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