book had been unable to reach an agreement on a large number of very important topics. No real consensus could be achieved. Therefore the Emperor's programme had to be changed. Part of his new programme was the effort to bring the Catholic estates to introduce afirmand solid reform of the church, that is, a reviving and rebuilding of the church. The Emperor was firmly determined to achieve such a reform of the church of Germany. Much as he was attached to the church of Rome, its doctrines and its practices, nevertheless he was convinced of the necessity of reform. He asked for the advice of the estates, and the Protestants answered by proposing two partly overlapping projects, one by Melanchthon, the other by Bucer.15 Bucer formulated two versions of his project, one for official use to be submitted to the Emperor by the Protestant estates, and one for propaganda. This latter version is more elaborate, and on some issues makes reference to the Fathers, but the main difference between them is that in the propaganda version a great many references to the canons of the early church and to the rules of the Corpus Iuris Catholici and the Corpus Iuris Civilis are added. This version, the Abusuum . . . Indicatio ('Presentation of Ecclesiastical Abuses'), was of course immediately published, and it definitely attracted attention. Three editions were published in the summer of 1541, and in February 1542 Bucer included it in the second edition of the Ada Colloquii,16 thus ensuring wide dissemination. The publication was meant for the non-curialist Catholics, in order to convince them of the practicability of these plans. The elements of Bucer's church

However much the status of these three writings may differ, they have one thing in common: the serious attempt to depict a church after a biblical model, connected with the past and adapted to temporary circumstances, i.e. suitable for the adherents of both religious parties in Germany. It is therefore possible to use these documents to find the distinctive features of the church that Bucer, on his own or in co-operation with others composing them, had in mind. I begin by pointing out the fundamental character of the church, as defined in these documents. The Regensburg Book formulates it to be 'the assembly or congregation of people of all places and times, who are called to the unity of the profession of one and the same faith, of doctrine and of 15 16

See for Melanchthon's project CRIV, no. 2317; both were published shortly afterwards by Bucer in the Ada Colloquii (Stupperich 1952, no. 69), ff. 48v-65r. Stupperich 1952, no. 68; Acta Colloquii, ff. 214-36, as an appendix between the epilogue and the index.

112

Cornells Augustijn

the sacraments of Christ'.17 Subsequently it states that the true believers constitute the church, but that the wicked also belong to its external community.18 The marks of the true church are sound doctrine, right use of the sacraments and the bond of love.19 Although the article only once mentions Augustine and does not quote him at all, there is a great deal of Augustinian teaching in it, or rather the whole train of thought is derived from Augustine, a trait which is characteristic not only of this article, but of the whole Regensburg Book. The next article, closely connected with the previous one, is one continuing admonition against schism because of the presence of the wicked in the church: the true believers ought to stay in the unity of the church.20 Although Bucer himself was partly responsible for the wording, he nevertheless warned Philip of Hesse twice that a thorough explication would be necessary of the exact meaning of 'staying in the church' and 'secession from the church'. All those who adhered to the sound doctrine, the true use of the sacraments and the bond of love, he said, were staying in the unity of the church.21 In fact this remark was a reversal of the original argument: there never will be a secession without the claim of its necessity on the basis of obedience to the true character of the church. This procedure shows that Bucer apparently was aware of the weakness of the argument he brought before Philip. Without being happy with this article, he went along with it and tried to ensure a subsequent critical discussion through his remark. In the second part of the Regensburg Book the treatment of the church itself resumes. Article 19 is an elaboration of the third mark of the church, the bond of love and peace, to which God calls us. There are extensive quotations from 1 Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4.22 It is well known that both biblical passages are constitutive for Bucer's notion of the church as well as for his concept of desirable church structures. For Bucer the church is in essence the body of Christ - the phrase is much more than a metaphor and all its members are bound to constitute together the one body according to the gifts the Spirit has bestowed on any single member. In this 17

19

21

ARC 6, p. 55, art. 6.1 quote here and in other citations the Worms Book, only mentioning the changes made in the Regensburg Book if this is worthwhile. I use the current name !8 Regensburg Book, however. Ibid., p. 55. Ibid., p. 56. The Regensburg Book changed 'bond of love' into 'bond of unity and peace'. As a fourth mark of the church was added 'quod catholica sit et universalis', an addition which was made by the Catholic theologians in Regensburg in their deliberations preceding 20 the official discussion. The Protestants raised no objections. Ibid., pp. 56-7. Ibid., p. 57. He did this in marginal remarks in the copy of the Worms Book that he sent to Philip of Hesse immediately after his discussions with Gropper. Apparently Bucer was not always satisfied with the results. These few remarks make clear the points of which he was critical. In my edition of the Regensburg Book in BDS 8 I shall discuss the nature of these 22 remarks in general. ARC 6, p. 73.

The colloquies with the Catholics

113

wholeness of complementary gifts and mutual assistance certain special offices are established by God, aiming at 'perfecting the saints in the work of the ministry'. The transition from these biblical passages to the episcopate via a Cyprian quotation is rather abrupt and terse, but the episcopate as such will be discussed later on. Suffice it for now to comment that in this way the episcopate was subordinated to a biblical standard and could be measured by it. This view of the church is of a theological and therefore theoretical nature. To be effective in the discussions of the colloquies it had to correspond to reality. The question then arises which reality Bucer had in mind. We here meet with a revolutionary idea. At the end of article 19 the Regensburg Book explicitly states that Christ has given to his ministers and to the church the authority to ordain a church polity, which consists of pious ceremonies and ecclesiastical discipline. Implicitly it is made clear that this enumeration is a limiting one. It is the only place in which the functions of the church are spelled out - and the restraint was wise. If ceremonies and discipline were the only lasting ecclesiastical duties, the church would suffer an immense loss of function. Indeed, this is exactly what Bucer meant. Of course the Reformation had brought about a restriction of ecclesiastical functions in favour of secular authorities, in line with a development which had already started in the second half of the fifteenth century.23 In the writings we are now discussing Bucer justifies this development with theological arguments. In Per Quos Steterit ('Who Were Responsible') this question was at the centre. The pamphlet as a whole was an appeal to the Emperor to bring about the desired reformation of the church through the assembly of the Empire promised at Frankfurt in 1539. Bucer defended the plan, which would have excluded the influence of the holy see and of the German bishops, for reasons of principle. Against Braun's attacks he defended the thesis that the proposed meeting would be a diet and a national council in one. It had always been, Bucer said, the prerogative and the duty of the Emperors to convene important councils. This was self-evident, because it was the duty of the secular rulers to take care of the public interest, and religion was the first and main part of the well-being of the citizens.24 Bucer's purpose is found in one sentence: 'Nowhere were priests generally excluded from all judgement and correction by public and ordinary authority, nor did princes and nations tolerate their own removal from all responsibility for religion.' 25 This is outspoken and clear. The end of the Abusuum . . . Indicatio ('Presentation of Ecclesiastical Abuses') is even more concrete and provides a biblical basis. Romans 13 declares that 23

See Moeller 1972.

24

Per Quos Steterit, ff. 50v, 64r.

25

Ibid., f. 78r.

114

Cornelis Augustijn

every soul is subject to the worldly authority, and John Chrysostom states in his explanation of that passage that neither the priest nor the monk is excluded from obedience to authority. Therefore it is the task of emperor and magistrates to correct the vices of the clergy.26 The meaning of all this can hardly be overrated. 'Church' in Bucer's view is a distinct and restricted entity. It is nothing more than the sum of the ecclesiastical aspects of society, the co-ordinating entity being the Empire. In principle Bucer maintains almost in full Zwingli's opinion of'church' as a part of the Christian community and therefore within the area of competence of secular authority. There is a slight difference. Bucer is warning against a confusion of secular and ecclesiastical powers, and is prepared to maintain the independent right of ecclesiastical powers to keep control of the 'administratio religionis' and to uphold the discipline. This means that a certain, limited right is being reserved for the church. His biblical example and the way he puts it forward are revealing: 'Although Moses was full of God's Spirit and the prime interpreter and shaper of the whole of religion among the people, because he had to administer the supreme power he entrusted the care for religion to his brother.'27 A church embedded in history

The church Bucer is seeking is embedded in history. To Bucer this is not a truism. The church is rooted in its past, and Bucer takes this very seriously. One of the most important instances of this line of thinking is Bucer's stand on the episcopate. In the Regensburg Book he accepts the episcopal structure unconditionally as the guarantee of the unity of the church.28 He even asserts that the hierarchical order strengthens the bond of love holding the church together. He felt himself a bishop in the biblical sense, and he was convinced of the value of the institution.29 He was even prepared to accept the primacy of the Roman bishop, the justification here also being the unity of the church.30 However, this embedding in history is not restricted to the episcopate, as we see from Bucer's course of reasoning in Per Quos Steterit. He there upholds the view that the laity has a legitimate place in councils and that the Emperor has the right to convene them. Bucer follows a threefold path in vindicating this thesis. He provides biblical arguments, but he also quotes or mentions pronouncements of the Fathers, and gives a historical expose tending to demonstrate that in the history of the church up to the Emperor Frederick II the secular rulers had always taken the initiative in convening 26 29

27 Abusuum . . . Indication ff. 9rv, llr-12r. Ibid., ff. llv-12r. 30 In letters he was often addressed as 'bishop'. ARC 6, p. 75.

28

ARC 6, p. 75.

The colloquies with the Catholics

115

synods.31 It is only too true that Bucer inclines towards a biased historical outline; he wants to demonstrate by telling history. However, this does not alter the fact that Bucer apparently considers history to be an argument. This is especially true for the Fathers of the church. They have their own place in history. In this respect Bucer is as little free from prejudice as in his use of history in general. At least this applies to his choosing, not however to his using them. Certain Fathers are authoritative for certain doctrines: Cyprian for the episcopate,32 John Chrysostom for the eucharist,33 Augustine for grace.34 Apparently God has attributed to each Father an individual task. As a last example of the value history has in Bucer's way of thinking I mention the extensive use of the canons of the early church in the Abusuum . . . Indication Actually it is more than that; he plunders the recently published canons of 105 early councils to prove that ever since there has in almost every respect been a development in the wrong direction.36 It is clear that in doing so he uses these canons to prove that one party was in the right and the other in the wrong. Nevertheless this method shows that history is a power to Bucer. Having mentioned some aspects of Bucer's esteem for historical continuity, we must ask about the underlying principles, the basic structure of Bucer's historical thinking. In this connection article 9 of the Regensburg Book is revealing. It treats of the authority of the church regarding the Scriptures.37 There is, the article explains, a twofold authority of the church. First the church has the right to discern true, canonical Scriptures from false. Second, and more important, is its authority concerning the right interpretation of the Scriptures, their correct understanding. For the latter we have to have recourse to the whole church and to the 'communis' or 'universalis' or 'perpetuus' consensus of all pious people. We are not allowed to look for it in 'any individual, even if he may be the primary member of the church'. What exactly is the field of activities in which the church exercises this authority? First of all the Regensburg Book points to doctrines like the Trinity and Christ's two natures. In these instances synods expressed the consensus. But it is also possible that the 'ecclesiastici scriptores', the Fathers of the church, were expressing it. There is however a distinction to be made within these traditions. Some are essential to salvation and 32 Per Quos Steterit, f. 78rv. Ibid., ff. 54r-62v. See the comprehensive exposition in Abusuum . . . Indicatio, ff. 5v-6r. See article 5 of the Regensburg Book, ARC 6, pp. 30-44, where Augustine is present everywhere. Throughout this writing he gives ample enumerations of pertinent canons. In 1538 the Concilia Omnia Tarn Generalia Quam Particularia were published by the Dutch 37 Franciscan Pierre Crabbe. ARC 6, pp. 60-4.

116

Cornells Augustijn

therefore unchangeable; others were intended only for a set time and could thereafter be forgotten, like the food laws of Acts 15. This more or less theoretical exposition was resumed and applied in article 20, and here the practical implications turned out to be of primary significance.38 After a short repetition of cases like the Trinity, highly explosive issues were dealt with: the veneration of the saints, their invocation, the veneration of relics, the use of images, the eucharist as a bloodless, spiritual sacrifice and, as a kind of corollary, the canon of the mass. The reasoning is always the same. Only in the discussion of the veneration of the saints are biblical texts enumerated, but in all cases authorities are produced, either a canon of an early council or, mostly, a reference to the Fathers, Augustine, John Chrysostom and (Pseudo-)Cyprian.39 The positive exposition is complemented by a warning against misuse, and sometimes the phrasing is rather reserved: 'not to be condemned' and 'not fully to be condemned'. 40 The invocation of the saints occasioned Bucer to remark to Philip of Hesse that it smelled too much of idolatry. 41 Apparently in certain cases Bucer was rather reserved, but all in all he accepted this application of a principle he held. Bucer's view of the structure of the church - in the limited Buceran sense of'church' - and its distinctive character deserves special attention. That he was thinking in terms of an episcopal structure, and that the functions of the church are to be restricted to the supervision and direction of a community of believers, which expresses itself in holy life and in worship, has been explained. It is, however, interesting to note that the ideal of the bishop as the shepherd of the flock is so predominant in the Abusuum . . . Indicatio. The first task of the bishop is preaching, and immediately thereafter comes his duty to conduct visitations of his diocese in person. 42 The clergy have in principle the same task to fulfil. Pastoral care and preaching are essential, and a disorderly life and worldly activities are the temptations to be avoided. 'Only the study of the Scriptures and the concern for holy matters are suited to this order; its office is to let its light shine before others as well in doctrine as in exemplary life.' 43 In this church the laity also have their task. Together with the clergy they are involved in the appointment of the bishop, 44 they share in the administration of the ecclesiastical revenues and benefices,45 and in separate bodies the ecclesiastical discipline is entrusted to them. 46 38 39 42 45

Ibid., pp. 76-82. See ibid., p. 81. Actually Pseudo-Cyprian was the twelfth-century Cistercian abbot Arnaud 40 41 (Arnold, Ernaud) of Bonneval. Ibid., pp. 77, 79. Ibid., p. 77. 43 Abusuum . . . Indicatio, f. 3v. Ibid., f. 8v. " Ibid., ff. lv-2r. 46 Ibid., f. 4rv. Ibid., ff. 7r-8r.

The colloquies with the Catholics

117

The character of the church Bucer had in mind has been sketched in broad outline in the foregoing. There are, however, two features which must be emphasized. The first is negative. To a large measure worship, sacraments and ceremonies had assumed the character of a spectacle, in many ways a magnificent spectacle. The Abusuum . . . Indicatio is one striking reaction to this characteristic; the church desired by Bucer is no eye-catching affair. I give some examples. The sacraments must be administered in the vernacular,47 the abundance of masses has to be suppressed,48 the elevation and ceremonial carrying around of the host must be stopped.49 The same is true for processions on all kinds of special occasions, for example to avert various forms of evil.50 Those images which have wrongly been superstitiously revered must be removed, as well as similarly venerated relics.51 Aversion to show is prominent. The positive counterpart is the emphasis on teaching, instruction: no administration of baptism and eucharist without an explanation of their meaning;52 no preaching, praying and singing in the service which are not derived from Scripture;53 introduction of a catechism and catechetical instruction for the children;54 good theological training of future clergy and no election of a priest without examining him in doctrine.55 'The most important and absolutely necessary thing in the church is the ministry of doctrine' is the categorical pronouncement of the Abusuum . . . Indicatio.56 In this connection it should be noted that in one respect there is a difference between the Regensburg Book and the Abusuum . . . Indicatio. The Book has a special article on three issues in which a consensus could not be achieved. The mass without communicants, communion in one kind and the administration of the sacraments in Latin were unacceptable to Bucer but unquestionable to Gropper. In each case both customs should therefore be tolerated in one and the same church.57 In the Abusuum . . . Indicatio, by contrast, Bucer strongly asserted his own opinion.58 A comparison with celibacy is interesting. In the Regensburg Book it is reluctantly accepted,59 although it might be an insurmountable obstacle for the acceptance of the Book by the Protestants. The Abusuum... Indicatio is silent about this hotly debated issue. This differing attitude shows that in the Abusuum . . . Indicatio Bucer apparently did not want to exceed the limits of the Regensburg Book, but was prepared to go just on to the borderline. 47 51 55 58

48 49 50 Ibid., f. 5r. Ibid., ff. 5v-6r. Ibid., f. 6v. Ibid., f. 7r. 52 53 54 Ibid., f. 8r. Ibid., f. 5rv. Ibid., ff. 4v-5r. Ibid., f. 7rv. 56 57 Ibid., f. 4v. Ibid. Regensburg Book, art. 21; ARC 6, pp. 8 2 ^ . 59 Abusuum . . . Indicatio, ff. 5r, 6r. Regensburg Book, art. 22; ARC 6, pp. 85-6.

118

Cornells Augustijn The purified German church

Now that the main elements of Bucer's ideals for the one German church have been exposed, a general characterization can be given. In a nutshell I would evaluate them as a serious effort to preserve the German church by expunging from it improper, inessential elements, removing abuses and introducing achievements of the Protestant movement. I shall briefly discuss each of these three features in turn. It will have become obvious that Bucer in no way planned to demolish the existing church. He wanted to preserve its framework, including the episcopal structure, the bond with Rome, spiritual properties and spiritual territories. A realization of the plans submitted would even have resulted in a partial withdrawal of measures taken by Protestant princes and towns. They were therefore far from revolutionary. Considering this we should keep in mind that in practice the external structure of the church in the Protestant territories had undergone few changes. It had indeed been removed from obedience to the bishops, and in actual practice the secular government had taken over a large part of their competence, but nothing irreversible and irreparable had taken place. This means that in Bucer's opinion the fundamental character of the church I have depicted above could be realized within the framework of the existing Old Church. The second component concerns the expunging of improper elements, or, in positive terms, the restriction of the church to the ordering of worship in the broadest sense of the word and to the discipline of clergy and church members in general. In many respects this certainly involved a break with the church of the middle ages, or rather a transition to a new position of the church in society which had already been in progress for half a century, but was accelerated as a result of the Reformation. There is no point in repeating all this. However, I would like to stress that Bucer nowhere put forward a Utopian scheme; his starting point was obviously reality. A good example is Bucer's exposition of the role of the clergy. In the Abusuum . .. Indication proposing the most concrete plans, he made a clear distinction between the essential pastoral and teaching duties of the clergy and their many secular duties, from the administration of the spiritual territories to that of the spiritual properties at every level.60 Bucer solved the difficulties arising here by assigning those tasks to members of the clergy unsuited to their proper task. This of course meant that no one had to worry about his ample benefices and his life in the top class of society. The removal of abuses and the introduction of elements promoted by the Protestants were closely linked together. There is no point in enlarging on these topics. In the Regensburg Book they are merely mentioned, but the 60

Abusuum . . . Indication ff. 10r-12r.

The colloquies with the Catholics

119

Abusuum . . . Indicatio goes into great detail, appealing to the canons of the early church and to the relevant provisions of the two Corpora Iuris. One should not overlook that the realizations of these suggestions would substantially have affected the actual position of the clergy. The effects of such measures were apparent in the Protestant territories. Many must therefore have read the Abusuum . . . Indicatio in horror and distaste. I shall not dwell on this aspect, but one should not forget that it is a substantial issue once the question of feasibility has been faced. Continuity in Bucer's ecclesiology Finally I return to the question with which I started this essay: do the documents we have discussed, produced in full or partially by Bucer in this crucial year, correspond to the general tenor of his thinking, especially his ecclesiology, or must they be considered a Fremdkorper, foreign body? The question has two aspects: is there a lasting continuity in Bucer's approach to the problem of the unity of Protestants and Catholics, and do the ideas which he advanced in this context fit in with his ecclesiology in general? To answer the first question, we must first look back. In doing so we must bring back into discussion the above-mentioned Defensio adversus Axioma Catholicum of 1534.61 The publisher's - here rather the author's - blurb on the title page boldly indicated its intention: 'Here, Christian reader, you will see that we have admitted nothing in the doctrine or rites of our churches which is not in fine harmony with the writings of the Fathers and the observances of the Catholic church.' 62 In the text Bucer declared: 'We did not correct anything save according to the Word of God and the observances of the better church', the 'better' church being that of the Fathers, the early church. 63 These utterances are illuminating; they formulate Bucer's programme in the era of the colloquies, its content as well as its boundaries. In 1536, as we saw, Bucer expressed it in the same way, and in 1540-1 he elaborated this programme in writing and acted accordingly. An illustrative example is the question of celibacy, which we 61 62 63

Stupperich 1952, no. 45. Until now this work has been used especially for Bucer's position in the sacramentarian controversy; see Kdhler 1924-53, vol. II, pp. 326-30. Defensio, sig. A lr. Ibid., sig. G lv; see also sig. B 4v: 'Nullum est in ecclesia receptum fidei nostrae symbolum, cui non in omnibus inhaereamus; deinde quae religionis nostrae dogmata nobis a Nicena aliisque sacrosanctis synodis, illis vetustis, tradita sunt, item quae leguntur apud Tertulianum, Cyprianum, Ambrosium, Hieronymum, Augustinum, Chrysostomum, Cyrillum, Nazianzenum et quicquid est maiorum gentium patrum; postremo etiam quae isti viri Dei in sacras literas concorditer scripserunt, ecclesiae in eo sententiam, imo Spiritus Sancti exponentes, haec, inquam, omnia sacrosancta habemus. Ubi vero illi ut homines inter se ipsi variant, illos sequimur, quos licet agnoscere sensum scripturarum certius esse consecutos.'

120

Cornelis Augustijn

saw Bucer did not attack in the Abusuum . . . Indication in line with the Regensburg Book. The obvious reason is that Bucer knew quite well that on the basis of the canons of the early church the Protestant claim was untenable.64 Looking forward, it is clear that Bucer adhered to this position until 1545. A comparison between two writings of that year shows the change he went through in the course of it. In the first he took the same stand as before and defended in detail the content of the Regensburg Book. However, in the second he still defended the procedure agreed upon in 1539, yet his attitude towards issues like the episcopal structure and the value of tradition was much less outspoken than it had been in the past twelve years. He even tended to stress the Scriptures as the sole basis of all church doctrines and observances.65 The difference between the two writings can easily be explained. It was in the year 1545 that it became clear that a treaty had been concluded between the pope and the Emperor, that the long-awaited council finally would take place, and that it would be a papal council, convened on terms unacceptable to the Protestants.66 In the latter writing Bucer explicitly mentioned the council as the work of Satan, whom Gropper and others were serving.67 The foregoing means that there is a strong continuity in Bucer's approach in the years 1533 to 1545. This continuity was caused by his expectation of a council to come. In the course of these years there was a great deal of uncertainty as to its character, national or general, with or without the Lutherans. Hopes were atfirstraised, but shattered at the end. Bucer shared in the whole range of feelings, from the glimmer of hope in the Furbereytung zum Concilio of 1533 to the sad disappointment of the convocation in 1545. The years 1540-1 are the peak of this period. In Bucer's opinion the great opportunity was now to be seized for a really Christian German council. Looked at from this perspective it was obvious that in these two years the characteristics I have pointed out received their full weight, especially the setting of the church in the Empire and its embedding in history. This church that Bucer desired and laboured for would be in full concordance with the early church, with the Fathers and with the canons of the first councils. The second question is an intricate one, but the results of this study may 64

65 66

In his An Statuiet Dignitati (Stupperich 1952, no. 67), sig. B 6v, Bucer introduces a Catholic saying about the canons of the old councils: 'Quae de coelibatu constituta sunt et poenitentiae severitate, faciunt quidem egregie contra lutheranos, at nobis simul nullum prorsus in ecclesia locum relinquunt.' The Regensburg Book gives exactly the same two elements. The first is Wie Leicht unndFiiglich (Stupperich 1952, no. 84), the second Von den Einigen Rechten Wegen (Stupperich 1952, no. 80). The latter writing refers, p. 49, to the former. 67 Jedin 1957-61, vol. I, pp. 502ff. Von den Einigen Rechten Wegen, p. 31.

The colloquies with the Catholics

121

contribute something to solving it. There is of course a great similarity between the characteristics of Bucer's ecclesiology we found prevailing in 1540—1 and the characterization Gottfried Hammann gave in his extensive overall study of Bucer's ecclesiology. I need only point to my exposition of the fundamental nature of the church according to Bucer's writings in these years, which is in perfect agreement with Hammann's results, founded of course on a much broader basis. The differences are, however, substantial, and they are due to differences within the oeuvre of Bucer. They even led Hammann to conclude that ambivalences and ambiguities existed both in Bucer's theology and in his personality. 68 1 doubt whether this solution of the difficulties - a weak proposal, in any case - is necessary. Is it not possible that the words 'while this appeal is pending' which we found in the commentary on Romans, apparently an accidental remark, betray an essential distinction in Bucer's ecclesiology? It is the distinction between the lasting regulations to be made for the one German church and those temporary measures taken for part of the church - the Protestant or, perhaps better, the protesting part - for the time being. This distinction led to 'two ecclesiologies': one which we find in the documents we have studied here, another in the works usually studied for an exposition of Bucer's ecclesiology. The ecclesiology underlying Bucer's writings on the one German church ought then to be considered as the centre. The 'interim ecclesiology' represents the church in an experimental state, when anything which proved to be useful could be brought in once the right moment came. We have found several examples of such contributions in the writings we have studied. History took its own course, and what Bucer and others meant as an interim would become permanent, in the beginning of a distinctive Protestant church and matching ecclesiology. If my view is right, we shall have to take the ecclesiology represented by the documents used in this study much more seriously than has been done up to now. Unfortunately I can offer no better term than 'two ecclesiologies', which quite wrongly intimates two different systems. There are not two systems, however; both consist of the same components. There are, rather, differences in the emphasis the components receive in the two systems. My conclusion would be to emphasize this centre and to consider the experiment as secondary. It is only a tentative conclusion or rather a suggestion, but in my opinion it would do justice to the available data. 68

Hammann 1984, pp. 414-18.

10

The Strasbourg Kirchenpfleger and parish discipline: theory and practice* Jean Rott

One of the characteristics of Bucer's ecclesiology was the emphasis he put on the necessity of a strict church discipline. According to him the abolition of the mass in Strasbourg in February 1529 was but a stepping-stone on the way towards the building up of a true Christian city. Therefore he and his colleagues did their best to get this point across to the Strasbourg Senate. Their first breakthrough came in August of the same year, with the proclamation of the 'Constitution' which codified the numerous rules issued by the city council regulating the citizens' moral conduct for which the magistrate was exclusively responsible. By the same token, a matrimonial court was set up in December 1529 in which pastors had only consultative power. Discipline thus lay entirely in the magistrates' hands. Yet they and the civil servants were either too busy with political, administrative or economic matters, or too lenient or even hostile towards the Reformation to apply the 'Constitution' with sufficient vigour. Pastors, on the other hand, had to face the religious indifference of many of their so-called church parishioners. They were also confronted by more or less passive resistance on the part of those who still held to the former faith, but most of all by the criticism of an increasing dissident group which asked for more radical reforms. Thus they felt the need for decentralized disciplinary power, additional to that exercised so far by the city, by making each parish responsible for its own discipline. To do so they followed Oecolampadius' example in Basel as well as Bucer's in Ulm during the summer of 1531. On 30 October 1531 the Strasbourg Senate agreed to grant them the appointment of twenty-one 'Kirchspielpfleger' or 'Kirchenpfleger' (parish or church wardens). They were chosen by the magistrates for life and were to play the same role as the 'elders' in the early church.1 * This chapter is offered in tribute to Professor Dr Robert Stupperich, the initiator of Bucer's Opera Omnia. My hearty thanks to Katia Peterschmitt who graciously translated it into English. 1 Contemporary copy, AMS, R 3, ff. 195r-7v; published in Kirchenordnung... Strassburg... (Strasbourg, 1598), pp. 318-22; preparatory advice, AMS, R 4, ff. 118r-9r + additional leaf = AST 79, no. 46. Bucer's pulpit announcement (end 1531) = ADS' 7, pp. 244-5. See Wendel 1942; Hammann 1984. 122

The Strasbourg Kirchenpfleger

123

The role of the wardens

There were three of these censor-citizens in each parish. The first one was chosen from among the magistrates who were appointed for life. The second was one of the 300 aldermen ('Schoffen'), while the third one was a parish member. Their responsibility was twofold. On the one hand they had to watch the life and teaching of the pastor and his assistants, and if need be, admonish them in love to keep the pastoral ministry from being disparaged. If anyone wanted to ask the pastor to explain a question to him, a Kirchenpfleger had to be present. On the other hand, they had to help the pastor by discussing all matters dealing with parish life, the preaching of the gospel, worship, pastoral counselling; and they designated, with the pastor, his assistants and the sexton. In short, in matters of church discipline they had nearly the same duties as the pastor because of the power given to them by the city. If in doubt or faced with more general problems they had to refer to the Senate-and-XXI which had appointed them, and which was the highest power in the city. For church matters common to all parishes they had to set up a small committee which met and discussed along with the convention of the pastors ('Kirchenconvent'). This committee is known to have gathered several times with the pastors in 1532, which led to the decision to call the synod of the Strasbourg church in 1533 and to the first ecclesiastical ordinance proclaimed in Strasbourg in 1534. Its drafting was seen as an opportunity to give further details concerning the functions of the Kirchenpfleger.2 Along with the pastors they have to make sure that those who belong to the parish, who are baptized and call themselves Christians, attend worship, the sermon and the sacraments regularly and that they lead a Christian life. However, there are many who despise listening to a sermon or attending Holy Communion. A good number of people listen to the sermons and even take part in the sacrament, but do not lead a Christian life. The Kirchenpfleger will have to summon ('beschicken') these black sheep or go and seek them out, ask them why they distance themselves from the church community, and lovingly try to change their minds. If they do not have any special reason for acting the way they do, but sin because they lack piety, they have to be urged to fear God. If they agree to listen to the sermon and to send their family members to church without agreeing to take part in Holy Communion, they have to be commended to God, to be urged to ask for God's light on their way, and be dealt with as the early church dealt with the catechumens. As far as open denigrators of God's Word are concerned, the 2

Ordnung und Kirchengebreuch ...zu

Strassburg (Strasbourg, 1534), f. C i™ = BDS 5, pp. 37-8.

124

Jean Rott

Kirchenpfleger will let God judge them, while still showing them, and asking others to show them, the spirit of brotherhood with which a Christian citizen treats a Jew or a heathen. They will proceed similarly towards those who, while attending sermons and Holy Communion, do not improve their conduct despite every admonition. In other words, there will be no civil excommunication, yet it is clearly stated that within the church context Matthew 18:18 is still valid. Should the Kirchenpfleger face any difficulties in that respect, the pastors will be there to give them advice. A new mandate

Unfortunately, there are no documents left describing the years before 1539 with regard to the work done by the Kirchenpfleger in each of the seven parishes in Strasbourg. However, the examples mentioned in the church ordinance of 1534 show that their task was not an easy one and that it could get them into a lot of trouble. They had less coercive power than the two dozen civil sergeants who had to report people who violated the 'Constitution' or any other municipal commands. Therefore it came as no surprise when the Ammeister Mathis Pfarrer stated before the Senate, on 29 January 1539, that the regulation concerning the Kirchenpfleger had been applied in a slovenly way or not at all, and that the pastors were asking for it to be re-enforced in order to hinder sects from multiplying.3 Consequently the Senate decided to reactivate this institution by addressing to the guilds a message later called 'Mandat vom Furbeschicken' (mandate to issue summonses). As dissidents did not seem to find their way back to the official church, the Senate reminded the Kirchenpfleger of their duty and gave them greater coercive power, ordering them to identify recalcitrants to the magistrates who would take appropriate measures against them.4 A few days earlier, on 24 January 1539, the Senate had likewise decided to invite the guilds to apply the disciplinary rulings issued in February 1535 more strictly.5 That also meant a stricter application of the 'Constitution'. Was this increase in civil authority due to what had just happened in Hesse? Bucer had been called there by Landgrave Philip and had succeeded in bringing a large number of Anabaptists back to the official church. He had secured that, according to the new church ordinances in Hesse, young people should be confirmed after finishing their catechism, and, most AMS, XII (1539), ff. 26v-7r = g G T X V , pp. 307-8, no. 889. First draft, AST 84, no. 34; original AMS, R 29, no. 174; published in Kirchenordnung (Strasbourg, 1598), pp. 322-3, QGT XV, pp. 308-10, no. 890; a related advice = AST 79, no. 45; Bucer's 1539 memorandum on Kirchenpfleger, quoted in (J. Adam), Inventaire des AST (Strasbourg, 1937), col. 64 ( = AST 38, no. 38), has been missing since 1945. AMS, XXI (1539), f. 23r = QGTXV, pp. 305-6, no. 886; QGT VIII, pp. 421-31, no. 637.

The Strasbourg Kirchenpfleger

125

important of all, elders should be appointed to strengthen church discipline. Did the magistrates want to try the same experiment in Strasbourg? That could well be, as the confession of the Anabaptist Peter Tesch, made in May 1539, tends to show. In it he asked that a strict church discipline concerning parishioners' moral conduct be applied at all costs.6 This subject was also taken up during the Strasbourg synod of the same month. The case of Jacob Wetzel

Some may wonder whether the 'Mandat vom Fiirbeschicken' was then implemented more consistently. Fortunately three relevant documents are still available. Thefirsttwo show what kind of difficulties the Kirchenpfleger had to face in their daily parish work. They all refer only to the parish of St Thomas which Bucer had joined in 1529. Its first Kirchenpfleger was Nicholas (Claus) Kniebis. He had been appointed to the magistracy for life and had a major influence in bringing about the Reformation in Strasbourg. He often sat on the senatorial committees which discussed religious matters.7 On 8 June 1541, the Wednesday after Pentecost, Kniebis and his fellow Kirchenpfleger Martin Speirer8 brought the following matter before the Senate-and-XXI.9 They recalled that their mandate as Kirchenpfleger was to check if the pastors and their deacons raised any complaints. They had decided not to summon the possible plaintiffs one by one, because they might be tempted to put forth lies in order to stir up a controversy. Instead, they started out by gathering the parishioners in groups of thirty and read the texts describing the church wardens' tasks out loud to them, so that all believers knew what to do. The two explained that they were already following these guidelines and that they had summoned some parishioners individually. One of them was the gentleman ('juncker') Jacob Wetzel, a magistrate. He was an unrepentant and active Catholic who had not appeared in spite of several summonses.10 On Whit Sunday Kniebis and his colleague had once more gathered a AMS, AA 405 = 0 G r XV, pp. 322-4, no. 913; cf. also QGTXV, p. 317, no. 907. Herr Claus Kniebis (1479-1552), stud. jur. Freiburg i. Br., probably a rentier, Ammeister 1519, 1525, 1531, 1537, member of the Council of XIII, scholarch and the leader of the evangelical faction; cf. Brady 1978, pp. 326-7; Rott 1986, vol. I, pp. 250-S, 379-90,400,412-21. Senator of the Inn-keepers 1533^, 1539/40; cf. Hatt 1963, pp. 202, 206-7. AMS, XXI (1541), ff. 243v-8r; cf. QGTXV, p. 475, no. 1113; BDS 6:2, pp. 198-9, n. 44. Junker Jacob Wetzel von Marsilien (died after 1555), member of the Senate 1533/34, 1536/37, 1540/41 and of the Council of XV, remained openly Catholic, very interested in religious questions: cf. QGT VIII, p. 4, no. 357a; pp. 17-20, no. 368; XV, pp. 43-7, no. 737; pp. 464, 468, nos. 1096, 1101; and Brady 1978, pp. 3 5 3 ^ .

126

Jean Rott

group of twenty-one parishioners whose names were recorded by Conrad Hubert,11 Bucer's assistant, and attached to the minutes of that meeting.12 All of a sudden Wetzel walked in, although he had not been summoned that day. His fellow magistrate Kniebis asked him to sit down beside him and read the texts on the church wardens' duties out loud to the audience. Wetzel looked scornful from the start and sniggered aloud, 'Ha, Ha!'. Before dismissing the crowd, Kniebis decided to hand the floor over to Jacob Bedrot, a Greek professor and substitute pastor of St Thomas while Bucer was attending the Diet of Regensburg.13 Bedrot said that he and his assistant, the deacon Hubert, worked as their flock's servants night and day. As Kniebis was about to send people home, Wetzel told them to stay and called out to Kniebis: 'You are saying that you have a mandate to summon people as you do. Yet, I'm a magistrate too; and know nothing about it; and anyway, though you call me, I will not come. As to you, citizens, who have come here, you needn't come either. The magistracy sitting in the city hall is our true authority. If someone asks us for an explanation, he needs to summon us there!' Then Wetzel shouted at Bedrot: 'You just said that if we had anything to reproach you with, we should do it now! Well then, you claim that you receive no prebend. What a pack of lies!' Bedrot replied: 'I never said that I didn't receive any prebend, since I get one from the Senate, which allows me to work for the schools.' Then Wetzel became angry, called Bedrot once more a liar and could hardly be restrained from beating him up. On Whit Monday Wetzel went to see Kniebis and told him that he regretted not having been even more virulent.14 Bedrot, quite naturally, lodged a complaint against Wetzel with the Senate, which decided that before settling the matter the witnesses of the scene should be questioned. On the following Wednesday, however, Kniebis and his colleague said that they did not want to start any proceedings against Wetzel. Instead, they wished to know whether they had acted according to their mandate, even if it meant giving it up should the Senate consider it advisable. After reading the relevant rulings a second time, the Senate decided that the Kirchenpfleger at St Thomas should keep their office and advised those of the other 11 12 13

14

AMS, XXI (1541), f. 247r. Hubert (1507-77), editor of Bucer's TA; cf. Raubenheimer 1959. Jacob Bedrot (c. 1493-1541), since 1526 professor of Greek, in 1529 the first to be appointed canon of St Thomas by the Senate on a prebend falling vacant in one of the uneven months (in this case July) when traditionally appointment lay with the pope (hence, probably, Wetzel's anger); he was also visitor of the Strasbourg schools. Cf. Bonorand 1962, and Rott 1983. That explains why, at the beginning of the Senate's session of June 8, 1541, Wetzel tried three times to hinder the hearing of Kniebis's report: he was therefore excluded and condemned to house arrest; finally he had to renounce his citizenship and his offices: AMS, XXI (1543), f. 385 (September 3).

The Strasbourg Kirchenpfleger

127

parishes to follow their example so that the same model should be used everywhere.15 This decision may well have implied that the Kirchenpfleger in other churches did nothing or very little. Achievements and limitations After only two years people were complaining that in matters of moral conduct administered solely by civil authorities, offenders were no longer reported as they should be and were hardly ever punished. 16 Consequently, it is easy to imagine how badly matters stood when they were supervised by Kirchenpfleger only! There is evidence, however, that those working in St Thomas's parish followed the same line as before. In the Senate-and-XXI minutes of 12 February 1543 there is the following comment: 'In that parish people complain that the young are being summoned along with the old and the servants, and that the pastor, Bucer's substitute Schnell, refused to baptize a child whose father had found only an unworthy godfather.' The Senate ruled that the pastor was right, but that he should try to come to an agreement with the child's parents beforehand. The summoning of parishioners in St Thomas could also go on as before, but people could not be forced to appear against their will.17 The outstanding way in which the St Thomas Kirchenpfleger worked is confirmed for the third time through one of Bucer's reports, probably written in May-June 1546.18 Yet the Reformer goes much further and asks the magistrates to give pastors the right to summon parishioners in order to make up for the church wardens' inertia. An article drafted to that effect even if its summary mentions only the pastor's visit and his conversations with his flock - may have been discussed during the synod of May 1539, but it was sent for further discussion during a Senate meeting on 18 May 1540, which ended the debate on this point. 19 In any case, this suggestion is clearly made by the committee which was in charge of answering the pastors' grievances on 4 February 1545, and of which Kniebis happened to be a member. Yet in the margin of the second draft of the committee's opinion a large 'Nihil' next to this suggestion, discussed during a Senate debate on 6 January 1546, shows that it was rejected.20 The minutes say that 15 16

17 18 19 20

AMS, XXI (1541), f. 248r. AMS, R 26, ff. 34^6; XXI (1543), ff. 265rv, 490v + 491v-2r ( = June 25, October 28, November 12); cf. previously QGT VIII, pp. 421-31,434-7, no. 637,643^ (February/March 1535). AMS, XXI (1543), f. 51rv = 0 G r X V I , p p 1 6 _ 1 ? > n o 1 2 6 0 AST 16, n. 74; cf. QGT XVI, pp. 191-2, no. 1510. AMS, XXI (1540), f. 182 = g G T XV, pp. 331, 335, no. 920; BDS 6:2, p. 235. AMS, XXI (1545), ff. 35r-7v; the first advice of the senatorial committee = AST 84, no. 42; cf. QGT XVI, pp. 125-6, 136, no. 1421, 1439.

128

Jean Rott

any kind of new popery should thus be prevented from arising again, and that they must avoid 'putting the sword in the hands of the pastors'. The 'beschicken' (the power to 'urge') remains the church wardens' exclusive prerogative. A recalcitrant parishioner whom the pastor is allowed only to report to the Kirchenpfleger must be exhorted by them with love and handed over to the Senate if he persists in his fault.21 Bucer's subsequent plea in favour of the pastors could hardly modify the Senate's anticlerical majority. To achieve his goal the Reformer had to find another solution, namely the 'Christliche Gemeinschaften' (Christian communities).22 21

22

The second advice: AST 84, no. 40; cf. QGTXVI, pp. 173-4, no. 1488. The discussion in the session of January 6, 1546 = AMS, XXI (1545) [jic!], f. 529v; cf. QGTXVI, p p . 174^5, no. 1489: 'Aber das man den pfarrern bevelch geben sollt menigklich zu beschicken und sie ires glaubens zu rechtfertigen, und das schwert des orts in ire hand zu geben, ist nit gevolgt, sonder erkant: Wo jemand dem evangelio widerspricht, das die kirchspilpfleger dieselben beschicken, sie behoren und, wo not und man jemand berichten muest, ein predicant zu inen nemen. Wo sich dan einer nit weisen lassen wolt, denselben der oberkeit anzeigen; also das es bei den pflegern und mein herren, und nit den pfarrern stand, wie dann der kirchenpfleger ordnung ausweist.' See the next essay in this volume, by Gottfried Hammann.

11

Ecclesiological motifs behind the creation of the 'Christlichen Gemeinschaften'* Gottfried Hammann The importance of the question

The creation of the 'Christlichen Gemeinschaften' - small communities of confessing Christians in the midst of the church of the majority at Strasbourg - during the years 1547-9 was certainly one of the most original elements of Bucer's activity. For proof one need cite only the objections they encountered and the unrelenting dispute they provoked in the ranks of the Strasbourg church. Yet these communities, surprising as much in their form as in their ecclesiological intention, have excited scarcely any interest from Bucer scholars. Is this because of the discredit to which they fell victim even during their author's lifetime - for they ceased to exist shortly after their creation while Bucer was still alive, exiled in England and incapable therefore of supervising their development? Or is it because this kind of ecclesiological venture undertaken by a Protestant Reformer has attracted little curiosity from Reformation historians? 1 It has been commonly held that the ecclesiological interest of Bucer's theology was adopted, clarified and made practicable by John Calvin at Geneva, and thus adopted by Calvinism.2 Perhaps we should seek the reasons for this lack of interest not only in the oblivion this community experiment was consigned to after Bucer's departure for exile (his successors at the head of the Strasbourg church always promoted a genuine Lutheranism), or in the fact that Bucer himself in his last work on the church, The Kingdom of Christ of 1550, no longer pursued the need for such * This chapter was translated by the editor. 1 For works on this theme, in addition to the standard bibliographies of Mentz 1891, Stupperich 1952 and Kohn 1976, I refer to Lardet 1983 and Rott 1984. On Bucer's basic ecclesiology note more particularly the older work of Courvoisier 1933, and Hammann 1984. On the 'Christlichen Gemeinschaften', the standard work remains Bellardi 1934; reference is also made to the different introductions in BDS 17: Die Letzten Strassburger Jahre 1546—1549. Schriften zur Gemeindereformation . . . (1981). 2 Such was the opinion in particular of August Lang (Lang 1900). In this still standard work he was unable to take account of the experiment of the 'Christlichen Gemeinschaften' by virtue of his failure to consult the sources. At the end of his study he stated: 'Das eigentliche Leben der Theologie Butzers geht zu Ende mit dem Auftreten Calvins: sie miindet in alien massgebenden Punkten in den Calvinismus ein' (p. 372).

129

130

Gottfried Hammann

small communities amidst the majority church, but also in the lack of interest aroused in Reformation research by ecclesiological issues in general. Themes other than ecclesiology, such as redemption, ethics and the place of works in the economy of salvation, or the inter-Protestant contentions on the sacraments, have always seemed higher priorities for historians of the Reformation. However, if such themes indisputably held centre stage in the eventful first half of the sixteenth century, it remains no less true that, for the best-known Reformers, preoccupation with the church was bound up not only with the problem of ecclesiastical institutions but also with that of the church as a spiritual, mystical, 'invisible' reality. Attempts at practical implementation like that of the 'Christlichen Gemeinschaften' reflected not only a preoccupation with empirical circumstances but also a continuing, even obsessional theological concern which possessed the Strasbourg Reformer throughout his life and above all throughout his ministry in the Alsatian city. Bucer's ecclesiology therefore deserves, in our opinion, a fundamental reappraisal, both in its theoretical conceptions and in its practical realization. Not for nothing has the Strasbourger been presented as a 'fanatic for unity'. His conception of the church as at once mystical body of Christ and human institution allowed him to take the 'ecumenical' risks for which he was sometimes severely reproached during his lifetime. Could this ecclesiological conception not assist the position of the churches of the Reformation in their debates with sister churches? In fact, the present controversy on the unity of the churches requires of the heirs of Protestantism the ability to take part in historical discussion with an ecclesiology that is not only empirical but equally 'mystical'. The church, as the body of Christ, is not solely an unrealizable and non-institutionalized theological concept, but also has its repercussions, however debatable and imperfect, in the concrete ecclesial reality of the communities that emerged from the Reformation. And so, their historical originality, their ecclesiological interest and their ecumenical relevance all alike justify another investigation of the attempt to form 'Christlichen Gemeinschaften', especially on the occasion of the quincentenary of the birth of their founder. In this essay, therefore, we will return to them less to retrace once more the historical course of their creation and rapid demise than to try to uncover in them certain ecclesiological motifs of importance for Bucer's thought and work. The ecclesiological motifs of the years preceding the 'Christlichen Gemeinschaften9

The creation of the 'Gemeinschaften' belongs to the last period of Bucer's activity in Strasbourg. It coincides with the difficulties consequent upon the

The creation of the 'Christlichen Gemeinschaften'

131

Protestants' defeat in the Schmalkaldic War and the imposition of the Interim on Strasbourg. The unhappy events of the years 1545-9 mark an irreparable breach in Bucer's work in Strasbourg.3 For more than twenty years he had attempted to establish in Strasbourg a Christian community that met the demands of the Reformation and was faithful to biblical norms. If during the early years from 1523 to 1529 he had believed that the pressure for reform required first the dismantling of Roman ecclesiology and structures, during the second decade from 1530 to 1539 he endeavoured to organize the church in Strasbourg in conformity with the new reform impulses - hence the holding of the two synods of 1533 and 1539, the promulgation of numerous disciplinary regulations and the ecclesiastical ordinances of 1534-5, and also the production of the important treatise on pastoral theology, rich with ecclesiological teaching, 'On True Pastoral Care' (Von der Waren Seelsorge, 1538). But all the measures taken - and they were numerous4 - to make the Strasbourg church a 'true church' ('wahre Kirche') failed to achieve the results expected by the Reformer. The last period of his activity in the town, from 1540 until his departure for exile in April 1549, was marked by growing disenchantment. This sharpened his ecclesiological demands, as he incessantly and ever more insistently pressed the authorities and the residents to have supplementary measures taken and conduct displayed that might at last make the Strasbourg community a 'true Christian community' ('wahre christliche Gemeinschaft'). Such aspirations for an increasingly confessing Christian community were not peculiar to Bucer. Even Luther had expressed them as early as 1526 in an oft-cited passage in the preface to his German Mass,5 but for him the right time for such an endeavour had still not come. In his judgement the risks of further aggravating the divisions in the young churches of the Reformation were too great. First one must train those who later would be able to take in hand such a reconstruction of the church. Bucer lacked Luther's patience - or rather he had it until 1546. In that year the threats that suddenly oppressed the recently reformed churches, of which Strasbourg was a good example, made him doubt what had been achieved. The Protestants' defeat in the Schmalkaldic War convinced him that temporizing over a more confessing reorganization of the church was not only an error in ecclesiology but also a serious sin, and the consequences which afflicted the town could only issue from God's wrath. The motif of inner unity

This conviction had been taking shape for several years. The disappointments and disillusionments that the Reformer had had to undergo since 1541 had 3

Cf. the biography by Greschat 1990. The most recent work on ecclesiological questions in 4 5 Bucer is Friedrich 1989. Cf. Rott 1981. Cf. Hammann 1984, p. 397.

132

Gottfried Hammann

built up in him fresh grounds for discouragement. Theologically, he blamed shortcomings in the implementation of his ecclesiological strategy. In his opinion, one of the chief causes of this increasingly lamentable situation was the resurgence of Anabaptism in and around Strasbourg in the 1540s. The problem had certainly not been under control during the preceding years, but at least Bucer and his colleagues could hope that the measures taken against the sectaries over a dozen years, and the sustained preaching of the gospel, would progressively diminish and even eliminate the Anabaptist menace. On two occasions, in March 1538 and April 1540, the Strasbourg authorities, under the urging of Bucer and his associates, had issued edicts against the Anabaptists.6 These texts attested the concern of the civil and religious authorities to safeguard the unity of the church at any cost.7 This unity is an essential motif in Bucer's ecclesiological preoccupations at this time as he paved the way for the 'Gemeinschaften'. So when the years prior to their creation witnessed the rebirth rather than the disappearance of the sectarian movement,8 Bucer believed that this showed conclusively that his ecclesiology suffered from certain weaknesses which he must set about correcting as quickly as possible. Combatting sectarians was all very well, but one must not fail to correct and perfect the established church. Bucer was aware that the Anabaptists were not wholly reprehensible, and he was impressed by the exemplary strength of their commitment. They practised among themselves a discipline which he envied, and in 1537, at the time of the talks he held with the Anabaptists of Hesse, he granted them this point and came to contemplate a revalidation of infant baptism by an act of confession - which would become, as is well known, Protestant 'confirmation'.9 The Anabaptists vied with Bucer in their biblicism. Unlike them he fixed limits to the literal observance of the Scriptures. In the years before the 'Gemeinschaften', he wrote to Philip of Hesse that some people were letting themselves be so disoriented by the problem of baptism as to sell all their substance, which for the sake of their children they must be forbidden to do.10 Behind this comment stand the classical biblical texts of the communitarian cause in Acts 2 and 4, texts which Bucer himself loved to cite in promoting his own plans for community in the church.11 The stronger grew this resurgence of Anabaptism, the more problematic 6 7

8 9 11

Cf. QGTXV, pp. 139^4, 4 0 2 ^ , nos. 816, 817, 1014. Ibid., p. 140: 'Aber damit dannoch soliche schedliche secte und trennungen nit also frei und ungehindert zu verderbung gemeiner stat . . . uberhand nemen; . . . damit die kirch in einigkeit bleiben und solche rottungen und trennungen verhiitet wiirden.' Ibid., p. 140: 'Daher dan kommen, das sich die secten hochlich gemert.' 10 Cf. Franz 1951, pp. 213ff., no. 77. QGTXV1, p. 46, no. 1310. Cf. Hammann 1984, p. 99.

The creation of the 'Christlichen Gemeinschaften'

133

became the unity so dear to Bucer within Protestantism in Strasbourg, at a time when it was losing its sharpness, as a result of its success, with the church loyal to Rome. Bucer was thus faced with the problem of how to squeeze the life out of this sectarian expansion, based essentially on small-scale communitarian structures, advocating a confessing commitment, rooted in a strict obedience to scriptural models and, like Bucer, rebuking the civil authorities for their laxity and lack of confessing purpose. Internal unity was becoming as difficult to realize as ecclesial unity with the Roman church. Neither the advancing preaching of the gospel nor the tolerance demonstrated by the Strasbourgers - which had attracted the scorn of both the friends and the opponents of the magisterial Reformation and Roman traditionalism - had been able to curb intra-Protestant sectarian tendencies. There remained the disciplinary solution. Bucer had worked at it relentlessly since the 1530s. Ecclesiological preoccupations steadily gained greater importance. Bucer habitually linked moral configurations with doctrinal patterns; nevertheless, in the sequence of debates with the dissidents, he increasingly related his recriminations to doctrinal concerns, mostly ecclesiological. The former determined the latter, bad doctrine entailing false behaviour. The Anabaptist experiment at Miinster in 1534 had provided incontrovertible evidence: dissent bred violence, threatened the unity of Christendom, and undermined divine authority by demanding civil disobedience. The motif of 'ecclesial places9

Bucer realized that Strasbourg's religious and political unity was threatened by this revival of Anabaptism, which all the measures taken so far had not succeeded in containing. Other ways must be found to confront the steadily escalating danger. To deal with the city's situation was to deal with its situation as church. We here touch on another ecclesiological motif which had an effect on the preparation of Bucer's plan for small communities - that of 'ecclesial places' based on the models of the primitive church and the tradition of the Fathers. The earliest period of the church was, for Bucer, not only exemplary but even normative.12 At this point also his biblicism made common cause with the Anabaptists'. He sought to restore to the Strasbourg church the small community forms of the New Testament churches, which contrasted with the ecclesial structures of the middle ages. 12

Cf., for example, the subtitle of Bucer's Scripta Duo Adversaria . . . of 1544: ' O m n i a ex authoritate n o n Scripturae t a n t u m , sed etiam t r a d i t i o n u m Apostolicarum, C a n o n u m , & S. Patrum.'

134

Gottfried Hammann

His writings make clear how far the family, for example, was for him a privileged ecclesial place, where the two essential functions of the pastorate could be fulfilled - doctrinal instruction and edification in godliness. This familial place represented for him a veritable ecclesial microcosm, a church privately ('privatim') or domestically ('domatim'), an indispensable complement to the parish, the community in public ('publice'). 13 However, even while he longed for smaller and more committed communities, the Reformer always argued in favour of an open ecclesial community, that is a church of the majority, whereas the dissidents advocated a separatist ecclesiology. So Bucer engaged in battle on two fronts: on one flank he wanted a more confessing church, better disciplined through the commitment of its members, but on the other he refused to be carried away on the tide of a sectarian ecclesiology which would reduce the community to conventicles of Christians cut off from the generality of the city. This dilemma was discernible from the years following the first Strasbourg synod of 1533. In 1534, for example, we see Bucer, in debate with the Anabaptists, defending the model of a confessing church but one open to all, 'after the example of the biblical tradition and the first age of the church'.14 The Strasbourg Reformer could never contemplate abandoning the concept of a majority church in the interests of a restricted professing community, precisely because of the constant presence of the perilous Anabaptist ecclesiology in the ranks of the Strasbourg community. The point should be forcefully highlighted, to obviate any misunderstanding of the significance of the future 'Christlichen Gemeinschaften'. The perspective would not change during the 1540s, despite the unfolding situation and the ever more insistent efforts of the Reformer to secure a firmer discipline of commitment from Strasbourg's Christians. Throughout these years and the vicissitudes which preceded the creation of the small communities of 1547-9, this motif of the essentially majority character of the church attended all his ecclesiological considerations. There was always an ambivalence between this aspect of openness and the no less indispensable aspect of a church better structured and more energetic as a community. This motif of twofold ecclesiology, at once both majority-based and confessing, played an important role in the slow maturation of Bucer's 13 14

Cf. Hammann 1984, pp. 355ff. Cf. Bericht auss der Heyligen Geschrift (1534), in BDS 5, p. 197: 'Diss ist in der substanz Gotlichs bundts, nit weniger des newen, dann des alten . . . und warlich ist es eyn grosse schmach Christi, ym, unserem heyland, zumessen, das er den gnadenbundt solte haben wollen einthun und enger machen, so er doch der i s t . . . der den gnadenbundt, der vor nur bey denen ware, die auch nach dem fleisch kinder Abrahe waren, in aller welt erweyteret hatt. Wie kan doch eyn Christ im das yn sein hertz kommen lassen, das unser Herr Jesus solte den bundt Gottlicher gnaden und seiner erlosung seiner gleubigen kinderen eyngezogen haben, denen er zuvor gemein gewesen ist.'

The creation of the 'Christlichen Gemeinschaften'

135

plans for small communities. For the Reformer it was a matter of showing better where, in which places, the 'true church' was recognizable, over against the claims of the Anabaptist cells, and also the pretensions of the Roman church's hierarchical and clerical structures, at the very moment of counter-action by the Council of Trent (which began work in 1545) and the Catholic reform.

The motif of holiness At times Bucer lived out in the ecclesiological arena the fable of the miller, his son and the donkey: sometimes he was blamed for not being strict enough in the professing discipline of the Strasbourgers, 15 at other times he had to be alert lest the town be stigmatized as a new Minister! 16 The more he did, the more he was criticized. In 1543 a friend in Basel wrote to Conrad Hubert, Bucer's colleague and secretary, that since Capito's death in 1541 everything had been going wrong, that Strasbourg was full of sectarians of every stripe and that Bucer would do better to busy himself with the Strasbourg church rather than want to reform the rest of Germany, in an ambition to be head over all!17 So in the mid-1540s, Anabaptism was getting ever stronger: groups were assembling secretly at night in the forest of Eckbolsheim, on Strasbourg's doorstep. 18 Doubts multiplied about the appropriateness of repeated efforts for doctrinal reform and moral renewal. The more Bucer pressed the magistracy to devote all its energies to the introduction of a 'true' ecclesiastical discipline, the more the Strasbourg church seemed doomed to degeneration and criticism. Nasty tongues spread scandal about the town and its Reformers, and well-intentioned voices, like the correspondent mentioned above, warned Bucer and his friends of the perverse effects of 15

16

17

18

For example, when he cites complaints advanced on this subject in QGTXWl, p. 20, no. 1266: 'Gravissimum crimen, quod hostes contra me apud bonos objicere possunt, est quod inexploratos incognitos ad mensam Domini admittimus, quod illam [= disciplinam] plerique nostrum in totum negligunt . . .' Cf. QGT XV, p. 141, no. 816: 'solich sect auch uber die mass von frembden und heimschen sich meren und uberhand nemen will, das wir sehen, das unser milte handlung bei disen verstockten leuten nit verfahet, und zu besorgen haben, das in kunftigem wie in Miinster auch beschehen, so sie iren vorteil ersehen, zu ufrur und ganzer verderbung diser stat Strassburg reichen mocht.' QGT XVI, pp. 57-8, no. 1330: 'Quidam hie sparsit, ecclesiam vestram esse exulceratissimam, sectarum et epicureorum plenam, ministros otiosos esse ventres, pecuniis deditos, omnia cum morte Capitonis sepulta esse, quae hactenus ecclesiam vestram in pacis concordia tenuerunt; Bucerum plus in animo habere ecclesias inferioris Germaniae quam suam, ad quam vocatus, ecclesiam; causam addidit: ut sit caput omnis rei . . . Quot enim sectas habetis! Papistas, Hoffmannos, anabaptistas, Cutzios, Hetzeranos, epicureos!' QGT XVI, pp. 143-7, nos. 1453-55.

136

Gottfried Hammann

their lamentable public image. 19 In this climate, one can understand, despite their excesses, the bitterness and disenchantment that increasingly possessed Bucer as the years passed: the greater his efforts, the less affairs developed in accord with his conception of a truly reformed church. For one who had so strongly insisted, since the beginning of his Strasbourg ministry, on the sanctification of the believer and the necessity of his advance in godliness, the apparent futility of all his labours shattered his patience.20 Not only were the Christians of Strasbourg in 1545 every bit as resistant as in 1523 to Bucer's attempts at moral improvement, but even the church itself, the communal body of Christ called to be a sign to this world of 'the kingdom of Christ', gave the appearance of a society decreasingly zealous and affirmative. If only this defeatist image had been no more than the fruit of the Reformer's perfectionism, but it was not so. External voices and detractors who had recently benefitted from refuge in the city confirmed the sorry impression given by Bucer's efforts in the ecclesiastical field. The man who was so passionately keen to make of this church a model of reformation and to restore its churchly qualities (its 'notes') found himself confronting a community with its unity in tatters, uncertain about its forms of community life, and incapable of recovering its holiness. He felt provoked, from outside as well as in his own inner being, to attempt to secure ever better disciplinary measures for individuals and structural reforms for the community. The motif of faithfulness Bucer saw in the communities of the primitive church an exemplary and even normative model of a reformed church. This standard must in his view inspire not only the forms of community life but also their practice. Passages such as Acts 2 and 4, Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12 recur like a leitmotiv throughout his writings.21 They provided him with more than example - a norm of faithfulness on which the apostolic continuity of the church depended. It is interesting to note that, although for the Strasbourg Reformer the church's apostolicity depended on the Word of God - on this point he was truly a disciple of Luther - after this Word had taken effect apostolicity was measured in the visible reality of the church. Therefore when he lamented, often with bitterness, the deficiencies of his Strasbourg 19 20

21

QGT XVI, p. 58, no. 1330: 'Vigilate igitur, ne quid hij pernitiosi homines detrimenti dent ecclesiae vestrae: turbas moliuntur, quo impediant cursum verbi Dei.' The theme of progress in sanctification in Bucer was misunderstood by Lang 1900, p. 191, but has been raised by more recent researchers, such as Wendel 1963, p. 301; Miiller 1965, pp. 37ff., who sees in this idea of progression a Thomist legacy; Zippert 1969, p. 113; Stephens 1970, pp. 37-8; Neuser 1980, p. 220. Cf. the biblical index in Hammann 1984.

The creation of the 'Christlichen Gemeinschaften'

137

church by comparison with the communities of the primitive and ancient churches, he was in fact lamenting his church's defective apostolicity. 22 It was on this pattern, he believed, that the church's faithfulness and continuity were based, and one of the greatest risks she could run was unfaithfulness (the accusation levelled against the Anabaptists) to the ecclesial models of the Scriptures. In this normative character of the primitive and ancient churches lies the whole importance of Bucer's ecclesiology. It is in the pattern of community, visible and certifiable, that the apostolic faithfulness of the church is evidenced, as much as in the conformity of believers' faith to the scriptural Word. Although Bucer does not forget that the latter precedes and determines the former, he nevertheless accords to this conformity to the initial community model the force of a witness attesting the Christian authenticity of every church that seeks to be faithful to Christ and his apostles. Apostolic continuity is not only theological, but also historical; and if, in Bucer's thought, it is always the Holy Spirit's function to guarantee the authenticity of faith, he is also the one who wills that blameless ministries and ecclesial structures attest his activity communitywise, in the corporate reality of the church, the body of Christ. Accordingly, the Strasbourg church's lack of adequate faithfulness and conformity to the practice of the primitive Christian communities could, for Bucer, only be the sign of this church's lack of apostolicity, and hence was ultimately intolerable. This was the context, historical and ecclesiological, during the years preceding the creation of the 'Christlichen Gemeinschaften'. Certain features of the Buceran doctrine of the church, outlined since the 1530s, were emphasized increasingly as these years advanced. On investigation one can discern, underlying this heightened emphasis, the concern to restore the church's conformity, in theory and practice, to the four 'notes' of the primitive and ancient church: unity, both external and internal; 22

In 1544 against Latomus Bucer gives a good summary of this ecclesiology: 'Tertio requiritur ut unusquisque hanc fidem suam in Ecclesia, apud quam habitat, solenniter confiteatur, seque ibi in obedientiam Christi, et Ecclesiae publice addicat; in ea religiose perseveret; unum Deum, unum Christum cum omnibus sanctis, qui unquam, aut uspiam fuerunt, aut sunt, colat; et instaurandae pietati in se et in alijs, toto corde studeat, eamque ob caussam ad sacros conventus libenter conveniat, verbum Domini studiose audiat, summa religione cum Ecclesia oret, laudetque Deum, sacrificium suum offerat, sacramenta percipiat, disciplinae Christi, omnique piae correctioni, cum publicae, turn privatae, sese penitus permittat; atque ideo publicos Ecclesiae ministros, cuiuscunque loci et ordinis, ex animo veneretur et suscipiat; privatos quoque monitores et exhortatores . . . excipiat; ac quanto possit studio discat in dies servare plenius, quaecunque Christus praecepit; in eoque consentiat et adhaereat in Domino coniunctus et unitus cum omnibus omnium saeculorum et locorum Sanctis Dei. Haec omnia institutit Dominus, et servari praecepit In his ergo quae commemoravi, consistit tota Ecclesiae Christi communio'; Scripta Duo Adversaria . . ., p. 131.

138

Gottfried Hammann

universality (or 'catholicity'), that is, the issue of the 'places' where the church has its being; holiness, not only of its members individually but also of the community as a corporate reality in Christ; and apostolicity, conceived of as faithfulness, in continuity, to the initial reality, both theological and institutional, of the primitive Christian communities. This is the interpretative key by which we have attempted to construe Strasbourg's situation and Bucer's thought during the period preceding the 'Christlichen Gemeinschaften'. The combination of these ecclesiological emphases with an increasingly unfavourable historical situation provoked in Bucer an increasingly assertive impatience. And when in 1546 the Schmalkaldic War brought the defeat of the Protestant states, including Strasbourg, and the introduction of the Interim, the Reformer recognized therein the sign of God's judgement, and he moved into action. Ecclesiological motifs in the creation of the 'Christlichen Gemeinschaften9

How did the ecclesiological emphases that we have reviewed above feature in the actual creation of the 'Gemeinschaften'? Before we answer this question, it will be useful to recall the process by which these small professing communities emerged in the Strasbourg parishes. It was the historian Werner Bellardi in 1934 who drew attention to the distinctiveness of these communities in Bucer's reforming activity. He even went so far as to label them an attempt at 'a second Reformation'.23 His work remains the standard historical account of the 'Gemeinschaften', to which readers are referred for details. The present brief study is restricted to an analysis of the ecclesiological motifs underlying the creation of the communities. According to Bellardi, small communities existed in at least two Strasbourg parishes from the end of 1545.24 This date seems too early; the minutes of the town council contain no allusion to these small communities before 21 February 1547.25 Before this, the council documents certainly deal with the disciplinary question of'beschicken', i.e. calling together for examination, but not with intra-parochial groups in which members of the Strasbourg parishes met under the direction of their preachers. On the other hand, in the minute of 21 February 1547 we read that 'the preachers of [the parishes of] St Thomas and Young St Peter's are convening ('beschicken') the people in special meetings and assuming the right of excommunication'.26 Without pursuing again here all the detailed problems 23 25 26

24 Cf. title of Bellardi 1934. BDS 17, p. 157. Cf. my analysis in Hammann 1984, pp. 364 ff., and Annexe IV, pp. 431-3. QGTXVI, p. 215, no. 1542.

The creation of the 'Christlichen Gemeinschaften'

139

of this dating, which is not yet conclusively settled, we believe we can detect the trigger for the creation of the communities in the dramatic outcome of the Schmalkaldic War. In January 1547 Strasbourg had to open negotiations with the Emperor Charles V, whose harsh demands were known in the town at the beginning of February. It is on the twenty-first of this same month that we find the first explicit mention of small groups gathering parishioners for the purpose of more firmly committed disciplinary exercises. We can therefore see in the outcome of this War the circumstantial impulse which pushed Bucer and some of his colleagues into creating these professing communities. He had written, in effect, that laxity, sectarianism and the incompetence of the civil authorities were now bearing fruit, that the Strasbourgers had for too long put off reforming their church in a more affirmative manner, and that the church was now under the wrath of God whence all this disorder27 which was due 'to our failings and our faults'. 28 In this highly charged situation in which he sensed that the essence of the Reformation was at risk, Bucer composed in quick succession several treatises about the 'Gemeinschaften'. 29 It is in these writings that the ecclesiological motifs intrinsic to this attempt to make the Strasbourg church more affirmative find clear expression. It is also in these texts (published neither during his life nor later in the century) that he specifies the procedure to be followed by pastors of the Strasbourg parishes in creating these communities. Before analysing their ecclesiological motifs, we should recall this plan for their implementation, which envisaged two successive phases. 30 The pastors must begin by preaching the urgent need, 'in these dangerous times', to live as a 'true' Christian community. Those who were moved by this summons, after receiving a visit at home from their minister, would then meet together 'in a suitable place at an advertised time'. During this first meeting, the pastor should once again define the qualities of the 'true Christian community', after which the parishioners could give their views. Thereafter all who were keen to pursue the experiment would choose from their number one or two representatives who, with the pastor(s) and the Kirchenpfleger nominated by the magistracy, would form a board for the pastoral direction and disciplinary supervision of the group. In their turn the pastor(s) would then make their commitment, giving an account of their theology before the small community and pledging to it their whole household. With this done, the 'elders', i.e. the chosen representatives, would make a similar commitment concerning their doctrine, conduct and 27 28

30

Cf., for example, BDS 17, pp. 100-4. The title of one of his treatises on the 'Christlichen Gemeinschaften', Von der Kirchen Mengel unnd Fdhl (BDS 17, pp. 156-95; for a later date, of summer-autumn 1546, see 29 Hammann 1984, pp. 431-3). Published in BDS 17. Cf. BDS 17, pp. 153-345 passim (e.g. pp. 182ff.); Bellardi 1934, p. 25; Hammann 1984, pp. 370-1.

140

Gottfried Hammann

collaboration with the pastor(s) in the direction of the 'community'. Finally, as the last item in thisfirstphase, the names of these 'elders' would be entered in a register. The second phase would observe the following sequence. The pastor, the group's 'elders' and the public community's Kirchenpfleger summoned one by one the members present at the first gathering, or went to visit them at home. They interviewed each one and his family concerning doctrine, the sacraments, Christian behaviour and repentance. After this, if the member was ready to make a further commitment in such a community, he would do so by means of the right hand of fellowship with the pastor and the other representatives present, and he would be entered in a register as a member of the 'Christliche Gemeinschaft'. The description of this procedure for creating these small communities should allow us to perceive more clearly the ecclesiological motifs underlying the experiment. By reviewing the Buceran emphases already analysed in the different 'notes' of the church - the inner unity sought by the church, the places of community where it found expression, the holiness to which it bore witness and the apostolic faithfulness it attested - we can now observe how the writings relating to the 'Gemeinschaften' bear out these ecclesiological aspirations dear to the Reformer. Inner unity

As we have previously shown, this was a burning issue, especially as a result of the resurgence of Anabaptist assemblies. The Strasbourg church's ecclesial unity was threatened more by internal dissensions than by its still barely self-conscious separation from the traditional church. Internal separatist tensions hung like an ever-present danger over the town's political situation. The creation of groups and other gatherings which, despite all Bucer's protestations, could easily be likened to the separatist ventures of the Anabaptists and other sectarians, exposed him to insidious criticisms charging him with a share of responsibility for the fragmentation of Strasbourg's church community. Bucer was very sensitive to such accusations, to the extent that he drew up a list of them in his writings on the 'Gemeinschaften'.31 Voices quickly made themselves heard saying that these little groups would divide the inhabitants of the town into good and bad Christians, the former regarding themselves as superior and passing judgement on the latter. The dangers of division and disorder would increase, since there would be two kinds of community, the big parishes for the majority and the small professing communities. Bucer tried to fend off criticisms. In creating the small communities he 31

Cf. BDS 17, pp. 189-95, 279-90, 322^0.

The creation of the 'Christlichen Gemeinschaften'

141

was careful to associate with them the Kirchenpfleger, i.e. the elders of the main parishes nominated by the civil authority. 32 They had to be present at meetings, take part in visits to examine people with a view to admission as members, and retained sole disciplinary authority over parishioners who did not belong to a 'Gemeinschaft'. 33 Yet allegations circulated unabated. Bucer was forced on the defensive against the complaint that he had himself become sectarian. The sects, he replied, were divisive because they were bent on separating themselves from others. The 'Gemeinschaften', by contrast, confessed the church's official doctrine, preached at Strasbourg these many years past, and their explicit purpose was to re-establish unity from within around this doctrine, which was so dangerously threatened by the various sects rampant in the city.34 The accusations did not die down. Bucer emphasized that the small communities aimed specifically to advance unity among all Christians, and Sunday worship would bring them all together. The Reformer and his colleagues never sought separate diets of worship in the 'Gemeinschaften'. On the other hand, the parochial Lord's Supper should be the very expression of this internal unity - and hence the need to meet for it frequently in a 'true' Christian community. 35 Holiness The preoccupation with holiness - the unceasing progress which Bucer dreamed of for his church - presents the most insistent motif in the creation of the 'Gemeinschaften'. They were to be an important institutional staging post on the path of sanctification. They would be a catalyst for the whole majority community, which without such professing groups had shown itself incapable of progressing towards greater holiness. The 'Gemeinschaften' were thus assigned the mission of stimulating the whole parish to better practice of the Christian life, which Bucer summarized as: hearing the gospel, observing the sacraments, receiving absolution, accepting excommunication and by one's example encouraging a better pattern of religious ceremonies and exercises.36 More concretely, it was a matter of acknowledging one's sinfulness and confessing it more fully, forming 'one soul, one body 32 34

35

Cf. ibid., pp. 184^5, 296, 338. " Cf. ibid., pp. 193, 2 5 3 ^ , 281, 339. Cf. ibid., pp. 191-2, for example: 'Es hatt der widerteuffer vnd ein jede andere sect drey furneme malzeichen . . . Die dritte, das sie dann auch vffgeblasen besser vnd heiliger sein wollen vnd derhalben alle andere, so nit ires sins, glaubens vnd verstands sein wollen, verdammen vnd sich von jhnen als von befleckten vnd unreinen absundern, dadurch dann der kirchen einigkeit zerrutung folgett . . . So wirt diss vnser furhaben nit allein kein absunderung mitt sich bringen, dadurch die einigkeit der kirchen mochte zerreut werden, sonder ist noch wol on alien zweiuel eben das mittel, durch welches die kirch wider zu ruh vnd einigkeit komen mag, die doch sonst bisser so jemmerlich mitt mancherley secten als widerteuffern, Papisten vnd sonst Epicureischen leuthen zertrennet worden ist.' 36 Cf. ibid., p. 249. Ibid., p. 163.

142

Gottfried Hammann

and one heart' with all the other members of the 'Gemeinschaft', attending Sunday worship regularly, participating often in the Lord's Supper, sharing one's substance generously with others, having one's children baptized, watching over the Christian nurture of one's children and all the household, accepting brotherly admonition and, if need be, excommunication.37 It was the last point that was to make the little communities suspect, provoke the categorical opposition of the magistracy and cause the rejection of the experiment by some of the Strasbourg preachers. They scented an attempt to reintroduce a form of 'papist' clericalism into the newly reformed church. Bucer continued none the less to bewail the disordered and anarchical state of the Strasbourg church.38 All the disciplinary measures taken by the civil authority failed to satisfy his demands for repentance on the part of the Strasbourgers and he envisaged in the small communities the zealous practice of private confession, declaring confession in public worship insufficient.39 The 'Gemeinschaften' should revive this exercise of the power of the keys, alongside the disciplinary power of the temporal authority,40 and thus be the ecclesial place for this practice whose neglect had had such catastrophic consequences for the town.41 Apostolicity

By means of the 'Christlichen Gemeinschaften', Bucer planned finally to render the church of Strasbourg more faithful to the primitive and ancient churches. By such faithfulness, the parishes of the town must demonstrate the authentic continuity between themselves and the community faith of apostolic times. It is accordingly not surprising to encounter in the writings about the 'Gemeinschaften' innumerable allusions and references to the earliest days of the church.42 In specifying how the small communities would function, the Reformer sought ever closer conformity to the pattern of the organization and life of the apostolic communities, as described in the New Testament Acts and Epistles. He reckoned that without these community forms Strasbourg's Christianity would never be faithful to this ecclesial tradition and its members' sanctification would never fulfil the Decalogue.43 Not only confession of the same doctrine, but also demonstration of the same practice must attest this apostolic faithfulness - hence, for example, the insistence on the sharing of goods on the model of the communities 37 38 40 42

This listing is presented ibid., pp. 249-51. 39 'Ein sudlerey vnd confusion'!, ibid., p. 179. Cf. ibid., pp. 171-8. 41 Ibid., pp. 159, 162ff. Ibid., pp. 103-7. This is not the place to provide an inventory, but cf., for example, BDS 17, p. 249: 'wie dan von der ersten kurchen [sic] vns das vorbild ist furgestellet'. Hammann 1984 develops this 43 theme at length, passim. Cf. BDS 17, pp. 186-7.

The creation of the 'Christlichen Gemeinschaften'

143

described in Acts 2 and 4.44 These texts - classical in all the church's avowed doctrine - feature in these years among the favourite citations of our Reformer. Repeated references to the primitive communities demonstrate the increasingly emphatic importance accorded by Bucer to institutional forms and practices, which, as much as the doctrine professed, must attest the apostolic faithfulness and continuity of the church. In conclusion The present study has attempted to highlight from the context of Bucer's last years of activity in Strasbourg the motifs which determined his ecclesiological programme. It has brought out the twofold aspect of this programme and above all its marks or 'notes'. Behind the attempt at the 'Christlichen Gemeinschaften', no less before than during their creation and brief existence - for they scarcely survived Bucer's departure in April 1549 - we can discern his increasingly intense preoccupations with the inner unity of the Strasbourg church, the holiness of its members and its faithfulness to the apostolic model. The 'Gemeinschaften' were accordingly to be the ecclesial place (one could say a place of catholicity) of this local church. In that way the experiment of these small professing communities attests Bucer's concern for a church that fulfilled the demands of the four 'notes' defined by the ancient church - unity, holiness, apostolicity, in catholicity. At the very moment when Strasbourg's situation was verging on the critical, when Charles V was imposing the Interim on the city, threatening it with the imperial ban, and when the experiment of the 'Christlichen Gemeinschaften' bordered on active resistance, 45 Bucer expounded his ecclesiology for the last time on Strasbourg soil, in his 'Brief Summary of Christian Doctrine' of 1548. Once again he defined the 'true' Christian church according to the same criteria and references: Christ our Lord and Head, by his constant teaching and discipline, builds up [the members of his body], strengthens and advances them throughout their lives in his faith, trust, hope, love and holiness, until they come to a perfect faith and to his stature. . . . This building up of the new life in himself he effects through all his members without exception, knitting them together and joining them to himself as members of one body by the various articulations of his calling, and by gifts which enable them to impart to each other the power and the works of their Head . . . He urges them to come together in person whenever possible, to teach, guide, comfort and admonish one another with one mind, by means of the word of God and the holy sacraments, and by prayer and the discipline of the Lord.46 44 46

Ibid., pp. 249-50,262-4. For confirmation of the importance of this theme, reference to the 45 biblical index in BDS 17 will suffice. Cf. Bellardi 1934, pp. 76ff. BDS 17, p. 131-2; translated, Wright 1972, pp. 82-3.

12

Martin Bucer in England Basil Hall

Sir John Cheke, the tutor of the young Edward VI, wrote in 1551 to Peter Martyr at Oxford on the death and funeral of Bucer: We are deprived of a leader than whom the whole world would scarcely obtain a greater, whether in knowledge of true religion or in integrity and innocence of life, or in thirst for study of the most holy things, or in exhausting labour in advancing piety, or in authority and fulness of teaching, or in anything that is praiseworthy and renowned.1 This view was shared by Archbishop Cranmer, who in some ways resembled Bucer in temperament as well as in holding similar reforming aims. He had written to Bucer on 2 October 1548, inviting him to come to work in England where 'the seeds of true doctrine have been sown', since he had learned of 'the miserable condition of Germany' where Bucer could 'scarcely preside in the ministry of the Word' at Strasbourg. 2 Cranmer's information and judgement were sound. Bucer had established a distinguished career as a theologian, ecclesiastical administrator and reconciler of conflicting views on doctrine. Regrettably, this activity in reconciliation at the Colloquy of Regensburg had led to his being unfairly suspect to many as too supple in negotiation and too indefinite in doctrine, so that he seemed to be subordinating fundamental truth to political expediency. This assumption about him was shown to be wrong when, after enduring severe pressure and house arrest at the Diet of Augsburg and agreeing to certain terms in 1548, he stood against the Interim at Strasbourg and the capitulation of its Council after further restrictive terms were added which would destroy all he had struggled for. His life was now in danger from Charles V.3 This traumatic experience led him to be more determined on maintaining Protestant theological truths, more strongly concerned about the nature and practices of the church, and more sharply opposed to ceremonies which concerned 'exterior worship' only, favouring instead worship based on the Word of God and also a purified tradition which emphasized personal reformation of life within a society morally 1 2

TA, prefatory 'Iudicia Doctissimorum . ..' (f. /? rv). Cheke was knighted in October 1551. 3 Cox 1846, pp. 423^4. Kroon and Lienhard 1980, pp. 298ff.

144

Martin Bucer in England

145

committed to the government and care of its members. He gave all his declining energy to these ends during his brief life in England from 24 April 1549 to 28 February 1551.4 Why did Bucer accept Granmer's invitation to England, rather than one of the invitations from Melanchthon and from Basel, Geneva, Poland and elsewhere? No doubt he came to England because he would feel safer there from the revenge of the Emperor; at his age he would fear to face the renewal of controversy if he stayed in German lands. Moreover, he had known prominent Englishmen for some years; he had also addressed to Bishop Edward Fox his view of the Lord's Supper in the preface to his own commentary on the Gospels of 1536, and he had dedicated the preface to his commentary on Romans to Archbishop Cranmer in the same year. He had approved of Bishop Stephen Gardiner's De Vera Obedientia (True Obedience', 1535), though later he came into controversy with him about the Colloquy of Regensburg and on justification.5 He had eminent friends in England who knew his writings, some of which had already appeared in English, and who were keeping him informed of the progress of the Reformation in England. Of all the foreign divines who came to England at Cranmer's invitation in consequence of the upheaval of the imposed Interim, Bucer was the most outstanding. He had participated in the establishing of Protestantism in Augsburg, Hesse, Constance, the attempted reform at Cologne and above all at Strasbourg; he had played a leading part in the Colloquies between Protestants and Catholics in 1540-1, and his writings as a biblical commentator, controversialist, theologian and instructor in piety were widely admired. John a Lasco from Poland had written nothing of note, although his renown as a nobleman, diplomat and Reformer at Emden was established; Peter Martyr, a friend of Bucer and former Augustinian abbot, had acquired a reputation as a patristic scholar and theologian; the remaining divines, Fagius and others, were competent but lesser men. Cambridge - university and town

Paul Fagius and Bucer made the dangerous journey to Dover in April 1549, and stayed with Cranmer for six months at Lambeth and at Croydon, where their efforts were first concentrated on beginning a translation of the 4

5

Several accounts of Bucer's period in England exist, of varying merit, including Harvey 1906 (useful not least for the accompanying documents), Hopf 1946 (and several thorough articles; the most useful), Vogt 1968 (does not add much), and Eells 1931 (too brief, but gives the essentials of Bucer's career). Janelle 1927. Bucer and two colleagues wrote a preface to Gardiner's book approving of his stand against the papacy's holding authority over national churches. They wrote against each other after the Regensburg Colloquy, and Gardiner developed an obsessional dislike of Bucer.

146

Basil Hall

Bible into Latin with explanations of the more difficult passages.6 By the end of the year Bucer was at Cambridge as Professor of Divinity at a salary three times larger than that of his predecessor. Though shrewd and well informed on many matters while at Cambridge, he did not know English. While he would be aware of the wide extent of Catholicism in England, did he realize how strong it could still be in potential rebellion - and was he aware of the existence of Lollardy and its consequences? The large circle of those whom he came to know would consider Lollardy as beneath his notice, but it could help in providing a bridge for some to welcome the biblicism of Zurich more readily than the theological patterns sought by Bucer. In this influential circle were civil servants like John Hales and Sir Thomas Smith, humanist scholars like Roger Ascham and John Cheke, and clergy like Edwin Sandys, Bucer's pupil John Bradford and Bishop Goodrich of Ely. In Cambridge University he met Matthew Parker and Walter Haddon, and among his other close associates there was Edmund Grindal. He wrote to the highly placed, including the Princess Elizabeth and the Secretary Cecil; and he was a guest at the house of the Duchess of Suffolk. Her friendship for him led Fagius to write in jest to Bucer's wife Wibrandis that she should hasten to England, since the Duchess was a widow.7 The Spanish ambassador reported hopefully to the Emperor that Bucer was ill and 'would not last long'. Bucer himself knew he was ageing and ill, as he showed in his oration on being appointed Doctor by the University (a private occasion without the usual ceremonial), describing himself as 'old, sick, useless, foreign'. (In his second sentence he had spoken of 'my poor body now sorely broken by illness'.)8 We know that he suffered from the stone and from ague, from indigestion through a strange diet lacking in vegetables, and from chest troubles caused by the damp winter cold of Cambridge. It was typical of Bucer that much of his oration on receiving the doctorate was given to expressing his doubt about the propriety of his receiving the honour. It appears that he had sought to refuse it not only from modesty (he had not previously held a university post or high academic honour), but also because the doctorate should be not so much a university distinction as essentially a calling to expound the Scriptures faithfully. His oration also betrayed his depression from loneliness and homesickness. He accepted the doctorate with some reluctance on the ground that it should be made effective in the university, and asserted that its dignity should be not for pride and pomp but rather for mortification of the flesh and renunciation of the world, so that true religion could be 6 7 8

Janelle 1928, pp. 162ff. For the work on the Bible at Lambeth and Croydon, see OL, vol. I, p. 334 (Fagius to Hubert, 7 May 1549). 'die Herzogin Suffoltzii will ihn haben; ist jetzt eine Wittfrau' (Harvey 1906, p. 42). TA,pp. 190,184. For his illnesses see his letter to the physician JohannEcht, Harvey 1906, p. 122.

Martin Bucer in England

147

brought to Christ's people and the divine Scriptures productively explained for the instruction of youth, health of bodies, justice and religion among the citizens. It was characteristic of Bucer to see Cambridge as a place where his function was to serve both town and university.9 Matthew Parker, Master of Bene't (Corpus Christi) College and Vice Chancellor, in his sermon at Bucer's funeral, recognized these attributes: I commend Doctor Martin Bucer whom for the synceritie and truthe of his doctrine grounded upon the suer foundation of the word of God, upon the confession of the Apostolike and Catholyke churche of Christ . . . [and for his] great pains and labours to expound, to be helpful, ever asking... to have our advise in the order of his labours . . . [we] his weyke disciples . . . He powdred his lessons with weighty exhortations to godly lyfe ... he was mervelouse in the moderation of our publicke disputacions in the common scholes and overmuche paynfull in attendyng upon them, tho his immoderate paines in the great rigour of the wynter... I feare was the cause of our untymely morning for him at this time . . . with quiet spirite he would rather teache the truthe than to contend with yong devines in vanitie of wordes . . . [He compiled] certeyne workes of grave importaunce . . . [he was] also busied in diligent preachyng of the Word of God. Parker added that 'tho Bucer knew not English', he strove to see that good English sermons were preached at the University Church so that sound doctrine should be given to the laity: the oft callyng for the provision of the pore was his charitable importunitie and counsayle... [he] had also a speciall eye or desier to the politique and Christen order of the hole Townshyp in the respect of the civyll societie and . . . order thereof. . . Verely he was an incomparable ornament.10 Here attention is drawn to the fact that Bucer's work in Cambridge was not confined to his university duties of presiding at formal disputations, lecturing and preaching, but was also concerned with poverty in the town and the needs of the civic community. Not only was communal welfare a dominant principle with him over the years: he may also have been dismayed by the contentions between university and town, which he had not known between academy and citizens at Strasbourg. What contribution Bucer made in this matter beyond the exhortatory is difficult to discover. 11 Before and after his arrival, there were incidents between aldermen, 9 10

II

TA, pp. 184-5, 186-7.

Howe we ought to take the death of the godly, a sermon made in Cambridge at the buriall of the noble clerck D. M. Bucer (London, 71551), sigs. E ii, E v, E iii. TA, pp. 892-8, contains the Latin version, which differs in a number of places from the English. Nicholas Carr described Parker's sermon as marked by 'singulari orationis varietate, maxima totius populi admiratione' {TA, p. 878). Nicholas Carr in a letter says that 'To this caring mind came the concern about polity and civil administration of the town that everything should be administered in it for the usefulness and preservation of the whole body.' Again: 'I doubted whether I should call him more of a prudent citizen than a learned scholar . . . attending the noisy concourse and the administration of the state ('reipublicae')' {TA, p. 888).

148

Basil Hall

townsmen and university authorities: alderman and burgesses refused to take an oath to the Vice Chancellor for the preservation of peace and good order. Certain citizens were near to sedition and showed 'unseemly and uncharitable facynge and crackyng of the vice chancellor', forcibly removed citizens put in the stocks and opposed the right of proctors to search the town for 'hores, bawdes and other suspect and vagabond persons' - and there were the regular riotous troubles at Stourbridge Fair.12 It would be of interest to discover, though this appears to be unlikely now, whether Bucer attempted to bring university and town together to resolve their acrimonious problems, and whether he made proposals for sound religious instruction in the town, other than his wish to have English sermons at times in the University Church. That his concern was known and may have had some real effect may be shown by the large attendance of mourning citizens at his funeral.13 Preaching, lecturing, disputing

Bucer believed in the significance of preaching. He was 'diligent in preaching the Word for the work of regeneration and sanctification in the hearers', said Parker. Again and again in lectures, conversations and letters to influential people, he urged the provision of effective preachers. His continued exhortation was in danger of being counter-productive with some people. Thomas Horton, an undergraduate of Pembroke College, complained to Dryander that 'Doctor Bucer cries incessantly now in daily lectures, now in frequent sermons, that we should practise penitence, discard the depraved customs of hypocritical religion, correct the abuses of feasts, be more frequent in having and hearing sermons, [and] constrain ourselves to some sort of discipline' - though Horton concluded that suddenly consciences were aroused and felt these blows.14 Parker's sermon refers more than once, and at length, to Bucer's death as God's judgement on Cambridge for its indifference to his example and exhortations. We should not think of Bucer as pedestrian in his sententious entreaties. He was deeply concerned about the inadequacy of commitment to religious duty at Cambridge, and all his life as a Reformer he had urged the need for the preaching of the Word through the power of the Holy Spirit for the sanctification of life. This was an aspect of his commitment to the doctrine of double justification (the remission of sins through faith and the 12 13

14

Lamb 1838, pp. 73ff. '. . . al the hole universitie, with the hole town bringing him to the grave, to the nombre of 3,000 persons', Nichols 1857, vol. II, p. 305. For Carr's vivid description of the thrusting crowds at the funeral, TA, p. 876. Hopf 1946, p. 21; Vogt 1966, p. 190, no. 424 (15 May 1550).

Martin Bucer in England

149

rewarding of good works by God recognising in us his own gifts), which he saw as necessary in order to persuade Christians not to rest content with justification by faith but to show its consequence fully in holiness of life. In January 1550 he began lecturing on Ephesians. He had already written a commentary on it in 1527, but his conceptions of the church, ministry and sacraments had widened and deepened since then. The prayer he made before his lectures has survived: Eternal God, most kindly Father, it is thy will that we should unite in thy name and hold godly assemblies and that also academies ('scholas') should exist among thine own by which should be preserved and set forth thy law and doctrine; to those of us assembled here in thy name grant thine aid so that whatever we say or do will serve to show forth thy glory and renew thy church, through thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ who lives and reigns in the unity of the Holy Spirit, for ever. Amen.15 Here characteristically Bucer unites the obligations of a university to promote moral obedience ('thy law') as well as to maintain sound doctrine, and thus help to renew the church. At the same period he was preaching on holy days a course of sermons on John 6. These sermons, like his lectures, roused two different kinds of opposition. From the time of his residence with Cranmer a group of Englishmen and Swiss students in England formed a powerful company of energetic promoters of Zurich theology and church practices, and feared and resented Bucer's influence with Cranmer. John Hooper, who had resided in both Strasbourg and Zurich and was to become Bishop of Gloucester, was the leading English promoter of the Swiss theology of Zwingli and Bullinger. He wrote to Bucer from Zurich on 19 June 1548, saying that the Ziirichers were friendly towards Bucer although they differed from his view of the eucharist, 'as I do myself, and added that, although Bucer had urged him not to write against Calvin, nevertheless 'his [Calvin's] commentaries on 1 Corinthians displeased me exceedingly'.16 Hooper was giving Bucer due warning not to differ from Zurich on the Lord's Supper. On 26 April 1549 he wrote to Bullinger from Antwerp that Bucer (whom he saw as a Lutheran) will 'leave no stone unturned to obtain a footing'; again on 25 June 1549 from London he told Bullinger that Bucer is with Cranmer 'like another Scipio and an inseparable companion'. 17 These letters and others from Hooper were in response to the watchful Bullinger urgently seeking to extend Zurich doctrine and practices to England. Bullinger wrote to the cloth merchant John Burcher: 'how is Bucer conducting himself in England, I beg you to let me know'.18 Burcher had written to him in May 1549 wishing that Bucer 'may not pervert' the 15 17

16 Pollet 1958-62, vol. I, pp. 257ff. OL, vol. I, pp. 44, 48. Ibid., pp. 61, 67. Scipio, presumably the Younger, because he was reactionary in opposing l8 the reforms of the Gracchi at Rome. TA, pp. 8 0 3 ^ .

150

Basil Hall

Archbishop or 'make him worse'. 19 By April 1550 this resentment had developed into the hope that, in the event of his death (Bucer was ill), 'England will be happy and more favoured than all other countries in having been delivered in the same year from two men of most pernicious talent' - Fagius and Bucer.20 On 8 June 1550 Burcher wrote of'the hireling Bucer . . . almost in his dotage which is the usual result of a wandering and inconstant mind'. 21 This group supporting Zurich was to conduct a bitter challenge, though not yet an open one, to Bucer's eucharistic beliefs. This will be discussed later, since the first open attack on Bucer came not from these Protestants but from Catholic supporters in Cambridge. A disputation was held in June 1550 before the royal visitors, when three Catholic Fellows, Thomas Sedgwick, Andrew Perne and John Young, challenged Bucer's assertions, given in lectures and sermons, on justification by faith, the sufficiency of Scripture and the possibility that the church could err. Bucer maintained the following propositions at this disputation, from June into August: first, the canonical books of Holy Scripture alone abundantly teach those who are regenerate all things which concern their salvation; secondly, there is no church on earth which does not err in manner of life as well as in faith; thirdly, we are so justified freely by God that whatever good works we appear to do before justification are indeed sin which provokes God's wrath against us, but once we are justified, we necessarily do good works. Bucer explained the meaning and purpose of these propositions and then proceeded to offer proofs. 22 In the light of what Bucer wrote on this disputation, Parker was warranted in speaking in his sermon of Bucer's 'synceritie and truth' in his doctrine grounded upon the 'suer foundation of the word of God [and] upon the confession of the Apostolike and Catholyke churche of Christ'. During the disputation Sedgwick used the saying of Augustine that he could not believe the gospel unless the church impressed it on him, rather than Scripture. Bucer replied that he held Augustine in deep reverence but not as one greater than God, and he accepted what he said, only if it was plainly stated in and demonstrated from Scripture. On the possibility of the church erring Sedgwick said he could never agree with Bucer 'because I believe what was, and always will be the true holy Catholic Church which cannot err'. Bucer replied that no passage in Scripture or in the holy Fathers states that 'any saints have ever been delivered from the possibility of sin or error'. 23 However, of the two Catholic opponents who participated, Young believed that he had achieved sufficient success. During Bucer's absence on 19 22 23

20 2I OL, vol II, p. 642. Ibid., p. 662. Ibid., p. 665. TA, pp. 712-80, Bucer's account of the disputation. Ibid., pp. 797-862, adds De Bonis Operibus, written September 1550, recording a disputation with Young. TA,pp.7\l (Augustine), 725 (inerrant church).

Martin Bucer in England

151

a visit to Peter Martyr at Oxford in July, Young began a course of lectures on 1 Timothy in which he attacked Bucer on justification by faith, 'ambitiously, clamorously and contentiously'. 24 On his return to Cambridge Bucer protested at the disturbance caused. After Young refused to discontinue the lectures, in order to quieten matters Bucer presented him with a written account of the disputation and asked that Young and Sedgwick add any further objections they might wish to make and Bucer would reply in writing. Bucer had written to Peter Martyr, who had replied on 6 September 1550 that a disputation would only prove to be an occasion for unfair dealings.25 Parker's own comment in the margin of this letter of Martyr was to approve of the warning to Bucer not to get involved with 'vainglorious braggarts' ('gloriosulis thrasonibus'). 26 After the affair Peter Martyr again wrote to Bucer, saying that in the event the papists had been discredited and Bucer had been shown to be successful.27 Bucer wrote to Grindal, Vice Master of Pembroke College, in some anxiety at this stage in August, urging that Bucer's papers on the affair should be presented to Bishop Ridley for his advice and counsel: in view of his episcopal office, and of the solicitude which he is peculiarly bound to show towards the university as its visitor, a Doctor, a Divine and the Praefect of your Hall . . . the cause of Christ and of his Church and of the University is at stake... For the adversaries are striving by wonderful artifices to lower the credit of my office, wherever they are able . . . for the living religion and doctrine of Christ is of very few - the elect.28 Bucer's references to episcopal office, the cause of Christ and the elect are characteristic of his concerns in this last period of his life, when his declining strength had been further weakened by his struggle and anxiety in the disputations. Supper-strife renewed Bucer had next to face more obstinate and relentless opponents in the Anglo-Zurich group, which sought to undermine his work from within the Protestant community. Bucer had accepted the Book of Common Prayer of 1549 on the Holy Communion, for he wrote to Nigri on 15 April 1550: Transubstantiation is not to be affirmed . . . at the Lord's Supper, a true exhibition of the Body and Blood of Christ is expressed in words exceedingly clear and weighty.' 29 On the contrary Hooper, the leading English Zuricher, wrote to Bullinger on 27 March 1550: 'I am so much offended with that book and that not without abundant reason that if it be 24 25 29

Bucer to a friend, 29 August 1550, cited in Gorham 1857, p. 164 n. (a). 26 27 28 Ibid., pp. 176ff. Ibid., p. 176 n. (g). Ibid., p. 180. TA, pp. 803-4. Gorham 1857, p. 143.

152

Basil Hall

not corrected, I neither can nor will communicate with the Church in the administration of the Supper.' 30 Trouble for Bucer was inevitable, not least because the Zurich group feared that their persistent effort to draw Cranmer into their position would fail through Bucer. Bucer felt in danger of being isolated when he found that Peter Martyr, in a disputation on the Lord's Supper at Oxford, seemed to be denying that the body and blood of Christ were given under the forms of bread and wine. He disliked Martyr's use of the word 'signify' since it was not scriptural and tended to give the impression that the bread and wine were empty signs.31 Bucer wrote that he had no desire to renew what he had endured through the long years of the strife on the Lord's Supper since 1524. He had been relieved, though not altogether, by the Zurich Consensus of May 1549 in which Bullinger and Calvin had found terms of agreement on this divisive subject. It regrettably proved possible for the Consensus to be tilted in a Zurich direction, so that Calvin later had to write a clarification of its intention, since Zwinglians like John a Lasco interpreted it in their own way.32 Bucer wrote to Calvin in August 1549, approving the making of the Consensus though he regretted that it did not sufficiently overcome the weaknesses of the Zurich position. He also complained that Hooper, in order to discredit him, had spread the report in England that he taught the Lutheran doctrine of the ubiquity of Christ's body, which he had never done. He added that Bullinger was writing to England to know how I have carried myself... As though it were right that Satan should be excited against me here . . . As though it were not enough for me at my age to be in exile from my country, cast out from my beloved Church, from my Academy, from the State (in which I have laboured somewhat by the grace of the Lord); excluded from my sweetest friends and brethren; living in a nation, humane and friendly I allow, but of whose language I am ignorant, to whose diet I am altogether unaccustomed, to whose manners I am unhabituated, in which I have no certain prospect of doing anything worth my labour.33 A sad lament; and now he had to face a bitter attack from younger, energetic men keen to discredit his teaching on the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. This controversy will be shown here focused on the activities of John a Lasco, that relentless Zwinglian who had already maintained fierce controversy on the subject in Europe and whose opposition to Bucer was now welcomed by the Anglo-Zurich group. 34 30 32

33 34

31 OL, vol. I, p. 79. Gorham 1857, p. 142. Kuyper 1866, vol. II, p. 646. In a letter to Bullinger from London, 7 January 1551, he refers to the Consensus, 'Nos hie eandem doctrinam sequimur, etiamsi aliis quandoque verbis illam exprimamus' - a crucial qualification. Gorham 1857, pp. 106-7. Hall 1990, pp. 199ff.; OL, vol. II, p. 572, Micronius to Bullinger, 13 October 1550.

Martin Bucer in England

153

Bucer had established his own view in his explanation of the Wittenberg Concord of 1536 (which had alienated Zurich): we fully teach and confess in our churches the true presence and presentation of Christ in the Supper, and condemn the belief that only bread and wine are present, and secondly, that this presence and presentation depend on the institution and command of the Lord, and not on the worthiness or unworthiness of men. This is accompanied by the view that whoever receives the bread in faith, as Christ instituted it, is clothed with Christ and incorporated with him: Christ acts on us here powerfully through the Holy Spirit in the church's koinonia.35 From this conception of the presence, together with his conception of the unity and bond of love in the brethren (the koinonia), Bucer did not retreat. In 1545 at Strasbourg he regarded the Zurich position as asserting 'nothing beyond bread and wine, signs that commemorate but do not present the absent Christ'. 36 While Bucer worked to put the weight of emphasis in the Lord's Supper on communion with the whole Christ as the bond of loving unity and fellowship, he had to face the Ziirichers' controversial emphasis on denying that Christ was locally present with the bread and the wine. In June 1550 a Strasbourg pastor, Martin Faber, now in England at Bucer's request, wrote that on a visit to John a Lasco at Lambeth he saw some notes by him on a disputation between Bullinger and Calvin on the effect and use of the sacraments, one of which read: 'that nothing is given or conferred on anyone by sacraments, but that they are only symbols of the thing previously given and received, since from eternity God has elected his own by his covenant . . . nor does he allow that the word of God, or his sacraments, are means of working by the efficacy of God'. Faber, and Peter Alexander who was present, remonstrated with a Lasco, 'a grave and pious man, although I do not receive or approve of his opinion; nor was I instructed in that doctrine, either in the church of Wittenberg or in yours, the judgements of which I acknowledge to be correct'. 37 Bucer had already corresponded with a Lasco in a long letter of 16 April 1545, in which he showed the marked differences between himself and the Pole. 38 Regrettably a Lasco was more of an organizer and promoter of church discipline and morals than a theologian, and he failed to see the essential differences here a fact to be borne in mind in view of what followed.39 In September 1550 a Lasco visited Bucer at Cambridge and discussed doctrinal matters with him. They agreed on most things but not 'on the corporal presence'. 40 35 36 39 40

For the Wittenberg Concord, see Wright 1972, pp. 355ff. Hopf 1947, p. 68, 'nihil quam panem & vinum absentis Christi signa memorativa non etiam 37 38 exhibitiva'. Gorham 1857, p. 149. Hopf 1947. Hall 1990; Kuyper 1866, vol. II, pp. 590-1, for a Lasco misconceiving the differences. Ibid., p. 648.

154

Basil Hall

Bucer afterwards composed a statement which he sent to a Lasco, who wrote annotations on it 'strongly confuting Bucer's view' and sent these on to Cranmer to influence him against Bucer's views.41 The Anglo-Swiss group were writing to each other and Bullinger about these matters, believing a Lasco to be in the ascendant. Shortly before he died Bucer was preparing a full reply to a Lasco which remained unfinished; it was heard of, but not seen, by a Lasco, who called it 'a treatise on the sacraments'.42 To avoid repeating what had earlier failed to persuade a Lasco on the nature of the presence, Bucer began from the origin and purpose of the sacraments and showed baptism and the Lord's Supper as sensible ('sensibus deferentur') signs to which corporal benefits are attached; for a sacrament unites signs and mysteries by which Christ is conveyed to us.43 As in baptism there is the efficacious sign of regeneration, and in the imposition of hands (confirmation) the heavenly blessing is conveyed, so, he would have inferred (for the treatise did not reach completion with the Lord's Supper), Christ is conveyed as a mystery and efficacious sign in the eucharist. A similar effort to break away from the confrontation of arguments about absence and presence and to give a larger dimension occurs in Bucer's unfinished lectures on Ephesians. He did not capitulate to the Zurich views; he was uneasy with Martyr's exposition, alarmed at the danger latent in the Zurich Consensus, and courteous yet firm in refusing to accept a Lasco's simplification.44 In this last treatise on the sacraments and in his lectures on Ephesians Bucer showed an increased emphasis on the nature and function of the ministry, not least in the administration of the sacraments.45 Christ's kingdom in England

Bucer's last book, The Kingdom of Christ (De Regno Christi), though directed at an English problem, was not conceived on his arriving here. He had been working out patterns concerning the relationship of the church to the social order for many years; it was the English situation which focused them. As a New Year's gift for King Edward he produced a ground plan for the application of Christian ethics to the political, economic and social life of the country. Its theme was: 'The Kingdom of Christ consists not in word but in power' ('Regnum Dei non in sermone consistit, sed in virtute').46 41 43 44 45 46

42 Ibid., p. 654; a Lasco's annotations do not survive. Pollet 1958-62, vol. I, pp. 28Iff. Ibid., p. 284. Bucer here follows his practice in controversy of courteously using his opponent's terms in opposing him. TA, pp. 530ff. (Ephesians); Gorham 1857, pp. 99ff, Bucer's letter to Calvin of August 1549 criticizing the Consensus. TA, pp. 531 ('et sacram eucharistiam celebrant'), 566; Pollet 1958-62, vol. I, pp. 2 8 5 , 2 8 6 , 2 9 0 . BOL XV, p. 52. Bucer cited 1 Corinthians 4:20 in his own Latin version.

Martin Bucer in England

155

Fifteen years before, he had written that theology does not rest in theory but in practical consequences. Its goal is action; its basic command is love shown in loving-kindness and care for one's neighbours. The state, in his view, is an enterprise of citizens seeking a common good, and therefore its government must support the church and true religion. His book was accordingly written for the leaders in the government, the King and Council. England was still in part affected by old papal and medieval patterns of ecclesiastical administration and social method. Bucer proposed a thorough restoration of the church to its biblical and apostolic pattern, so that its dedicated pastors would advise the leaders in the state and urge the fulfilment of an effective Christian social order. His concern for the poor was emphasized in Parker's funeral sermon, but as long ago as 1523 Bucer had written the treatise 'That No One Should Live for Himself but for Others, and How to Attain to this Ideal', of which the theme was that each should, out of love for his neighbour, 'be of service to him in matters both of the spirit and the body . . . the obligation rests above all on those who are to promote public usefulness both spiritual and secular'.47 In De Regno Christi II:xiv he stated that care for the needy poor must be undertaken, for 'without it there can be no true communion of saints'. Therefore, 'all the churches must have their own deacons', who in the ancient church were associated with the ministry of the Word and sacraments, men of good report, full of the Holy Spirit and of wisdom. 48 A deacon's first duty is to distinguish between deserving and undeserving poor, the former to have careful examination of their needs and the latter to be constrained to useful lives; and he is also to care for needy widows. His second duty is to keep accounts after collecting money for parishioners to relieve the poor, and the parishes are to establish 'the poor men's chest' for this purpose. Bucer insists that almsgiving is not to be left to caprice but organized. Poverty must be respected and not patronized or treated disdainfully.49 This area was regarded by Bucer as an aspect of church discipline which he, unlike Calvin, added to the preaching of the Word and administration of the sacraments as a third nota of the church. The degree to which it may be claimed that Bucer's suggestions influenced the enduring Elizabethan Poor Law may well be less than Constantin Hopf supposed.50 Moreover, De Regno Christi contained proposals which made the English uneasy and were unacceptable to most. He conceived marriage, for example, as a social contract for mutual help, not a sacrament, and therefore divorce was permissible. While this was 47 48 49

BDS l, p. 59. BOL XV, pp. 143, 88. For Bucer, as for the Anglican Ordinal, the deacon is an ordained member of the threefold ministry, to whom Bucer gives specific duties in poor relief. 50 BOL XV, p. 89. Hopf 1946, pp. 116ff.

156

Basil Hall

liberal for the time (too liberal for the English Church), on the other hand Bucer demanded the death penalty for adultery. The reason was that he believed the authority for so many of his proposals must be based on scriptural command; all legislation is to be derived from Scripture, not least from the Mosaic code of law, though he could illustrate his precepts from the Roman civil law. Once again he was more rigid than Calvin, who believed that sixteenth-century states could not be simplistically instructed on all matters by Moses. Bucer's friend Jacob Sturm, a leading magistrate and diplomat at Strasbourg, had already objected to reading off from the Old Testament the method of governing contemporary Strasbourg. Further, the humanists' dream of Utopia or a Platonic republic were expressing theory, not reality.51 Bucer's humanist commitment, and his attempt to use the Old Testament for all aspects of society, led him astray from social reality. Bucer also offended English conservative attitudes in allowing the taking of interest on loans, even though in De Regno Christi he urged merchants to work for the improvement of society and not for personal gain by using money to obtain interest - 'and such a poisonous interest'. He had stated earlier, in a Cambridge disputation with Young in 1550 (which had arisen because of his view of the legitimacy of interest at a reasonable rate, stated in his lectures on Ephesians), that for commercial ends the levying of interest on loans was allowable with due care against 'biting usury', although here he breached Old Testament demands. He wrote a reply to Young in his De Usuris, showing his own emphasis on the Golden Rule of Matthew 7:12.52 After his death Andrew Perne, another Cambridge opponent, accused Bucer of promoting the sin of usury condemned in Scripture and canon law - to which Bucer could have replied that what does not wholly contradict Scripture can be allowable. Besides his warning to merchants, Bucer also gave positive views and suggestions for improving English industries and trade, for advances in agriculture and for the provision of new schools and improvement in educational methods and commitment. It has been argued that this treatise, De Regno Christi, shows Bucer's association with what were called the Commonwealth men of Edwardine England, and that he used their proposals in his work.53 This is certainly true, but it should not be taken to mean that they and Bucer were right, and that therefore he influenced social and economic developments. From the time of Thomas Cromwell political reform had gone along with reform in religion, and the men who had helped in the administration of the nation under and after Cromwell had already begun reform in educational and 51

BOL XV, pp. xxxix-xl.

s2

TA, pp. 789-96.

53

BOL XV, p. lxii.

Martin Bucer in England

157

economic structures before the economic crisis of 1545 and the consequent inflation. De Regno Christi was respected, but its theories and proposals were undermined by English pragmatism. Sir Thomas Smith, who knew Bucer, wrote a Discourse of the Commonweal of this Realm of England, in which he showed himself doubtful of the possibility of changing human nature. He preferred attempting to understand economic realities, and how to make things work, to looking for help to the Mosaic code and other biblical directives in organizing a better social order - or following the economically disastrous views of John Hales, one of Bucer's probable consultants. 54 What Bucer's work did provide was a fresh and vigorous challenge to the English state on the reform and remodelling of the church, together with a useful account of the principles for the relation of this reformed church with the Christian state in which King Edward would protect the church as it trained the people in the ethics of love and service. Like King David, he should hold the sword, but also provide a reasonable autonomy for the church. De Regno Christi was hastily prepared, using some old materials - sometimes disproportionately to the presentation - in a way that lacked clarity of means and failed to allow for the realities of politics; it was fluid but imprecise. After the death of Edward Bucer's master plan for reforms in church and state faded. Its only marked influence seems to have been on the essay written by 'the young Josiah', A Discourse on the Reformation of Abuses, since this records the same abuses Bucer had noted and follows his aims for improvement in education, better administration of the laws, the provision of clergy and the rest.55 Apart from what Bucer wrote on divorce, it is difficult to detect a formal influence of De Regno Christi on political and ecclesiastical administration. There is no clear verbal connection with it in later English writers. In his copy of the book, Edmund Grindal underlined Bucer's words on the nature and purpose of the episcopal ministry and its conduct, but it is difficult if not impossible to find the influence of Bucer's themes in his writings.56 This appears to be also true of the work of his short-lived martyr-pupil John Bradford and of others who knew him.57 The theological as well as the political world of Elizabeth's reign had changed in emphasis: Bullinger and Beza, for example, achieved greater notice. 54 56

57

55 Elton 1977, pp. 318-27. Nichols 1857, vol. II, pp. 474ff., 486. Collinson 1979, p. 56. Collinson affirms that Bucer influenced Grindal, but the only positive evidence is Grindal's underlining Bucer's views of the episcopal office. What page in Grindal's writings can be shown to have a close connection with any of Bucer's, apart from Grindal's agreeing with Bucer's objection to excessive bell-ringing, though without naming him (Nicholson 1843, p. 160)? Apart from Bradford's translating passages from Bucer in his study of the restoration of all things, there is no clear demonstrable relationship between Bucer's writings and those of Bradford.

158

Basil Hall

Furthermore, neither Elizabeth nor her secretary Burghley would put themselves to school to the De Regno Christi, or the rest of the Scripta Anglicana.58 Bucer's influence

However, Bucer's writings and advice did have a clear influence on some church matters during his stay in England. He wrote down late in 1550 his views on the demolition of altars, on which Parker preached in Cambridge; and when Bishop Ridley drew up at this period six 'Reasons why the Lord's Board should rather be after the form of a Table than an altar', his points closely resembled some of those made by Bucer. Bucer emphasized that altars were for sacrifices and that 'Antichrist' had misused them to commend the mass as a renewed sacrificing of Christ. A table is more desirable because it represents the fruition of Christ's sacrifice who invites us to communicate there. 59 Again, when John Hooper refused to wear the required vestments at his forthcoming consecration as Bishop of Gloucester, Bucer wrote to him in November 1550 agreeing with him on the confusion caused to the laity by the use of vestments. Nevertheless, he rejected Hooper's view that vestments had been contaminated by 'Antichrist', characteristically declaring that vestments could be seen as 'creatures of God' and therefore Scripture regarded them as good in themselves and did not forbid their use. The church, he added, is at liberty to order them for the decent administration of the mysteries, and the Word and the Spirit cleanse what 'Antichrist' has contaminated. 60 Hooper rejected these arguments, but they assisted Cranmer in opposing him and were to be published later, in 1566, in support of the bishops in the vestments controversy.61 Bucer's contribution to the revision of the Book of Common Prayer of 1549 has often been discussed. He had been invited by Bishop Goodrich of Ely to offer his views on the book. By 5 January 1551 he had presented them to Goodrich, who may have sent them to Cranmer.62 Bucer made about fifty-eight points, of which nearly half were accepted by the revisers who 58

60 61

62

Thomas Sampson wrote to Cecil in 1573 seeking to use De Regno Christi to persuade Cecil that those who opposed vestments, and were seeking further reform of the church, found support from Bucer (see Strype 1824, vol. II, p. 392) - but this is too partisan and 59 generalized a version of Bucer's opinions. Gorham 1857, pp. 207ff. Ibid., pp. 200ff., TA, p. 705. Whether it be Mortall Sinne . . . The Resolution ofD. Martin Bucer, and D. Peter Martyr, concernyng thapparrel of Ministers . . . (London [1566]) - see Wright 1972, p. 468; Bucer to Cranmer, TA, p. 681. Cuming 1982, p. 73 assumes this, but that ms. is not in Bucer's holograph: the printed text in TA was addressed to Cranmer and derived from a third ms.

Martin Bucer in England

159

prepared the Book of 1552.63 Several descriptions of the details of his critique (Censura) exist and there is no need to provide them again here, other than to note that he occasionally raised fundamental points of doctrine. For example, at baptism there should be no suggestion that a special virtue could be conveyed to the water of the font (also, he objected to the wording that 'Christ's baptism sanctified Jordan'); again, the sick should not be anointed and the accompanying prayer should be removed. He saw both of these matters as unscriptural: in these instances, the revisers retained the words on Christ's baptism but rejected the act and prayer of anointing.64 It is interesting that Bucer approved of the use of the sign of the cross at baptism, which was later to be opposed by the Puritans. This is one of several factors which refute the view that Bucer's doctrine and practice assisted the rise of Puritanism. He was more 'Anglican' than many Edwardine churchmen. 65 It is regrettable that the revisers of the Prayer Book did not give more attention to Bucer's long section on the eucharist in his Censura. It was important in showing him strongly opposed to the Anglo-Swiss party, especially in urging the retention of the words 'may worthily receive the most precious body and bloude of thy sonne Jesus Christe' in the post-communion prayer. He was ignored in this. Moreover, he made no proposal for changing the sequence of the canon. 66 However, his influence is undoubtedly strong, through his earlier Simplex ac Pia Deliberatio {Simple and Religious Consideration), on the Orders of Baptism and Holy Communion of 1549, in part retained in 1552.67 Again, another earlier work 'On Restoring Lawful Ordination' {De Ordinatione Legitima) had a clear effect on the Ordinal attached to the Book of Common Prayer, and his De Vi et Usu Sacri Ministerii ('On The Significance and Practice of the Sacred Ministry') continued to echo in the defence of the threefold ministry.68 A glimpse has survived of the personal life of Bucer at Cambridge in the Formula Vivendi Prescripta Familiae Suae, the domestic regimen he laid down for his household, dating from the summer of 1550. In this he gave 63 65

66 67

68

It should be clear that Cranmer and other revisers would themselves have thought of some 64 of the points made by Bucer. Whitaker 1974, pp. 88, 124^5. Lang 1941. Collinson 1979, p. 54, gives a description of aspects of Bucer's teaching which he sees as an anticipation of Puritanism, but it could apply equally to the Swiss divines and, save for election perhaps, even more to a Lasco. Moreover, the Elizabethan bishops had no difficulty in citing Bucer against the Puritans. Whitaker 1974, pp. 64 and, for the sign of the cross, 90. Procter and Frere 1901, pp. 488-9, 570; Cuming 1982, p. 60. Hopf 1946, pp. 205-28, demonstrated the use of Bucer's Latin version of the Psalter, from the Hebrew, in English versions which also employed his introductions to individual Psalms. (See also the essay by Gerald Hobbs in this volume.) Procter and Frere 1901, pp. 662 and elsewhere; Brightman 1921, vol. II, p. 930.

160

Basil Hall

instructions to two students, Martin Brem and a certain William, who acted as his secretaries and in effect also as valets, while following his guidance in their own studies. Both must rise at 4 a.m. and after prayers prepare and light the two large German stoves imported for Bucer, keep the register of his correspondence, teach the four girls of the family, clean Bucer's clothes and boots, say the table prayers and wait on guests, and also attend to the domestic requirements demanded by the formidable Frau Wibrandis. Their major task, however, was to decipher and copy Bucer's manuscripts. In all this they had to follow the clock ('clepsamum'), establish the hours when work was to be done and report the times to Bucer.69 This intense concentration on obedience to the duty of hard work, not only for himself but for his secretaries, shows how it was possible for this ill and ageing scholar in a foreign land, not knowing the language, to achieve as much as he did in the months of life that were left to him. In the prefatory letter to his translation of Bucer's Gratulatio ad Ecclesiam Anglicanam of 1549, Sir Thomas Hoby wrote of Bucer as 'a man who is of no less wisdom, knowledge and godliness, then of fame, reporte and renoune, and be by all godly mens iudgementes one of the perfectest and greatest Clerkes no we lyvinge'. Many other Englishmen had cause to echo such praise at Bucer's death. 70 69 70

Wendel 1954. Here we learn that there were two stoves; it has long been assumed that only one was provided when King Edward gave Bucer a grant for this purpose. Hopf 1946, p. 203.

13

Martin Bucer and the Englishing of the Psalms: pseudonymity in the service of early English Protestant piety Gerald Hobbs

The evolution of the English Bible is a complicated story. If not without its heroic figures like William Tyndale and steady workmen like Miles Coverdale, it is more typically the tale of a number of relatively obscure personages working alone or in committee in a process of translation and revision that spanned the better part of a century until the appearance in 1611 of the so-called Authorized Version. 1 To this story Martin Bucer of Strasbourg made some contribution, in particular in the earliest period of English Protestantism,2 when portions of his 1529 Latin Psalms commentary were twice put into English, by George Joye and again by John Rogers, in a series of pseudonymous publications during 1529-37. Joye has been the subject of an excellent study by C. C. Butterworth and A. G. Chester, and the first edition of his Psalter of David is available in reprint; 3 while Rogers's translations of Bucer were observed with considerable documentation by Constantin Hopf.4 This essay will examine the way in which both Joye and Rogers used the work of the Strasbourg Reformer, within the context of the originality of Bucer's own exegetical endeavour. There were not lacking persons in England who were stirred by Erasmus' clarion summons in the 1515 Paraclesis to give the Christian laity of Europe access to the philosophy of Christ in their own tongue: 'I wold to god the plowman wold singe a texte of the scripture at his plowbeme, And that the wever at his lowme with this wold drive away the tediousnes of tyme.' 5 But English conditions differed from those on the continent. Study of the biblical languages, well launched in Rhenish, Iberian and Italian centres where printers were producing grammars and dictionaries as well as 1 2 3 5

For an overview with bibliography, see Greenslade 1963. On this period see Clebsch 1964; Dickens 1989, chs. 4-6; Cottret 1981. 4 Butterworth and Chester 1962; Duffield 1971. Hopf 1946, ch. 6. From the preface to Erasmus' Novum Instrumentum, the New Testament in Greek accompanied by his own Latin translation (Basel, 1516), as translated by William Roy in 1529, quoted in Clebsch 1964, p. 235.

161

162

Gerald Hobbs

editions of the sacred texts,6 lagged considerably in England, being at a relatively early stage for Greek and still less advanced in the case of Hebrew and Aramaic. Thus in contrast with Germany, Switzerland and France, the impulse to the publication of a vernacular translation of the Scriptures, accentuated by the spread of evangelical doctrine, found few native English scholars well equipped for the task. A second serious impediment was posed by the effective censorship of all English biblical translation. As on the continent, vernacular Scriptures had since the condemnation of the Waldensians been associated with popular anticlerical movements tainted with heresy. The 1408 Oxford statutes of Archbishop Arundel required prior episcopal approval for the circulation of any such translation. While directed at Lollardy, these still gave teeth a century later to the opposition of conservative ecclesiastics to any vernacular Bible project. Strict oversight of the output of London's printers was evidently effective; the first clandestine portions of Scripture were printed there only in 1534, by which time the evolving religious policy of Henry VIII seemed to have removed most of the risk from the enterprise. A decade earlier, having failed to obtain episcopal blessing for such a project, William Tyndale had gone to the continent and there in 1525-6 issued his English New Testament. He was joined in the various cities where he laboured by others of similar conviction, William Roy (who contributed significantly to the New Testament itself before quitting Tyndale's company), and for various periods Miles Coverdale, John Frith, George Joye and John Rogers. With the New Testament circulating, albeit clandestinely, in his native land thanks to the regular commercial contacts between the Low Countries and England, Tyndale turned to the more challenging task, the Old Testament. Having studied some Hebrew, Tyndale himself published translations of the Pentateuch in 1530 (with some aid from Coverdale) as well as Jonah, and worked on the historical books. It would seem plausible that George Joye took responsibility, initially at least, for the Psalter and the major prophets, although no record of a formal division of labour has survived. George Joye

Joye was a native of Bedfordshire, who had become infected with the new evangelical doctrines while a student at Christ's College and fellow of Peterhouse, Cambridge. When convoked with two other suspected Cambridge evangelicals to appear before Cardinal Wolsey in November 1527, Joye instead made his way into exile on the continent. His whereabouts until mid-1529 are uncertain. The fondness he subsequently manifested for the 6

The best survey of the sixteenth-century biblical renaissance is the comprehensive volume edited by Guy Bedouelle and Bernard Roussel 1989, esp. pp. 1-282.

Bucer and the Englishing of the Psalms

163

work of Bucer and Zwingli, and the false Strasbourg colophons on his earliest publications, have led some to presume a Strasbourg sojourn. Whatever the truth of this, his biographers conclude that by summer 1529 he was in Antwerp and in contact with Tyndale. 7 It was in any event from the Antwerp presses of Martin de Keyser that Joye's first extant publications appeared early in 1530. The first of these, the Psalter of David, was a tiny volume of 240 leaves in black-letter type, with some redlining on title page, colophon and the titles and running headlines.8 Its title page announced it to have been 'purely ad faithfully traslated aftir the texte of ffeline: every Psalme havynge his argument before/ declarynge brefly thentente & substance of the wholl Psalme'. The brief preface on the verso was entitled: 'Johan Aleph greteth the Englishe nacion'. The colophon read: 'Emprinted at Argentine in the yeare of oure lorde 1530. the 16.daye of January by me Francis foxe. Praise ye the lorde.' It is universally agreed that this colophon, employing the latinate name for Strasbourg, was a mask for the work of Martin de Keyser of Antwerp. Nor is there any longer need to rehearse the evidence demonstrating that Johan Aleph was in fact Joye. This was apparently only the first of a number of pseudonyms that George Joye would employ during his career as clandestine evangelical propagandist. In his dispute with Tyndale in 1534-5 over Joye's edition of the former's New Testament, Tyndale would accuse him of regularly playing 'boo pepe' with the work of others.9 In this instance, the other, as the title page obscurely intimated, was Martin Bucer, whose extensive Latin commentary on the Psalms, the Sacrorum Psalmorum Libri Quinque, had appeared just the preceding autumn under the pseudonym Aretius Felinus of Lyons, though the colophon correctly identified its provenance as Argentoratum or Strasbourg.10 Joye also made use of the Bucer Psalms in one, almost certainly two, other publications of the same period. In 1530 there appeared a volume comparable in size and appearance to the Psalter of David, without indication of author but with a similar Strasbourg colophon, and bearing the title Ortulus Animae. The garden of the soule: or the englisshe primers Here, too, Butterworth has established that the printer was de Keyser of Antwerp and the author Joye.*! His volume, which survives in a single copy in the British Library, is the first known example of an English version of what was a common type of anthology of private devotion for the laity in the late middle ages. This Primer (as the numerous subsequent editions 7 8 9 10 11

Butterworth and Chester 1962, pp. 47-50. STC, no. 2370; cf. Butterworth and Chester 1962, pp. 54-60, as well as the reprint by Duffield 1971. Hereafter the Psalter will be cited as PD. See 'Willyam Tindale / yet once more to the christen reader' in Arber 1882. The first volume of the critical edition of this commentary will shortly appear in BOL. Butterworth 1953, chs. 3-4; cf. White 1951.

164

Gerald Hobbs

came to be called) contained a variety of pious texts, some of distinctly Lutheran provenance, a liturgical calendar, and principally, texts for Matins, Lauds, Evensong, Compline and the offices of the Hours. Bucer's place in this little Primer of lay piety was twofold. A harmony of the Saviour's passion has been identified as a translation of that found in Bucer's Latin commentary on John, published in Strasbourg in spring 1528.12 The larger contribution came in the form of thirty-nine Psalms, scattered throughout the several offices as well as the seven penitential Psalms and the commendation (Psalm 119). The title page also announced the Psalms of the passion (Psalms 22-31:5), but these were apparently inadvertently omitted until later editions.13 There is reason to believe, moreover, that this was not Joye's first effort at a primer. The title page of the Ortulus refers to itself as 'newe corrected and augmented' thereby to undo the harm done to both reader and author by a previous printer (unnamed). This, and contemporary references in pursuits against heresy in England to an 'English primer' at the very beginning of 1530, have led Butterworth to posit afirstJoye primer in the autumn of 1529. Inasmuch as we know the Bucer Psalms to have been available only days before the Frankfurt autumn book fair,14 it would seem likely that Joyefirstprepared his now lost primer, translating from Bucer's text the Psalms it required. Then after its completion he carried on, rendering into English the remaining two-thirds of the Psalms, with the January Psalter of David as the result. As for the revisions suggested by the title page of the Ortulus, there are minor differences between the text of some of the Psalms in it, and the text in the Psalter ofDavid. They appear to be nothing more than the beginning of a revision of his work which Joye soon abandoned. Thus from Martin Bucer, incognito and indirectly, came thefirstprinted Psalms in the English language, and in a format which not only made them as easy to conceal as to transport, but also in forms which encouraged their use by the laity, assuming they could read. That they did meet such a response is indicated by new editions. The Psalter was twice reprinted over the next decade: in London by Thomas Godfray in 1534 or early 1535, and again by Edward Whitchurch about 1541, each edition claiming privilege.15 The Primer was re-edited numerous times from 1534 12

13 14 15

Hope [ = Hopf] 1951. Only the passion narrative was in the Joye Ortulus; the resurrection portion was added in the Godfray 1534 edition of the Primer, whether by Joye or another who was privy to the source: see Butterworth 1953, pp. 76-7. Bucer's text: BOLII, pp. 489f. Butterworth 1953, Appendix II, lists the actual Psalms present in the various different Primers to appear over the next decade. The colophon of the Bucer text is dated September 1529. In a letter to Zwingli on 6 August, Bucer states that he hopes shortly to be finished; Z X, pp. 245-6. STC, nos. 2371, 2374. The former survives only in a single copy in Cambridge University Library. To the copies of the latter listed in STC, add a copy in St Paul's Cathedral Library. One of the British Library copies bears notes in the hand of Henry VIII.

Bucer and the Englishing of the Psalms

165

on by various printers; for at least a half-dozen of these, the Bucer-Joye version furnished the text of the Psalms. 16 Bucer on the Psalms

Why the Bucer Psalms? Joye, unlike Tyndale, had little or no Hebrew, despite his praise of the 'Hebrue verite' in the preface to the Psalter. Accordingly, like others of the English Old Testament translators - notably Coverdale - Joye was attracted to the new translations being produced by various evangelical biblical scholars. Outside Wittenberg, the main centre of activity was in the Upper Rhineland cities of Basel, Zurich and Strasbourg. There a group of humanist-minded Reformers were engaged in biblical exegesis and publication of such intensity, distinctiveness and commonalty that we may appropriately speak of an Upper Rhineland 'school of the prophets'.17 Active as a teacher of Scripture from his first days in Strasbourg in 1523, Martin Bucer played a key role in defining the school and disseminating its results. In 1524-5 he lectured publicly on the Psalter, while preparing, under the title Psalter Wol Verteutscht (The Psalter Faithfully Translated into German'), a German commentary on Luther's new translation of the Psalms. After two years that saw commentaries on the Synoptics, John and Ephesians, Bucer turned in the late spring of 1528 to the Old Testament prophet Zephaniah, determined to forge a distinctive path in the interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Throughout the winter of 1528-9 Bucer lectured on the Psalter, completing his largest opus yet just in time, as has been said, for the September fair in Frankfurt. In several respects he broke new ground. The only evangelical to have undertaken a full commentary on the Psalter so far - for Conrad Pellican's Psalterium of 1527 was nothing more than an emended and glossed Vulgate - was Johannes Bugenhagen, whose In Librum Psalmorum Interpretatio (1524) was chiefly distinguished by its consistent presentation of the Psalter in a Lutheran perspective. Bugenhagen, who knew little Hebrew, had reprinted a slightly corrected version of the Vulgate (the so-called Gallican Psalter) as his biblical text. Bucer, on the other hand, was a student of Hebrew of significant ability, as the event would show, with the firm conviction that the Massoretic text of the Hebrew was of the utmost reliability, in contrast with the abysmal state of transmission of the Greek Septuagint. He also held strong views on the appropriate manner of biblical translation, which ought to render the sense 16

17

One of these, William Marshall's A Goodly Prymer (1535), was reprinted with modern spellings in Burton 1834. The Psalms are as they were in the Ortulus, with the addition (from PD) of the missing Psalms of the passion. Bedouelle and Roussel 1989, pp. 215-33; Roussel and Hobbs 1989.

166

Gerald Hobbs

of the original, not its letter, into as fine a translation as an interpreter confident of the guidance of the Spirit could make.18 The result, in an in-quarto volume of about 400 leaves, was an impressive advance in Psalms interpretation by Christians. After a programmatic preface in which he expounded his operating principles, Bucer introduced each psalm with a resume of its general interpretation, an 'argumentum'. There followed a new Latin translation of the Hebrew text, very free and periphrastic in relation to the Hebrew original. This last was read and understood with the aid of the latest philological tools available from the printers Froben in Basel and Bomberg in Venice. In particular, to the scandal of Christians like Luther, Bucer regularly read the commentaries of the medieval rabbinic masters Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra and David Kimhi, for the comprehension of difficult texts. Explicit references to their opinions were found on virtually every page of his commentary justifying the new translation. Not that Bucer intended to surrender the Christian sense of the Psalms! Rather he would give priority to the genuine historical setting of the text as he could best determine it with the aid of the rabbis; for understood typologically, this history found its complete fulfilment in the true David, the Christ, and at the same time, was real history filled with lessons of warning and encouragement for every generation of God's people.19 The decision to issue this volume under the pseudonym Aretius Felinus which, he explained to Zwingli, represented his names in Greek and Latin was more than a humanist's whim. Bucer had been deeply embroiled in the eucharistic controversy amongst evangelicals. He was determined not to foreclose any potential readership of this distinctive new interpretation by its association with one side of the party strife. He was of course also aware that in certain regions of Europe, possession of books bearing his name was prima facie evidence of heresy. In the event, the ruse was a mixed success, for Erasmus fulminated against it in his attack a few months later on the 'so-called evangelicals' of Strasbourg. On the other hand, the commentary sold widely in solidly Catholic lands as well as amongst evangelicals. In 1532 Bucer issued a revised and enlarged edition, and two further printings occurred in 1547 and 1554. We cannot say with any certainty that George Joye visited Strasbourg, though it is tempting to situate him amongst Bucer's listeners, a participant at the Psalms lectures or prophesying held in the chancel of St Thomas' Church that winter of 1528-9. What evidence we do have for Joye's whereabouts that year is circumstantial. The Strasbourg colophons prove nothing; Joye's subsequent false colophons trace a journey throughout Europe from Geneva to Emden by way of Zurich and Leipzig which, if not 18 19

For a more detailed discussion of Bucer's views on these matters, see Hobbs 1984a. Hobbs 1984b.

Bucer and the Englishing of the Psalms

167

impossible, is at least undocumented. Other English evangelicals were in Strasbourg at the time, notably Roy and Jerome Barlow, who did publish pamphlets there with Schott, including their scurrilous assault upon Wolsey.20 What is indisputable, however, is Joye's familiarity with the Bucer Psalms as well as with some of the principal currents of his thought; as we shall now see, the Psalter of David is more than a simple straightforward rendering of Bucer's new Latin version into colloquial English. Joye's use of Bucer

The one-page preface in the name of Johan Aleph is worth reprinting at this juncture: Be glad in ye lorde (dere brothern) & geve him thankes: which nowe at ye laste/ of his merciable goodnes hath sente ye his Psalter in Englishe/ faithfully & purely translated which ye may not mesure and Juge aftir the come texte. For the trowth of ye Psalmes muste be fetched more nyghe ye Ebrue verite/ in the which tonge David/ with the other singers of ye Psalmesfirstesunge them. Let ye gostly lerned in ye holy tonge be juges. It is ye spirituall man (saith Paule) which hath the spirit of god yt muste decerne & juge all thynges. And ye men quietly sittynge (if the truth be shewed them) muste juge and stand up and speke (the firste interpreter holdynge his pease) god geve ye true spirituall & quiete sittynge juges. Amen.

Several themes here echo Bucer. Joye's attachment to the Hebrew truth, as the biblical text in that tongue had been called for centuries, could only be realized, as we have seen, through the intermediary of others. Their faithful translation was, however, more than an advertisement for the book's trustworthiness. This claim evokes Bucer's defence of his 'somewhat freer translation'21 in his preface, where he rebuts the accusation that to depart from word-for-word renderings (such as were practised by contemporaries like Felix Pratensis in his 1515 Venice Psalterium or Bucer's Basel colleague Johannes Oecolampadius in his 1525 Isaiah) is to cease to be a faithful interpreter. It makes no sense, he wrote, to render what ought to be understood by everyone (an echo of Erasmus) in such a way that it is incomprehensible to anyone; better toriskbringing something of the devout translator's own thought into the version than to leave it so unclear that almost anything can be deduced from it by readers lacking in understanding of the Hebrew context. This was likewise, be it noted, the point of view of Luther and of Zwingli - making Moses speak like a good German, as the former put it - although neither carried the interpreter's liberty to the extent practised by Bucer. In another parallel to Bucer's 20 21

Clebsch 1964, pp. 229-36. 'Versio paulo liberior aliis': Sacrorum Psalmorum Libri Quinque, sigs. 5v-6v.

168

Gerald Hobbs

preface, the latter part of Joye's preface is an allusion to Paul's instructions for the conduct of worship in 1 Corinthians 14. Clebsch noted that this confined judgement on the translation's merits to Hebrew scholars. While, as Roussel has observed, there was in the Upper Rhineland school a tendency to a new hierarchy of knowledge, Joye is also evoking here the principle of the judgement of the entire community as its members are led by the Spirit.22 Is his prayer for 'true spirituall and quiete sittynge juges' also an allusion to the English bishops? Finally Joye asserts the multiple authorship of the Psalter, a Buceran starting point that was far from universally accepted by his contemporaries. The Buceran character of Joye's preface to his Psalter is a foretaste of things to come. Butterworth and Chester as well as Hopf have commented on the distinctive characteristics of Joye as translator, his provincialisms as well as his latinate expressions, his tendency to verbosity and the evident signs of haste where revision would have served the reader better. Our interest here is in the extent and manner in which Joye presented Bucer to English readers. In the first place, the Psalter is more than the text of the Psalms itself. To each Psalm is prefaced an 'argument', corresponding in general to the Buceran model noted earlier. Here Bucer frequently identified the historical setting of the Psalm's composition, as the key to its understanding. A number of these settings are denoted in an introduction or title within the canonical text (e.g. at Psalms 3 and 51); others were the result of speculation by rabbinic commentators or even by Bucer himself, elaborated in the opening paragraph of the commentary on the Psalm. Joye as a rule reproduced these indicators where they were incorporated within the Bucer 'argumentum'. Thus at Psalm 79 he speaks 'of the calamite & wretchednes done to Hierusalem of Antioch', by which he means Antiochus IV Epiphanes, to whose oppression in the time of the Maccabees Bucer assigned this text. Joye also on occasion drew supportive material from the commentary, in particular adding a reference to the location of the incident in the Old Testament histories - not always without confusion, it should be added, as when at Psalm 7 he supported Bucer's identification of 'Cush' as Saul, but then advised: 'Rede thistory in the seconde of ye kynges, the 16 cap.', a reference to the story of Shimei in 2 Samuel 16 which he gleaned probably from Bugenhagen!23 He was prepared to accept Bucer's rejection of the traditional Christological reading in favour of a creation interpretation for Psalms 8 and 19. On the other hand, he could abbreviate a lengthy Bucer introduction (e.g. Psalm 78), as well as expand it (Psalm 1) or even abandon Bucer's text altogether for an argument of his own making, 22 23

Clebsch 1964, p. 213; Bedouelle and Roussel 1989, p. 218; Hobbs 1985, pp. 165-6. See also at Psalm 57, where Bugenhagen, not Bucer, furnishes the biblical references.

Bucer and the Englishing of the Psalms

169

though with materials drawn from within Bucer's commentary (e.g. Psalms 16, 24). Mention has been made of the 'historical' titles found at the head of the Hebrew text. These were but one element of several that could occur within these titles found on all but a handful of Psalms. Again reading the rabbis, David Kimhi in particular, Bucer rejected Christian allegorizing of most of these terms, indicating that they were most probably indicators for the musical accompaniment of the text in the Jewish temple, terms whose meaning was no longer accessible. Most he simply left as transliterations. In the case of the very frequent Imnsh he saw a reference to the chief cantor and translated 'praesuli'. The term slh found at intervals throughout the Psalter was another musical term indicating the raising of the voice at a pause, and inviting the reader likewise to pause and meditate the sense of the foregoing; it was transliterated 'Selah'. Both these proposals came from Kimhi. Joye's handling of these was inconsistent. He transliterated 'Selah', and appended a note to Psalm 3 (where it first occurs) taken from Bucer's preface. Almost all the other transliterations were however explained instead, sometimes by their traditional Christian sense, sometimes with Bucer as 'upon an instrument'; the few exceptions seem to be due to his careless haste. The handling of Imnsh is apparently without rhyme or reason. In one third of the cases I examined, he omitted it altogether; in nearly half he rendered it, like Bucer, with variations on 'to the chefe chaunter', and in the remainder he mistook it for another word, or, early in the Psalter, translated it, like a number of Bucer's contemporaries, 'for his victory'! As for the Psalms text proper, Joye agreed wholeheartedly with Bucer's principles of translation. As he later wrote in his Apologye: one of them... toke upon him to teche me how I shuld translat the scripturis/ where I shuld geve worde for worde/ and when I shulde make scholias/ notes/ and gloses in the mergent as himself and hys master [i.e. Tyndale] doith. But in good faithe as for me I had as lief put the trwthe in the text as in the margent... I wolde the scripture were so puerly and playnly translated that it neded nether note/ glose nor scholia/ so that the reder might once swimme without a corke.24 Putting the truth into the text meant that Joye not only followed Bucer's paraphrastic rendering without hesitation in most instances; he also felt the same freedom to paraphrase Bucer, to abandon Bucer's rendering for another (usually a more traditional) one, or to bring materials from the commentary and introduce them into the translation. Let a few examples of what occurs on every page suffice for this essay. Several authors have noted 24

Joye, Apology, ed. in Arber 1882, p. 23. The saying in the final sentence is a proverb also used by Zwingli in the preface to his Isaiah (1529), where however it refers to the eventual ability of his readers to dispense altogether with translations. Joye is perhaps more realistic.

170

Gerald Hobbs

that Joye, not Coverdale, originated the famous 'bugges' or evil spirits, as in 'Thou shalt not nede to be afrayede of nyght bugges' (Psalm 91:5), a peculiarity that persisted until the Great Bible. This was not Bucer's rendering, however; it came from Joye's hasty reading of his commentary on the following verse, where the idea that the enemies named in Psalm 91:6 are demons was cited from midrashic sources. 25 Where Bucer glossed a Hebrew metaphor that he judged too harsh for European ears, Joye sometimes kept the more literal form. For example in Psalm 2:12, Joye gave 'Kisse ye ye sonne/ leste (he being wrathe) yower lyfe perishe for his anger shal be shortly kyndled'. This was close to Bucer, save for the opening verb, where Bucer preferred to render the metaphor for submission as 'Dedite se', 'give yourselves'. Here too it was Bucer's commentary, not the familiar Vulgate 'learn discipline', which inspired Joye. Another characteristic Joye rendering is Psalm 4:4: 'I wold ye knewe it/ that the lorde hath set aparte & chosen unto hym his saynte'. The opening clause is a paraphrase of Bucer's 'Agnoscite', 'Know ye'; the parallel verbs in italic combine Bucer's rendering and its gloss in the commentary; while the final 'his saynte' is the familiar Vulgate rendering, where Bucer had 'this good man'. Working too hastily, perhaps, Joye sometimes misunderstood his Bucer. As Hopf observed, had he read Bucer's note on Psalm 19:6, which refers the sense of his 'ex umbraculo suo' to the contemporary Jewish wedding canopy, his rendering 'this sonne cometh forth of his cloudes lyke a bridegrome' might have been different.26 Later in the same Psalm (v. 10) he translated 'ye pleasures of the lorde are true', where one expects 'judgements', apparently misreading 'iudicia' as 'iucunda'. 27 Haste too will account for his incorporating Bucer's marginalia at Psalm 14:5-6 into the text. One of Bucer's more radical departures from tradition in 1529 involved his proposal for a new rendering of the divine tetragrammaton, the YHWH, as 'Autophyis', the one who exists of himself. Joye evidently found this too much and used in its place 'the Lord'. He knew his public better than Bucer did his, as it turned out; for in the 1532 edition of his Psalms, Bucer admitted having been overcome by his critics, and introduced instead the form 'Jehovah'! But Joye was nonetheless influenced somewhat by Bucer's argument. The Hebrew expression conventionally rendered 'Hallelujah' occurs a number of times, beginning at the end of Psalm 104; its presence denotes for example the Hallel collections in the synagogue liturgies. Bucer regularly translated it 'Laudate EXISTENTEM'. At Psalm 106:1 (the first time 25

26 27

All Psalms references are to the Hebrew numbering. Bucer's versio read: 'Non pavebis ab eo quod exterret nocte.' Note that all Bucer quotations are from the 1529 edition, that used of course by Joye; the 1532 edition and its reprints differ frequently. Hopf 1946, p. 231, was unaware of the 1532 revision, which led him to confuse the relationship of Bucer and Olivetan. Hopf 1946, p. 222. The sort of visual error that apparently also led to the amusing 'nether hath he plesure in the trompetes of men' ('tubis' for 'tibiis'): Ps. 147:10, noted by Butterworth and Chester 1962, p. 59.

Bucer and the Englishing of the Psalms

171

it occurs at the beginning of a Psalm), Joye treated it as the Psalm title, translating and glossing thus: 'LOAVE YE THE LORDE/ which hath is beynge of himselve and all worther creatures have their beynge of hym\ The source of this gloss is Bucer's remarks on 'Autophyis' in the preface. Being George Joye he was inconsistent thereafter, sometimes rendering by 'Prayse' and occasionally overlooking it altogether. This is however the reason for this somewhat unusual expression which Butterworth and Chester noted at the conclusion of Psalm 150.28 Perhaps because of his quarrel with Tyndale, George Joye has not been an attractive figure to most historians, although Clebsch has argued convincingly that Joye deserves better than the grudging recognition he customarily receives at best.29 Having chosen to do his popularizing work on the basis of the primary labours of evangelical scholars like Bucer and Zwingli, he seems to have worked conscientiously, if rapidly, on his sources. Certainly in the debate with Tyndale he displayed a wide range of reading, and on the whole got the better of the arguments.30 To the reproach of hastiness and lack of careful revision he would probably have justified himself by the quantity of work he was able to accomplish, by the number of contributions he made to the work of evangelical propaganda. John Rogers

The second of Bucer's translators, John Rogers, enters into our picture about the time when Joye's little books were being reprinted in London. Rogers, also educated at Cambridge, arrived in Antwerp apparently innocent of his future work. It was his conversion by Tyndale to Protestantism which enlisted him as collaborator in the preparation of a full Bible. Utilizing those parts of the Old Testament translated by Tyndale (whether published or not), together with the work of Coverdale for the remainder, Rogers had his work published by Grafton and Whitchurch in 1537, under the pseudonym Thomas Matthews. The attempt to prove that Rogers was not the force behind this Bible has not met with critical acceptance.31 Rogers is said to have been a good linguist, but careful studies of the 28

29

30

31

I agree with Butterworth and Chester's reading (1962, p. 56) against that of Duffield (1971, pp. 11-12): see the characters used in 'PRAISED BE THE LORDE FOREVER' at the conclusion of Ps. 89. Clebsch 1964, pp. 226-8; compare Greenslade 1963, p. 147: 'Joye was no great scholar and possessed no nicety of taste, but he is an interesting minorfigurein the story of the English Bible.' Butterworth and Chester 1962, p. 16, suggest he might have fared better with posterity had he met a martyr's death. Joye drew his treatment of Ps. 1:5 into the debate; besides Bucer (and his use of Kimhi) he cited Melanchthon, Conrad Pellican, Zwingli, Johannes Campensis, Bullinger and Westhemer: Apology, ed. Arber 1882, pp. 10-11. Bedouelle and Roussel 1989, pp. 373-4.

172

Gerald Hobbs

Matthews Bible have demonstrated its fundamental character as a revision of existing versions, rather than a new translation. His contribution to the Psalms, which are our particular interest, consisted then first of such revisions as he brought to the translation of Miles Coverdale (published in 1535, perhaps in Cologne), and secondly, the frequent marginalia which are characteristic of this Bible. Working in Antwerp, Rogers had at his disposal the library Tyndale had amassed, and in the half-dozen years since Joye had translated Bucer, the number of available sources for such a labour had increased significantly. Almost a century ago, the recent French Bibles of Lefevre d'Etaples (Antwerp, 1534) and Pierre Robert Olivetan (Neuchatel, 1535) were identified as the major source for marginal notes in the Psalms;32 and in 1946 Hopf demonstrated dependency on Bucer as well. How did this second of Bucer's pseudonymous English popularizers serve the original? In the first place, despite the fact that Bucer had issued an expanded second edition, Rogers worked from the 1529 edition, perhaps the same copy from which Joye had translated. He will certainly have had the latter's Psalter of David as well; and found Bucer likewise amply present in the pages of Olivetan.33 Rogers introduced into the Psalter the Hebrew system of numbering used by both Bucer and Olivetan, but he did not have to borrow it from them. What is unmistakably Bucer is the addition of an explanatory paragraph before each Psalm; these find their origin, as Hopf observed, in Bucer's 'argumenta'. They are not, however, simply borrowed from Joye's version. Rather Rogers seems, to judge from a comparison of all three texts, to have 'corrected' Joye in a more literal direction on the basis of Bucer's original. We have seen that as translator Joye took full liberty. Rogers was obviously uncomfortable with such paraphrase, and in all cases began again with Bucer. But enough of Joye remains to make it certain that he was being read: for example, at Psalm 4: David sheweth the goodnes of god/ and his helpe brought to hym whilis his sonne Absalon conjured ageiste hym/ he reproveth the madnes/ of the nobles of Israhel cospiryng ageinste hym: and calleth the to repentace . . . (Joye) David prayseth the benyvolence & the ready healpe towarde hym in the conspirasy of Absalom. He reproveth the madnes of the heades and rulers of Israel that conspyred agaynst hym & calleth the agayne to amendement . . . (Rogers)34 Rogers's translations of Bucer tended to sacrifice grace for the sake of literal accuracy. Their English often suffers from too close an adherence to 32 34

Westcott 1905, pp. 71, 177, 336-^2. " Bedouelle and Roussel 1989, p. 165. Bucer: 'David benevolentiam erga se Dei ac praesens auxilium sibi in coniuratione Abeshalom latum praedicat, procerum Iisraelis contra se conspirantium dementiam arguit, eosque ad resipiscentiam revocat...' Hopf 1946, Appendix IV, pp. 245-9 gives a series of parallels, though in his left column he confusingly mingles Joye and Bucer.

Bucer and the Englishing of the Psalms

173

the syntax of Bucer's Latin. Further, although more painstaking than Joye, Rogers was less skilful; on several occasions (e.g. at Psalms 2, 3) he missed altogether the sense of Bucer's admittedly complicated syntax. The only alteration he seems to have introduced is the abbreviation of longer texts by the omission of some of the subordinate clauses extraneous to the central argument. His use of Joye is again attested by the presence, after these arguments, of the same references to the biblical narrative that Joye had inserted in his version. 35 Coverdale had not included the Psalm titles in his Bible. Rogers added these to the text, and here too he has some indebtedness to Bucer. Bucer's 'praesuli' is Rogers's T o the Chaunter', while the so-called musical indicators which Bucer transliterated appear in similar fashion in Rogers. Thus, for example, at Psalm 6 where Joye gave 'The songe of David for his victory played of the ten [! apparently an error for 'eight'] strynged instrument', Rogers had 'To the Chaunter by Negynoth upon Sheminith/ a Psalme of David'. But this is Bucer by way of Olive tan, as the precise form of the transliterations makes evident. His note on 'Selah' at Psalm 3:3 is from Bucer with an addition from Olivetan. In the frequent marginalia are to be found numerous notes borrowed from Bucer alongside those from Olivetan and Lefevre. I have also found several notes taken from Johannes Bugenhagen. Given that Tyndale seems to have been associated with him during his Hamburg stay, this should probably not surprise us. It is generally stated that Rogers made very few changes to Coverdale's text; my sampling of several dozen texts confirms this finding. At Psalm 4:7 Coverdale had read 'whereas thou (o LORDE) hast shewed us the light of yy countenance'. Here Rogers introduced a long marginal note from Bucer, and - which is highly usual - emended Coverdale correspondingly to read, 'Lorde, lyft up upon us the lyght of thy countenaunce'. 36 Another feature to note is the recurring 'Hallelu-jah' in the Hallel psalms. Coverdale had given 'Halleluya'. Rogers altered this to 'Prayse the everlastynge', a noble rendering as Westcott termed it, 37 and one linked to Bucer's 'Laudate EXISTENTEM', but borrowed most immediately from Olivetan's 'Louez Leternel'. The Buceran legacy Over forty years ago, in Martin Bucer and the English Reformation, Constantin Hopf claimed a significant place for Bucer in the story of the English Bible and the Psalms in particular. Does this study substantiate that claim? In one sense, the answer is negative. A tracing across the English 35 36

Including the incorrect one Joye supplied at Psalm 7! Bucer, Sacrorum Psalmorum Libri Quinque, sig. 38rv.

37

Westcott 1905, p. 177.

174

Gerald Hobbs

versions from the Joye Psalter to the 1611 Authorized Version of some forty-odd passages where Bucer's rendering broke new ground shows very few instances where the latter inherited a form attributable to Bucer. One of the few, as it turns out, is Psalm 4:7, where Matthews's revision from Bucer remained that of all subsequent translations, except of course the Douai-Rheims, which depended upon the Vulgate. Another is Psalm 1:5, 'the ungodly shall not stand in the judgement', which figured in the Joye-Tyndale quarrel. This conclusion is similar to the findings of Butterworth and Chester respecting the limited legacy of Joye's Psalter?* As for Rogers's work, when Richard Taverner revised the Matthews Bible and Coverdale did the same to produce the Great Bible (both in 1539), marginalia as well as thematic introductions disappeared. In another sense, Bucer did set in place a number of elements that, as the century advanced, became constants of Psalms interpretation in English Protestantism for some generations: the multiple authorship of the Psalter, the valuing of rabbinic commentaries for the understanding of the Hebrew original, the quest for the historical moment of composition, typological interpretation with direct application to the life of the contemporary faithful, the treatment of the Psalm titles. Yet it would be historically simplistic to credit Bucer with their paternity. By the 1540s a host of exegetes, having likewise read Kimhi, had espoused similar points of view in print. It is safer, and accurate, to state that Bucer set a new course in 1529 which made immediate impact upon the English world thanks to the work of Joye and Rogers, as well as the circulation of his own commentary in Latin, all of them (as we have seen) pseudonymously. Within a decade other exegetes would be more influential, but the fundamental direction was the same. There was one important exception, for Bucer's brief for the freedom of the inspired interpreter was emphatically rejected by subsequent translators and revisers of the English Psalms. His paraphrastic translation, captured in the spirit if not the letter of Joye, was too radical a departure from the traditional sacred text for the English. Indeed, Joye himself abandoned Bucer in 1534 to produce a new David's Psalter from the 1532 Latin of Zwingli!39 Yet the numerous editions of the Joye Psalter and various Primers are indicative of another sphere of influence. So readily available in small format, Bucer's Psalms, whatever their long-term fate, played a significant role in the crucial forming of lay piety for thefirstgeneration of English Protestants. And this reception of the sacred text, its enshrining at the centre of English popular religion, stands with Cranmer's prayer books 38 39

They speak of a 'slender claim', Butterworth and Chester 1962, pp. 58-9. Zwingli preferred the Greek Septuagint to the Hebrew; his renderings, however free, were therefore closer in intent to the traditional Vulgate.

Bucer and the Englishing of the Psalms

175

as the most enduring heritage of the sixteenth-century English Reformation. Set alongside this, Bucer knew the contingency of all particular translations. As Joye wrote in an echo of Bucer's Psalms preface: In the chirch of god as there be many and dyverse membres/ so have they many and sondry giftes... And I doute not but there be/ and shal come aftir us/ that canne and shall correcke our workes and translations in many places and make them miche more perfayt and better for the reader to understande/ and shulde we therfore brawll and wryte agenst them . .. ? god forbyde/ but rather thanke them and geve place as Paule teacheth. I Corinth, xiiij.40 40

Joye, Apology, ed. Arber 1882, p. 29; Bucer, Sacrorum Psalmorum Libri Quinque, sig. 4rv.

Bibliography

(For Bucer's works, see Abbreviations and separate index.) Abray, L. J. 1985, The People's Reformation. Magistrates, Clergy and Commons in Strasbourg, 1500-1598 (Ithaca, NY). Anrich, G. 1928, Strassburg und die Calvinische Kirchenverfassung (Tubingen). Arber, E. 1882 (ed.), George Joye. An Apology Made by George Joy... (Birmingham). Augustijn, C. 1967, De godsdienstgesprekken tussen rooms-katholieken en protestanten van 1538 tot 1541 (Haarlem). Backus, I. 1981, Martin Borrhaus (Bibliotheca Dissidentium II; Baden-Baden). Balan, P. 1884, Monumenta Reformationis Lutheranae (Regensburg). Battenberg, F. 1983, 'Judenordnungen in der fruhen Neuzeit in Hessen', in Neunhundert Jahre Geschichte der Juden in Hessen (Wiesbaden), pp. 83-122. Bedouelle, G. and Roussel, B. 1989 (eds.), Le Temps des Reformes et la Bible {Bible de Tous Les Temps V, Paris). Bellardi, W. 1934, Die Geschichte der 'Christlichen Gemeinschaften' in Strassburg (1546-50). Der Verzuch einer 'zweiter Reformation' (Leipzig). Bizer, E. 1972, Studien zur Geschichte des Abendmahlsstreites im 16. Jahrhundert (Darmstadt, 3rd edn.). Bonorand, C. 1962, 'Jacobus Bedrot', Jahrbuch des Vorarlberger Landesmuseumsvereins, pp. 75-113. Bornert, R. 1981, La Reforme protestante du culte a Strasbourg au XVIe siecle (Leiden). Brady, Jr., T. A. 1978, Ruling Class, Regime and Reformation at Strasbourg, 1520-1555 (Leiden). Brecht, M. 1966, Die Fruhe Theologie des Johannes Brenz (Tubingen). Brecht, M. 1993, Martin Luther. The Preservation of the Church, 1532-46 (Minneapolis). Brightman, F. E. 1921, The English Rite, 2nd edn., 2 vols. (London). Britton, N. 1989, 'Bucer: National and Confessing Church', Evangelical Review of Theology 13, pp. 30-6. Burton, E. 1834, Three Primers Put Forth in the Reign of Henry VIII (Oxford). Butterworth, C. C. 1953, The English Primers (1529-1945) (Philadelphia). Butterworth, C. C. and Chester, A. G. 1962, George Joye 14957-1553 (Philadelphia). Calvin, homme d'eglise, oeuvres choisies du reformateur, 1936 (Geneva). Chrisman, M. U. 1967, Strasbourg and the Reform. A Study in the Process of Change (New Haven, CT). Clebsch, W. A. 1964, England's Earliest Protestants 1520-1535 (New Haven, CT). Collinson, P. 1979, Archbishop Grindal 1519-1583 (London). 176

Bibliography

177

Cornelius, C. A. 1892, Die Grundung der Calvinischen Kirchenverfassung in Genf 1541 (Munich). Cottret, B. 1981, Traducteurs et divulgateurs clandestins de la Reforme dans P Angleterre henricienne, 1520-1535', Revue d'histoire moderne et contemporaine 38, pp. 464-80. Courvoisier, J. 1933, La Notion d'eglise chez Bucer dans son developpement historique (Paris). Cox, J. E. 1846 (ed.), Miscellaneous Writings and Letters of Thomas Cranmer (PS, Cambridge). Cuming, G. J. 1982, A History of Anglican Liturgy, 2nd edn. (London). Dickens, A. G. 1989, The English Reformation, 2nd edn. (London). Duffield, G. E. 1971 (ed.), Aretius Felinus, The Psalter of David 1530 (Courtenay Facsimile 1, Appleford). Eells, H. 1931, Martin Bucer (New Haven, CT). Elton, G. R. 1977, Reform and Reformation, England 1509-1558 (London). Endriss, J. 1931, Das Ulmer Reformationsjahr 1531 in seinen entscheidenden Vorgdngen (Ulm). Evans, G. R. 1985, The Language and Logic of the Bible: The Road to Reformation (Cambridge). Fecht, J. 1684, Historiae Ecclesiasticae Seculi A.N.C. XVI. Supplementum . . . (Frankfurt and Speyer). Fisher, J. D. C. 1970, Christian Initiation: The Reformation Period (London). Fraenkel, P. 1965, Einigungsbestrebungen in der Reformat ionszeit (Wiesbaden). Fraenkel, P. 1980, 'Zwischen Altkatholizismus und Caesaropapismus. Zu Martin Bucers Materialsammlung, iiber die Rolle des Papsttums in der Alten Kirche', in R. Baumer (ed.), Reformatio Ecclesiae . . . Festgabe fur Erwin Iserloh (Paderborn), pp. 597-613. Franz, G. 1951 (ed.), Wiedertduferakten 1527-1626 (Urkundliche Quellen zur hessischen Reformationsgeschichte IV; Marburg). Friedberg, E. 1879-81 (ed.), Corpus Iuris Canonici, 2 vols. (Leipzig). Friedensburg, W. 1934 (ed.), 'Martin Bucer, Von der Wiedervereinigung der Kirchen (1542)', ARG 31, pp. 145-91. Friedrich, R. 1989, 'Martin Bucer - "Fanatiker der Einheit"? Seine Stellungnahme zu Theologischen Fragen seiner Zeit (Abendmahls- und Kirchenverstandnis) . . .', 2 vols. (dissertation, Neuchatel). Fuchtel, P. 1931, 'Der Frankfurter Anstand vom Jahre 1539', ARG 28, pp. 145-206. Fuhrmann, P. T. 1952, Instruction in Christian Love (1523) by Martin Bucer, the Reformer (Richmond, VA). Ganoczy, A. 1968, Ecclesia Ministrans. Dienende Kirche und Kirchliche Dienst bei Calvin (Freiburg, Basel, Vienna). Ginzburg, C. 1970, II Nicodemismo: Simulazione e Dissimulazione del' 1500 (Turin). Gollwitzer, H. 1937, Coena Domini: Die altlutherische Abendmahlslehre in ihrer Auseinandersetzung mit dem Calvinismus . . . (Munich). Gollwitzer, H. 1951, 'Zur Auslegung von Johannes 6 bei Luther und Zwingli', in W. Schmauch (ed.), In Memoriam Ernst Lohmeyer (Stuttgart), pp. 143-68. Gorham, G. C. 1857, Gleanings of a Few Scattered Ears During the Period of the Reformation in England (London). Greenslade, S. L. 1963, 'English Versions of the Bible A.D. 1525-1611', in

178

Bibliography

Greenslade (ed.), The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 3 (Cambridge), pp. 141-74. Greschat, M. 1978, 'Der Ansatz der Theologie Martin Bucers', Theologische Literaturzeitung 103, cols. 81-96. Greschat, M. 1990, Martin Bucer. Ein Reformator und seine Zeit 1491-1551 (Munich). Hall, B. 1990, Humanists and Protestants (Edinburgh). Hammann, G. 1984, Entre la secte et la cite. Leprojet d'eglise du reformateur Martin Bucer (1491-1551) (Geneva). Harvey, A. E. 1906, Martin Bucer in England (Marburg). Hatt, J. 1963, Liste des membres du Grand Senat de Strasbourg . . . du xiiie siecle a 1789 (Strasbourg). Hazlett, W. I. P. 1975, The Development of Martin Bucer's Thinking on the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper in its Historical and Theological Context 1523-1534' (dissertation, Minister). Hazlett, W. I. P. 1976, 'Zur Auslegung von Johannes 6 bei Bucer wahrend der Abendmahlskontroverse', in Kroon and Kriiger 1976, pp. 74-87. Heine, K. 1970, 'Die Taufe bei Martin Bucer' (dissertation, Vienna). Heinemeyer, W. 1986 (ed.), Das Werden Hessens (Marburg). Hobbs, G. 1971, 'An Introduction to the Psalms Commentary of Martin Bucer' (dissertation, Strasbourg). Hobbs, G. 1984a, 'Exegetical Projects and Problems .. . An Undated Letter from Bucer to Zwingli', in E. J. Furcha and H. W. Pipkin (eds.), Prophet, Pastor, Protestant: the Work ofHuldrych Zwingli. . . (Allison Park, PA), pp. 89-107. Hobbs, G. 1984b, 'How Firm a Foundation: Martin Bucer's Historical Exegesis of the Psalms', CH 53, pp. 477-91. Hobbs, G. 1985, 'Zwingli and the Study of the Old Testament', in E. J. Furcha (ed.), Huldrych Zwingli, 1484-1531: A Legacy of Radical Reform (Montreal), pp.

144-78.

Hopf, C. 1946, Martin Bucer and the English Reformation (Oxford). Hopf, C. 1947, 'Martin Bucer's Letter to John a Lasco on the Eucharist', JTS 48, pp. 64-70. Hopf [Hope], C. 1951, 'The Story of the Passion and Resurrection in the English Primer', JTS n.s.2, pp. 68-82. Hubert, F. 1900, Die Strassburger Liturgischen Ordnungen im Zeitalter der Reformation (Gottingen). Index Aureliensis. Catalogus Librorum Sedecimo Saeculo Impressorum, 1965- , vols. Iff. (Baden-Baden et alibi). Janelle, P. 1927, 'La controverse entre Etienne Gardiner et Martin Bucer sur la discipline ecclesiastique (1541-1548)', Revue des Sciences Religieuses 7, pp. 452-66. Janelle, P. 1928, 'Le voyage de Martin Bucer et Paul Fagius de Strasbourg en Angleterre en 1549', RHPR 8, pp. 162-77. Jedin, H. 1957-61, A History of the Council of Trent, 2 vols. (London). Jenny, B. 1951, Das Schleitheimer Tduferbekenntnis 1527 (Schaffhauser Beitrage zur vaterlandischen Geschichte 28; Tayngen). Kittelson, J. M. 1972, 'Wolfgang Capito, the Council and Reform Strasbourg', ARG 63, pp. 166-83. Kittelson, J. M. 1975, Wolfgang Capito from Humanist to Reformer (Leiden).

Bibliography

179

Kittelson, J. M. 1990, 'Strasbourg, the Landesherrlichekirchenregiment, and the Relative Autonomy of Lutheran Churches in Reformation Germany', Locus. An Historical Journal... 2, pp. 131-43. Knox, S. J. 1962, Walter Travers, Paragon of Elizabethan Puritanism (London). Kohler, W. 1924—53, Zwingli und Luther. Ihr Streit uber das Abendmahl nach seinen politischen und religiosen Beziehungen, vols. I (Leipzig), II (Gutersloh). Kohn, M. 1966, Martin Bucers Entwurfeiner Reformation des Erzstiftes Koln (Witten). Kohn, M. 1976, 'Bucer - Bibliographic 1951-1974', in Kroon and Kriiger 1976, pp. 133-65. Kroon, M. de 1984, Studien zu Martin Bucers Obrigkeitsverstdndnis (Gutersloh). Kroon, M. de and Kruger, F. 1976 (eds.), Bucer und Seine Zeit (Wiesbaden). Kroon, M. de and Lienhard, M. 1980 (eds.), Horizons europeens de la Reforme en Alsace (Strasbourg). Kruger, F. 1970, Bucer und Erasmus. Eine Untersuchung zum Einfluss des Erasmus auf die Theologie Martin Bucers (Wiesbaden). Kruske, P. 1901, Johannes a Lasco und der Sakramentsstreit (Leipzig). Kuyper, A. 1866, Joannis a Lasco Opera, 2 vols. (Amsterdam). Lake, P. 1988, Anglicans and Puritans, Presbyterianism and English Conformist Thought from Whitgift to Hooker (London). Lamb, J. 1838, A Collection of Letters, Statutes and Other Documents, from the MS. Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (London). Lang, A. 1900, Der Evangelienkommentar Martin Butzers und die Grundzuge seiner Theologie (Leipzig). Lang, A. 1941, Puritanismus und Pietismus. Studien zu ihrer Entwicklung von M. Butzer bis zum Methodismus (Neukirchen). Lardet, P. 1983, 'Vers une nouvelle bibliographic bucerienne: resultats d'un premier inventaire', Cahiers de la Revue de Theologie et de Philosophie 8, pp. 3-26. Lenz, M. 1880-91, Briefwechsel Landgraf Philipp's des Grossmuthigen von Hessen mit Bucer, 3 vols. (Leipzig). Livet, G., Rapp, F. and Rott, J. 1977 (eds.), Strasbourg au coeur religieux du XVIe siecle (Strasbourg). Lynch, J. G. 1967, 'Martin Bucer's Theology of Infant Baptism in the Light of the Reformation Paedobaptism Crisis' (dissertation, Institut Catholique, Paris). McGrath, A. E. 1982, 'Humanist Elements in the Early Reformed Doctrine of Justification', ARG 73, pp. 5-20. McGrath, A. E. 1986, Iustitia Dei. A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 2 vols. (Cambridge). McKee, E. A. 1984, John Calvin on the Diaconate and Liturgical Almsgiving (Geneva). McKee, E. A. 1988, Elders and the Plural Ministry. The Role ofExegetical History in Illuminating John Calvin's Theology (Geneva). McNeill, J. T. (ed.), Battles, F. L. (tr.) 1960, Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 vols. (LCC 20-21; Philadelphia and London). Matheson, P. C. 1972, Cardinal Contarini at Regensburg (Oxford). Matheson, P. C. 1989, 'Martyrdom or Mission? A Protestant Debate', ARG 80, pp. 154-72. Mentz, F. 1891, 'Bibliographische Zusammentstellung der gedruckten Schriften Butzer's', in Zur 400 jdhrigen Geburtsfeier Martin Butzer's (Strasbourg), pp.

99-164.

180

Bibliography

Millet, O. 1982, Correspondance de Wolfgang Capito (1478-1541). Analyse et index (Strasbourg). Moeller, B. 1972, 'Kleriker als Burger', in Festschrift fur Hermann Heimpelzum 70. Geburtstag . . . (Veroffentlichungen des Max-Planck Institutes fur Geschichte 36; Gottingen, 1971-3), vol. 2, pp. 195-224. Molnar, A. 1951, 'La correspondance entre les Freres Tcheques et Bucer 1540 a 1542', RHPR 31, pp. 102-56. Muller, J. 1965, Martin Bucers Hermeneutik (Gutersloh). Nauta, D. 1965, 'Calvijn en zijn gemeente', in J. van Genderen et al. (eds.), Zicht op Calvijn (Amsterdam), pp. 105-41. Neuser, W. 1980, 'Selbstandige Weiterbildung zwinglischer Theologie - Martin Bucer', in C. Andresen (ed.), Handbuch der Dogmen- und Theologiegeschichte, vol. 2 (Gottingen), pp. 209-24. Nichols, J. G. 1857, Literary Remains of King Edward VI, 2 vols. (Roxburghe Club, London). Nicholson, W. 1843, The Remains of Edmund Grindal (PS, Cambridge). Nottingham, W. J. 1962, T h e Social Ethics of Martin Bucer' (thesis, Columbia University, New York). Oberman, H. A. 1992, 'Europa afflicta: The Reformation of the Refugees', ARG 83, pp. 91-111. Old, H. O. 1992, The Shaping of the Reformed Baptismal Rite in the Sixteenth Century (Grand Rapids). Osterhaven, M. E. 1978, 'John Calvin: Order and the Holy Spirit', Reformed Review 32, pp. 23-44. Ozment, S. E. 1975, The Reformation in the Cities. The Appeal of Protestantism to Sixteenth-Century Germany and Switzerland (New Haven, CT). Pannier, J. 1925, Calvin a Strasbourg (Cahiers de la RHPR 12; Strasbourg). Pauck, W. 1928, Das Reich Gottes auf Erden: Utopie und Wircklichkeit. Eine Untersuchung zu Butzers 'De Regno ChristV (Berlin). Pauck, W. 1961, The Heritage of the Reformation (Glencoe, IL). Pauck, W. 1970 (ed. and tr.), Melanchthon and Bucer (LCC 19; London and Philadelphia). Pollet, J. V. 1958-62, Martin Bucer: etudes sur la correspondance, 2 vols. (Paris). Pollet, J. V. 1985, Martin Bucer: Etudes sur les relations de Bucer avec les Pays-Bas, VElectorat de Cologne et I'Allemagne du nord, 2 vols. (Leiden). Procter, F. and Frere, W. H. 1901, A New History of the Book of Common Prayer (London). Raubenheimer, R. 1959, 'Konrad Hubert', Blatter fur Pfdlzische Kirchengeschichte n.f. 20, pp. 17-23, 40-53, 65-78, 97-102. Roth, F. 1901-11, Augsburgs Reformationsgeschichte, 4 vols. (Munich). Rott, J. 1981, 'Le magistrat face a l'epicurisme terre a terre des Strasbourgeois: note sur les reglements disciplinaires municipaux de 1440 a 1599', in Croyants et sceptiques au XVIe siecle (Strasbourg), pp. 57-71 (and in Rott 1986, vol. I, pp. 535-49). Rott, J. 1983, 'Bedrot, Jacob', in Nouveau dictionnaire de biographie alsacienne (Strasbourg), fasc. 3, p. 156. Rott, J. 1984, 'Bucer, Martin', in Nouveau dictionnaire de biographie alsacienne (Strasbourg), fasc. 5, pp. 396-405 (and in Rott 1986, vol. II, pp. 126-35).

Bibliography

181

Rott, J. 1986, Investigationes Historicae. Eglise et societe au XVIe siecle, 2 vols. (Strasbourg). Roussel, B. 1970, 'Martin Bucer, lecteur de l'Epitre aux Romains' (dissertation, Strasbourg). Roussel, B. 1976, 'Martin Bucer et Jacques Sadolet: la Concorde possible (automne 1535)?', BSHPF 122, pp. 507-24. Roussel, B. and Hobbs, G. 1989, 'Strasbourg et l'ecole rhenane d'exegese (1525-1540)', BSHPF 135, pp. 36-53. Schiess, T. 1908-12 (ed.), Briefwechsel der Briider Ambrosius und Thomas Blaurer 1509-67, 3 vols. (Freiburg-im-Breisgau). Schwarz, R. 1988 (ed.), Die Augsburger Kirchenordnung von 1537 und ihr Umfeld (Giitersloh). Seidel, K. J. 1970, Frankreich und die Deutschen Protestanten (Miinster). Sohm, W. 1915, Territorium und Reformation in der hessischen Geschichte 1526-1555 (Marburg). Stephens, W. P. 1970, The Holy Spirit in the Theology of Martin Bucer (Cambridge). Strype, J. 1824, Annals of the Reformation . . ., 3 vols. (Oxford). Stupperich, R. 1936, Der Humanismus und die Wiedervereinigung der Konfessionen (Schriften des Vereins fur Reformationsgeschichte 160; Leipzig). Stupperich, R. 1940, 'M. Bucers Anschauungen von der Kirche', Zeitschrift fur Systematische Theologie 17, pp. 131-48. Stupperich, R. 1952, Bibliographia Bucerana, in Schriften des Vereins fur Reformationsgeschichte 169 (Giitersloh), pp. 37-96. Stupperich, R. 1974, 'Strassburg und Miinster in ihren Beziehungen 1531-1534', RHPR 54, pp. 71-7. Stupperich, R. 1981, 'Bucer, Martin (1491-1551)', in TRE 7, pp. 258-70. [Travers, W.] 1574, Ecclesiasticae Disciplinae, et Anglicanae Ecclesiae ab ilia Aberrationis, Plana e Verbo Dei, et Dilucida Explicatio (La Rochelle). Usteri, J. M. 1884, 'Die Stellung der Strassburger Reformatoren Bucer and Capito zur Tauffrage', Theologische Studien und Kritiken 57, p. 456-525. Van 't Spijker, W. 1970, De Ambten bij Martin Bucer (Kampen). Van't Spijker, W. 1988, 'Die Lehre vom Heiligen Geist bei Bucer und Calvin', in W. H. Neuser (ed.), Calvinus Servus Christi. Die Referate des Internationalen Kongresses fur Calvinforschung (Budapest), pp. 73-106. Varrentrap, C. 1878, Hermann von Wied und sein Reformationsversuch in Koln (Leipzig). Vogt, H. 1968, 'Martin Bucer und die Kirche von England' (dissertation, Miinster). Wendel, F. 1942, LEglise de Strasbourg: sa constitution et son organisation, 1533-1534 (Paris). Wendel, F. 1954, 'Un document inedit sur le sejour de Bucer en Angleterre', RHPR 34, pp. 223-34. Wendel, F. 1963, Calvin (London). Westcott, B. F. 1905, A General View of the History of the English Bible, 3rd edn. W. A. Wright (ed.) (London). Whitaker, E. C. 1974, Martin Bucer and the Book of Common Prayer (Alcuin Club Collections 55; Great Wakering). White, H. 1951, The Tudor Books of Private Devotion (Madison, WI). Williams, G. H. and Mergal, A. M. 1957 (eds.), Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers

182

Bibliography

(LCC 25, London and Philadelphia). Williams, G. H. 1962, The Radical Reformation (London). Wolfart, K. 1901, Die Augsburger Reformation in den Jahren 1533/34 (Leipzig). Wright, D. F. 1972 (tr. and ed.), Common Places of Martin Bucer (Courtenay Library of Reformation Classics 4; Appleford). Wright, D. F. 1992, 'Martin Bucer (1491-1551) in England', Anvil 9, pp. 249-59. Zippert, C. 1969, Der Gottesdienst in der Theologie des jungen Bucer (Marburg).

Biblical index

Genesis 17:7 101 2 Samuel 16:5-14

168

Psalms 1 168 1:5 171, 174 2 173 2:12 170 3 168, 169, 173 3:3 173 4 172 4:4 170 4:7 173, 174 6 173 7 168, 173 8 168 14:5-6 170 16 169 19 168 19:6, 10 170 24 169 51 168 57 168 78 168 79 168 81:6 69 89:52 171 91:5, 6 170 104 170 106:1 170 147:10 170 150 171 Matthew 7:12 156 16:19 63, 70, 71 18:17 54, 55 18:18 124 19:13-15 102

19:14 65 28:18-20 52 Luke 16:19 18:15

69 102

John 1 63,64 1:42 62 2:1-11 69 3 67 3:5 66, 98 4:21 68 4:23 68 6 63, 66, 70, 77-8, 149 6:55ff. 68 6:63 68 7:50-51 69 8 68 8:1-11 69 10 67 10:34 69 11:52 50 12 69 17 68 17:11,21-2 50 18-21 63 18:36 69 20:23 63, 70 Acts 2 55, 132, 136, 143 2:39 101 4 132, 136, 143 15:20 116 Romans 8 53 12 136 13:1 113-4 15:26 70 183

184

Biblical index

1 Corinthians 3:6-7 52, 67 3:7 76 4:20 154 7:14 103 10:16 70 11:23-34 149 12 112,136 12:13 105 13 175 14 168 14:29 87

1:17 53 1:22-3 46, 48, 53 2:13-16 50 3 57 4 45,46, 51, 57, 58, 112 4:1-6 50 4:5 59 4:8 50,51 4:11 51 4:11-14 51 4:11-16 46 5:11-14 51 5:25-7 52, 54, 98 5:25-32 49 5:26 49, 59 5:27 46

2 Corinthians 1 53 3:5 66 Galatians 6

53

Ephesians 1 47, 50, 53, 54 1:1 48 1:4 53 1:10 50,53 1:13 51 1:13-14 53 1:14 59 1:15 53

Titus 3:5-7 .

l

98

p

^ e ! e r _, 5:1

71

2Peter

1:4

50

1 John 2 53

Index of Bucer's works

COLLECTED EDITIONS Correspondance xi, xii Deutsche Schriften ix, xii, 107, 129 Opera Latina x, xi, xii-xiii, 163 Opera Omnia ix, x, xi, xii, 122 Tomus Anglicanus (Scripta Anglicana) xiv, 126, 144, 158

INDIVIDUAL WORKS (numbers refer to the bibliography of Stupperich 1952) Abhandlungen vom Aussern und Innern Wort ('Discussion of the Outer and Inner Word', 1533; BDS 5) 14 Abusuum . . . Indicatio ('Presentation of Ecclesiastical Abuses . . .', 1541; no. 68) 111, 113-15, 116-19, 120 Ada Colloquii . . . ('Acts of the Colloquy . . .', 1541; no. 69) 40, 110, 111 An Statui et Dignitati. . . ('Whether It Is More Conducive to the Standing and Dignity . . .', 1540; no. 67) 120 Apologia . . . circa Christi Caenam . . . ('Defence . . . Concerning the Lord's Supper . . .', 1526; no. 13) 98 Bedacht der Kirchenpfleger, Prddikanten und Heifer ('Deliberations of the Church-wardens, Pastors and Assistants', 1533; BDS 5) 17-19, 87 Bedencken wegen Abschaffung Grosser Laster ('Considerations on the Eradication of Graver Vices', 1547; BDS 17) 24, 139 Bericht auss der Heyligen Geschrift . . . ('Advice from Holy Scripture . . .', 1534; BDS 5) 72-80, 97, 134 Bestendige Verantwortung, auss der Heiligen Schrift . . . ('Constant Response from Holy Scripture . . .', 1545; no. 86) 79 Censura . . . super Libro Sacrorum . . . ('Review . . . of the Prayer Book . . .', 1551; no. 123) 1, 158-9 Commentarii In Librum Judicum ('Commentary on the Book of Judges', 1554; no. 101) 45 Consilium Theologicum Privatim Conscriptum ('Theological Advice Written Privately', 1540-1; BOL1V) 11, 13, 14, 15 Constans Defensio . . . ('Steadfast Response . . .', 1613; no. 86a) 79 Das Ym Selbs Niemant, sonder Anderen Leben Soil. . . ('That No One Should Live for Himself but for Others . . .', 1523; BDS 1) 29-30, 31, 35, 47, 93, 155 De Caena Dominica . . . ('On the Lord's Supper . . .', 1524; BOL I) 5, 7, 9, 10 De Ordinatione Legitima . . . ('On Restoring Lawful Ordination . . .', 71549; no. 120) 159

185

186

Index of Bucer's works

De Regno Christi. . . (The Kingdom of Christ . . ., 1557; BOL XV) 1, 15, 17-18, 23, 30, 33_4, 4(M1, 42, 129, 154-8 De Usuris ('On Usury', 1550; no. 141) 156 De Vera Ecclesiarum . . . Reconciliatione et Compositione . . . ('On the True Reconciliation and Agreement of the Churches . . .', 1542; no. 73) 11 De Vi et Usu Sacri Ministerii. . . ('On the Significance and Practice of the Sacred Ministry . . .', 1562; nos. 110, 110a) 4(M1, 43, 98, 105, 159 Defensio adversus Axioma Catholicum . . . ('Defence against the Catholic Principle . . .', 1534; no. 45)72, 109, 119 Dialogi oder Gesprech . . . ('Dialogues or Discussion . . .', 1535; BDS 6:2) 21, 22, 27 Ein Sendbrieve Martini Buceri. . . ('An Open Letter of Martin Bucer . . .', 1547; BDS 17) 139, 142 Ein Summarischer Vergriff der Christlichen Lehre . . . ('A Brief Summary of the Christian Doctrine . . .'; 1548; BDS 17) 98, 143 Enarratio in Evangelion Johannis ('Commentary on John's Gospel', 1528; BOL II) ix, xiii, 48, 61-71, 97, 100-104, 164 Enarrationes Perpetuae in Sacra Quatuor Evangelia . . . ('Commentaries on the Four Holy Gospels . . .', 1530; no. 28, BOL II) 45, 61-71, 95, 99, 100-104 Enarrationum in Evangelia Matthaei, Marci, & Lucae , . . ('Commentaries on the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke . . .', 1527; no. 14) 40, 45, 61, 98 Entwurfzur Ulmer Kirchenordnung . . . ('Draft for Ulm Church Order . . .', 1529-31; BDS 4)21 Epistola Apologetica . . . ('Letter of Defence . . .', 1530; BOL I) 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13 Epistola D. Pauli ad Ephesios . . . Commentarius ('Commentary . . . on Paul's Letter to the Ephesians', 1527; no. 17) xiii, 45, 47-54, 59-60, 61, 97, 149 Epistolae (Letters, various; cf. BCor). 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 20, 23, 33, 43, 80-81, 83, 86, 90, 98, 151-4 Ermanschrifft an die Andern Prediger . . . ('Exhortation to the Other Preachers', 1547; BDS 17) 139, 141 Explicatio . . . Ephes. IIII. . . ('Explanation of Ephesians 4 . . .', 1550-1; no. 124) 45, 54, 57-8, 154 Form uffwas Weiss . . . ('Scheme: in what Way . . .', 1547; BDS 17) 139, 141-3 Formula Vivendi Prescripta Familiae Suae ('Pattern of Life Prescribed for His Household', 1550) 159-60 Furbereytung zum Concilio . . . ('Groundwork for a Council . . .', 1533; BDS 5) 109, 120 Gratulatio . . . ad Ecclesiam Anglicanam . . . ('Congratulation . . . to the English Church . . .', 1548; no. 97) 160 Grund und Ursach . . . ('Ground and Basis . . .', 1524; BDS 1) 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 100 Handel mit Cunrat Treger ('Debate with Conrad Treger', 1524; BDS 2) 47, 49 Handlung . . . gegen Melchior Hoffman . . . ('Proceedings . . . against Melchior Hofmann . . .', 1533; BDS 5) 76 In Sacra Quatuor Evangelia, Enarrationes Perpetuae . . . ('Commentaries on the Four Holy Gospels', 1536; no. 28a, BOL II) 36, 45, 61-71, 96, 99, 100-104, 105, 145 In Sacra Quatuor Evangelia, Enarrationes Perpetuae . . . ('Commentaries on the Four Holy Gospels', 1553; no. 28b, BOL II) 9, 71, 96 Kurtzer Underricht und Grunde . . . ('Short Justification and Reason . . .', 1547; BDS 17) 139, 140, 141, 143 Mehrung Gotlicher Gnaden und Geists . . . ('Increase of God's Grace and Spirit . . .', 1547; BDS 17) 139, 14(M1

Index of Bucer's works

187

Metaphrases et Enarrationes Perpetuae . . . in Epistolam ad Romanos . . . ('Paraphrases and Commentaries on . . . the Letter to the Romans . . .', 1536; no. 55) 45, 61, 97, 98, 99, 100-101, 105, 108, 145 Ordenung der Christlichen Kirchenzucht. Fur . . . Hessen [Ziegenhainer Zuchtordnung] ('Order of Christian Church-discipline for . . . Hesse', 1539; BDS 7) 37 Ordenung der Kirchenubunge . . . zu Cassel ('Order of C h u r c h Practice . . . for KasseF, 1539; BDS 7) 37 Ordnung . . . der Statt Ulm . . . ('Ordinance . . . for City of U l m \ 1531; BDS 4) 21

Per Quos Steterit, quo minus Haganoae . . . initum colloquium sit . . . ('Who Were Responsible for Preventing a Colloquy Beginning at Hagenau . . .', 1540; no. 66a) 110, 113, 114-15 Praelectiones doctiss. in Epistolam D. Pauli ad Ephesios . . . ('Learned Lectures on Paul's Letter to the Ephesians . . .', 1562; no. 112) xiii, 45, 47, 48, 53-60, 149, 154, 156 Predigt in Ausburg ('Sermon in Augsburg', 1531; BDS 4) 21 Psalter Wol Verteutscht. . . ('Psalter Faithfully Translated into German . . .', 1526; BDS 2) 165 Quid de Baptismate Infantium . . . ('What Should Be Believed about the Baptism of Infants . . .', 1533; no. 42) xi, xiii, 95-6, 100-103 Ratschlag/Dess Kirchen Convents fernere Ercldrung ('Advice: the Company of Pastors' Further Clarification', 1549; BDS 17) 25 Ratschlag, ob Christlicher Oberkeit geburen mu'ge, das sye die Juden undter den Christen zu wonen gedulden . . . ('Advice Whether Christian Authorities May Properly Tolerate Jews Living among Christians . . .', 1538/9; BDS 7) 27-8, 29 Refutatio Locorum Eckii ('Refutation of Eck's Positions', c. 1538; BOL I) 5, 6, 8, 9 Sacrorum Psalmorum Libri Quinque . . . (The Five Books of the Sacred Psalms . . . Elucidated', 1529; no. 25) 45, 61, 163, 167-71, 172-3, 174^5 Sacrorum Psalmorum Libri Quinque . . . ('The Five Books of the Sacred Psalms . . . Elucidated', 1532; no. 25b) 61, 172 Sacrorum Psalmorum Libri Quingue . . . ('The Five Books of the Sacred Psalms . . . Elucidated', 1547; no. 25c) 61 Scripta Duo Adversaria . . . (Two Opposing Writings . . .', 1544; no. 78) 133, 137 Simplex ac Pia Deliberatio . . . ('Simple and Religious Consideration . . .', 1545; no. 74c) 159 Summary seiner Predig . . . ('Summary of His Preaching [at Wissembourg] . . .', 1523; BDS 1)48 Tzephanaiah, . . . commentario explanatus ('Commentary on Zephaniah', 1528; BDS 1) 45 Verantwortung an den Rat ('Reply to the Council', 1523; BDS 1) 20 Vergleichung D . Luthers unnd seins. Gegentheyls . . . Dialogus . . . ('A C o m p a r i s o n of Luther and his Opponents . . . A Dialogue,' 1528; BDS 2) 73 Vom Mengel der Religion ('On the Defects of Religion', 1532; BDS 4) 25-6 Von den Einigen Rechten Wegen . . . ('On the One Right Way . . .', 1545; no. 80) 120 Von der Kirchen Mengel unnd Fdhl ('On the Church's Defects and Failings', 1546; BDS 17) 31, 139-42 Von der Waren Seelsorge . . . ('On True Pastoral Care . . .', 1538; BDS 7) 22, 23, 36, 41, 83, 85, 94, 131 Vorbericht der Strassburger Prediger nach Ulm ('Preliminary Report of the Strasbourg Preachers for Ulm', 1529; BDS 4) 21 Widerlegung des Berichtes von Engelbrecht ('Refutation of Engelbrecht's Report', 1533; BDS 5) 19, 27 Wie Leicht unnd Fuglich . . . ('How Easily and Lightly . . .', 1545; no. 84) 120

Index of modern authors

Abray, L. J. 87, 88, 176 Adam, J. 124 Anrich, G. 35, 176 Arber, E. 163, 169, 171, 175, 176 Augustijn, C. ix, xii, 23, 109, 176 Backus, I. ix, xii, xiii, 61, 65, 176 Baillie, J. xiii Balan, P. 11, 176 Barth, K. 102 Barth, P. xiii Battenberg, F. 28, 176 Battles, F. L. 43, 179 Baum, G. xiii Bedouelle, G. 162, 165, 168, 171, 172, 176 Bellardi, W. 40, 83, 89, 92, 93, 129, 138, 139, 143, 176 Bizer, E. 73, 176 Bonorand, C. 126, 176 Bornert, R. 97, 99, 100, 102, 104, 176 Brady, T. A. 89, 91, 96, 125, 176 Brecht, M. 11, 62, 176 Brightman, F. E. 159, 176 Britton, N. 2, 176 Burton, E. 165, 176 Butterworth, C. C. 161, 163, 164, 170, 171, 173, 176 Chester, A. G. 161, 163, 170, 171, 173, 176 Chrisman, M. U. 84, 86, 176 Clebsch, W. A. 161, 167, 168, 171, 176 Clemen, O. xiv Collinson, P. 157, 159, 176 Cornelius, C. A. 40, 177 Cottret, B. 161, 177 Courvoisier, J. 11, 35, 45, 83, 93, 99, 104, 105, 107, 129, 177 Cox, J. E. 144, 177 Cuming, G. J. 158, 159, 177 Deppermann, K. 84 Dickens, A. G. 161, 177

188

Duffield, G. E. 161, 163, 171, 177 Eells, H. 46, 145, 177 Egli, E. xiv Elton, G. R. 157, 177 Endriss, J. 21, 177 Evans, G. R. 1, 177 Fecht, J. 83, 177 Ferguson, F. S. xiii Fisher, J. D. C. 104, 177 Fraenkel, P. xii, xiii, 13, 23, 28, 71, 177 Franz, G. 132, 177 Frere, W. H. 159, 180 Friedberg, E. 64, 65, 177 Friedensburg, W. 11, 177 Friedrich, R. 131, 177 Fuchtel, P. 109, 177 Fuhrmann, P. T. 29, 30, 31, 35, 177 Ganoczy, A. 37, 177 Ginzburg, C. 85, 177 Gollwitzer, H. 62, 177 Gorham, G. C. 151, 153, 154, 158, 177 Grane, L. 95 Greenslade, S. L. 161, 171, 177-8 Greschat, M. ix, 1, 2, 11, 12, 15, 17, 96, 131, 178 Hall, B. ix, 152, 153, 178 Hammann, G. ix, 27, 35, 40, 45, 46, 61, 68, 83, 92, 93, 96, 97, 101, 103, 104, 107, 121, 122, 128, 129, 131, 132, 134, 136, 138, 139, 142, 178 Harvey, A. E. 42, 145, 146, 178 Hatt, J. 125, 178 Hazlett, W. I. P. ix, 62, 74, 77, 178 Heine, K. 97, 178 Heinemeyer, W. 23, 178 Herminjard, A. L. xiii, 33, 37 Hobbs, G. ix, 61, 159, 165, 166, 168, 178, 181

Index of modern authors Hopf (Hope), C. 42, 43, 80, 145, 148, 153, 155, 159, 160, 161, 164, 170, 172, 178 Hubert, F. 104, 178 Husser, D. 84 Jackson, W. A. xiii Janelle, P. 145, 146, 178 Jedin, H. 109, 120, 178 Jenny, B. 68, 178 Kittelson, J. M. ix, 84, 88, 178-9 Knox, S. J. 41, 179 Kohler, W. 73, 80, 119, 179 Kohn, M. 23, 129, 179 Krause, G. xiv Krebs, M. xiii Kroon, M. de 21, 42, 107, 144, 179 Kriiger, F. 74, 179 Kuyper, A. 80, 152, 153, 179 Lake, P. 41, 179 Lamb, J. 148, 179 Lang, A. 61, 72, 99, 100, 129, 136, 159, 179 Lardet, P. 129, 179 Le Clerc, J. xiii Lenz, M. 23, 179 Lienhard, M. xii, xiii, 144, 179 Livet, G. 84, 179 Lynch, J. G. 96, 97, 101 McGrath, A. E. 11,48, 179 McKee, E. A. 39, 179 McNeill, J. T. 43, 179 Matheson, P. C. ix, 13, 14, 179 Mentz, F. 129, 179 Mergal, A. M. 75, 181-2 Millet, O. 33, 180 Moeller, B. 113, 180 Molnar, A. 23, 180 Moltmann, J. 102 Miiller, G. xiv Muller, J. 136, 180 Nauta, D. 37, 180 Nelson, S. xiii Neuser, W. H. 136, 180 Nichols, J. G. 148, 157, 180 Nicholson, W. 157, 180 Niesel, W. xiii Nottingham, W. J. 43, 180 Oberman, H. A. 106, 180 Old, H. O. 95, 104, 180

189 Osterhaven, M. E. 39, 180 Ozment, S. E. 87, 180 Pannier, J. 35, 180 Pantzer, K. F. xiii Pauck, W. 11, 18, 30, 42, 43, 93, 180 Pfeilschifter, G. xiii, 107 Pollard, A. W. xiii Pollet, J. V. 12, 14, 21, 23, 80, 102, 149, 154, 180 Procter, F. 159, 180 Rapp, F. 84, 179 Raubenheimer, R. 126, 180 Redgrave, G. R. xiii Robinson, H. xiii Roth, F. 21, 180 Rott, J. (H. G.) ix, xii, xiii, 84, 125, 126, 129, 131, 179, 180-1 Roussel, B. 61, 108, 162, 165, 168, 171, 172, 176, 181 Schiess, T. 12, 181 Schindler, A. 95 Schwarz, R. 21, 181 Seidel, K. J. 10, 12, 181 Sohm, W. 23, 181 Stephens, W. P. ix, 35, 36, 45, 76, 96, 97, 98, 99, 101, 136, 181 Strype, J. 158, 181 Stupperich, R. xii, 23, 45, 75, 109, 110, 111, 119, 120, 122, 129, 181 Usteri, J. M. 97, 181 Van 't Spijker, W. ix, 34, 40, 43, 107, 181 Varrentrap, C. 23, 181 Vogt, H. 145, 148, 181 Wendel, F. xii, xiii, 17, 36, 41, 85, 87, 88, 96, 97, 98, 101, 122, 136, 160, 181 Westcott, B. F. 172, 173, 181 Whitaker, E. C. 1, 159, 181 White, H. 163, 181 Williams, G. H. 75, 181-2 Wolfart, K. 21, 182 Wriedt, M. 95 Wright, D. F. ix, 1, 5, 9, 10, 45, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 72, 73, 95, 96, 97, 98, 105, 143, 153, 158, 182 Yoder, J. 84 Zippert, C. 136, 182

General index

Abraham Ibn Ezra 166 Alber, Matthew 78 Aleander, Hieronymus 11 Alexander, Peter 153 almsgiving 67, 69, 155 Alsace 130 Anabaptists 19, 26, 28, 36, 38, 43, 46-7, 51-3, 57, 62, 65, 68, 72, 74-5, 78, 84, 95, 124-5, 132,-5, 137, 139 see also Radicals Anselm 78 Antichrist 5-7, 10, 13, 15, 55, 158 anticlericalism 6, 128 Antiochus IV 168 Antwerp 149, 163, 171, 172 apostolicity, see church Aquinas, see Thomas Aquinas Arnaud, abbot of Bonneval 116 Arundel, Thomas 162 Ascham, Roger 146 Augsburg 21, 145 Confession 109, 110 Diet of 109, 144 Interim 25, 40, 84, 89, 91-3, 131, 138, 143-5 Augustine 6, 55, 59, 63, 64, 66, 68, 71, 74, 76,95, 112, 115, 116, 119 authority, see church; civil authority baptism 51, 52, 55, 59, 63-£, 71, 74, 97-100, 101, 104, 106, 132, 154 liturgy 104 of infants 51, 52, 62, 65-6, 72, 95-106, 127, 132 Barlow, Jerome 167 Basel 36, 122, 135, 165, 166, 167 Bedrot, Jacob 126 Berne Disputation (1528) 47, 62, 70 'beschicken' (summons) 123, 124, 128, 138 Beza, Theodore 157 Bible 8, 11, 12, 15, 19, 62, 95, 109, 115, 117, 120, 132, 156

190

English versions 161-75 Old Testament, Bucer's use of 11, 64, 65, 67, 71, 156 Word of God 7, 8, 9, 20, 36, 38, 39, 42, 44, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 74, 103 see also preaching, church binding and loosing, see keys of kingdom bishops 6, 52, 56, 58, 59, 71, 113, 115, 116, 118, 151 Blaurer, Margareta 83 Bomberg, Daniel 166 Book of Common Prayer 1, 151, 158-9, 174 Borrhaus, Martin 65 Bradford, John 146, 157 Braun, Conrad 109-10, 113 Brem, Martin 160 Brenz, Johannes 61, 63, 66, 68 Brunfels, Otto 19 Bucer, Martin (for reference to his writings, see Index of Bucer's works) church-community focus 12-13, 46, 47-8, 49, 72, 105, 132 conciliator 2, 10-12, 15, 47, 73, 77-9, 81, 107 colloquies, zeal for 2, 6, 14, 47 'ecumaniac' 7, 83, 88-9 flexibility 6, 12, 14, 22 'Retractationes' 36, 66-7 exegesis and use of Bible 33, 45-60, 61-71, 77-8, 132, 161-75 illnesses 146, 150 influences from Erasmus 10, 15, 64, 70, 94 Luther 6, 15, 43, 46, 72, 73, 94 Thomas Aquinas 12, 29, 64, 136 influences on Bible, English 173-5 Book of Common Prayer 158-9, 174 Calvin 32-44 English Reformers 157 missionary concern 12, 14, 15 moralism 11

General index polemics 7-8 spiritualism 8-9, 15, 36, 43, 81 Bucer, Wibrandis 146, 150 Bugenhagen, Johannes 165, 168, 173 Bullinger, Heinrich 13, 32, 36, 72, 80, 86, 149, 151, 152, 153, 154, 157, 171 Burcher, John 149-50 calling 13, 43 Calvin, John 1, 11, 13, 14, 32-44, 72, 81, 85, 129, 149, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156 Calvinism 129 Cambridge, town 147-8, 159-60 university 1, 45, 46, 47, 146, 147-51, 153, 156, 158, 171 Bene't College 147 Christ's College 162 Pembroke College 148, 151 Peterhouse 162 canons of early councils 111, 115, 120 Capito, Wolfgang 5, 7, 8, 33, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 98, 135 Carlstadt, Andreas Bodenstein von 97 Carr, Nicholas 147, 148 Cassander, George 95 catechism, catechizing 42, 58, 117, 124 Catholic Church, see Roman Catholic catholicity, see church Cecil, Richard 146, 158 celibacy 7, 109, 117, 119-20 Ceneau, Robert, Bishop of Avranches 72 ceremonies 67, 68, 109, 110, 113, 117 Charles V 10, 14, 23, 109, 111, 113, 120, 138, 143, 144, 145 Cheke, John 144, 146 children 52, 103, 105, 132 see also baptism Christendom 14, 15, 133 Christian communities (Christliche Gemeinschaften) 2, 31, 40, 68, 71, 84, 89-94, 128, 129^3 < Christliche(n) Gemeinschaften', see Christian communities Chrysostom, see John Chrysostom church 45-60, 107-21, 129-43, 150 authority of, in relation to Bible 8, 54, 55-6, 115 see also keys of kingdom; 'magisterium' body of Christ 35, 37, 47, 49-50, 52, 53-4, 57,60,73, 105, 112 comprehensive (mixed, national) 2, 65-8, 71, 74, 83, 94, 101, 102, 104, 129, 134, 141 consensus 8, 56, 96, 98, 115 core- 89-92, 94, 106 see also Christian communities;

191 'ecclesiolae in ecclesia' marks of 54^5, 112, 155 see also Bible, Word of God; discipline; preaching; sacraments notes of 136, 137-8, 140, 155 apostolicity 5, 136-8, 140, 142-3 catholicity 138, 143 holiness 52, 55, 56, 138, 140, 141-2, 143 unity 50-1, 52, 55, 56, 64, 86-7, 112, 114, 131-3, 137, 140-41, 143 Old, see Roman Catholic relation to civil community 1, 20-31, 41, 63, 67, 69-70, 96, 114, 154, 157 selective (confessing, covenanted) 1-2, 36, 39-40, 74, 83, 94, 101, 102, 134 see also Christian communities church orders, ordinances, see Hesse; Kassel; Strasbourg; Ulm circumcision 51, 52, 65-6, 99, 101 civil authority 1, 13, 15, 17-31, 4 1 ^ , 67, 69-70, 84^6, 113, 122, 132, 155-6 colloquies 6, 14, 23, 47, 107-21, 145 Cologne 23, 79, 110, 145, 172 'communio', communion 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 41, 43, 63, 64, 70, 72-82, 100, 153 see also koihbnia Communion, see Lord's Supper community, ecclesiastical or spiritual, see church civil 1, 13-14, 17-31, 4 1 ^ , 147 confession, of sins 142 see also church confirmation 59, 101, 102, 106, 154 consensus, see church Constance 72, 145 Corpus Iuris Catholici 111, 119 Corpus Iuris Civilis 111, 119

councils 8, 15, 113, 114 early church 6 see also canons national reforming, quest for 8, 23, 108, 109-10, 113, 120 see also Trent covenant 9, 25, 100, 101, 104 Coverdale, Miles 161, 162, 170, 171, 172, 173 Crabbe, Pierre 115 Cranmer, Thomas 1, 144, 145, 149, 153, 158, 159, 174 creation 19, 29 Cromwell, Thomas 156 Croydon 145, 146 Cyprian 71, 113, 116, 119 Pseudo- 116 Czech 23

192

General index

deacons 40, 58, 155 Decalogue 142 see also law Denck, Hans 46 Devil 7, 10, 19, 63, 86, 120 dialogue 31 see also colloquies; disputations discipline, church 18, 22, 26-7, 33, 36, 37, 38,40,41, 58, 89, 101, 113, 114, 122-8, 133, 155 disputations 6, 150-51, 152, 156 doctors, see teachers Dominicans 19, 29, 81 Dover 145 Dryander, Francis 148 early church 54, 56, 57, 60, 61, 98, 109, 119, 120, 133, 137, 142, 155 see also canons; church; councils; Fathers 'ecclesiolae in ecclesia' 84, 89 see also Christian communities Echt, Johann 146 Eckbolsheim 153 ecumenism, see Bucer, Martin; church, notes of, unity; colloquies education, 26-31, 42, 101, 103-^ see also schools Edward VI 1, 41, 42, 144, 154, 156, 157, 160 elders 40, 83, 87, 88, 91, 94, 122, 138, 139, 141 see also Kirchenpfleger; presbyters elect, election 38, 45, 48, 49, 51, 53, 55, 63, 66, 67-8, 71, 97, 101, 106, 151 Elijah 12, 16 Elizabeth I 146, 155, 157, 158 Emden 145, 166 emperors, religious duties of 109, 113-14 Empire, Holy Roman 23, 24, 108, 113 Engelbrecht, Anton 19, 85-6 England 1, 41, 43, 46-7, 83, 109, 144-60 Epicureans 19, 26, 36, 85 episcopate, see bishops Erasmus, Desiderius 10, 11, 15, 63, 64, 70, 94, 109, 161, 166, 167 Erasmus von Limburg 92 ethics 43, 154, 157 see also love of neighbour eucharist, see Lord's Supper Eusebius of Caesarea 64 excommunication 67, 68, 71, 89, 124, 138 see also discipline 'exhibere' 74, 80, 99-100 Faber, John 5 Faber, Martin 153

192

Fagius, Paul 89, 90, 92, 93, 145, 146, 150 faith 8, 48, 52, 55, 56, 76, 86, 103 family 103, 134 Farel, William 37 fasting 57 Fathers 8, 9, 11, 12, 40, 54, 55-7, 71, 95, 109, 111, 114-15, 119, 120, 133, 150 see also early church Felinus, Aretius (Bucer's pseudonym) 163, 166 Felix Pratensis 167 Flaccius, Matthias Illyricus 92 Fox, Edward 145 France 109, 162 Francis I 12 Franck, Sebastian 21, 75 Frankfurt 109, 113, 164, 165 Frederick II 114 Friesland 80 Frith, John 162 Froben, Joannes 166 Gardiner, Stephen 145 'Gemeinschaften, Christliche', see Christian communities Geneva 1, 40, 145, 166 Germany 24, 108, 109, 110, 111, 118, 121, 135, 144, 162, 167 South 10, 11 Glapion, Johannes 10 Godfray, Thomas 164 godparents 127 Goodrich, Thomas 146, 158 government, see civil authority Grafton, Richard 171 Gratian 64 Greek 70, 126, 161, 165, 166 Gregory I 55 Grindal, Edmund 146, 151, 157 Gropper, Johann 14, 108, 110, 120 Grynaeus, Simon 32 Haddon, Walter 146 Hagenau, conference at (1540) 47, 109 Hales, John 157 Hamburg 173 Hatzer, Ludwig 46 Hebrew 159, 162, 165, 166, 167, 169, 170, 172 Hedio, Caspar 86, 90 Heidelberg Disputation (1518) 46 Henry VIII 47, 85, 162, 164 Hermann von Wied 23 Hesse 27-8, 37, 47, 124, 132, 145 Hoby, Thomas 160 Holy Communion, see Lord's Supper

General index Holy Spirit 8, 12, 18-19, 23, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 63, 67, 68, 74, 87, 97, 98, 105, 137, 153, 168 gifts of 9, 50, 52, 58, 112 Hooper, John 149, 151-2, 158 Horton, Thomas 148 Hubert, Conrad 126, 135, 146 Hubmaier, Balthasar 65 humanism, humanists 5, 15, 156, 166 Hussites 22 idolatry 12 images 9, 11, 12, 56, 116 indulgences 7, 57 infants, see baptism; children Interim, see Augsburg Jerome 71, 119 Jews 27-8 Johannes Campensis 171 John Chrysostom 63, 114, 115, 116, 119 Joye, George 161, 162, 163-5, 166, 167-71, 172, 173, 174, 175 justification 34, 48, 56, 79, 145, 148-9, 150, 151 Kassel 37, 124 keys of kingdom 42, 63, 70-71, 142 Keyser, Martin de 163 Kimhi, David 166, 169, 171, 174 kingdom of Christ or God 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 42, 55, 69, 102, 136, 15^8 see also keys of kingdom 'Kirchenconvent', see pastors 'Kirchenpfleger' ('Kirchspielpfleger') 87, 122-8, 138, 139, 141 Kniebis, Nicholas 20, 125-6, 127 koinonia 63, 69, 80-81, 153 laity 6, 8, 9, 56, 58, 71, 88, 109, 110, 114, 116, 147, 158, 161 Lambeth 145, 146, 153 Lasco, John a 80, 102, 145, 152, 153, 159 Latin 117, 146, 159, 161, 166, 174 Latomus, Bartholomew 137 law, of God 11, 18-19,29, 156 see also Decalogue ecclesiastical 42, 156 civil 42, 155, 156 laying on of hands 37, 59, 154 Lefevre d'Etaples, Jacques 172, 173 Leipzig 166 Colloquy of (1539)47 Lenglin, Johannes 90 Lindau 72

193 Lollardy 146, 162 London 162, 164, 171 Lord's Supper 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 59, 63, 64, 71, 72-82, 141, 149, 158, 159 controversy over (Supper-strife) 36, 62, 72-3, 107, 119, 1 5 1 ^ , 166 in both kinds 109, 117 sacramental union 7 3 ^ , 77, 81 see also 'exhibere' love of neighbour 11, 41, 48-9, 53, 56, 79, 112, 114, 155, 157 Luithold, Waremund (Bucer's pseudonym) 110 Luther, Martin 6, 10-11, 14, 15, 34, 3 9 ^ 0 , 43, 46, 72, 73, 75, 77, 78, 82, 93, 94, 97, 131, 136, 165, 167 Lutherans 10, 46, 51, 52, 61, 63, 66, 68, 70, 72, 75, 77, 78, 95, 120, 129 Maccabees 168 'magisterium' 8 see also church, authority of Magistrat, see Strasbourg, councils magistrates, see civil authority Marbach, Johannes 83, 89, 90, 92 Marburg 47, 62 marriage 42, 122, 155 Marshall, William 165 Martyr, Peter 144, 145, 151, 152, 154 mass 7, 9, 57, 116 Matthews, Thomas (John Rogers's pseudonym) 171, 172, 174 Melanchthon, Philip 63, 72, 111, 145 Memmingen 72 Micronius, Martin 152 ministry 33, 51, 53, 55, 57-8, 66-7, 71, 72, 80-81, 83-94, 159 fourfold 40 see also bishops; deacons; elders; pastors; presbyters; teachers Moravians 22-3 Miinster 72, 75, 80, 88, 92, 95, 133, 135 Musculus, Wolfgang 84 Neuchatel 172 Nicodemism 11, 13 Nigri, Theobald 90, 91, 151 Oecolampadius, Johannes 36, 98, 167 office, civil, see civil authority ministerial, spiritual, see ministry Old Church, see Roman Catholic Church Old Testament, see Bible; Decalogue; law, of God Olevianus, Caspar 44 Olivetan, Pierre Robert 172, 173

194

General index

ordination 59, 155, 159 'ordo salutis' 35, 48, 49 Origen 56, 65, 71 Osiander, Andreas 72 Oxford 144, 151, 152, 162

Church of, see Roman Catholic Church Rothmann, Bernard 75, 95 Roy, William 161, 162, 167 Ruprecht, Duke, of Palatinate-Zweibriicken 85

papacy, papists 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 23, 31, 46, 50, 52, 55, 56, 57, 71, 109, 114, 118 Parker, Matthew 146, 147, 150, 151, 155, 158 pastors 18, 22, 37, 40, 52, 58, 84, 85, 88, 90-91, 94, 116, 122, 123, 138 company of ('Kirchenconvent') 123 Pellican, Conrad 165, 171 Perne, Andrew 150, 156 Peter 55, 71 Pfarrer, Mathis 124 Philip of Hesse 23, 27, 112, 116, 124, 132 Pietism 83 Plato 97, 156 Poland 145 poor, care of 42, 58, 69, 147, 155 pope, see papacy preaching 6, 7, 8, 13, 20, 22, 38, 44, 46, 50, 103, 116, 123, 148-9, 155 presbyters 58, 59, 71 primers 163-5 promises of God 101, 102, 105 prophecy 52, 87-8, 165 Psalter, see Bible, English versions; Joye, George; Rogers, John purgatory 7, 56 Puritanism 41, 159

sacramentarian 59, 78 sacraments 9, 38, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59-60, 71, 74, 75-7, 99, 102, 105, 153, 154, 155 see also baptism; Lord's Supper saints, invocation, veneration of 7, 116 Sampson, Thomas 158 sanctification 35, 48, 79, 136 see also church, notes of, holiness Sandys, Edwin 146 Sapidus, Hans 10, 19 Satan, see Devil Saxony 93 schism 109 Schleitheim Confession 68 Schmalkaldic League 89, 109, 131 War 131, 138, 139 Schnell, Conrad 90, 127 Schoffen 123 schools 42, 126, 149, 156 Schott, Johannes 167 Schwenckfeld, Caspar 59, 85-6 Scipio 149 Scotland 1 Scripture, see Bible sectarians, sects, see Anabaptists; Radicals; spiritualists Sedgwick, Thomas 150 Selestat 19 Senate, see Strasbourg Septuagint 165, 174 Smith, Thomas 157 social order, society, see community, civil; civil authority Spalatin, George 11 Speirer, Martin 125 spiritualists 19, 21, 26, 28, 43, 74 see also Radicals state, see civil authority; church, relation to civil authority Steinlin, Johannes 90 Strasbourg church orders: Ordnung und Kirchengebreuch (1534) 83-9, 96, 123, 131 Kirchenordnung (1598) 122 councils 20, 24, 25, 96, 125, 132, 144 Senate 5, 8, 125, 126, 127 Senate-and-XXI 84-9, 91, 123, 127 French congregation 32, 37, 40, 85

rabbis 166, 168, 169 Radicals 2, 46, 47, 51, 52, 83, 84, 95, 96, 101, 104, 106, 122, 135, 139, 141 see also Anabaptists; spiritualists Rashi 166 Reformed church, tradition 10, 11, 15, 39, 41 Regensburg, Colloquy and Diet (1541) 11, 13, 14, 15, 47, 110-11, 126, 144, 145 Regensburg Book, see Index of Bucer's works, Ada Colloquii relics 116 reprobation 63, 67-8, 71, 97 Rhenanus, Beatus 6, 10 Rhineland 24, 165, 167 Ridley, Nicholas 151 Rogers, John 161, 162, 171-3, 174 Roman Catholic Church 2, 5-16, 46-7, 56, 95, 97, 107-21, 133, 135, 145, 150-1 reform 111, 118, 135 see also Trent Rome, bishop of, see papacy

General index parishes: Old St Peter's 92 St Aurelie 20 St Nicholas 90 St Thomas 90, 125, 126, 127, 138, 166 Young St Peter's 89, 90, 92, 138 synod (1533) 17, 26, 36, 83-6, 123, 131 synod (1539) 125, 131 XVI Articles (1533) 17-19, 87 Sturm, Jacob 156 Suffolk, Duchess of 146 Supper-strife, see Lord's Supper Swiss churches, churchmen 10, 11, 72, 77, 149, 159, 162 see also Ziirichers; Zwinglians synod, see Strasbourg Taverner, Richard 174 teachers, teaching 9, 13, 18, 40, 51-2, 58, 117 Tertullian5, 119 Tesch, Peter 28, 125 Tetrapolitan Confession 72, 87 Thomas Aquinas 12, 29, 64, 66, 136 traditions 96, 111, 115-16, 120 unwritten 95 Travers, Walter 41 Treger, Conrad 6, 47, 48, 56 Trent, Council of 10, 120, 135 Turks 14 Tyndale, William 161, 162, 163, 165, 171 Ulm 21, 122 usury 156

195 Utopia 41, 118, 156 Venice 166 vestments 158 vocation, see calling Vulgate 70, 165, 170, 174 Waldensians 162 wardens, church, see 'Kirchenpfleger' Wesel 40 Westhemer, Bartholomew 171 Wetzel, Jacob 125-6 Whitchurch, Edward 164, 171 Wissembourg 8, 13 Wittenberg 165 Concord 11, 36, 62, 66-7, 70, 73, 153 Wolsey, Thomas 162, 167 women 8 Word of God, see Bible; preaching Worms Book 110, 112 Worms, Colloquy of (1540) 47, 110 worship 113, 117 Young, John 150, 156 Zell, Matthew 8, 89, 90 Zurich 45, 72, 86, 146, 149, 150, 153, 165, 166 Zurich Consensus 152, 154 Ziirichers 149, 151, 152, 154 Zwingli, Huldreich 6, 8, 11, 34, 42, 45, 65, 72, 77, 78, 82, 98, 114, 163, 164, 166, 167, 169, 171, 174 Zwinglians 70, 72, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 152