Studies in Early Modern Religious Tradition,

Culture and Society

N. Scott Amos

Bucer,
Ephesians
and Biblical
Humanism
The Exegete as Theologian
STUDIES IN EARLY MODERN RELIGIOUS
TRADITION, CULTURE AND SOCIETY
VOLUME 7

Editor
Irena Backus, University of Geneva

Editorial Board
Maria Rosa Antognazza, King’s College, London, UK
Emidio Campi, University of Zürich, Switzerland
Luc Deitz, Bibliothèque nationale de Luxembourg, Luxembourg
Carlos Eire, Yale University, USA
Lucas Erne, University of Geneva, Switzerland
Mohammed M. Ghaly, University of Leiden, The Netherlands
Bruce Gordon, Yale University, USA
Bradley Gregory, Notre Dame University, Indiana, USA
Howard Hotson, St. Anne’s College, Oxford, UK
Ralph Keen, University of Illinois, Chicago, USA
Jill Kraye, The Warburg Institute, London, UK
Diarmaid MacCulloch, St. Cross College, Oxford, UK
Scott Mandelbrote, Cambridge University, UK
Maria-Cristina Pitassi, University of Geneva, Switzerland
Lyndal Roper, Balliol College, Oxford, UK
Herman J. Selderhuis, Theological University Apeldoorn, The Netherlands
Christoph Strohm, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Magda Teter, Wesleyan University, USA
John L. Thompson, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, USA
Alexandre Vanautgaerden, University of Geneva, Switzerland
Piotr Wilczek, University of Warsaw, Poland
Studies in Early Modern Religious Tradition, Culture and Society aims to publish
monographs, collective volumes and critical editions of texts on the subject of the
Christian, Jewish and Islamic tradition, culture and society and the relations between
them in the early modern period. The series adopts an interdisciplinary approach and
places special emphasis on the sum total of all the religious, cultural, political, social
and intellectual changes that took place in the period between the Council of Florence
and early Enlightenment. It encourages studies that combine two or more fields of
research in their enquiry into a particular issue, e.g., religion and philosophy in the
15th century, women’s history and religious reforms in the 16th century, the impact of
scientific and geographical discoveries on religion or religion and literature throughout
the period. Works on the reception of thinkers of the three religions, and on the history
of scholarship also fall largely within the scope of the Series. This Series also aims to
encourage new ways of studying the three major religions of the early modern period.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/6531

N. Scott Amos

Bucer, Ephesians
and Biblical Humanism
The Exegete as Theologian
N. Scott Amos
Department of History
Lynchburg College
Lynchburg, VA, USA

ISSN 1572-5596
ISBN 978-3-319-10237-5 ISBN 978-3-319-10238-2 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-10238-2
Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London

Library of Congress Control Number: 2014949864

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts in connection
with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and
executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication of this
publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the Publisher’s
location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer.
Permissions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance Center. Violations
are liable to prosecution under the respective Copyright Law.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of
publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for
any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein.

Printed on acid-free paper

Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

Dedicated to my mother, and in memory
of my father (Matthew 8:5–13)
Acknowledgments

This book began as a doctoral thesis undertaken at the University of St Andrews,

and I remain grateful to the University for granting me admission to the postgraduate
program, and for the award of a Ph.D. in 2003. My studies were made possible by
the award of an Overseas Research Scholarship from the Council of Vice-Chancellors
and Principals, and a University Research Studentship from the University of
St Andrews. While at St Andrews, the St Andrews Reformation Studies Institute
and then St Mary’s College received me, in turn, into their respective fellowships,
for which I am equally grateful. I thank Bruce Gordon, Trevor Hart, Andrew
Pettegree, and Christopher Seitz for (in different ways and degrees) listening to my
ideas and critiquing various bits and pieces of work that gradually developed into
the finished thesis.
Much of the research for this book was undertaken in Cambridge. During my
time there, Prof. G. R. Evans graciously agreed to share in the supervision of my
work in her capacity as an external supervisor, for which I was then and continue to
remain grateful. Cambridge was the last residence of the subject of this book, Martin
Bucer, and the archival evidence of his tenure has yet (I suspect) to be fully discovered.
For what success I had in doing so, I am indebted to the staff of the Parker Library,
Corpus Christi College, and to the Fellow Librarian, Christoper de Hamel, for
access to the inestimable riches of the collection there, which include contents of
Bucer’s personal library during his Cambridge sojourn. Working in the Parker was
a rare privilege, made all the more pleasant and productive through the wonderful
and patient assistance of Gill Cannell, sub-Librarian, and the Archivist at the time
of my sojourn, Catherine Hall. In matters archival and otherwise, Elisabeth
Leedham-Green was also of inestimable assistance and encouragement, helping
with materials in Cambridge, checking my Latin, and sharing her knowledge of
sixteenth-century Cambridge.
Martin Bucer has often been called the “Forgotten Reformer”, but to the extent
that this appellation became less accurate in recent decades, it was due to the work
of the late David F. Wright of New College, the University of Edinburgh. His pub-
lished work on Bucer (including translations of some material dealt with in the

vii
viii Acknowledgments

present book), but especially his interest in my own work was a tremendous help
and encouragement to me. I was not privileged to be one of his students in a formal
way, but David was more than generous to give my original thesis a careful and
critical reading, to correct my Latin translations, and to be a friend along the way.
I could wish he had been able to provide comments on the revision of the thesis into
a book. It would have benefitted immensely from his (almost certainly) sharp
critique. He is deeply missed.
Amy Nelson Burnett of the University of Nebraska has read through several
drafts of this book, always offering insightful and constructive comments, which
have made it better than it was before. I am deeply grateful for this, and for her
urging me to see this book through to print.
In addition to the assistance of Drs. Leedham-Green and Wright, Donald
Cullington was also of invaluable help in the translation of Latin, specifically
Bucer’s doctoral oration, Tremellius’s dedicatory letter, and Bucer’s Praefatio to the
lectures. Despite the suggestions of Drs. Cullington, Leedham-Green, and Wright,
imperfections of translation remain for which I alone am responsible.
While resident at St Andrews, I had the privilege in the Summer of 1999 of
taking a course of study on Reformation readings of the Book of Revelation at the
Intitut d’histoire de la Réformation of the Université de Genève. The course was led
by Prof. Irena Backus, who took an interest in the work in which I was engaged and
provided me some very helpful comments. Subsequently, she extended an offer to
publish my work in the series in which this book now appears, Studies in Early
Modern Religious Tradition, Culture and Society (Springer). Professor Backus has
been extremely patient with me over the too-lengthy span of time it has taken to
complete this project. At Springer, Anita Rachmat, Christina dos Santos, and
especially Elvire Verbraak have all been equally patient with me as I struggled to
finalize this book. I would also like to thank the two reviewers of the manuscript;
responding to their comments has made for a better work.
Above all, I wish to express my deep gratitude to and love for my family: my late
father, Marion Norton Amos, my mother, Barbara Amos, and my brother, Robert;
and my parents-in-law, Lee and Joan Richwine. Most especially, I thank my wife,
Liesl, for her love and support (and editorial pen), and our daughters, Miriam
Elizabeth and Rachel Anna. The life of the mind is all very well, but it cannot
compare with the love of one’s daughters. Miriam and Rachel constantly remind me
there is much more to life than study; it is a fool who sacrifices family for the
academic life. Words cannot express the depth of my love and gratitude for Liesl
and Miriam and Rachel.

Lynchburg, VA, USA N. Scott Amos

Contents

1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 1
1.1 Prologue: The Reluctant Doctorandus ............................................... 1
1.2 Exegesis as the True Theology, the Exegete
as the True Theologian ....................................................................... 4
1.3 Prospectus .......................................................................................... 8
1.4 Methodology ...................................................................................... 10
Appendix: The Exegetical-Historical Context of the Praelectiones ........... 12
References ................................................................................................... 16

Part I Historical Context

2 The Old Theology and the New Learning

at Cambridge to 1549................................................................................ 25
2.1 Scholastic Method in Theology Through the Lens
of the Third Cambridge Injunction .................................................... 26
2.1.1 The Bible ................................................................................ 26
2.1.2 Peter Lombard’s Sentences and Academic Theology ............ 27
2.1.3 Teaching “After the Manner of Scotus” ................................. 28
2.1.4 The Role of the Humanist-Scholastic Debate ........................ 30
2.2 The University of Cambridge, ca. 1500–1549 ................................... 32
2.2.1 Scholastic Theology in Late Fifteenth
Century Cambridge ................................................................ 33
2.2.2 Humanism, Scholasticism,
and Curricular Reform to 1535 .............................................. 34
2.2.3 Curricular Reform, 1535–1549:
Reformation and Resistance .................................................. 39
2.3 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 44
References ................................................................................................... 45

ix
x Contents

3 “Remember the Readings and Preachings of God’s

Prophet and True Preacher, Martin Bucer”:
Bucer’s Sojourn in Cambridge, 1549–1551 ............................................ 49
3.1 Bucer and England ............................................................................. 50
3.1.1 The First Months .................................................................... 50
3.1.2 Cambridge and Regius Professor of Divinity,
January 1550–February 1551 ................................................. 52
3.2 Bucer’s Lectures on Ephesians in Context......................................... 58
3.2.1 The Influence of the Immediate Context
in Shaping the Lectures.......................................................... 58
3.2.2 The Immediate Impact of the Lectures .................................. 61
3.3 The Ephesians Lectures and the Priority of the Praelectiones .......... 62
3.3.1 The Problems of Evidence ..................................................... 62
3.3.2 The Evidence for De vi et usu as a Record
of the Lectures as Delivered................................................... 67
3.3.3 Chronology of the Lectures ................................................... 70
3.4 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 73
References ................................................................................................... 73

Part II The Praelectiones as an Exercise in Biblical

Humanist Exegetical Method

4 “Ratio seu methodus Martini Buceri”: Bucer’s Prefatory

Lectures on Ephesians and His Use of Biblical
Humanist Theological Method................................................................. 79
4.1 Bucer’s Intellectual Formation ........................................................... 81
4.2 Bucer, the Rhenish “School” of Exegesis, and Biblical
Humanist Method in the Teaching of Theology ................................ 87
4.3 Bucer’s “Ratio” of 1550 ..................................................................... 90
4.3.1 Ephesians as a Compendium of Doctrine .............................. 91
4.3.2 The Particulars of Bucer’s Method ........................................ 95
4.4 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 108
References ................................................................................................... 109
5 “An Exposition of the Whole Doctrine of Salvation:”
Bucer’s Deployment of Biblical Humanist Method
and the 1550 Ephesians Lectures as a Whole ......................................... 115
5.1 The Praelectiones as an Exercise in Biblical
Humanist Exegetical Method ............................................................. 116
5.1.1 Text-Critical Matters .............................................................. 117
5.1.2 Philological Issues ................................................................. 118
5.1.3 Grammar and Rhetoric ........................................................... 119
5.1.4 The Author in Context ........................................................... 120
Contents xi

5.1.5 The Use of Scripture to Interpret Scripture............................ 121

5.1.6 The Use of Non-scriptural Authorities ................................... 122
5.1.7 Section Conclusion ................................................................ 123
5.2 The Lectures in Overview .................................................................. 123
5.2.1 Ephesians 1–3: “Everything Necessary
to be Believed unto Salvation” ............................................... 124
5.2.2 Ephesians 4–5: The Sacred Ministry
and the Life of the Body ........................................................ 129
5.2.3 Section Conclusion ................................................................ 132
5.3 The Loci Method and the Practice of Exegesis and Theology ........... 133
5.3.1 Varieties of Approach: Melanchthon,
Calvin and Vermigli ............................................................... 134
5.3.2 The Loci Method in the Praelectiones ................................... 138
5.3.3 Section Conclusion ................................................................ 144
5.4 Chapter Conclusion............................................................................ 144
Appendix: Loci in Earlier Commentaries of Bucer .................................... 145
References ................................................................................................... 147
6 Theology in an Exegetical Context: Bucer
on Ephesians 1:3–6 and the Doctrine of Election ................................... 151
6.1 Ephesians 1:3–6—The General Pattern of Treatment ....................... 153
6.2 Ephesians 1:3 and the Blessing of the Elect People .......................... 156
6.3 Ephesians 1:4—Election and Its Ethical Imperative.......................... 161
6.4 Ephesians 1:5–6—Predestination and the Glory of God ................... 166
6.5 Assessment......................................................................................... 174
6.6 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 177
References ................................................................................................... 177
7 Theology in an Exegetical Context: Bucer on Ephesians
1:13–18 and the Doctrine of Faith............................................................ 181
7.1 Ephesians 1:13–18—The General Pattern of Treatment ................... 182
7.2 Ephesians 1:13 and Hearing the Word of Truth
that Leads to Faith .............................................................................. 185
7.3 Ephesians 1:15 and Faith in the Lord Jesus ....................................... 194
7.4 Ephesians 1:17b–18a and the Increase of Faith ................................. 198
7.5 Bucer’s Separate Locus on Faith
and its Relationship to Ephesians 1:13–18 ........................................ 203
7.6 Assessment......................................................................................... 208
7.7 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 210
References ................................................................................................... 211
8 Conclusion ................................................................................................. 213
References ................................................................................................... 216

Index ................................................................................................................. 219

Chapter 1
Introduction

1.1 Prologue: The Reluctant Doctorandus

Martin Bucer (1491–1551) was a man of many callings: pastor, architect

(along with Jacob Sturm) of the Reformation in Strasbourg, ecclesiastical negotiator,
ecumenical statesman.1 But on those seemingly rare occasions when he was not
traveling throughout the Empire fulfilling the latter two callings, Bucer served as a
professor in the Strasbourg Gymnasium and its predecessors. From his earliest days
in his adopted home, his lectures were expositions of biblical books, and many of
these lectures later formed the substance of his biblical commentaries (for example,
those on the Synoptic Gospels [Bucer 1527a], Ephesians [Bucer 1527b], the Gospel
of John [Bucer 1528a], Zephaniah [Bucer 1528b], and Psalms [Bucer 1529]).2
These commentaries established his reputation as a major biblical scholar, and it
would be easy to conclude that he was a professor of the Bible, which was certainly
true. Yet there was more to his academic calling than that, for these same lectures
also served as the occasion for the teaching of theology, and the position he occu-
pied was styled as that of a theologian (Schindling 1977, 28).3 As professor of the

1
On Bucer’s career and its many facets, the most recent authoritative study is Greschat (2004).
Though dated, Eells (1931) remains valuable. On Bucer and Sturm, the works of Brady are of
fundamental importance (1995 and 1997).
2
His commentary on Romans (Bucer 1536) does not appear to have grown directly out of lectures
in the same way as these others (Eells 1931, 196).
3
See Sect. 4.2 below for a discussion of Bucer’s career as a professor in Strasbourg. In anticipation
of an objection that the same could be said of Luther, and indeed of many other early Reformers,
I readily concede the point, and do not want to be understood as advancing a claim for Bucer’s
uniqueness. Still, to return to Luther, how Luther practiced the teaching of theology and the exege-
sis of Scripture was different than Bucer and others who could be styled Protestant biblical human-
ists, a point that I shall here let stand without further elaboration. The objective of the present study
is to focus on Bucer. However, the broader issue I have touched on points up the need for a wider
study of the teaching of theology and the practice of exegesis associated with it among the early
Reformers.

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 1

N.S. Amos, Bucer, Ephesians and Biblical Humanism, Studies in Early Modern
Religious Tradition, Culture and Society 7, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-10238-2_1
2 1 Introduction

Bible and of theology (he would not have made the sharp distinction between the
two that is common in the academy today), he practiced his vocation for 25 years
before he was exiled from Strasbourg in 1549. Thus, it must have come as a surprise
to him that when he was appointed as Regius Professor of Divinity at the University
of Cambridge in late 1549, it became necessary for him to be awarded the degree of
Doctor of Theology before he could take up his new post.4
Indeed, it is worth noting that no one at the time seemed entirely comfortable
with the award. To begin with, there was some ambivalence on the part of Bucer’s
hosts about it, as seen in the text of the grace (the permission to take a degree) under
the heading, “Doctor of theology” [Doctor Theologiae], which read as follows:
the same is granted to Master Martin Bucer, as his exceptional work in explaining the
Scriptures is sufficient for him to incept in theology: such that his admission shall stand for
the completed degree and form of the doctorate in the same faculty, notwithstanding [the
omission] of the remaining customs and ceremonies which in this matter are usually required:
with this one proviso, that he act as respondent in public disputations (Venn 1910, 67).5

The wording indicates that the University found it necessary to justify the award,
and that it was not a straightforward matter to grant the degree to one who had not
followed the customary path in formal preparation for it. Under the regulations then
current at Cambridge, the holder of a Bachelor of Divinity was required to attend
daily theological lectures over the course of 4 years, dispute twice and respond once
in “theological questions,” preach twice in Latin and once in English in the
University Church, at the end of which time he “may be called into the rank of doc-
tors” (Heywood 1840, 9).6 Bucer, on the other hand, was to be made Doctor of
Theology on the basis of his “exceptional work in explaining the Scriptures.”
A career as an exceptional exegete is deemed “sufficient” preparation for him to
“incept” (that is, take a degree) in theology—not exactly a hearty endorsement, but
almost grudging. The sole requirement laid upon Bucer, of all the duties and require-
ments usually incumbent upon doctoral candidates, was that he “act as respondent
in public disputations” (Heywood 1840, 9).7

4
Dr Elisabeth Leedham-Green (Darwin College, Cambridge) has indicated to me that it was an
unspoken requirement for the Regius Professor to be a Doctor in order to admit doctorands to their
degree. Although Bucer had begun studies towards a doctorate in the 1510s (he held the degree
BD), and in 1520 had been recommended for magister studentium, an important stage towards the
doctorate, he never attained the latter degree (Greschat 2004, 22–33).
5
“Item conceditur domino Martino Bucero ut eius singularis opera in explicandis Scripturis illi
sufficiat ad incipiendum in Theologia. Ita ut eius admissio stet pro completo gradu et forma doc-
toratus in eadem facultate, non obstantibus reliquis consuetudinibus et ceremoniis que in hac re
solent requiri hoc tamen uno proviso ut in commitiis respondeat.” The original is at UA Grace
Book Δ, fol. 27v. Venn’s reading of “commitiis,” rather than “comittiis” is attributable to the slight
mark above the “m” in the original, a possible indication that the letter is doubled.
6
These requirements made the degree more than a mere formality, and not a sort of sixteenth-
century version of an honorary doctorate.
7
The translation of “ut in commitiis respondeat” as “that he act as respondent in public disputa-
tions” is at the suggestion of Dr Elisabeth Leedham-Green. This is probably the stipulation laid
upon a Bachelor of Divinity that he “respond once in theological questions.”
1.1 Prologue: The Reluctant Doctorandus 3

Bucer, for his part, was equally ambivalent (if not, indeed, bemused). At the cer-
emony when the degree was formally conferred upon him, he gave an oration in
which he expressed his thoughts upon the occasion, and it is striking that almost
from the beginning he gave evidence of no small discomfort in receiving the award
(Hubert 1577, 184–190). His rhetorical questions suggest that he had in view the
wording of the grace quoted above. Why, he asked, should someone at his advanced
age accept such an honor? It is not as if he needed it in order to attain approval for
a ministry already well-established (Hubert 1577, 184). Neither did he think that the
degree would of itself make any difference in the performance of his new duties.
Furthermore, he declared that in accepting the degree some might think he had done
something which was “very alien and foreign to my age and profession,” a sugges-
tive remark in itself (Hubert 1577, 184).8 He went on to say that he could not see
what the advantages were to his being made Doctor (Hubert 1577, 185).9 What fol-
lows in his oration is a lengthy justification on his part for accepting the degree, in
which he is keen to refute suggestions that he had bought it or that it had been
awarded on frivolous grounds.10 Again, it is noteworthy that Bucer was clearly
uncomfortable with the award. It has been suggested that modesty played a part,
since Bucer had no prior experience as a professor in a university (Hall 1994, 146).11
Perhaps; but there is clearly a sense in which he did not quite see the point of the
award, and was not fully convinced of the reasons urged upon him by his hosts for
accepting it.12
When Bucer began his lectures in theology in January 1550, he undertook the
exposition of a biblical book, the Apostle Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians. Although
in one sense there was nothing remarkable about this activity (we have already

8
“…quod sit & ab aetate, & a professione mea admodum alienum & dissentaneum.”
9
It is worth observing, by way of comparison, two other cases where a recipient of the degree
“Doctor of Theology” expressed reservations about its value. Both individuals were figures of
importance for and influence upon Bucer. In a polemical tract directed against Jacques Lefèvre
d’Étaples, Desiderius Erasmus (1466–1536) actually disowned the title of theologian in the profes-
sional, academic sense, even though he felt obligated at the age of 40 to secure the degree and title
(Ménager 2008, 41). Bucer’s fellow Strasbourg reformer, Wolfgang Capito (1478–1541), likewise
distanced himself from attaching too much value on the title “doctor” in prefatory comments to his
1527 Hosea commentary (Rummel 2005, 1:xxiii). That said, he maintained that the only true “doc-
tor” was Jesus Christ.
10
He refutes the suggestion that the award was for frivolous reasons (Hubert 1577, 186–187) and
the suggestion that he bought the honor (Hubert 1577, 187–188, 189, 190). Though Bucer had
been received with honor and esteem by the authorities, there were significant numbers of mem-
bers of the University who were his lasting opponents and critics, especially among the fellows of
Trinity College (as we shall see in Chap. 3 below).
11
Yet it must be stated that if this is true, it would be so only in a narrow sense; as noted above (and
below, in Sect. 4.2), Bucer was the leading teacher in theology in the Strasbourg schools for virtu-
ally all his career there.
12
In sum, the reasons offered by his hosts that persuaded him were: first, it would contribute to the
maintenance of order within the University; second, it would secure Bucer’s standing within the
University; and third, the recognition by the University of Bucer’s previous career of ministry and
teaching would increase his standing in England (Hubert 1577, 184–5, 189).
4 1 Introduction

noted that his own previous career as a teacher was marked by such lectures), in the
immediate context of Cambridge it was something new and (in the event) exciting.13
In lecturing on the Bible, Bucer acted in accordance with the Cambridge Injunctions
of 1535, which mandated that all theology lectures from that time forth were to be
on the Bible alone, and which stipulated further that no lectures were to be given on
Peter Lombard’s Sentences, nor on any commentary written on them—formally
speaking, a requirement which at a stroke radically revised the theological curricu-
lum as it had developed over the course of the Middle Ages, in which the exposition
of the Sentences figured prominently.14 But, as we shall see in Chap. 2, it appears
that the Injunctions to that point had been a dead letter. Hence, Bucer’s lectures
were unlike theology lectures as they had traditionally been given at Cambridge,
even in the aftermath of the Cambridge Injunctions.
In any case, it is clear that whatever hesitation Bucer might have had about the
bestowal of the doctorate, he believed that he was nevertheless engaging in theo-
logical reflection and statement in his lectures, and that his biblical exposition was
at the same time an exposition of theology within the meaning of the act, that is,
under the terms of the Cambridge Injunctions. However, in view of the apparent
need to justify the bestowal of his degree, and the awkwardness felt by those who
were tasked to award it; in view of Bucer’s evident reluctance to take the title Doctor
of Theology; and (as we shall see) in view of the fact that his lectures did not con-
form to the general pattern of lectures in theology as that discipline had developed
in the centuries leading up to his own time or had been practiced in Cambridge prior
to his appointment, a number of questions arise. If Bucer was indeed a theologian—
and he was, in his own estimation and that of others—how should his practice be
characterized, specifically with respect to these lectures and his tenure as Regius
Professor of Divinity, but also retrospectively with reference to his earlier career? If
his lectures were lectures in theology and not simply biblical exposition, what does
this tell us about Bucer’s method of teaching and “doing” theology? Is there any
particular significance to the fact that this method was a close combination of theol-
ogy and exegesis?

1.2 Exegesis as the True Theology, the Exegete

as the True Theologian

The examination that follows is centered on what proved to be Bucer’s final effort
at the teaching of theology, namely his 1550/1 lectures on Ephesians (Bucer 1562),
given during his tenure as Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of

13
His lectures were said to have had an “electric” impact upon Cambridge: Guy (1988, 221).
14
For the Injunction regarding theology see University of Cambridge (1785, 134–141, at 136–137).
The Cambridge Injunctions and their relationship to curricular reform will be discussed in Chap. 2.
1.2 Exegesis as the True Theology, the Exegete as the True Theologian 5

Cambridge.15 The answers to the questions raised above will be sought through an
examination of these lectures not only with reference to the Cambridge Injunctions
(which, in immediate terms, played a part in the shaping of them), but also with
reference to the intellectual program which is reflected in the Injunctions and which
was a significant influence in Bucer’s own intellectual formation—biblical human-
ism, especially as it had been developed by Desiderius Erasmus (d. 1536).16 This
book will contend that Bucer’s lectures exemplified a biblical humanist method in
theology: exegesis as the true theology, the exegete as the true theologian.17
In general terms, that Bucer was influenced by humanism is a commonplace. No
small amount of the literature on Bucer has stressed the humanist character of his
theology, in particular as he was influenced by Erasmus, though it is worth observ-
ing that, for the most part, scholars do not explicitly address the narrower category
of biblical humanism.18 While his most recent biographer, Martin Greschat, has also
noted the humanist character of Bucer’s thought, he is careful to draw attention to
the influence of his Dominican education and the impact of Luther as well.19
Humanism played a powerful role, in the view of many of these same scholars, in
Bucer’s mediating stance in the theological disputes of his age, whether between

15
The present investigation is thus an examination of Bucer’s Ephesians lectures of 1550/1 in their
historical context. To date, there has been no extended study devoted exclusively to them. Two
helpful works touch on them: Stephens (1994), which is a comparison of the lectures with which I
am concerned and Bucer’s earlier commentary on the same book (published in 1527); and van’t
Spijker (1996, 345–455 passim). It should be noted that in this latter treatment, the lectures are
only one of several texts under study for this final phase of Bucer’s career. The Praelectiones are
also briefly discussed in White (1992, 44–48).
16
In its narrowest sense, “humanism” was an educational movement focused on eloquence in writ-
ing and speaking, and was not a philosophy; on this, see Kristeller (1979, 21–32). With respect to
“biblical humanism” and “biblical humanists,” what is signified is a movement “oriented towards
the Bible and founded upon the Bible,” led by those who wished
to make the [humanist] achievements of modern philological methods…bear fruit for the
understanding of the Bible and the Fathers, and in so doing to revive theology. For this
purpose they dismissed scholastic theology as wholly antiquated and sterile, preferring to
go back to the sources, and set themselves the goal of renewing not only theology but the
church also. (Augustijn 1991, 109–110 [reprinted by permission of the publisher])
Both terms designate an intellectual method, not content of thought (though method and content
cannot entirely be divorced).
17
While the importance of two other major sources of influence upon Bucer’s development as a
theologian—scholastic method, and Martin Luther—receive only brief attention in the present
examination (see below, Sect. 4.1), that should not be taken to indicate a rejection of their signifi-
cance, nor a belief that biblical humanism and the work of Erasmus eclipsed them.
18
See, for instance: Stupperich (1936); Strohl (1937); Strohl (1939a); Strohl (1939b); Kohls
(1963); Kohls (1977); Müller (1965); Krüger (1970); Reventlow (1984); Krüger (1993); and
Krüger (1994).
19
See: Greschat (1969); Greschat (1976); Greschat (1978); Greschat (2004). In Sect. 4.1 below
there is a brief discussion of the roles of humanism, scholastic method, and Luther in the shaping
of Bucer’s thought just prior to his emergence as a Reformer.
6 1 Introduction

Lutheran and Reformed or between Evangelical and Catholic. In this connection, a

prominent feature of biblical humanism was recourse to Patristic literature, and
Bucer was a prime example of this in his efforts at mending divisions within the
Church.20
With regard to the present study, the influence of biblical humanism as a method
in relation to Bucer’s practice of exegesis is particularly noteworthy. That said, stud-
ies of him as an exegete, while not insubstantial in number,21 lag behind those of
other Reformers of his stature, in no small part because of the lack of critical edi-
tions of his commentaries.22 To date, though several have been the subject of yet-
unpublished dissertations, no monographs have been produced on them.23 Once
again, Erasmus was a dominant influence in shaping Bucer’s own biblical humanist
method of exegesis, but there were other expressions of the method that themselves
constituted an equally important influence on Bucer’s own formation and develop-
ment.24 Especially important was the biblical humanism of the upper Rhine (which
included Switzerland), or what has been termed by Bernard Roussel and R. Gerald
Hobbs as “l’école rhénane d’exégèse.”25 To date, relatively little work has been done
on this “school” of exegesis, and it is the intent in the present study to make a con-
tribution to the literature on the Rhenish “school” (albeit in a context outside the
Rhineland).
However, the particular argument of this book is that the influence of biblical
humanism went beyond exegetical method and extended to Bucer’s assumptions
about the purpose of theology, and to his method as a “theologian”—especially with
regard to his practice as a teacher of theology. This influence gave a distinctive
character to his work, as a teacher of theology in particular, that has received insuf-
ficient attention.26 Once again, Erasmus provides a point of reference for biblical

20
Most recently, see Thompson (2005), but also Greschat (2004).
21
Müller (1965) is the only book-length study of this subject. See also: Hobbs (1978); Hobbs
(1984); Lang (1900); Noblesse-Rocher (2010); Pak (2010, 55–75); Roussel (1977); Roussel
(1993); Selderhuis (1999, 272–287); Stephens (1970, 142–155); Tait (2008); Timmerman (2007);
Wright (1998); and Wursten (2010, 183–215).
22
Of his commentaries, only that on the Gospel of John has so far appeared in a critical edition,
edited by Irena Backus (Bucer 1988).
23
The relevant studies are: Lang (1900) [on the Gospels]; Lutz (1953) [Judges]; Roussel (1970)
[Romans]; Hobbs (1971) [Psalms]; the study on which the present book is based, Amos (2003a)
[1550/1 Ephesians]; Tait (2005) [Sermon on the Mount]; Lugioyo (2010) [Romans]—the latter
also contributes to the study of Bucer’s ecumenical efforts.
24
While I make repeated reference to the influential role of Erasmus in conveying the methods of
biblical humanism to Bucer, I do not want to overstate the case. I readily acknowledge, as Augustijn
(1991, 109–110) points out, that while Erasmus was the most prominent advocate of the movement
and its methods, not all participants followed him in every respect. Christ-von Wedel (2013, 183–
199) notes the complicated relationship between Erasmus and the Swiss Reformers.
25
See, among other studies, Roussel and Hobbs (1989); Roussel (1988); Hobbs (2007).
26
That said, Lang (1900, 43) and Tait (2008, 57)—among others—recognize that biblical com-
mentary formed the context of Bucer’s theological statement, and Tait speaks of Bucer’s Romans
commentary as a work of systematic theology.
1.2 Exegesis as the True Theology, the Exegete as the True Theologian 7

humanism and its influence on Bucer. Erasmus understood the calling of theologian
in a distinctive way, in terms of method and purpose.27 As to method, he maintained
that the true theologian is first and foremost an exegete of the Bible, and that theol-
ogy and exegesis were intimately connected. Consequently, he held that theology is
best “done” in an exegetical context. As to purpose, he maintained that theology
should have a direct bearing on the Christian life: doctrine should be concerned with
piety and right living, not with abstract questions.28 For his part, Bucer shared
Erasmus’s convictions about the relationship of theology and exegesis. Likewise,
Bucer shared the commitment to theology as a practical and not a speculative enter-
prise, a commitment that was succinctly expressed in his 1530 commentary on all
four Gospels in remarks on John 14: “True theology is not theoretical or speculative,
but active and practical. Indeed, the end of it is to act, that is to live a godly life”
(Bucer 1530, 81A recto/Oo3 recto).29 As these final lectures bear witness, he
remained true to these convictions to the end of his career.30
Bucer’s reference to speculative theology is suggestive of a significant aspect of
the broader historical context for his intellectual formation, as well as for the events
at the University of Cambridge just prior to his arrival: the professional dispute that
had raged in the earlier part of the sixteenth century between the scholastics (the
professional, academic theologians) and the humanists (the experts on the handling
of texts), echoes of which were still heard in Cambridge in 1550.31 In this respect, a
secondary aim of the present study is to look again, through the lens of Bucer’s
Ephesians lectures, at the question of the relationship between the Reformation and
its intellectual antecedents (the perennial question of continuity and discontinuity
with the Middle Ages). While the case can be made for the significance of scholastic

27
For more on Erasmus’s theological method, see (Rummel 1986), Hoffman (1994) and, more
briefly, Amos (2003b, 52–53). A recent examination of Erasmus as a theologian is found in Christ-
von Wedel (2013), which stresses the historical character of his work.
28
See Hoffmann’s judgment (1994, 9–10): “For Erasmus, the theologian’s true vocation arises
from the interpretation of the Bible. This conversation with Scripture aims at both personal trans-
formation by the gospel truth and the ministry of teaching and preaching the word in such a way
that lends itself to the restitution of Christianity.” Reprinted by permission of the publisher.
29
“Vera theologia, non Theoretica vel speculativa, sed activa & practica est. Finis siquidem eius
agere est, hoc est, vitam vivere Deiformem.” Note that for all early printed volumes, I will refer to
both page (or leaf) number, and to signatures. In the case of the Praelectiones and material taken
from Scripta Anglicana, however, I only use page numbers, which is generally the rule for Bucer
scholarship in referring to these texts.
30
At the same time, Bucer was more concerned to emphasize correct, evangelical doctrine than
perhaps was the case with Erasmus—and in this, shows the influence of Luther, and points up the
fact that Bucer was a Protestant (or evangelical) biblical humanist. Koch (1962) is, in my view, in
error when he characterizes Bucer as an ethicist and not a theologian, and likewise when he main-
tains that the ethical emphasis in Bucer is in conflict with evangelical theology.
31
On the broader methodological debate of the time, see especially: Rummel (1994); Rummel
(1996); Nauert (1973), Nauert (1998); and Nauert (2006). I do not think it is a stretch to see
Bucer’s comment to reflect the negative view of speculative theology (however one chooses to
apply that term) that one finds in the thick of the earlier stages of the debate.
8 1 Introduction

method for the Reformation as well as for Protestant Orthodoxy, we should not
minimize or overlook the contribution of biblical humanist method to the former,
especially in the early years of the Reformation. It is true that contrasts between the
two intellectual methods have been exaggerated in past historiography, but the effort
to redress this imbalance should not neglect to keep in view the tension between
them immediately preceding and during the early Reformation—especially with
respect to how this tension influenced some of the early Reformers in their attitude
to scholastic method in theology and thus their own practice, Bucer among them.32
(In passing, it is worth observing that this tension may be part of the reason why
Bucer and his hosts each felt ambivalent about the award of the title “Doctor of
Theology”, given that it was understood in a scholastic context.) It is true that Bucer
could and did use scholastic terms and concepts with facility, and that he employed
elements of scholastic method in many of his works.33 Yet he was non-scholastic in
the method he employed in his lectures in theology, intentionally so—not just in
Cambridge at the end of his career, but in his earlier teaching as well. While scho-
lastic method was returning to prominent use by many of his younger contempo-
raries from the mid-sixteenth century onwards, Bucer’s final lectures show his
continued commitment to the methods and assumptions of biblical humanism. It is
not too much to suggest that in Cambridge one witnesses a final flourish of the
Rhenish, biblical humanist approach to theology, even as one witnesses the final
flourish of Bucer’s life and career.34

1.3 Prospectus

This book will be divided into two parts. In Part I (“Historical Context”), the intent
is to set the historical stage for Bucer’s lectures, beginning with an examination in
Chap. 2 of the nature of theological lectures at the University of Cambridge prior to
his arrival. This includes a broad sketch of scholastic theology in the centuries prior
to the Reformation, a sketch of the humanist critique of scholastic method, and a
narrative of efforts towards reform in Cambridge that took a dramatic turn with the
Cambridge Injunctions of 1535. With reference to the issue of continued curricular
reform and the immediate intellectual and historical context of Bucer’s lectures,
Chap. 3 describes the circumstances under which Bucer delivered his lectures. His
work on Ephesians did not take place in the solitude of his study, but rather in the

32
Richard Muller has argued forcefully that in the last 20 years scholarship has noted a more subtle
relationship between the two methods, which could co-exist within the same person, and that is it
simplistic to reduce them to irreconcilable approaches (Muller 2000, 40–41; Muller 2012, 19–20,
24–33). Rex (1993, 26) makes a similar argument with reference to Cambridge.
33
I will return to this point in Sect. 4.1 below, with reference to Bucer’s intellectual formation.
34
Biblical humanism, as an exegetical method, lived on in the form of sacred philology, but in that
form it had a different focus and aim, and could not be confused with theology.
1.3 Prospectus 9

midst of the turmoil of Reformation in mid-Tudor Cambridge, an atmosphere that

was already charged prior to Bucer’s arrival. This chapter provides a narrative of
Bucer’s sojourn in Cambridge, paying particular attention to the immediate context
of his lectures and his delivery of them, seeking among other things to establish why
(in historical terms) they had such a strong impact.
In Part II (“The Praelectiones as an Exercise in Biblical-Humanist Exegetical
Method”), there will be a close examination of Bucer’s practice in the Cambridge
lectures themselves, albeit by means of a study which continues to be cognizant of
the interplay between Bucer’s exposition and the historical context set out in Part
I. The examination of the lectures will include attention to the history of the inter-
pretation of Ephesians. In a fundamental sense, these Cambridge lectures were a
dialogue between Bucer and the text of Ephesians, a dialogue that was informed by
the historical circumstances of his life and time. Yet they were also a dialogue
between Bucer and the exegetical tradition on Ephesians. In what he said, he was
conscious of the fact that others had commented on the text before him, and that it
was necessary to address (explicitly or implicitly) the comments others had made—
either to demonstrate his agreement with them, or to correct his predecessors (and
his contemporaries) in their misunderstanding.
To return to the outline of the present investigation, Chap. 4 focuses on Bucer’s
prefatory lectures that preceded the exposition of Ephesians proper, surveying the
way in which they self-consciously display his effort to meet the requirements of the
Cambridge Injunctions and at the same time testify to his continued commitment to
the program of biblical humanism. This examination will also set Bucer’s method-
ological statement in 1550 within the context of his earlier career (including a brief
consideration of his intellectual formation), demonstrating a continuity over the
years. The lectures as a whole are surveyed in Chap. 5, showing the entire series to
have been an exercise in the teaching of theology that constituted an expression of
the biblical humanist program. In this chapter attention is given to his use of the loci
communes method as a tool in his exposition, an interpretive method derived from
Renaissance humanism but now broadened to include not only interpretation of the
text, but doing theology in an exegetical context. Finally, Chaps. 6 and 7 offer close
analyses of Bucer’s treatment of two pericopes from Ephesians 1 in which he found
theological loci, in order to explore—in the light of the exegetical tradition but also
his prefatory lectures—Bucer’s method of combining theology and exegesis, and to
ask whether the method he sought to follow had a distinctive result with respect
both to exegesis and to theology.35
A number of further questions guide the investigation in Part II, in addition to the
overarching questions posed in the “Prologue” above, and which will contribute to
answering them more fully. What were Bucer’s fundamental assumptions about the
task upon which he was engaged? How did he demonstrate an understanding of
himself as a professor of theology? With particular reference to Chaps. 6 and 7, how

35
The pericopes will be Ephesians 1:3–6 and 1:13–18, dealing with election and faith
respectively.
10 1 Introduction

did he proceed in his treatment of the text, and how did he handle questions of theology
in the context of biblical exposition? In view of the fact that the exposition of the
Bible was central to his activity as Regius Professor, what was the relationship
between his lectures and the exegetical tradition? In connection with the repudiation
of the previous approach to the teaching of theology (as we see that repudiation
embodied in the Cambridge Injunctions and in the polemic of biblical humanism
more broadly), to what extent were Bucer’s method and result in these lectures in
fact a departure from the past? The answers to these questions emerge from a read-
ing of Bucer’s treatment of the text of Ephesians within the context of the exegetical
tradition. By comparing Bucer with a representative selection of exegetes who pre-
ceded him in the interpretation of this book,36 we will be able to see how much of
what he did was traditional and how much was indeed a departure from previous
practice, and what (if anything) about his practice made him distinctive as an exe-
gete and theologian.

1.4 Methodology

A brief statement regarding the method employed in the present investigation is in

order. This study is, generally speaking, an exercise in the history of Christian
thought, setting Bucer’s contribution in the context of his predecessors and contem-
poraries, a study that combines the history of theology and the history of biblical
interpretation with attention to the historical setting in which Bucer worked.37 As
indicated, this is an analysis of Bucer’s Ephesians lectures which emphasizes the
interrelationship of text and context, a context both historical and literary. In Part I,
the concern is with the background to Bucer’s work in 1550, with particular atten-
tion to the historical and intellectual setting of Bucer’s lectures, and the method-
ological approach needs no particular comment.
In Part II, this study is more directly concerned with Bucer’s interpretation of
Ephesians. Chaps. 4 and 5 continue to be an exercise the history of Christian
thought, but in Chaps. 6 and 7 the methods associated with the history of biblical
interpretation are employed to increase our understanding of what Bucer was doing
in these lectures. The importance of this latter approach with respect to the present
study arises from the fact that the central issues dealt with are—put in somewhat
different terms—those of how Bucer interpreted and applied the text of Ephesians.
As we have noted, Bucer proceeded with an awareness that he was not the first to

36
See the Appendix to the present chapter for the range of exegetes with whom Bucer will be
compared.
37
Although the history of theology and the history of biblical interpretation are generally treated
separately, in respect of the present study it is well to treat them together, if for no other reason than
the fact that in the pre-critical world, exegesis and theology were not (in theory, at least) divided by
the seemingly insurmountable barrier that presently exists between them.
1.4 Methodology 11

interpret this text. He interpreted Ephesians with the weight of the exegetical
tradition resting upon him.
The history of biblical interpretation, or of exegesis—the study of biblical com-
mentators within the broad sweep of the exegetical tradition—is important to the
study of Church history for two key reasons.38 First, virtually all pre-modern exegetes
(including the early Reformers) sought to ensure that their conclusions were rooted in
the exegetical tradition in order to protect themselves from accusations of innovation,
and they were therefore self-conscious in their relationship to that tradition. Attention
to the history of exegesis will therefore pay heed to a key concern of pre-modern
exegetes when they handled the text of Scripture. Second, the history of biblical inter-
pretation opens a window on the shifting cultural and theological contexts within
which exegesis takes place, but one in which the texts in question remain constant.
How a given generation or an individual exegete interpreted and applied a text tells us
as much about the theological assumptions of the exegete (and, to some extent, his
contemporaries) as it does about the method of exegesis employed.39 Furthermore, as
the present examination argues with respect to Bucer, a characteristic approach of
early Reformation theology was exegetical, even intensively so. The early Reformers
developed their theology in the context of exegesis, and in conversation with the exe-
getical tradition of the text under examination.
For this reason, the present analysis of Bucer’s lectures seeks to be sensitive to
the ways in which he may interact with how others have treated the same passage,
considering not only his contemporaries, but also Patristic and medieval commenta-
tors. If we are to understand more fully what he was doing in this process, we must
attempt to read his lectures over his shoulder—as it were—while he worked on
them in his study, and consider his handling of the text in the context of the exegeti-
cal tradition.40 In this way, we will find a useful comparative frame of reference for
observing how Bucer proceeds through the text, and we will be able in part to mea-
sure his exegetical conclusions against the work of others.41 This will help to high-
light not only what is distinctive in Bucer’s interpretation, but also the extent to
which his particular combination of exegesis and theology might have made a dif-
ference in his treatment of the text. The use of the methods of the history of biblical

38
On the importance of the history of exegesis for Church history see Ebeling (1968, 11–31). See
also Pelikan (1959, 5–31). More recently, see: Steinmetz (1995, vii–viii, 209–11); Oberman (1996,
xi–xiii) and Muller (1996, 3–22).
39
I owe these reflections to Professor Irena Backus of the University of Geneva.
40
Indeed, the contents of Bucer’s study at his death are found in the collection of the Parker Library,
Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, to which I had the privilege of access during the research for
the present investigation. More will be said about the use made of this collection in the Appendix
to this chapter, in which there will be a discussion of the range of commentators used to provide a
comparative frame of reference for Bucer’s own work.
41
This study will follow a path David Steinmetz has marked out in the use of the history of biblical
interpretation for the illumination of Church history. See, for instance, his comments in the preface
to Steinmetz (1995, vii and viii).
12 1 Introduction

interpretation is thus as much to illuminate what Bucer was doing in teaching theology
through exegesis, as to understand how Bucer’s exegesis compares with the exegetical
tradition (which is the usual interest in such comparative examinations).

In summary, the aim of this study is to discover what Bucer’s 1550 lectures on
Ephesians tell us about him as a theologian at the end of his career in respect of
theological method and his understanding of the relationship between exegesis of
the Bible and theological formulation, and therefore about the extent to which he
was influenced by the program of biblical humanism—in other words, to discover
the extent to which he was himself a theologian of the biblical humanist school. To
be sure, he was not alone in this respect. Nevertheless, we will find that in these
lectures Bucer serves as an exemplar of the exegete as theologian. In his tenure as
Regius Professor of Divinity, as indeed over the span of his career, Bucer epito-
mized the biblical humanist (and early Reformation) commitment to the claim that
true theology begins and ends with the exegesis of the Word of God.

Appendix: The Exegetical-Historical Context

of the Praelectiones

Before we proceed further, it is appropriate to make an additional statement in con-

nection with the broader intellectual context of the lectures. As indicated above, the
methods of the history of biblical interpretation will be employed—principally in
Chaps. 6 and 7, though to a limited extent in Chaps. 4 and 5 as well. Hence, we will
work within a comparative framework, turning to the history of the interpretation of
Ephesians as an aid in the analysis of what Bucer sought to achieve in 1550. His
methods and conclusions will be considered in the context of representatives from the
exegetical tradition in order to highlight what was distinctive about his approach and
what was commonplace, in part in terms of his exegetical conclusions but also with
reference to his treatment of theology in exegetical context. Through the comparative
use of all these exegetes, we can observe his dialogue with the exegetical tradition as
he sought to express his own understanding of what Paul wrote in this letter.
For the present investigation, we will concentrate primarily upon a few exegetes
of Ephesians in order to provide the comparative framework for the discussion:
John Chrysostom (c. 347–407), Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), Erasmus, and John
Calvin (1509–1564). Although other exegetes will be consulted as well, these four
will form the principal focus of comparison (along with Bucer’s earlier 1527 com-
mentary on Ephesians [Bucer 1527a]). They have been selected because of their
representative value (for the Patristic period, the medieval period, and the early
sixteenth century respectively), and because each holds a particular significance for
Bucer, to which we will come presently. However, one further point should be made
Appendix: The Exegetical-Historical Context of the Praelectiones 13

which will explain the choice of the four listed above (as well as Bucer’s 1527
commentary and the additional commentators to which we will come) for the pres-
ent investigation. As will be indicated when appropriate, there are early printed
editions of nearly all of the consulted works in the Parker Library at Corpus Christi
College, Cambridge. In view of the fact that a substantial portion of the contents of
Bucer’s personal library that he had with him in Cambridge came into the posses-
sion of Matthew Parker—who, with Walter Haddon, was an executor of Bucer’s
will, as we will see in Chap. 3—and thus, by the terms of Matthew Parker’s will,
ultimately into the collection of the library at Corpus Christi College, it is tempting
to regard at least some of the editions employed for the present examination as
belonging to Bucer.42 In fact, only the copy of Bucer’s 1527 commentary on
Ephesians was almost certainly his own.43 Whatever the provenance of the others is,
all represent editions that Bucer could well have consulted, either in Cambridge or
Strasbourg. Hence, the works chosen can serve as an example of the kind of library
Bucer might have had to hand as he prepared lectures on Scripture.
Chrysostom was a Church Father for whom Bucer had great respect as an exe-
gete, and he explicitly referred to him in these lectures, in particular (not surpris-
ingly) to Chrysostom’s homilies on Ephesians. However, though his regard for
Chrysostom was high, we shall see in Chap. 6 below that Bucer was willing to dis-
agree publicly with him. Bucer would have had access to Chrysostom in the Erasmus
edition (Chrysostom 1539), a copy of which is in the Parker Library (item B-2-23);
the Latin translation of the Greek Father in this volume was produced by Wolfgang
Musculus. Reference will be made as well to a nineteenth-century English transla-
tion (Chrysostom 1889), and to the Patrologia Graeca edition (Chrysostom 1862).44
Other Patristic exegetes to be consulted will be Jerome (c. 347–419/20), Pseudo-
Jerome (that is, Pelagius [c. 350–425]), Ambrose (that is, Ambrosiaster [fl. c. 370]),
and Theophylact (fl. 11th century). For Jerome, his commentary on Ephesians in
Erasmus’s edition (Jerome 1516), as well as that in the Patrologia Latina (Jerome
1845), will be used. However, Erasmus’s volume also contained an additional com-
mentary presumed by some—but not all—to be Jerome’s (Pseudo-Jerome 1516),

42
At Bucer’s death, his library was divided into three: the King was to receive the manuscripts, the
duchess of Suffolk was to receive the greater part of the books, and Cranmer the rest (Vogt 1968,
70). In fact, Parker came into possession of the manuscripts and some of the books, as testified by
the holdings of the Parker Library, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. See the important article
Rott (1966).
43
This is held by the Parker Library (Y-7-18 [6]). The commentary is one of six items published in
Zurich, Basel, and Strasbourg, all from 1527 and bound together. The binding is German. Given
the inscription “Martino Bucero” on the first leaf of the first item (Zwingli’s Farrago Annotationum
in Genesim), it is quite possible that the volume was bound for Bucer himself, at his direction. The
inscription is in the hand of Christoph Froschauer, who published Zwingli’s work on Genesis.
44
It should be noted that the Latin translation of Musculus and that found in the Patrologia Graeca
do not agree in all points.
14 1 Introduction

but which was in fact the work of Pelagius.45 As it happens, this volume is in the
Parker Library (EP-Q-14). In Bucer’s time, Ambrose of Milan was thought to be the
author of commentaries we now know were written by the (still anonymous) Father
identified as Ambrosiaster. Erasmus produced an edition under Ambrose’s name
(Ambrose 1527), a copy of which is in the Parker collection (B-4-12). Use here has
also been made of a modern critical edition (Ambrosiaster 1966). Finally, although
Theophylact in fact lived in the eleventh century (his specific dates are uncertain),
many in the sixteenth century thought him to be one of the Church Fathers (Backus
1996, 146). The text consulted here is in the Migne edition (Theophylact 1864) as
well as in a sixteenth-century Latin translation by Johannes Lonicer (Theophylact
1540), which is in the Parker Library (F-7-9 [2]).46
Aquinas (and his theology) provided the stuff of Bucer’s earliest education as a
Dominican,47 and (it goes without saying) is a prominent example of scholastic
method. Even if, in his early career, Bucer made some sharp comments about the
great master of his former religious order,48 he would have borne some imprint of
Aquinas’s teaching through his career. There is an early printed edition of Aquinas’s
lectures on the Pauline epistles (Aquinas 1541) in the Parker Library (D-6-4) which
has been used in this study. There is also a modern edition of the Latin text (Aquinas
1953), to which I shall provide cross-references.49 In addition to Aquinas, we will
turn to Haymo of Auxerre (d. c. 855), incorrectly identified in the sixteenth century
as Haymo of Halberstadt (Steinmetz 1995, 34n16). Here the Migne edition has been
used (Haymo of Halberstadt 1881), as well as an edition of 1530 (Haymo of
Halberstadt 1530) found in the Parker collection (SP 159). The Glossa Ordinaria

45
The title is worth giving in full: Tomus Nonus Operam Divi Hieronymi Eusebii Stridonensis
Complectens Commentarios in Matthaeum et Marcum, et in Divi Pauli Epistolas, Vidilicet Ad
Galatas, Ephesios, Titum, Philemonem. Necnon commentarios in omnes Pauli Epistolas sed
incerto Authore. Clearly, the latter part of the title page indicates that Erasmus and his fellow edi-
tors were dubious as to the authorship of some of the works this volume contained. The presenta-
tion in the volume is thus: first, the authentic Jerome through the commentary on Philemon; then a
blank page; and then the Pauline commentary by the “uncertain” author. For more on the peculiari-
ties of this particular volume, see Pabel (2008, 71). Subsequent research has established that the
works of the uncertain author following the blank page were by Pelagius (Backus 1997, 637). A
modern edition of Pelagius is found in a critical edition of Alexander Souter (Pelagius 1926), to
which reference will also be made in subsequent chapters of the present work.
46
Again, as with the Musculus translation of Chrysostom, so too in this instance the Latin of the
1540 edition and the Patrologia Graeca do not always agree.
47
Greschat (2004, 24–25) comments on the (to him) surprising number of works by Aquinas that
Bucer owned while a student—though this collection did not include any of Aquinas’s commentar-
ies on Scripture.
48
Eells (1931, 3) holds that Bucer despised him, and points to comments made in Verantwortung
M. Butzers (Bucer 1523, a recto), where Bucer speaks of the “unchristlichen büchern ires Thomas
von Wasserburg, den sey von Aquino nennen.”
49
In addition, there is an English translation by Matthew Lamb (Aquinas 1966), that I have con-
sulted; however, the English translations I supply in this book are my own.
Appendix: The Exegetical-Historical Context of the Praelectiones 15

has been consulted in a modern, facsimile edition of the Rusch edition of 1480/81
(Froehlich and Gibson 1992, vol. 4). The Glossa is also found in editions of the
postils of Nicholas of Lyra (c. 1270–1340) that have been used (Nicholas of Lyra
1493 and 1545); the former volume was a gift to Corpus Christi College, presented
in 1508 (Parker Library EP-C-5). Finally, the work of Denis the Carthusian (1402/3–
1471) has been consulted in both a modern edition (Denis the Carthusian 1901) and
a sixteenth-century edition (Denis the Carthusian 1531), the latter held by the Parker
Library (SP 86).
Erasmus was a source of great inspiration for Bucer in terms of method, as well
as being the foremost biblical humanist of his day. His most influential prescription
for exegesis and theology was his Ratio Verae Theologiae, first published (sepa-
rately) in 1518 and which appeared with other prefatory materials in the Novum
Testamentum for the first time in 1519; I have used this edition, a copy of which is
held in the Parker Collection (EP-O-17).50 For his Paraphrases, I have used the
1532 edition, a copy of which is held by the Cambridge University Library (Erasmus
1532); references will also be supplied for the Leiden edition (Erasmus 1706, vol.
7). For his Annotations, I have made use of the 1535 edition (Erasmus 1535),51 also
held by Cambridge University Library (shelf number Young.25), a volume which
was owned by Thomas Cranmer. As a sixteenth century Catholic complement to
Erasmus, the work of Thomas de Vio (1464–1534), known as Cajetan, has been
used (Cajetan1540), of which the Parker owns a copy (SP 252). Cajetan, as a
Dominican, provides an interesting point of comparison to Bucer (himself a one-
time Dominican).
Finally, Calvin, besides being an evangelical exegete contemporary with Bucer,
was one of his closest allies; they influenced each other to such an extent that it can
be difficult to discern who influenced whom. Calvin’s commentary on Ephesians
(Calvin 1548) had but newly appeared when Bucer began his lectures and, as will
be argued below, Bucer interacted with it—though without naming Calvin. A copy
is in the Parker Library (SP 19). In addition, a modern translation by T.H.L. Parker
has been used (Calvin 1965).52 Of Bucer’s other contemporaries, we will look at
Johannes Bugenhagen (1485–1558) as a Lutheran representative (Bugenhagen
1524)53 and Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575) as an example of the Zürich approach
(Bullinger 1539).54 It should be stressed, however, that the predominant focus in the
comparative discussion in this study will be on the principal exegetes selected—
Chrysostom, Aquinas, Erasmus, and Calvin.

50
Cross-references will also be provided for the Holborn edition of the Ratio, as well as the
Paraclesis (Erasmus 1964).
51
The text of this was used in the printing of Bucer’s Praelectiones, though not without occasional
departures.
52
Quotations from this edition in Chaps. 6 and 7 below are by permission of the publisher.
53
Parker Library, SP 214 (1).
54
Parker Library E-4-16.
16 1 Introduction

References

Ambrose [Ambrosiaster]. 1527. Divi Ambrosii Mediolanensis Episcopi Commentarii in Epistolam

Beati Pauli ad Ephesios. In Divi Ambrosii Episcopi Mediolanensis Operum Tomus Quartus….
Basel: Johannes Froben.
Ambrosiaster. 1966. Ad Efesios. In Ambrosiastri qui dicitur Commentarius in Epistulas Paulinas;
Pars Tertia, In Epistulas Ad Galatas, Ad Efesios…., ed. H.J. Vogels, 69–126. Vienna:
Holder-Pichler-Tempsky.
Amos, N. Scott. 2003a. The exegete as theologian: Martin Bucer’s 1550 Cambridge lectures on
Ephesians and biblical humanist method in theology and exegesis. Dissertation, University of
St Andrews.
Amos, N. Scott. 2003b. New learning, old theology: Renaissance biblical humanism, scripture,
and the question of theological method. Renaissance Studies 17(1): 39–54.
Aquinas, Thomas. 1541. Divi Thomae Aquinatis…in omnes beati Pauli Apostoli epistolas
commentaria…. Paris: A. Girault.
Aquinas, Thomas. 1953. Super Epistolas S. Pauli Lectura, vol. II, ed. P. Raphael, 37–247. Rome:
Marietti.
Aquinas, Thomas. 1966. Commentary on Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, ed. and trans. by
Matthew Lamb. Albany: Magi Books.
Augustijn, Cornelis. 1991. Erasmus: His Life, Works, and Influence. Trans. J.C. Grayson. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Backus, Irena. 1996. The Chronology of John 5–7. In Biblical interpretation in the era of the
Reformation: Essays presented to David C. Steinmetz in honor of his sixtieth birthday, ed.
Richard A. Muller and John L. Thompson, 141–155. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company.
Backus, Irena. 1997. The reception of the Church Fathers in the West: From the Carolingians to the
Maurists, 2 vols., vol. 2, ed. Irena Backus, 627–660. Leiden: Brill.
Brady Jr., Thomas A. 1995. Protestant Politics: Jacob Sturm (1489–1553) and the German
Reformation. Atlantic Highlands: Humanties Press.
Brady Jr., Thomas A. 1997. The Politics of the Reformation in Germany: Jacob Sturm
(1489–1553) of Strasbourg. Atlantic Highlands: Humanties Press.
Bucer, Martin. 1523. Verantwortung M. Butzers. Strasbourg: Schott.
Bucer, Martin. 1527a. Enarrationum in Evangelia Matthaei, Marci, & Lucae, Libri duo. Strasbourg:
Johannes Herwagen.
Bucer, Martin. 1527b. Epistola D. Pauli ad Ephesios, qua rationem Christianismi breviter iuxta &
locuplete, ut nulla brevius simul & locupletius explicat, versa paulo liberiu…In eandem
Commentarius. Strasbourg: s.n.
Bucer, Martin. 1528a. Enarratio in Evangelion Iohannis. Strasbourg: Johannes Herwagen.
Bucer, Martin. 1528b. Tzephaniah quem Sophoniam vulgo vocant…commentario explanatus.
Strasbourg: Johannes Herwagen.
Bucer, Martin. 1529. S. Psalmorum libri quinque ad Ebraiecam veritatem versi, et familiari expla-
natione elucidati. Strasbourg: G. Ulricher.
Bucer, Martin. 1530. Enarrationes perpetuae, in Sacra Quatuor Evangelia. Strasbourg: Georg
Ulricher.
Bucer, Martin. 1536. Metaphrases Enarrationes Perpetuae Epistolarum D. Pauli Apostoli […]
Tomus Primus continens metaphrasim et ennarationem in Epistolam ad Romanos. Strasbourg:
Wendelin Rihel.
Bucer, Martin. 1562. Praelectiones doctiss. in Epistolam D. P. ad Ephesios, eximii doctoris
D. Martini Buceri, habitae Cantabrigiae in Anglia, Anno M D.L. et LI. Basel: Petrus Perna.
Bucer, Martin. 1988. Enarratio in Evangelion Iohannis (1528, 1530, 1536), ed. Irena Backus.
Leiden: Brill.
Bugenhagen, Johannes. 1524. Annotationes Ioan. Bugenhagii Pomerani in decem Epistolas Pauli,
scilicet ad Ephesios, Philippenses, Colossenses, Thessalonicenses primam et secun. Timotheum
References 17

primam & secundam, Titum, Philemonem, Hebraeos. Item Concordia Evangelistarum a

Resurrectione ad Ascensionem domini. Nuremberg: Ioan. Petreium.
Bullinger, Heinrich. 1539. In omnes apostolicas epistolas, divi videlicet Pauli XIIII et VIII canonicas,
commentarii. Zurich: Christoph Froschauer.
Cajetan [Thomas de Vio]. 1540. Ad Ephesios. In Epistolae Pauli et aliorum Apostolorum ad
Graecam veritatem castigatae, & per Reverendissimum Dominum Thomam de Vio, Caietanum,
Cardinalem sancti Xisti, iuxta sensum literalem enarratae. Quibus accesserunt Actus
Apostolorum commentariis eiusdem illustrati. Omnia accuratiori cura quam antea excusa.
Paris: Guillard.
Calvin, John. 1548. Ioannis Calvini Commentarii, in quatuor Pauli Epistolas: Ad Galatas, Ad
Ephesios, Ad Philippenses, Ad Colossenes. Geneva: Jean Girard.
Calvin, John. 1965. The Epistle to the Ephesians. In The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the
Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians. Trans. T.H.L. Parker, ed. David
W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, 121–224. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company.
Christ-von Wedel, Christine. 2013. Erasmus of Rotterdam: Advocate of a New Christianity.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Chrysostom, John. 1539. Quartus Tomus Operum Divi Ioannis Chrysostomi…Continet in Omnes
D. Pauli epistolas expositionem, ed. Wolfgang Musculus. Basel: Johannes Herwagen.
Chrysostom, John. 1862. In Epistolam ad Ephesios Commentarius. In Patrologiae Cursus
Completus. Series Graeca, vol. 62, ed. J.P. Migne, cols. 9–176. Paris: J. P. Migne.
Chrysostom, John. 1889. A select library of the Nicene and post-Nicene fathers, First Series, Vol.
13: Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians,
Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, ed. by Philip Schaff. New York: Christian
Literature Publishing Company.
Denis the Carthusian. 1531. In Epistolam ad Ephesios. In Elucidissima in Divi Pauli Epistolas
commentaria Dionysii, olim Carthusiani…. Paris: J. Petit.
Denis the Carthusian. 1901. Enarratio in Epistolam Beati Pauli ad Ephesios. In Dionysii Carthusiani
Opera Omnia, vol. 13: In Omnes B. Pauli Epistolas...., 295–327. Monstrolii: Typis Cartusiae
S.M. de Pratis.
Ebeling, Gerhard. 1968. Church History is the History of the Exposition of Scripture. In The Word
of God and Tradition: Historical Studies Interpreting the Divisions of Christianity. Trans.
S.H. Hooke, 11–31. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Eells, Hastings. 1931. Martin Bucer. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Erasmus, Desiderius. 1519. Novum Testamentum omne, multo quam antehac diligentius ab Erasmo
Roterodamo recognitu, emedatum ac translatum … : una cum annotationibus recognitis, ac
magna accessione locupletatis. Basel: Johannes Froben.
Erasmus, Desiderius. 1532. Tomus secundus continens paraphrasim D. Erasmi Roterodami in
omneis epistolas apostolicas. Basel: Johannes Froben.
Erasmus, Desiderius. 1535. Novum Testamentum iam quintam accuratissima cura recognitum a
Des. Erasmo Roter. cum Annotationibus eiusdem ita locupletatis, ut propemodum opus novum
videri possit. Basel: Johannes Froben.
Erasmus, Desiderius. 1706. In epistolam Pauli Apostoli ad Ephesios Paraphrasis per Des. Erasmum
Roterodamum. In Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami Opera Omnia, vol. 7, ed. Jean LeClerc,
972–990. Leiden: Peter Vander Aa.
Erasmus, Desiderius. 1964. Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus: Ausgewählte Werke, ed. Hajo
Holborn and Annemarie Holborn. München: C.H. Beck.
Froehlich, Karlfried, and Margaret T. Gibson (eds.). 1992. Biblia Latina cum glossa ordinaria:
Facsimile Reprint of the Editio Princeps, Adolph Rusch of Strasbourg, 1480/81. Turnhout:
Brepols Publishers.
Greschat, M. 1969. Die Anfänge der Reformatorischen Theologie Martin Bucers. In Reformation
und Humanismus: Robert Stupperich zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. M. Greschat and J.F.G. Goeters,
124–40. Witten: Luther Verlag.
18 1 Introduction

Greschat, M. 1976. Martin Bucer als Dominikanermönch. In Bucer und seine Zeit Zeit:
Forschungsbeiträge und Bibliographie, ed. Marijn de Kroon and Friedhelm Krüger, 30–53.
Wiesbaden: F. Steiner.
Greschat, M. 1978. Der Ansatz der Theologie Martin Bucers. Theologisches Literaturzeitung 103:
81–96.
Greschat, M. 2004. Martin Bucer: A Reformer and His Times. Trans. Stephen E. Buckwalter.
Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press.
Guy, John. 1988. Tudor England. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hall, Basil. 1994. Martin Bucer in England. In Martin Bucer: Reforming church and community,
ed. David F. Wright, 144–160. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haymo of Halberstadt [Haymo of Auxerre]. 1530. Haymonis episcopi Halberstatensis in divi Pauli
epistolas omneis interpretatio…. Paris: Berthelin.
Haymo of Halberstadt [Haymo of Auxerre]. 1881. In Epistolam ad Ephesios. In Patrologiae
Cursus Completus. Series Latina, vol. 117, ed. J.P. Migne, cols. 699–734. Paris: J. P. Migne.
Heywood, James (ed.). 1840. Collection of statutes for the University and the Colleges of
Cambridge. London: William Clowes and Sons.
Hobbs, R. Gerald. 1971. An introduction to the Psalms commentary of Martin Bucer. Dissertation,
Strasbourg.
Hobbs, R. Gerald. 1978. Martin Bucer on Psalm 22: A study in the application of rabbinic exegesis
by a Christian Hebraist. In Histoire de l’Exégèse au 16e siècle: Textes du colloque interna-
tional tenu à Genève en 1976, ed. Olivier Fatio and P. Fraenkel, 144–163. Geneva: Droz.
Hobbs, R. Gerald. 1984. How firm a foundation: Martin Bucer’s historical exegesis of the Psalms.
Church History 53: 477–91.
Hobbs, R. Gerald. 2007. Pluriformity of early Reformation scriptural interpretation. In Hebrew
Bible/Old Testament: The history of its interpretation. Volume II: From the Renaissance to the
enlightenment, ed. Magne Sæbø, in cooperation with Michael Fishbane and Jean Louis Ska, SJ,
452–511. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.
Hoffmann, Manfred. 1994. Rhetoric and theology: The hermeneutic of Erasmus. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Hubert, Conrad (ed.). 1577. Martini Buceri Scripta Anglicana fere omnia. Basel: Petrus Perna.
Jerome. 1516. Commentariorum in Epistolam ad Ephesios. In Tomus Nonus Operam Divi
Hieronymi Eusebii Stridonensis Complectens Commentarios in Matthaeum et Marcum, et in
Divi Pauli Epistolas, Vidilicet Ad Galatas, Ephesios, Titum, Philemonem. Necnon commen-
tarios in omnes Pauli Epistolas sed incerto Authore. Basel: Johannes Froben.
Jerome. 1845. Commentariorum in Epistolam ad Ephesios, Libri Tres. In Patrologiae Cursus
Completus. Series Latina, vol. 26, ed. J.P. Migne, cols. 439–554. Paris: J. P. Migne.
Koch, Karl. 1962. Studium Pietas: Martin Bucer als Ethiker. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag.
Kohls, Ernst-Wilhelm. 1963. Die Schule bei Martin Bucer in ihrem Verhältnis zu Kirche und
Obrigkeit. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer.
Kohls, Ernst-Wilhelm. 1977. Martin Bucer als Anhänger Luthers. Theologische Zeitschrift 33:
210–18.
Kristeller, Paul Oskar. 1979. Renaissance thought and its sources, ed. Michael Mooney. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Krüger, Friedhelm. 1970. Bucer und Erasmus: Eine Untersuchung zum Einfluss des Erasmus auf
die Theologie Martin Bucers (bis zum Evangelien-Kommentar von 1530). Wiesbaden:
F. Steiner.
Krüger, Friedhelm. 1993. Bucer und Erasmus. In Martin Bucer and Sixteenth Century Europe:
Actes du colloque de Strasbourg (28–31 Août 1991), 2 vols., vol. 2, ed. Christian Kreiger and
Marc Lienhard, 583–594. Leiden: Brill.
Krüger, Friedhelm. 1994. Bucer and Erasmus. The Mennonite Quarterly Review 18: 11–23.
Lang, August. 1900. Der Evangelienkommentar Martin Butzers und die Grundzüge seine
Theologie. Leipzig: Dietrich.
References 19

Lugioyo, Brian. 2010. Martin Bucer’s doctrine of justification: Reformation theology and early
modern Irenicism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lutz, P. 1953. Le Commentaire de Martin Bucer sur le livre des Juges. Dissertation, Strasbourg.
Ménager, Daniel. 2008. Erasmus, the intellectuals, and the Reuchlin Affair. In Biblical humanism
and scholasticism in the age of Erasmus, ed. Erika Rummel, 39–54. Leiden: Brill.
Müller, Johannes. 1965. Martin Bucers Hermeneutik. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus
G. Mohn.
Muller, Richard A. 1996. Biblical interpretation in the era of the Reformation: The view from the
middle ages. In Biblical interpretation in the era of the Reformation, ed. Richard A. Muller and
John L. Thompson, 3–22. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Muller, Richard A. 2000. The unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the foundation of a theological
tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Muller, Richard A. 2012. Calvin and the Reformed tradition: On the work of Christ and the order
of salvation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Nauert, Charles G. 1973. The clash of humanists and scholastics: An approach to pre-Reformation
controversies. Sixteenth Century Journal 4/1: 1–18.
Nauert, Charles G. 1998. Humanism as method: Roots of conflict with the scholastics. Sixteenth
Century Journal XXIX/2: 427–438.
Nauert, Charles G. 2006. Humanism and the culture of Renaissance Europe, 2nd ed. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Nicholas of Lyra. 1493. Postilla super epistolam ad Ephesios. In Postilla fratris Nicolai de lyra…
cum additionibus pauli episcopi Burgensis, vol. 4. Nuremberg: Anton Koberger.
Nicholas of Lyra. 1545. Postilla super epistolam ad Ephesios. In Biblia sacra, cum glossis, interli-
neri & ordinaria, Nicolai Lyrani postilla & moralitatibus, vol. 6. Lyons: Treschel.
Noblesse-Rocher, Annie. 2010. “À L’Instar des Prophètes…”. La Rhétorique au Service de la
Prophétie dans le Tzephaniah Epitomographus de Martin Bucer (1528). In Between lay piety
and academic theology: Studies presented to Christoph Burger on the occasion of his 65th
birthday, ed. A.A. den Hollander, Wim Janse, Christoph Burger, and Ulrike Hascher-Burger,
235–264. Leiden: Brill.
Oberman, Heiko A. 1996. Curiosi te salutant: A premature assessment. In Biblical interpretation
in the era of the Reformation, ed. Richard A. Muller and John L. Thompson, xi–xiii. Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Pabel, Hilmar M. 2008. Herculean Labours: Erasmus and the Editing of St. Jerome’s Letters in the
Renaissance. Leiden: Brill.
Pak, Sujin. 2010. The judaizing Calvin: Sixteenth-century debates over the Messianic Psalms.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pelagius. 1926. Commentaria in Epistolam ad Ephesios. In Pelagius’s expositions of thirteen
epistles of St Paul, vol. 2: Text and apparatus criticus, ed. Alexander Souter, 344–386.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. 1959. Luther the expositor: Introduction to the reformer’s exegetical writings. St
Louis: Concordia.
Pseudo-Jerome [Pelagius]. 1516. Commentaria in Epistolam ad Ephesios. In Tomus Nonus Operam
Divi Hieronymi Eusebii Stridonensis Complectens Commentarios in Matthaeum et Marcum, et
in Divi Pauli Epistolas, Vidilicet Ad Galatas, Ephesios, Titum, Philemonem. Necnon commen-
tarios in omnes Pauli Epistolas sed incerto Authore. Basel: Johannes Froben.
Reventlow, Henning, Graf. 1984. The authority of the Bible and the rise of the modern world.
Philadelphia: Fortress.
Rex, Richard. 1993. The new learning. Journal of Ecclesiastical History 44/1: 26–44.
Rott, Jean. 1966. Le Sort des Papiers et de la Bibliothèque de Bucer en Angleterre. Revue d’Histoire
et de Philosophie Religieuses 66: 346–367.
Roussel, Bernard. 1970. Martin Bucer, Lecteur de l’epître aux Romains. Dissertation, Strasbourg.
Roussel, Bernard. 1977. Martin Bucer Exégète. In Strasbourg au coeur religieux du XVIe siècle:
hommage à Lucien Febvre: actes du Colloque international de Strasbourg, 25 – 29 mai 1975,
ed. Georges Livet and Francis Rapp, 153–166. Strasbourg: Librairie Istra.
20 1 Introduction

Roussel, Bernard. 1988. De Strasbourg à Bâle et Zurich: Une “École Rhénane” d’exégèse ca.
1525 – ca. 1540. Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 68: 19–39.
Roussel, Bernard. 1993. Bucer Exégète. In Martin Bucer and sixteenth century Europe: Actes du
colloque de Strasbourg (28–31 Août 1991), 2 vols., vol. 2, ed. Christian Kreiger and Marc
Lienhard, 39–54. Leiden: Brill.
Roussel, Bernard, and R.G. Hobbs. 1989. Strasbourg et l’École Rhénane d’exégèse (1525–1540).
Bulletin de la Société de l’Histoire du Protestantisme Français 135: 36–53.
Rummel, Erika. 1986. Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament: From philologist to theologian.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Rummel, Erika. 1994. The humanist-scholastic debate in the Renaissance and Reformation.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rummel, Erika. 1996. The importance of being doctor: The quarrel over competency between
humanists and theologians in the Renaissance. Catholic Historical Review 82: 189–193.
Rummel, Erika. 2005. Introduction. In The Correspondence of Wolfgang Capito, Volume I:
1507–1523, ed. and trans. Erika Rummel, with the assistance of Milton Kooistra, xvii-xlii.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Schindling, Anton. 1977. Humanistische Hochschule und freie Reichsstadt: Gymnasium und
Akademie in Strassburg, 1538–1621. Wiesbaden: Steiner.
Selderhuis, H.J. 1999. Marriage and Divorce in the Thought of Martin Bucer. Trans. John Vriend
and Lyle D. Bierma. Kirksville: Thomas Jefferson University Press.
Steinmetz, David C. 1995. Calvin in context. New York: Oxford University Press.
Stephens, W.P. 1970. The holy spirit in the theology of Martin Bucer. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Stephens, W.P. 1994. The church in Bucer’s commentaries on the Epistle to the Ephesians. In
Martin Bucer: Reforming church and community, ed. David F. Wright, 45–60. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Strohl, Henri. 1937. Théologie et humanisme à Strasbourg au moment de la création de la Haute-
École. Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 17: 435–456.
Strohl, Henri. 1939a. Bucer, humaniste chrétien. Paris: F. Alcan.
Strohl, Henri. 1939b. Un aspect de l’humanisme chrétien de Bucer. Revue d’Histoire et de
Philosophie Religieuses 18: 432–47.
Stupperich, Robert. 1936. Der Humanismus und die Wiedereinigung. Leipzig: M. Heinsius
Nachfolger.
Tait, Edwin W. 2005. A method for the Christian Life: Martin Bucer and the Sermon on the Mount.
Dissertation, Duke University.
Tait, Edwin W. 2008. The law and its works in Martin Bucer’s 1536 Romans commentary.
In Reformation readings of Romans, ed. R. Ward Holder and Kathy Ehrensperger, 57–69.
London: T & T Clark.
Theophylact. 1540. Ad Ephesios. In Theophylacti Bulgariae Archiepiscopi In Omnes Divi Pauli
Apostoli Epistolas Enarrationes, iam recens ex vetustissimo archetypo Graeco, per D. Ioannem
Lonicerum fidelissime in Latinum conversae..... Basel: Andreas Cratander.
Theophylact. 1864. Epistolae Divi Pauli ad Ephesios Expositio. In Patrologiae Cursus Completus.
Series Graeca, vol. 124, ed. J.P. Migne, cols. 1031–1138. Paris: J. P. Migne.
Thompson, Nicholas. 2005. Eucharistic sacrifice and patristic tradition in the theology of Martin
Bucer, 1534–1546. Leiden: Brill.
Timmerman, Daniel. 2007. Martin Bucer as interpreter of the Old Testament: A re-examination of
previous scholarship in Light of Bucer’s Enarrationes in librum Judicum (ca. 1540).
Renaissance and Reformation Review: Journal of the Society for Reformation Studies 9/1:
27–44.
University of Cambridge. 1785. Statuta Academiae Cantabrigiensis. Cambridge: Typis Academicis
Excudebat J. Archdeacon.
Van’t Spijker, Willem. 1996. The Ecclesiastical Offices in the Thought of Martin Bucer. Trans.
John Vriend (text) and Lyle D. Bierma (notes). Leiden: Brill.
References 21

Venn, John (ed.). 1910. Grace Book Δ, containing the records of the University of Cambridge for
the years 1542–1589. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vogt, Herbert. 1968. Martin Bucer und die Kirche von England. Dissertation, Münster.
White, Peter. 1992. Predestination, policy and polemic: Conflict and consensus in the English
Church from the Reformation to the Civil War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wright, David F. 1998. Bucer, Martin. In Handbook of major biblical interpreters, ed. Donald
K. McKim, 157–164. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press.
Wursten, Dick. 2010. Clement Marot and religion: A reassessment in the light of his Psalm
paraphrases. Leiden: Brill.
 Part I
Historical Context
Chapter 2
The Old Theology and the New Learning
at Cambridge to 1549

As we observed in Chap. 1, Bucer’s lectures in Divinity took the form of an

exposition of Scripture, in part because the Cambridge Injunctions decreed that all
theology lectures should be taught from the Old and New Testaments, and not in the
manner of scholastic theologians. The oft-cited rendering of the third Injunction is
as follows: “That neither in the university or any other college or hall, or other place,
should any lecture be read upon any of the doctors who had written upon the Master
of the Sentences, but that all divinity lectures should be upon the Scriptures of the
Old and New Testament, according to the true sense thereof, and not after the man-
ner of Scotus” (Mullinger 1873, 630).1 The wording of this Injunction indicates that
its framers took a dim view of how theology had been practiced and taught in the
centuries prior to 1535. This view held, among other things, that the study of
Scripture had been overshadowed in the theological curriculum by the Sentences of
Peter Lombard, and that the practice of theology had been too beholden to methods
which they identified in a shorthand way by the name of John Duns Scotus (1255/6–
1308).2 It was in the place of this earlier practice that the Injunctions mandated a
new approach to the teaching of theology, one that resonated with the program of
biblical humanism.3 It is worth considering, briefly, the characterization of scholas-
tic theology found in the Injunction and the extent to which is was a fair representa-
tion, and to look as well at the humanist critique of scholastic method which
informed the attitude of the framers of the Injunction, before turning to the context
that immediately preceded that in which Bucer found himself in 1549.

1
It must be noted that this is an abridged translation of the original that Mullinger provides; a full
translation will be offered later in this chapter.
2
As we shall note later in this chapter, Scotus was a bête noire of Erasmus, and the Dutchman’s
animosity no doubt influenced the framers of the Injunctions.
3
We will return to the Injunctions in their historical context below.

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 25

N.S. Amos, Bucer, Ephesians and Biblical Humanism, Studies in Early Modern
Religious Tradition, Culture and Society 7, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-10238-2_2
26 2 The Old Theology and the New Learning at Cambridge to 1549

2.1 Scholastic Method in Theology Through

the Lens of the Third Cambridge Injunction

Polemical though it was, the third Injunction did correctly identify three key features
of scholastic method in the study of theology, the discipline which held pride of
place at Cambridge (and elsewhere) at the outset of the sixteenth century: the place
of the Bible; the place of Peter Lombard’s Sentences; and the teaching (and prac-
tice) of theology “after the manner of Scotus,” that is, the practices of scholastic
method.4 Our brief consideration of scholastic method will take up each of these
elements in turn in order to flesh out our understanding of this Injunction and the
context into which Bucer came.

2.1.1 The Bible

Even a cursory survey of the study of theology in the Middle Ages makes clear that
in a fundamental sense the Bible was central to everything theologians were about.5
Despite the practical division that developed in the sacred disciplines between the
study of the Bible and the study of theology (see below), no theologian in the Middle
Ages would have thought that in his work in theology he was doing anything other
than interpreting and applying the Bible. The extent to which the third Cambridge
Injunction suggested that the case was in fact otherwise would have been for polem-
ical reasons and for the most part should be understood in that context. In fact, the
positive mandate of the Injunction served, in practical terms, to single out the bibli-
cal element of the medieval theological curriculum and make it the sole concern of
the new curriculum, and in that respect was a continuation of previous practice,
albeit with a new emphasis.
In addition to its central place in the theological curriculum as a text book and
object of study, the Bible provided the very stuff of theology as that discipline devel-
oped into a field of study in its own right—as will become clear in the next two
sub-sections of the present chapter. As the academic discipline of theology emerged
and developed, it drew its substantive questions from the work of biblical interpreta-
tion (Evans 1980, 92). Gradually, the study and analysis of these questions became
ever more important as an end in itself. In the process, theology in practice became
divided between the interpretation of the Bible on the one hand, and the development
of the question literature on the other—the most significant work in this genre being

4
The present sketch draws upon the following secondary works: Chenu (1997); Colish (1994);
Colish (1997); Evans (1980); Evans (1984); Evans (1985); Evans (2001); Knowles (1962);
McGrath (1987); Overfield (1984); Smalley (1969); Smalley (1964). Steinmetz (1999, 18–23) is a
helpful interlocutor, though it will be apparent that the present examination differs with his in the
interpretation of the subject. Notice should also be taken of Evans (2012), especially Chapter 11.
5
The two volumes of Evans (1984, 1985) make this point emphatically clear. See also Colish
(1994). Smalley (1964) is still the major resource on the subject.
2.1 Scholastic Method in Theology Through the Lens of the Third Cambridge Injunction 27

the Sentences of Peter Lombard—even though in theory and intent theology was
still a unified subject of study.

2.1.2 Peter Lombard’s Sentences and Academic Theology

From the early thirteenth century onwards the Sentences of Peter Lombard was,
with the Bible, the fundamental text for the teaching of the emerging academic
discipline of theology, and its significance for the development of a distinctively
scholastic approach to theology is therefore hard to overstate.6 At the outset of this
development, theology continued to be closely tied to the exegesis of Scripture; its
purpose was initially to resolve problems that arose in the course of biblical
interpretation (Evans 1980, 92). As this practice developed, the questions became
ever more prominent and the exposition of the biblical text receded in importance.7
In practice if not in theory, a separation between biblical exposition and theological
discussion had occurred, and which pointed to further developments along this line
(Smalley 1964, 74–5).
Thus, while theology continued to be centered on questions that arose from the
interpretation of Scripture, there developed a need (for pedagogical and practical
reasons) to devise a more orderly structure for the new discipline of theology as the
number of questions multiplied and were separated from the text that originally
prompted them.8 This led to the employment of alternative means of organization
beyond the simple exposition of the biblical texts in their canonical setting.
Compendia of texts drawn from both the Bible and the Church Fathers were
composed, organized around topics that came to guide the teaching of theology. The
most famous and influential of these compendia was Peter Lombard’s Sentences,
which became the standard text for the teaching of theology in the Middle Ages
from the thirteenth century onwards.9
Lombard’s work was fundamental to the development of a distinctively scholas-
tic approach to theology (Evans 1985, 101–105). This is true both for the work
itself, and for the shift in theological method it represented (namely, the increased
focus on quaestiones). Although the work was initially received with some suspi-
cion, it came to be the key text-book for the teaching of theology (along with the

6
The most comprehensive study of the Sentences is Colish (1994). As we have noted above in the
Introduction, when the Cambridge Injunctions banned the use of the Sentences and the commen-
taries that had been written upon it, this constituted a dramatic change in the theological curricu-
lum. The best work on the rise of theology as an academic discipline is Evans (1980). See also
Evans (1983), and Colish (1994, 1: 33–154), which is especially good on the place of Lombard in
this development.
7
For a useful discussion of this, see Evans (1984, 125–132) and Chenu (1997, 291–300).
8
Evans (1984, 110) observes: “The question literature evolved its own system of organisation—
a necessity since there was no single underlying text to provide a common link between the ques-
tions.” Reprinted by permission of the publisher.
9
For the critical edition of this text, see: Peter Lombard (1971–1981).
28 2 The Old Theology and the New Learning at Cambridge to 1549

Bible) until the time of the Reformation (Evans 1985, 102). The Sentences was
studied either directly or through commentaries by later theologians written upon
the Lombard’s work. These commentaries had their origin in the basic requirement
of the theological curriculum that degree candidates in theology give lectures on the
Sentences, in addition to lectures on the Bible.10 Indeed, every major theologian in
the centuries following Lombard’s death wrote a commentary on the Sentences,11
and these commentaries in turn became the basis for lectures by later generations of
theologians—hence their prominence in the theological literature produced in these
centuries, and the stricture in the Cambridge Injunctions against teaching on the
basis of any theologian who had commented on the work of Lombard.

2.1.3 Teaching “After the Manner of Scotus”12

As the new discipline of theology developed, it became apparent that the simple
exegesis of Scripture and the effort to systematize questions and engage in specula-
tive thinking were separate activities with different methods (Evans 1980, 30). This
was tacitly recognized in the composition of works like the Sentences. Questions
came to form the focus of the discipline, and (arguably) not only did the central
place of biblical exegesis recede in importance, but theology took on an increas-
ingly speculative character as the questions raised led to more subtle issues that
were now generated not by Scripture but by the questions themselves.
As M-D. Chenu has noted, for all that Bible remained the basis of teaching theol-
ogy, and the authority to which appeal was made, by the thirteenth century it was
hard to see how a direct reading of it was as important as the creation of a system
(Chenu 1997, 146).
The most distinctive features of scholastic method narrowly understood were:
the focus on questions [quaestiones] and distinctions [distinctiones] that arose in the
course of reading [lectio]; the refinement of dialectic as a means to resolve the ques-
tions raised; and the disputation [disputatio] as the academic setting in which
dialectic was exercised.13 In its simplest terms, scholastic method proceeded by
reasoned investigation, employing dialectic, directed to problems that arose in the
course of reading authoritative texts.14 As we noted above, compendia of authorities

10
For a concrete instance of this, see the discussion of the scholastic theological curriculum at
Cambridge below.
11
Erasmus commented in 1518 that the number of commentaries on the Sentences equaled the
number of theologians (Leader 1988, 177). On these commentaries, see Evans (2002) and
Rosemann (2010).
12
The quotation is taken from Mullinger’s rendering of the Third Cambridge Injunction (1873,
630).
13
Evans deals extensively with this (1984, 51–168); see also Chenu (1997, 291–295).
14
See Evans (1984, 72–100) for a discussion of dialectic in relation to Biblical and theological
studies.
2.1 Scholastic Method in Theology Through the Lens of the Third Cambridge Injunction 29

such as Lombard’s Sentences invited the application of this method (and thus
contributed to its further development), in large part because the texts assembled
demonstrated (intentionally or not) that there were differences of opinion among the
Church Fathers that demanded resolution (Steinmetz 1999, 19). The purpose of
disputations was to enhance careful and critical thinking about theological problems
(Steinmetz 1999, 21).15 It is worth noting that under the influence of dialectic and its
central role in the method of disputation as a pedagogical tool, theology took on an
argumentative aspect. Argument was encouraged in order to refine thinking
(Steinmetz 1999, 21). In the process, questions became disputed questions (Chenu
1997, 295–296).
When applied to theology, these later developments resulted in a significantly
more subtle and profound theology, but also a theology that was increasingly specu-
lative and (frankly) increasingly removed from the text of Scripture.16 In this respect,
the practice of Scotus was famous (or infamous). It is true that Scripture continued
to be crucially important as the source of questions and terms for investigation.
Theologians were intensely interested in the literal sense of the text, and in questions
of grammar and syntax (Evans 1985).17 Yet, while the Bible was one of the two key
texts of theology throughout these centuries, it is highly suggestive of a shift in
priorities that among the leading theologians between the late thirteenth and late
fifteenth centuries, few if any were known as biblical scholars.18
This brief review of scholastic method in the light of the Third Cambridge
Injunction has shown that the latter accurately identified the essential elements of
the method it sought to overturn. The study of the Bible remained a fundamental
feature of the theological curriculum throughout these centuries. Yet over the course
of the years following the twelfth century, the practice of theology became increas-
ingly sophisticated and speculative, and in the process the place of the Bible in
sacred studies was altered. Where earlier there had been an intense concentration on
the study of the biblical text alone, now there developed a profound interest in ques-
tions that arose in the course of biblical exposition but which became separated
from their original locus. In the course of studying these questions, issues of

15
However, disputations came to focus on increasingly abstract and speculative issues. For
instance, the record of theological disputations at Oxford in the late thirteenth century indicates
that the questions included: “Whether the idea in God has reason (understanding) of everything
universally or particularly or integrally?”; “Whether essence and person are the same thing accord-
ing to the thing?”; “Whether person is that thing itself according to the thing which is essence, and
whether relation constitutes essence?”: Leader (1988, 175–176), translated from the Latin text in
Little and Pelster (1934, 106–114). Reprinted by permission of the publisher.
16
On the early development of speculative theology, and its emergence as an exercise in abstract
(as opposed to contemplative) thought, see Evans (1980, 91–136).
17
And yet, one does not come away with a sense that these academics studied the grammar and
syntax with an eye to literary appreciation, but rather in the sense of scientific linguistics, which is
not the same thing (on this, see Heath [1971]). Here one finds a strong contrast with the literary
approach taken by humanists in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.
18
Indeed, it has been argued that exegetical work went into steep decline from the middle of the
fourteenth century, while at the same time study and exposition of the Sentences continued to flour-
ish: Verger (1984, 225–226).
30 2 The Old Theology and the New Learning at Cambridge to 1549

language, epistemology, and metaphysics came to the fore. These studies were
intended to aid in the study of the Bible. Yet it is hard to dispel the impression that
for all the affirmation of the study of the Bible as the central task of theology, close
attention to the Bible in its full, canonical form had been displaced by systematic,
speculative concerns that owed more to metaphysics than to the sacred page. That
certainly was the view of biblical humanism as it developed by the end of the
fifteenth century.

2.1.4 The Role of the Humanist-Scholastic Debate19

Hence, before we turn to the more specific context of Cambridge in the fifteenth and
early sixteenth centuries, notice should be taken of a growing critique of scholastic
method in theology (and other subjects) which began in Italy but grew in strength
and prominence in northern Europe—and which served to influence education
reformers in England, and in particular the framers of the Cambridge Injunctions.
This critique formed perhaps the most explosive aspect of the humanist-scholastic
debate to which reference has been made in Chap. 1 above.20 While it is true that
one should take care in evaluating the animosities between the two over the course
of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and not conclude on basis of the declarations
of the participants that the two positions were irreconcilable, nevertheless there was
a debate and there were some profound differences in method and approach to a
wide range of subjects, including theology and the exegesis of Scripture.
Much of the recent research in this area has focused attention upon the fact that
it was at heart a debate over the question of intellectual method: it was (simply put)
an academic “turf” war. As such, the debate took place primarily in the universities
of northern Europe, though its origins can be traced to the middle of the fourteenth
century in Italy—most notably in the work of the great humanist, Petrarch (1304–
1374)—where scholasticism began to be subjected to searching criticism by those
who came to be known as humanists.21 Of the Italian humanists, none was more
scathing in his critique of it than Lorenzo Valla (1407–1457). Although best known
for his exposure of the Donation of Constantine as a forgery, and for his writings on
language and on logic, Valla should be better known for his contribution to theol-
ogy, even though he was not himself a theologian.22 However, humanism in relation

19
Portions of this section are drawn with modification from Amos (2003); reprinted by permission
of the publisher.
20
Again, this rivalry of scholastic theologians and Renaissance humanists has received greater
attention in the last few decades in no small part because of the work of Erika Rummel (1994,
1996) and Charles Nauert (1973, 1998, 2006). See also Evans (2012), Chapter 15.
21
For a good, brief discussion, see Nauert (2006, 19–24).
22
The major works on this aspect of Valla’s thought are: Fois (1969) and Camporeale (1972). See
also Amos (2003, 44–48) for a brief discussion of Valla as a critic of scholastic theology and its
handling of Scripture.
2.1 Scholastic Method in Theology Through the Lens of the Third Cambridge Injunction 31

to theology did not become a bitter point of contention until it moved north of the
Alps in the fifteenth century, where the practitioners of the method developed a
greater concern with religious matters and in that connection encountered a formi-
dable and well-entrenched scholastic university establishment, and tensions could
be seen by the mid-fifteenth century (Rummel 1994, 4 and 63–125). The debate
carried on into the sixteenth century, and at the center of it was Erasmus, to whom
we will return below (in Sect. 2.2.2).
Perhaps the most acrimonious aspect of this dispute was the argument over who
was competent to interpret Scripture (Rummel 1994, 83–95), which ultimately led
to the broader question of what constituted the proper theological method. Almost
by definition, humanists were not principally concerned with theology, but with
texts and language. However, when it became a question of who possessed the
qualifications for handling the Bible—which clearly involved texts and language—
theological issues came into play. Scholastic theologians sought to safeguard what
they maintained was their sole right to interpret Scripture, and aggressively asserted
their prerogative, to which humanists responded in kind (Rummel 1994, 84).
What was the humanist critique of scholastic method? In respect of the question
of theology and theological method, two key elements of it will concern us here: an
antipathy towards metaphysics—that is, towards the speculative character of scho-
lastic theology, which had a bearing on the purpose of theology; and the manner in
which texts were handled by the scholastics. Humanists believed theology should
be concerned with living the Christian life, not with abstract, metaphysical specula-
tion. Far too often, in their view, metaphysics resulted in vain (even impious) specu-
lation and linguistic quibbles about the arcane meaning of words, or endless
disputations over unimportant subjects (Overfield 1984, 94). One can regard
Petrarch as representative in his questioning of the scholastic program to fashion
all-embracing systems (Witt 1995, 106). Though he did not directly attack scholas-
tic theology, he did object to the excessive use of Aristotelian philosophy (which he
believed contributed little to the Christian life), and found much that was pointless
in the fascination for Aristotelian logic and its derivatives; for his part, Petrarch
preferred Augustine and other Fathers to the work of scholastic theologians and
metaphysicians (Trinkaus 1988, 330).
More than anything else, though, what aroused the ire of humanists (as literary
scholars) was the manner in which texts were handled by the scholastics. This was
true whether the object of examination was a biblical book or a secular book.
As humanists saw it, scholastics treated individual texts as expressions of a given
timeless truth that is best analyzed through the use of dialectic, all too often with
little sensitivity to what the original author might have meant. Further, authoritative
writings were not taken whole, but rather in piecemeal fashion, and this included the
Bible. Humanists charged that when statements [sententiae] were extracted from
texts and then gathered into anthologies organized according to issues [quaestio-
nes], the original context ceased to be central in determining meaning.23 In the view
of the humanists, the result was that violence was done to the texts. For them, it was

23
Clearly, Lombard’s Sentences would have been in view in this critique.
32 2 The Old Theology and the New Learning at Cambridge to 1549

a distortion of the original to extract statements from a larger body of work and then
treat such statements as the adequate expression of a writer’s thought (Nauert 1998,
434). In effect, the humanists alleged, the authors of these texts disappeared; their
statements were removed from the original context and applied to questions they
did not necessarily raise themselves. The meaning of the excerpts was thus opened
to subtle and (perhaps) not so subtle reshaping at the hands of theologians (Nauert
2006, 19).
It was in part against this method that humanists developed their own literary,
grammatical-historical method for the study of texts. At the most elemental level,
the humanists sought to understand texts within their respective literary contexts.
They argued that it was only in its original literary context that a given statement
could be properly understood. Furthermore, texts were to be interpreted with refer-
ence to the circumstances and intentions of the author—intentions which, human-
ists argued, should be primary in interpreting the text (Nauert 2006, 17–19). In this
work, humanists employed the tools of rhetoric as opposed to those of dialectic—
and in respect of the deployment of these methods to the study of the Bible, they
appealed to the example of the Church Fathers, many of whom were themselves
rhetoricians (D’Amico 1988, 356). It has been argued that this rhetorical turn
resulted in a shift not only in the method of theology, but also in the understanding
of the purpose of theology: as we have already noted above, humanists believed it is
for proper living through application of doctrine, rather than for endless refinement
of doctrine as an end in itself (Rummel 1994, 12).

2.2 The University of Cambridge, ca. 1500–1549

Turning from the general to the more particular, the scholastic curriculum sketched
above informed that at the University of Cambridge prior to the sixteenth century.
That said, the institution to which Bucer came in 1549 had witnessed a steady prog-
ress of curricular reform for the previous half-century, influenced by Northern
humanism and then the onset of the Reformation.24 Though the coming of the
Reformation represents the most dramatic context for change, and more specifically
the Cambridge Injunctions of 1535 represent (in formal terms) the single most
significant instrument for academic reform, change had in fact been coming gradu-
ally to the University of Cambridge since the late fifteenth century.25 With respect to

24
Leader (1988), is now the best account of the University up to 1546, and it will become evident
that much of what follows is dependent upon this work; Morgan (2004) is also helpful, but most of
what his volume covers falls beyond the scope of the present book. Though brief, Leedham-Green
(1996) is very helpful. For very good examinations of the late medieval University, see the two
works by Cobban (1988, 1999). Null (2000, 65–81) offers some useful perspectives on the
Cambridge of Cranmer’s undergraduate years, and its curriculum. Also worth consulting are:
Porter (1958), especially Chapters 1 to 3; and Rupp (1947, 13–46). Though dated, Mullinger
(1873, 1884) remains useful.
25
See Cobban (1988, 254–257) on the gradual introduction of humanist reforms.
2.2 The University of Cambridge, ca. 1500–1549 33

the teaching of theology (which is the primary concern of the present discussion),
the general trajectory from around 1450 until 1600 was such that the study of the
Bible directly—with the aid of Patristic literature rather than medieval commentators—
became increasingly prominent (Leedham-Green 1996, 39), which proved to be
something of a departure from what was described in Sects. 2.1.1, 2.1.2, and
2.1.3 above.

2.2.1 Scholastic Theology in Late Fifteenth

Century Cambridge

However, although the number of candidates studying for a higher degree in theol-
ogy was in decline before the end of the fifteenth century (Leedham-Green 1996,
19; Leader 1988, 170–171), theology continued to be the pre-eminent higher faculty
within the University, and the curriculum as a whole continued to serve the needs of
scholastic theology (Simon 1966, 52–53).26 Evidence for the content of the theology
curriculum at Cambridge (apart from a bare indication of the topics of some of the
lectures) is quite meager—we are left with statutes,27 anecdotes and lists of books
(Rex 1991, 18).28 What we lack are manuscripts of the lectures themselves or stu-
dent notes that would give us some indication of content. However, we do know
from the statutes the general outline of the course of study, which was in two stages
following the earning of the BA. First, 5 years were spent in study of Peter Lombard’s
Sentences and of the Bible, combined with a requirement for lecturing in the arts
faculty. At the end of this, the student was awarded the BD. Following that, another
5 years were spent lecturing on Lombard and the Bible (preference was often given
to the former, though by no means exclusively), which led to the award of the doc-
torate (University of Cambridge 1852, 1: 377).29 Scholastic authorities and the
scholastic character of university education were clearly dominant (Rex 1991,

26
Greenslade (1986, 295) notes the pre-eminence of theology held true for Oxford throughout the
Tudor period. The present discussion presupposes the treatment above of scholastic method in
theology, and therefore will be brief.
27
For the statutes, see University of Cambridge (1852, 1: 308–416, documents 1–188). This is a
printing of Statuta Antiqua in ordinem redacta (Ex Libro Procuratoris Senioris). A translation of
the version of the statutes found in the Harleian Mss (British Library 7032, Baker’s Collection) is
printed in Heywood (1840, 63–192). Though largely the same as the 1852 volume, Heywood’s text
only includes documents 1–181; in addition, the enumeration does not match the version printed
in the 1852 volume in every respect.
28
This was true for Oxford as well, and held for all intellectual matters: McConica (1965, 77).
29
This is document no. 124, “De incepturis in theologia”; Heywood (1840, 147) identifies it as no.
123, “Of those about to incept in theology”. This document went through a number of revisions
since it was first issued ca. 1255–65, the last revision being no later than 1390: see the table in
Appendix II of Hackett (1970, 337). For more on the curriculum, see: Leader (1988, 174–175 and
more generally 170–191); Rex (1991, 18–19).
34 2 The Old Theology and the New Learning at Cambridge to 1549

20–21). Throughout all this, the lectures were accompanied by disputations

(University of Cambridge 1852, 1: 369–370).30
Lectures in theology during these years were of three sorts. There was the simple
reading of a given authoritative text with comment restricted to explaining the
authorial intent—this was the “cursory” lecture, stemming from a time when books
were not readily available, and was given by bachelors. Lectures of this type enabled
the students to become familiar with authoritative texts that were otherwise of lim-
ited availability (Leedham-Green 1996, 17).31 There was also the reading and dis-
cussion of a commentary on a standard text. This constituted the “ordinary” lecture,
given by MA’s with teaching responsibilities (known as regent masters), as required
for the BD (Leedham-Green 1996, 17; Rex 1991, 19). Finally, there were lectures in
which an original commentary was set forth—in theology, often a commentary on
the Sentences—that included a comparison of earlier commentaries (Rex 1991,
19).32 With respect to lectures on the Bible, it is uncertain what biblical books were
expounded.33

2.2.2 Humanism, Scholasticism, and Curricular

Reform to 1535

As the fifteenth century opened, changes were slow in coming, regardless of what
may have been developing on the Continent, in Italy especially.34 Under statutes in
effect no later than 1390 (and which remained in force for nearly a century), the
undergraduate studied the logical works of Aristotle and terminist logic in the first
2 years, and natural philosophy along with metaphysics and moral philosophy in the
remaining 2 years (University of Cambridge 1852, 1: 360–361).35 The traditional

30
This is document no. 107, “De tempore opponendi in theologia et quaestiones determinandi in
eadem”; Heywood (1840, 137) identifies it as no. 107, “Of the time of opponencies in theology,
and determining questions in the same”. The original of this document is dated to 1300 at the latest,
and was revised twice by 1390: Hackett (1970, 336). On the place of disputations, see Leader
(1988, 175–176); see also Rex (1991, 18–19).
31
See also Rex (1991, 19) and Fletcher (1986, 166–167). Fletcher notes (at 188) that cursory
lectures receded in importance as printed books became more readily available.
32
See also Leedham-Green (1996, 17) who refers to instances of “extraordinary lectures” in which
the lecturer spoke outside of the usual hours and on other texts besides those included in the
syllabus.
33
It is argued that the Bible retained a sizeable role in the scholastic theology course, the claims of
Protestant polemic notwithstanding (Rex 1991, 20). This was certainly true in reference to the
intention of those who established the curriculum. Yet, as argued in the previous sections, this
assertion must be qualified in light of how the Bible was handled in the late fifteenth and early
sixteenth centuries.
34
See above, 2.1.4. For a discussion of the advance of humanism with particular reference to both
Oxford and Cambridge, see McConica (1965, 76–105).
35
This is document no. 86, “De incipientibus in artibus”; Heywood (1840, 125–126) identifies it as
no. 86, “Of those incepting in the arts”. Both this statute and the next were originally issued by
1390, per Hackett (1970, 336). See also Leader (1988, 249).
2.2 The University of Cambridge, ca. 1500–1549 35

reliance on disputations also remained (University of Cambridge 1852, 1: 384).36

The arts curriculum continued to be oriented towards the study of theology using
the scholastic method, as had been the case before (Leader 1988, 172–3). Hence, the
scholastic approach remained officially dominant throughout the century and,
indeed, continued into the sixteenth century (Rex 1991, 20–21).
But a concern with the Renaissance humanist program of a return ad fontes
began to grow in significance, especially with respect to the arts curriculum, and
changes were instituted in 1488 with an emphasis on the study of libris humanitatis
(University of Cambridge 1852, 1: 360–361).37 In 1495, in one instance, libris
humanitatis was specified as the work of Terence (University of Cambridge 1852,
1: 384–385).38 Humanist concerns with a proper classical style in the composition
of written and spoken Latin began to supplant the dominance of medieval grammar-
ians and medieval logicians, a development which had significant implications for
the whole of the curriculum, theology included (Leader 1988, 236–237). The teach-
ing of modal grammar (the predominant approach up to this time) was gradually
supplanted by a humanist approach (Leader 1988, 301–302). Though this might
seem a minor point with respect to the teaching of theology, in fact it had profound
implications. Modal grammar—with its intense concentration on linguistic and
logical analysis of words and concepts—was a key component of dialectic, which
was itself fundamental to scholastic method in theology.39 In contrast to this, human-
ist grammar was grounded in rhetoric, and was concerned with proper literary inter-
pretation, which included attention to the historical context of the author and the
text, to the language used and how it might have changed since antiquity, and to the
broader literary context of the specific passages studied. Nevertheless, although
the changes were significant in their long-term implications, they were not sweep-
ing in their immediate context. Yet while scholastic method was not renounced,
the curriculum became somewhat more eclectic (Leader 1988, 249; Leedham-Green
1996, 30).
In the early sixteenth century, one of the leading proponents of curricular reform
and of the introduction of humanist methods into the theological curriculum was
John Fisher (1469–1535). Fisher, who rose to become Chancellor of the University
in 1504, and then Chancellor for life from 1514 until his death (by execution) in

36
This is document no. 139, “De baccalaureis et opponentibus in quacunque facultate de respon-
dentibus quaestioni et incipientibus”; Heywood (1840, 155) identifies it as no. 138, “Of the bach-
elors and opponents in any faculty, and of those respondent to the questions, and inceptors”.
37
This is document no. 87, “De electione trium ordinare legentium”; Heywood (1840, 126–127)
identifies it as no. 87, “Election of three ordinary lecturers”. This document was in force by 1488
according to Hackett (1970, 336). See also Leader (1988, 236–237) and Leedham-Green
(1996, 30).
38
This is document no. 140, “De determinatoribus pro se”; in Heywood (1840, 155–156) it is docu-
ment no. 139, “Of those determining by themselves”.
39
For an extensive discussion of this, see the important article by Heath (1971).
36 2 The Old Theology and the New Learning at Cambridge to 1549

1535,40 was the most significant educational reformer of the University in the early
sixteenth century, in large part through his role in the foundation of Christ’s College
in 1505 and of St John’s College in 1511, and his influence upon the patronage of
Lady Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry VII.41 He was instrumental in the promo-
tion of humanist methods that encouraged and supported a theology more firmly
rooted in Scripture (Leader 1988, 246–247). He was also influential in persuading
Erasmus to come to Cambridge, thereby setting the seal upon his efforts towards the
introduction of a more humanistically-oriented curriculum at the University
(Leedham-Green 1996, 34).
Erasmus may well have visited Cambridge for the first time in 1506, but it was
not until 1511 that he took up residence as lecturer in Greek at the request of Fisher
(Leedham-Green 1996, 34). Though there is little or no trace of his visit in the
University of Cambridge archives, Erasmus is generally regarded as having had a
profound influence upon the institution, especially in solidifying the work of Fisher
in the reform of the curricula of both arts and theology (Leader 1988, 291–297).42
His residence lasted 26 months, from August 1511 to December 1513 (Leader 1988,
297). It was the first instance in which Erasmus made a “systematic effort as an
academic professor” (Mullinger 1873, 473). The significance of his tenure for our
purposes lies in what he taught while in Cambridge, and the educational program
he sought to promote—emphasizing the close study of Scripture, coupled with a
turn towards the Church Fathers (and away from the scholastic authorities) for
guidance—as well as the extent to which others sought to follow in his path after his
departure.43 It was his purpose to promote the renewal of Christendom through the
application of the tools of humanism to the study of the Bible, which would in turn
lead to a revival of the “true” or “old” theology, best exemplified by Origen,
Augustine, and Jerome (McConica 1991, 38). In so doing, Erasmus became the
leading proponent of what is now recognized as Christian or biblical humanism.44
His efforts in this regard proceeded along two tracks—most importantly, his work
on the New Testament; but also of great significance, his work in producing editions

40
Fisher rose steadily through the University hierarchy: senior proctor (1494–5); lecturer (1496–7);
vice-chancellor (1501); the first Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity (1502); chancellor on a
yearly basis from 1504, President of Queens’ College in 1505, and chancellor for life from 1514
(Leedham-Green 1996, 40). Needless to say, the cause of his fall was fundamentally his opposition
to Henry VIII’s divorce from Catherine of Aragon.
41
For more on Fisher’s importance, see especially Rex (1991), Chapter 3; Porter (1958), Chapter 1;
and Leader (1988), Chapter 12.
42
A very good discussion of Erasmus’s time in Cambridge, along with letters of this time, is found
in Erasmus (1963). See also Porter (1958), Chapter 2.
43
See Amos (2003, 48–54), for a summary discussion of Erasmus’s program for theology. I have
learned much on this aspect of Erasmus from the following works: Augustijn (1991); Bentley
(1983); Boyle (1977); Dickens and Jones (1994); Hoffmann (1994); Kroeker (2011); McConica
(1991); Payne (1969); Rabil (1993); Rummel (1986); and Tracy (1996). See also the recent work
of Christ-von Wedel (2013).
44
See Augustijn (1991, 109–110), cited above in Chapter 1, for a working definition of “biblical
humanism” as it is used in this book.
2.2 The University of Cambridge, ca. 1500–1549 37

of the Church Fathers, whom he regarded as exemplars of the theological method

that he sought to promote.
While at Cambridge, he lectured on Jerome, lectures which constituted his teach-
ing of theology—perhaps as Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity—thus promoting
the study of the Church Fathers (Leader 1988, 295).45 He also gave lectures in Greek
which, in the view of the conservatives at the University, posed a challenge to theol-
ogy as it had traditionally been taught, because these lectures were oriented towards
the New Testament, and thus (in the view of the conservatives) the authority of the
Vulgate was threatened (Leader 1988, 298–299; Simon 1966, 84–85). Though there
had been scholars at both Oxford and Cambridge from the mid-fifteenth century
who knew Greek, Erasmus was the first recorded teacher of Greek at either institu-
tion (Leader 1988, 293–295). Nevertheless, it has to be said that his initial lectures
on the Greek grammar of Manuel Chrysoloras appear to have been lightly attended.
He hoped for larger audiences when he began to lecture on the grammar of
Theodorus, but even in this case the turnout was much less than expected (Mullinger
1873, 493). It is ironic that, in immediate terms, his impact was hardly obvious—in
addition to light attendance at his Greek lectures, no trace of his theology lectures
remains. And for all his importance in being the first teacher of Greek at either uni-
versity, the formal honor of “the first introducer of Greek into the University” (that
is, Cambridge) went not to Erasmus but rather to his friend Richard Croke (profes-
sor of Greek from 1517) upon the latter’s appointment as University orator in 1522
(Mullinger 1873, 508).
Yet Erasmus was significant nonetheless in contributing to the continued devel-
opment of humanist methods in sacred studies, as seen in the efforts of his friends
and students to follow his example. In the Spring of 1516 Henry Bullock lectured in
the Faculty of Theology on the Gospel of Matthew, employing the notes of Erasmus
(Leader 1988, 295). He wrote to his mentor, telling him that Greek literature was all
the rage at the University at the moment (Erasmus 1963, 91 and 194). Among those
of a more evangelical bent, George Stafford spent several years in the 1520s lectur-
ing on Scripture rather than the Sentences of Lombard (the latter was more custom-
ary) as he undertook study for the doctorate in theology (Leader 1988, 322).46
Though Erasmus’s tenure was relatively short and his lectures may not have had the
immediate impact for which he could have wished, throughout the 1520s and 1530s,
the study of Patristic literature became more common in the University (aided, no
doubt, by his example and his critical editions), and the works of Erasmus were
nearly ubiquitous in the personal libraries of Cambridge scholars (Leader 1988,
317). In this connection, the primary vehicle by which Erasmus transmitted his
method of exegesis, and what made his work so important for the developments
regarding biblical humanism and the close relationship of Scripture and theology,

45
See also Leedham-Green (1996, 34). Hilmar Pabel (2008, 54) notes that the basis for our knowl-
edge of this is a passing comment in Caius (1904, 125).
46
See also the comment of Richard Rex on opposition to Stafford (Rex 1999a, 52).
38 2 The Old Theology and the New Learning at Cambridge to 1549

was his landmark scholarly achievement—the Novum Instrumentum of 1516,47 on

which, it might be noted, he had been working during his Cambridge sojourn
(McConica 1991, 40). The Novum Instrumentum was eagerly sought after by schol-
ars desiring to study the Bible, especially by those of a reformist cast of mind, and
because of the demand for this work his program of biblical humanism was dissemi-
nated to the widest possible audience in close proximity to the text he believed
essential for the renewal of theology—the Bible. Accompanying the Novum
Instrumentum was prefatory material that has a particular significance for the issues
raised in this chapter (and this book as a whole), especially the discussion of exege-
sis and its relation to theology found in the Methodus, which was later expanded in
1518 into the longer and more detailed Ratio Verae Theologiae (published sepa-
rately at first, and then in 1519 with the Novum Testamentum). It is in this treatise,
especially in its expanded version, that we find the most influential statement of his
prescriptions for exegetical practice, but also his argument for how theology should
be “done,” which, one can suggest, informed his teaching while in Cambridge.
What, briefly, was Erasmus’s “method of true theology”? It becomes evident as
one reads the Ratio—fundamental to true theological method is the practice of
exegesis, turning decisively away from a focus on Lombard and his commentators
(even granting that this literature was intended to aid in the study of Scripture).48
Erasmus’s prescriptions range from the application of textual criticism to the devel-
opment of theological exegesis, and one of the distinctive features of his program is
that he bound together what had become separated in sacred studies in the two
centuries leading up to his own age. In so doing, he exercised an enormous influence
in his time, and in particular upon many of the first generation of Reformers—not
only in their exegetical practice (a commonly accepted point), but also in their
assumptions as to what constituted the task and purpose of theology (a point that
awaits more extensive study, to which the present examination intends to contribute
in a limited way with respect to Bucer).
The broader humanist-scholastic debate notwithstanding, it has been argued of
late that at the University of Cambridge the two intellectual traditions—humanism
and scholasticism—coexisted without major conflict; the figure of John Fisher (who
supported both) is often cited as a case in point.49 Whether the changes we have
considered were accepted without challenge is debatable, for there demonstrably
was resistance to humanist methods within the University from the scholastic estab-
lishment.50 It is true that Erasmus, whose writings clearly demonstrate that he was

47
He changed the title to a more conventional Novum testamentum in the second and subsequent
editions.
48
See, particularly, Hoffman (1994) and Christ-von Wedel (2013), as well as Amos (2003, 48–54),
all cited above.
49
See in particular Rex (1991) Chapters 1 and 3. See also Leader (1988, 314), and Null (2000,
66–71).
50
Richard Rex has argued that it is wrong to hold that humanism was “inherently a challenge to the
doctrinal status quo, that it was inherently favourable to the cause of the Reformation, and that its
progress was therefore resented or even resisted by the clerical establishment” (Rex 1993, 26);
reprinted by permission of the publisher. It can be agreed that it was not “inherently” so, but it is
2.2 The University of Cambridge, ca. 1500–1549 39

in conflict with scholastic method and its proponents, encountered no overt

opposition during his time in Cambridge, though J. B. Mullinger suggests this was
due to the protection of John Fisher, whom Mullinger regards as nearly omnipotent
within the University (Mullinger 1873, 495–496). Yet despite the fact that the teach-
ing of Greek enjoyed the support of Fisher, there was resistance. Consider what
Erasmus wrote to Henry Bullock in August 1516 regarding the reception of his
Novum Instrumentum in Cambridge:
[C]ertain quite trustworthy people have told me there is one college there, a “most theologi-
cal” one, that has perfect Areopagites in it; they’ve passed a full-blown resolution to prevent
anyone from bringing “that book” within the august walls of the said college “by horse,
ship, waggon, or porter.” (Erasmus 1963, 195 [reprinted by permission of the publisher])

As we have noted, Greek was seen by some as a threat to theology, because it was
tied to a different approach to Scripture and was perceived to undermine the author-
ity of the Vulgate (Leader 1988, 297–299). Further, although we have observed that
the impact of Erasmus was such that he had imitators among those who lectured in
subsequent years, the old curriculum continued to hold sway in the teaching of the-
ology in the 1520s. To cite a few examples: Patrick Gower lectured on Aquinas’s
Summa Theologiae; Ralph Songar lectured on Aquinas’s commentary on Lombard’s
Sentences; Humphrey Walkden lectured on Scotus’s commentary on Lombard (Rex
1991, 19).

2.2.3 Curricular Reform, 1535–1549:

Reformation and Resistance

What unquestionably charged the atmosphere and changed the character of subse-
quent curricular reform was the coming of the Reformation, whether in its political
guise or in its theological guise.51 In both respects, the Reformation took statutory
form in Cambridge in 1535. Formally speaking, the Cambridge Injunctions of that
year—promulgated at the behest of Henry VIII’s principal secretary Thomas
Cromwell (also Chancellor of the University from 1535 to 1540)—constitute the
watershed that divides the medieval from the modern in the history of the University,
even if the full implication of the changes did not become manifest in an immediate
sense (Mullinger 1873, 631).

nonetheless true that humanism, especially biblical humanism, contributed much to the cause of
the Reformation. Dr Rex has clearly established, however, that the phrase, “new learning,” is prop-
erly understood in the Tudor context to refer to evangelical (i.e., heretical) teaching, and not to
humanism.
51
For all the resonance between the Injunctions and Protestantism, we should not assume that the
introduction of the former meant official introduction of the latter. The implacable opposition of
Henry VIII to much of Protestant doctrine meant that evangelicals in England had to tread a very
careful path. Official Protestantism was not introduced until the reign of Edward VI.
40 2 The Old Theology and the New Learning at Cambridge to 1549

With respect to the present discussion of lectures in theology at Cambridge, it

was the third of the Injunctions that had particular significance:
We intend…that in no college or hall or other place throughout your academy should any
public lecture be read upon any of such doctors who write upon the Master of the Sentences.
But…for the greater increase of Sacred Theology and of the Divine Word…[lectures]
should be read from no other teachers than from the body of Sacred Scripture—namely, the
New Testament and the Old—and the lecturers…should interpret the aforesaid text hon-
estly and simply according to the sense of true Scripture, and should not—after the manner
of Scotus and of other authors of inextricable labyrinths—overwhelm their listeners with
ignorance [and] blindness, as they have been hitherto accustomed.52 (University of
Cambridge 1785, 136–137)

This Injunction decisively cast aside what we have seen lay at the heart of the
scholastic curriculum for the teaching of theology—the Sentences of Peter
Lombard—and it reflects the biblical humanist program of Erasmus as much as it
resonates with the program of Protestantism.53 It clearly embodied a humanist cri-
tique of earlier methods in theology. First, there was the explicit rejection of the
work of Peter Lombard, concerning whom Erasmus made an indirect, though clear,
comment in his Ratio (Erasmus 1519, 36/[Cc6] verso; Erasmus 1964, 284), and
which had a clear echo in the Injunction. Second, the positive mandate to teach
theology from the text of Scripture alone in its natural, literal sense is another major
emphasis of Erasmus. Third, equally prominent in both Erasmus and in the
Injunction is the rejection of the theological method of scholastics in general and
Scotus in particular (whose method Erasmus apparently loathed), summarized in
the Injunction by the reference to him by name.54 In banning not only the work of
any theologian who commented upon the Sentences but also (by implication) the
Sentences themselves, at a stroke every major theologian from the twelfth century

52
“Volumus…ut per totam academiam vestram in nullo collegio vel aula seu loco alio quocunque
publica legatur lectura aliqua doctorum talium qui scribunt in magistrum sententiarum. Sed…ad
sacrae theologiae ac verbi divini majorem proventum…legantur ex nullis aliis doctoribus quam ex
corpore scripturae sacrae videlicet novo testamento et veteri utque lectores…sincere ac simpliciter
ad verae scripturae sensum praedictum textum exponant non iuxta Scoti et aliorum inextricabilium
labyrinthorum authorum morem ignorantia caecitate auditores involvant prout antehac soliti sunt.”
An abbreviated translation, found in Mullinger (1873, 630), has been commonly used in the sec-
ondary literature: “That neither in the university or any other college or hall, or other place, should
any lecture be read upon any of the doctors who had written upon the Master of the Sentences, but
that all divinity lectures should be upon the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, according to
the true sense thereof, and not after the manner of Scotus.”
53
In view of the dangers attendant upon espousing Protestantism at the court of Henry VIII, the
ideological background of the Injunctions is almost certainly found in the biblical humanist tradi-
tion best represented by Erasmus—for which it is clear Henry VIII had strong sympathies. On this,
see two essays: MacCulloch (1995); and Bernard (1999). See also Bernard (2005, 228–243). On
the importance of humanist thought for English reform efforts at the time of the Injunctions, see
McConica (1965, 106–149, and especially 150–199).
54
Scotus was, with Aquinas, the chief theologian in the theological curriculum at Cambridge: Null
(2000, 72, and more generally 65–81). For Erasmus’s sharp comments about Scotus in the Ratio,
see Erasmus (1519, 59 and 61/[Ee6] recto and Ff recto; 1964, 294 and 304).
2.2 The University of Cambridge, ca. 1500–1549 41

was removed from the course of study.55 In the place of the traditional curriculum,
the exegesis of the Bible was made the primary theological task, apparently bring-
ing to fruition the reforms for which Erasmus labored.
In spite of this statutory backing of change, resistance to the Cambridge
Injunctions within the University was found among its leaders—partly for confes-
sional reasons (no doubt) but also for professional reasons—and this resistance is
testimony to the fact that in the eyes of contemporaries, if not of some modern com-
mentators, the changes signaled in the Injunctions were far-reaching. Dr John ap
Rice, one of Cromwell’s representatives in the visitation of the University at the
time of the Injunctions, wrote to Cromwell on 22 October 1535 that he “observed in
the heads [of some of the colleges] great pertinacity to their own blindness” and
argued that if “they were gradually removed, learning would flourish here, as the
younger sort be of much towardness” (Gairdner et al. 1886, 223 [item 661]).56
Another of Cromwell’s operatives, Dr Thomas Legh, wrote on 30 October 1535 that
a number of the college heads were firm adherents of “sophistical learning”
(a phrase he used twice) and who sought to modify the Injunctions (Gairdner et al.
1886, 238, [item 708]). It is worth noting that Legh did not say “papistical learning,”
which would have made explicit that the problem was with their confessional alle-
giance rather than their pedagogical commitments. Resistance within the colleges
can be seen in the fact that scholastic works continued to be used in various ways (if
not openly for instruction) throughout the years following the Injunctions (Leedham-
Green 1996, 36–37).57
The strength of opposition to the changes can also be seen in the intensely hostile
reception given to Alexander Alesius, a Lutheran-educated Scots theologian, who in
1536 delivered a series of lectures on the Psalms in which he employed a method of
teaching fully in accord with the Injunctions.58 His negative experience was such
that he did not remain very long (Simon 1966, 260).59 While there can be little doubt
that Alesius’s evangelical theology played a major part in engendering hostility
towards his lectures, one can suppose that his method would have played some part
as well, coming so soon after the Injunctions and the ban on scholastic method.60

55
Most commentators regard the Injunction as having banned Lombard as well as his successors:
see, for instance, Leedham-Green (1996, 37) or Leader (1988, 334–335).
56
For more detail regarding the Visitation, see Logan (1991).
57
See also Leader (1988, 335). If these works were used for instruction within the colleges, those
who so used them would no doubt have relied in part on the protection of the same heads of col-
leges (and their successors) to whom Legh referred.
58
Alesius was appointed as King’s Reader in Theology, a position that proved to be the forerunner
of the Regius Professorship subsequently held by Bucer. Alesius later produced a commentary on
Psalms 1–25 and dedicated it to Henry VIII, a work that appears to represent what he set forth in
his lectures (Rex 1999a, 64–65). On Alesius, see Wiedermann (1986, 15–41). A critical edition of
Alesius’s commentary is found in Wiedermann (1988, 141–246).
59
Wiedermann (1986) deals most extensively with this; see also Rex (1999a, 66–67).
60
Alesius followed Melanchthon in his approach, who in turn stood in the tradition of biblical
humanism. Rex (1999a, 65–66); Wiedermann (1988, 91–92, 104–107). Yet, we should note
Wiedermann’s point that in Alesius’s commentary we find not simply the work of a biblical humanist
42 2 The Old Theology and the New Learning at Cambridge to 1549

This is not to deny that there were efforts on the part of conservatives to adapt
lectures to the new requirements. Attention has been drawn to a short work of John
Redman, De iustificatione (Redman 1555)61 and it has been suggested that the piece
may reflect Redman’s teaching at Cambridge around 1543 or 1544, in much the
same way that Alesius’s teaching is represented in his Psalms commentary (Rex
1999a, 68). The piece is in the form of extracts from biblical books combined with
theological propositions, gathered in the fashion one might employ in preparation
for a scholastic disputation, which certainly appears plausible (Rex 1999a, 68).
Each section of the text is a short paragraph, with a marginal notation of the relevant
biblical text and/or doctrine mentioned in each paragraph. Given the brevity of the
piece, it would seem to be an outline Redman used as the basis for the lectures,
rather than the lectures themselves. Each paragraph would then have functioned as
a basic proposition upon which Redman would have expanded at greater length. If it
is the case that the piece reflects Redman’s teaching, then it would represent another
example of how the third of the Cambridge Injunctions was put into practice—in
this case, by a conservative.
In any case, it is worth noting that in fact not a great deal of pressure was applied
by the authorities to ensure compliance with the Injunctions (Simon 1966, 260).
This reflected, no doubt, the vagaries of Court politics and the need for circumspec-
tion on the part of evangelicals.62 As a result, those who held to the old order could
continue to do so with what amounted to only a token show of conformity. In the
aftermath of the reversal of government policy in 1539—displayed most visibly in
the Act of Six Articles, which arrested further Protestant advance and which seemed
to confirm conservative doctrine—the conservatives at the University naturally
assumed that whatever else might change, doctrine would remain the same. This
perception, combined with the lax enforcement of the Injunctions, not only inhib-
ited the further advance of curricular reform but also set the stage for strong opposi-
tion within the universities to the introduction of more decidedly Protestant doctrine
in the reign of Edward VI (Simon 1966, 260).
In addition to the curricular changes introduced in 1535, this period also saw the
founding of what would become the Regius Professorships. It has been argued that
behind the professorships lay the Injunctions imposed by Thomas Leigh/Legh
(to be distinguished from the Cambridge Injunctions) and their requirement that a
lectureship in either Greek or Hebrew be established by the University (Logan 1977,
273).63 The idea for these important positions may have originated with Thomas

(though it does reflect the practice of such), but a work that is decidedly Lutheran and
Melanchthonian in the stress on the Law/Gospel dialectic on the one hand, and in the stress on
fundamental theological principles [loci communes] on the other (Wiedermann 1986, 22–23).
61
The text of the treatise is on Ai-Aiv, 1–47, followed by the “Hymnus” on 48–55. I have consulted
the copy in the Parker Collection of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (SP 334). See Rex (1999a,
67–70) for a discussion of this work (upon which the present discussion is dependent).
62
For an excellent discussion of the difficulties faced by evangelicals at this time, see MacCulloch
(1996), Chapters 7 and 8.
63
Logan’s work is the most thorough discussion of the Professorships, which he notes are only
anachronistically called such at this time. The correct contemporary term for the post would have
2.2 The University of Cambridge, ca. 1500–1549 43

Cromwell, but they took shape in the early 1540s under the chancellorship of
Cromwell’s successor, Stephen Gardiner, bishop of Winchester (Leedham-Green
1996, 48). Initially there were four professorships—Divinity, Greek, Hebrew, and
Civil Law—to which was added a fifth in Medicine (Logan 1977, 275). Of the
professorships, those of Divinity, Greek and Hebrew held a place of honor—under-
scored by their subsequent attachment to the royal foundation of Trinity College—and
in this way the significance of biblical humanism was emphasized, for those who
had eyes to see the implications (Logan 1977, 277). It is interesting to observe that
of the three higher faculties (theology, law, and medicine), the professorships were
heavily weighted towards theology, and that the theology envisaged was clearly
non-scholastic in character—that is, it was of the character of the “new learning”
(Logan 1977, 277).
The final curricular changes to be promulgated prior to the arrival of Bucer at
Cambridge were embodied in the Edwardian Statutes for the University (8 April
1549).64 These instituted further reforms of the undergraduate curriculum for the
BA and the MA.65 Except for individuals who chose to pursue a higher degree in
medicine or law, those studying beyond the MA were required to undertake work
for the BD either in divinity or in Hebrew (Simon 1966, 252–253).66 By direction of
the Injunctions appended to the Statutes, students studying for the BD were permit-
ted to concentrate on the Pauline Epistles, and those studying for the doctorate in
theology, the whole of the Bible (Leedham-Green 1996, 37–38).67 In studying for
the doctorate, students were required to attend daily theological lectures, to sustain
two disputations on theological topics, and to preach in the University Church

been praelector or reader (Logan 1977, 272). In the present work, however, the more conventional
term will be employed.
64
These can be found in Heywood (1840, 3–41). The “Laws or Statutes of the University of
Cambridge” (dated 8 April 1549) are on 3–27. Following the Statutes, there are the “Injunctions
framed by the Visitors of King Edward VI” (dated 2 July 1549) on 26–37. Finally, there are
“Ordinances for removing doubts which have arisen from the Statutes” (2 July 1549?) on 37–41.
For the Latin text, see University of Cambridge (1785, 146–174).
65
Undergraduates were to study arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and cosmography in the first
year, dialectics in the second, and philosophy in the third and fourth years. They were to dispute
twice in the public schools, and to respond twice (Heywood 1840, 7–8). Those studying for the
MA were to attend lectures in philosophy, perspective, astronomy and Greek, and to dispute six
times over the course of 3 years (Heywood 1840, 8).
66
The BD course consisted of: daily lectures in Hebrew and theology for 5 years; two disputations
against a BA, two responses after the third year of study; one sermon in Latin, and one in English,
both preached in the University Church (Heywood 1840, 8–9).
67
The wording of the Injunction is thus: “The vice-chancellor, on admitting a bachelor of divinity,
is to use these words: ‘We admit you to the enarration and interpretation of all the apostolical
epistles, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.’ But on admitting
a doctor he shall thus say: ‘We admit you to the interpreting and professing of universal sacred
scripture, as well of the old as of the new Testament, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost. Amen’” (Heywood 1840, 28).
44 2 The Old Theology and the New Learning at Cambridge to 1549

(Great St Mary’s)—twice in Latin, once in English (Simon 1966, 253).68 Finally, the
theological disputations were to be held on alternate Thursdays from one to four in
the afternoon (Heywood 1840, 14). The continued importance of divinity within the
University can also be seen in the fact that at its foundation in 1546, 56 out of 60
fellowships in Trinity College were reserved for MAs who intended to study
divinity—of the remaining fellowships, two were for medicine, and two for civil
law (Simon 1966, 251).

2.3 Conclusion

Such was the curricular background to Bucer’s lectures on Ephesians. For all the
changes with implications for the advance of biblical humanist education that we
have considered, whether of a gradual or dramatic character, the extent to which
they were manifested beyond the level of the statute book remains an open question.
Formally speaking, the changes were quite substantial, and in the case of theology,
radical. In regard to theology, formally speaking the Cambridge Injunctions were
every bit as significant for the history of the University as Mullinger asserted they
were. Scholastic method and authorities were completely removed from the curricu-
lum and replaced with what can fairly be described as a biblical humanist method
and a pronounced emphasis on Scripture. The difficulty in saying more than this is the
dearth of evidence for what actually went on in the lecture halls. What evidence
there is seems to suggest that for a time the change may have been more apparent
than real, and that the use of scholastic method and authorities continued (if not
openly) throughout the period. The continued use of disputations, a key feature of
scholastic method in education, is testimony to its continued influence.69
In any case, we should be clear that until the death of Henry VIII it was not
possible for anyone to associate openly with Protestant doctrine, and the linking by

68
When the student completed this academic marathon, the statutes allowed that no more labor
should be required of him, but another Latin sermon and disputation was still expected (Heywood
1840, 9). These were the requirements at the time Bucer was awarded his doctorate.
69
It might be thought, in light of the discussion of the influence of biblical humanist method, that
one of the striking features of the Edwardian Statutes is the continued emphasis on disputations
(Heywood 1840, 7–15). However, while in a formal sense there was a continuity between medieval
disputations and those of the sixteenth century, the emphasis in the humanistically-oriented educa-
tion program was on rhetoric rather than dialectic, and on persuasive reasoning in debate.
See Jardine (1974), and Todd (1987, 63). Dialectic was not the exclusive property of scholastic
method, and the two should not automatically be equated. With respect to the relationship of scho-
lastic and humanist curricula, Mordechai Feingold has warned against the easy assumption that
they were largely similar because of superficial terminological similarities between them—
particularly in the common prominence of dialectic and the presence of Aristotle. Feingold argues
that we should not take the compressed abbreviation of the curriculum that we find in the statutes
at face value, but instead recognize that there was much more to it than the bare reading of them
would suggest. The place of humanistically-oriented, classical studies (language and literature)
was much larger than might seem to be the case (Feingold 1997, 212–214).
References 45

some conservatives of biblical humanist method with heterodoxy (if not heresy)
was no doubt a hindrance to its further promotion and required great circumspection
on the part of its adherents. This would certainly be the case with any subject that
touched upon theology, directly or indirectly. In this respect, we have noted above
the strong opposition faced by Alexander Alesius, and Stephen Gardiner’s opposi-
tion to the attempts of John Cheke and Thomas Smith in 1542 to promote the
Erasmian theory of the pronunciation of Greek can be seen as of a piece with this
(Hudson 1980, 43–46).70 The opposition of the conservatives at the universities to
evangelical theology (if not also to humanist method) was quite significant through-
out the period under consideration, and set the stage for strong confessional conflict
with the accession of the Protestant Edward VI. But on the level of the curriculum
at the universities, the advent of official Protestantism in 1547 did not bring about
immediate change, and one can only assume that lecturers at the universities at best
grudgingly acquiesced to biblical humanist reforms—until the arrival of Peter
Martyr Vermigli at Oxford in 154871 and Martin Bucer at Cambridge in 1549.

References

Amos, N. Scott. 2003. New learning, old theology: Renaissance biblical humanism, scripture, and
the question of theological method. Renaissance Studies 17(1): 39–54.
Augustijn, Cornelis. 1991. Erasmus: His Life, Works, and Influence. Trans. J.C. Grayson. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Bentley, Jerry. 1983. Humanists and Holy Writ: New Testament scholarship in the Renaissance.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bernard, George. 1999. The piety of Henry VIII. In The education of a Christian society:
Humanism and the Reformation in Britain and the Netherlands, ed. N. Scott Amos, Andrew
Pettegree, and Henk van Nierop, 62–88. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishers.
Bernard, George. 2005. The king’s Reformation: Henry VIII and the remaking of the English
church. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Boyle, Marjorie O’Rourke. 1977. Erasmus on language and method in theology. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Caius, John. 1904. The annals of Gonville and Caius College, ed. John Venn. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Camporeale, Salvatore. 1972. Valla, umanesimo e teologia. Florence: Nella sede dell’Istituto.
Chenu, M.-D. 1997. Nature, Man, and Society in the Twelfth Century: Essays on New Theological
Perspectives in the Latin West, ed. and trans. Jerome Taylor and Lester K. Little. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Christ-von Wedel, Christine. 2013. Erasmus of Rotterdam: Advocate of a New Christianity.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Cobban, Alan B. 1988. The medieval English Universities: Oxford and Cambridge to c. 1500.
Berkeley: University of California Press.

70
See also Leedham-Green (1996, 48–49). On humanists in the English Reformation more
generally, see Rex (1999b, 19–40).
71
Martyr was appointed Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford in 1548; he lectured on I Corinthians
in 1549, and on Romans in 1550. See: Greenslade (1986, 318–319); Loach (1986, 369, 373); and
McNair (1980, 100–105).
46 2 The Old Theology and the New Learning at Cambridge to 1549

Cobban, Alan B. 1999. English university life in the Middle Ages. London: UCL Press.
Colish, Marcia L. 1994. Peter Lombard, 2 vols. Leiden: Brill.
Colish, Marcia L. 1997. Medieval foundations of the western intellectual tradition, 400–1400.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
D’Amico, John F. 1988. Humanism and pre-Reformation theology. In Renaissance humanism:
Foundations, forms, and legacy, 3 vols., vol. 3, ed. Albert Rabil, Jr., 349–379. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Dickens, A.G., and Whitney R.D. Jones. 1994. Erasmus the reformer. London: Methuen.
Erasmus, Desiderius. 1519. Novum Testamentum omne, multo quam antehac diligentius ab Erasmo
Roterodamo recognitu, emedatum ac translatum … : una cum annotationibus recognitis, ac
magna accessione locupletatis. Basel: Johannes Froben.
Erasmus, Desiderius. 1963. Erasmus and Cambridge: The Cambridge Letters of Erasmus.
D.F.S. Thomson, trans.; Introduction, Commentary, and Notes H. C. Porter. Toronto: University
of Toronto Press.
Erasmus, Desiderius. 1964. Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus: Ausgewählte Werke, ed. Hajo
Holborn and Annemarie Holborn. München: C.H. Beck.
Evans, G.R. 1980. Old arts and new theology: The beginnings of theology as an academic disci-
pline. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Evans, G.R. 1983. Alan of Lille: The frontiers of theology in the later twelfth century. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Evans, G.R. 1984. The language and logic of the Bible: The earlier Middle Ages. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Evans, G.R. 1985. The language and logic of the Bible: The road to reformation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Evans, G.R. (ed.). 2001. The medieval theologians: An introduction to theology in the medieval
period. Oxford: Blackwell.
Evans, G.R. (ed.). 2002. Mediaeval commentaries on the sentences of Peter Lombard, vol. 1.
Leiden: Brill.
Evans, G.R. 2012. The roots of the reformation: Tradition, emergence, and rupture. Downers
Grove: Intervarsity Press.
Feingold, Mordechai. 1997. The humanities. In The history of the University of Oxford. Vol. IV:
Seventeenth-century Oxford, ed. Nicholas Tyacke, 211–357. Oxford: Clarendon.
Fletcher, J.M. 1986. The faculty of arts. In The history of the University of Oxford. Vol. III: The
Collegiate University, ed. James McConica, 157–199. Oxford: Clarendon.
Fois, M. 1969. Il pensiero cristiano di Lorenzo Valla nel quadro storico-culturale del suo ambi-
ante. Rome: Libr. ed dell’Univ. Gregoriana.
Gairdner, James, et al. 1886. Letters and papers, foreign and domestic of the reign of Henry VIII,
vol. 9. London: Longman.
Greenslade, S.L. 1986. The faculty of theology. In The history of the University of Oxford. Vol. III:
The Collegiate University, ed. James McConica, 295–334. Oxford: Clarendon.
Hackett, M.B. 1970. The original statutes of Cambridge University: The text and its history.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heath, Terrence. 1971. Logical grammar, grammatical logic and humanism at three German
Universities. Studies in the Renaissance 18: 9–64.
Heywood, James (ed.). 1840. Collection of statutes for the University and the Colleges of
Cambridge. London: William Clowes and Sons.
Hoffmann, Manfred. 1994. Rhetoric and theology: The hermeneutic of Erasmus. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Hudson, Winthrop S. 1980. The Cambridge connection and the Elizabethan settlement of 1559.
Durham: Duke University Press.
Jardine, Lisa. 1974. The place of dialectic teaching in sixteenth century Cambridge. Studies in the
Renaissance 21: 31–62.
Knowles, David. 1962. The evolution of medieval thought. New York: Vintage Books.
References 47

Kroeker, Greta Grace. 2011. Erasmus in the footsteps of Paul: A Pauline theologian. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Leader, Damien Riehl. 1988. A history of the University of Cambridge. vol. 1: The University to
1546. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leedham-Green, Elisabeth. 1996. A concise history of the University of Cambridge. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Little, A.G., and Franz Pelster. 1934. Oxford theology and theologians: c. AD 1282–1302. Oxford:
Clarendon Press for the Oxford Historical Society.
Loach, Jennifer. 1986. Reformation controversies. In The history of the University of Oxford. Vol.
III: The Collegiate University, ed. James McConica, 363–396. Oxford: Clarendon.
Logan, F.D. 1977. The origins of the so-called Regius Professorships: An aspect of the Renaissance
in Oxford and Cambridge. In Renaissance and renewal in Christian history, Studies in Church
history 14, ed. Derek Baker, 271–278. Oxford: Published for the Ecclesiastical History Society
by B. Blackwell.
Logan, F.D. 1991. The First Royal Visitation of the English Universities, 1535. English Historical
Review 106: 861–888.
MacCulloch, Diarmaid. 1995. Henry VIII and the Reform of the Church. In The reign of Henry
VIII: Politics, policy and piety, ed. Diarmaid MacCulloch, 159–180. London: Macmillan Press.
MacCulloch, Diarmaid. 1996. Thomas Cranmer: A life. New Haven: Yale University Press.
McConica, James. 1965. English humanists and Reformation politics. Oxford: Clarendon.
McConica, James. 1991. Erasmus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McGrath, Alister E. 1987. The intellectual origins of the European Reformation. Oxford:
Blackwell.
McNair, Philip M.J. 1980. Peter Martyr in England. In Peter Martyr Vermigli and Italian reform,
ed. Joseph C. McLelland, 85–105. Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier University Press.
Morgan, Victor. 2004. A history of the University of Cambridge, vol. 2, 1546–1750. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Mullinger, James Bass. 1873. The University of Cambridge from the earliest times to the royal
injunctions of 1535. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mullinger, James Bass. 1884. The University of Cambridge from the royal injunctions of 1535 to
the accession of Charles the First. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nauert, Charles G. 1973. The clash of humanists and scholastics: An approach to pre-Reformation
controversies. Sixteenth Century Journal 4(1): 1–18.
Nauert, Charles G. 1998. Humanism as method: Roots of conflict with the scholastics. Sixteenth
Century Journal XXIX/2: 427–438.
Nauert, Charles G. 2006. Humanism and the culture of Renaissance Europe, 2nd ed. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Null, Ashley. 2000. Thomas Cranmer’s doctrine of repentance: Renewing the power to love.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Overfield, James H. 1984. Humanism and scholasticism in late medieval Germany. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Pabel, Hilmar. 2008. Herculean Labors: Erasmus and the Editing of St Jerome’s Letters in the
Renaissance. Leiden: Brill.
Payne, J.B. 1969. Toward the hermeneutic of Erasmus. In Scrinium Erasmianum: Mélanges histo-
riques publiés sous le patronage de l’Université de Louvain à l'occasion du cinquième cente-
naire de la naissance d'Érasme. Historische opstellen gepubliceerd onder de auspiciën van de
Universiteit te Leuven naar aanleiding van het vijfde eeuwfeest van Erasmus’ geboorte., 2
vols., vol. 2, ed. Joseph Coppens, 3–49. Leiden: Brill.
Peter Lombard. 1971–1981. Magistri Petri Lombardi Sententiae in IV Libris Distinctae, ed.
Ignatius Brady. Grottaferrata: Editiones Collegii S. Bonaventurae ad Claras Aquas.
Porter, H.C. 1958. Reformation and reaction in Tudor Cambridge. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
48 2 The Old Theology and the New Learning at Cambridge to 1549

Rabil Jr., Albert. 1993. Erasmus and the New Testament: The mind of a Christian Humanist.
Lanham: University Press of America.
Redman, John. 1555. Ioannis Redmani Angli Sacrae Theologiae professoris de iustificatione opus.
Huic accessit Hymnus eiusdem argumenti per eundem authorem. Antwerp: Ioannes Withagius.
Rex, Richard. 1991. The theology of John Fisher. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rex, Richard. 1993. The new learning. Journal of Ecclesiastical History 44/1: 26–44.
Rex, Richard. 1999a. The early impact of reformation theology at Cambridge University, 1521–
1547. Reformation & Renaissance Review: Journal of the Society for Reformation Studies 2:
38–71.
Rex, Richard. 1999b. The role of English humanists in the Reformation up to 1559. In The educa-
tion of a Christian Society: Humanism and the Reformation in Britain and the Netherlands, ed.
N. Scott Amos, Andrew Pettegree, and Henk van Nierop, 19–40. Aldershot, Hampshire:
Ashgate Publishers.
Rosemann, Philipp W. (ed.). 2010. Mediaeval commentaries on the sentences of Peter Lombard,
vol. 2. Leiden: Brill.
Rummel, Erika. 1986. Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament: From philologist to theolo-
gian. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Rummel, Erika. 1994. The humanist-scholastic debate in the Renaissance and Reformation.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rummel, Erika. 1996. The importance of being doctor: The quarrel over competency between
humanists and theologians in the Renaissance. Catholic Historical Review 82: 189–193.
Rupp, E. Gordon. 1947. Studies in the making of the English Protestant tradition, mainly in the
reign of Henry VIII. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Simon, Joan. 1966. Education and society in Tudor England. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Smalley, Beryl. 1964. The study of the Bible in the Middle Ages. Notre Dame: University of Norte
Dame Press.
Smalley, Beryl. 1969. The Bible in the Medieval Schools. In The Cambridge history of the Bible.
Vol. 2: The West from the fathers to the reformation, ed. G.W.H. Lampe, 197–220. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Steinmetz, David C. 1999. The Scholastic Calvin. In Protestant scholasticism: Essays in
Reassessment, ed. Carl R. Trueman and R. Scott Clark, 16–30. Carlisle: Paternoster Press.
Todd, Margo. 1987. Christian humanism and the puritan social order. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Tracy, James D. 1996. Erasmus of the Low Countries. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Trinkaus, Charles. 1988. Italian humanism and scholastic theology. In Renaissance humanism:
Foundations, forms, and legacy, 3 vols., vol. 3, ed. Albert Rabil, Jr., 327–348. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
University of Cambridge. 1785. Statuta Academiae Cantabrigiensis. Cambridge: Typis Academicis
Excudebat J. Archdeacon.
University of Cambridge. 1852. Documents relating to the University and Colleges of Cambridge,
3 vols. London: Printed by G. Eyre and W. Spottiswoode for H.M.S.O.
Verger, Jacques. 1984. L’Exégèse de l’université. In Bible de tous les Temps 4: Le Moyen Age et la
Bible, ed. Pierre Riché and Guy Lobrichon, 199–232. Paris: Beauchesne.
Wiedermann, Gotthelf. 1986. Alexander Alesius’s lectures on the Psalms at Cambridge, 1536.
Journal of Ecclesiastical History 37: 15–41.
Wiedermann, Gotthelf. 1988. Der Reformator Alexander Alesius als Ausleger der Psalmen.
Dissertation, Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg.
Witt, Ronald G. 1995. The humanist movement. In Handbook of European history, 1400–1600:
Late Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Reformation, 2 vols., vol. 2, ed. Thomas A. Brady, Jr.,
Heiko A. Oberman, and James D. Tracy, 93–125. Leiden: Brill.
Chapter 3
“Remember the Readings and Preachings
of God’s Prophet and True Preacher, Martin
Bucer”: Bucer’s Sojourn in Cambridge,
1549–1551

The part that Martin Bucer played in the English Reformation has been the subject
of scholarly attention on a number of occasions, most recently in Diarmaid
MacCulloch’s biography of Thomas Cranmer (MacCulloch 1996).1 The focus of
much of the discussion has been on Bucer’s importance for the wider conduct of
the Reformation in England—for instance, his involvement in the Vestments
Controversy, or the revision of the 1549 Book of Common Prayer—as well as his
last major treatise, De Regno Christi.2 Important though these aspects of his
English sojourn were, they did not constitute Bucer’s most direct and visible role
at the time. That honor must instead go to his tenure as Regius Professor of
Divinity at the University of Cambridge, and the lectures he gave as Professor on
the Apostle Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians—the “readings” to which the title of
this chapter refers—lectures which have been largely neglected in most discus-
sions of Bucer in England.
The impact of these lectures upon mid-Tudor Cambridge has been described as
“electric” (Guy 1988, 221)—an adjective that could hardly be applied to his other
labors during these final years of his life. While there is little doubt that the reason
for Bucer’s impact was due in no small part to his stature as a leading Continental
theologian, this is by no means an exhaustive account of the phenomenon. To under-
stand more fully the sensation his lectures created, we must view them in the light
of curricular reform as this became intertwined with confessional conflict, and
especially with reference to the Cambridge Injunctions of 1535, both of which

The quotation is taken from John Bradford, “Farewell to the University and Town of Cambridge,”
in Bradford (1848, 2: 445).
1
Mention should also be made of MacCulloch’s more recent, shorter work on the reign of Edward
VI (MacCulloch 1999).
2
The bibliography on Bucer in England includes: Collinson (1979, 49–56); Collinson (1983);
Collinson (1994); Eells (1931, 401–414); Greschat (2004, 227–249, 269–271); Hall (1977); Hall
(1993); Hall (1994); Harvey (1906); Hopf (1946); Pauck (1928); Van’t Spijker (1996, 345–476);
Vogt (1968); Wendel (1955, ix–liv); Wright (1972, 17–71); Wright (1992); Wright (1993).

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 49

N.S. Amos, Bucer, Ephesians and Biblical Humanism, Studies in Early Modern
Religious Tradition, Culture and Society 7, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-10238-2_3
50 3 “Remember the Readings and Preachings of God’s Prophet and True Preacher…

we considered in the previous chapter. What emerges from an examination of the

lectures within these two contexts is the resonance of Bucer’s efforts with the
Injunctions, and the great likelihood that these lectures represent the first extended,
academic presentation of evangelical doctrine in a Cambridge lecture hall and the
full fruition of the theological program of biblical humanism as it was adumbrated
in the Injunctions.

3.1 Bucer and England

The general outline of Bucer’s sojourn in England and the reasons for his departure
from Strasbourg are relatively well known.3 After 25 years of service, he was exiled
from his beloved city on 6 April 1549 because of his refusal to subscribe to the
Interim—the settlement imposed by the victorious Holy Roman Emperor Charles V
upon the members of the Smalkaldic League, defeated at the Battle of Mühlberg in
1547. Though Bucer had several offers of refuge available to him—from John
Calvin in Geneva, from Philip Melanchthon in Wittenberg, from the court of
Denmark, from Oswald Myconius in Basel—the invitation he chose to accept was
that of Thomas Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury.4

3.1.1 The First Months

Bucer arrived in England on 23 April accompanied by a fellow exile, Paul Fagius,

and spent the first several months in the company of Thomas Cranmer.5 While there,
the initial task given to Bucer and Fagius was to translate the Bible into Latin, and

3
For the broad outline of Bucer’s sojourn, I have followed the work of Vogt, Greschat and Basil
Hall’s most recent contribution, all noted above. Portions of what follows have appeared in Amos
(2002) and Amos (2010). I thank, respectively, Maney Publishing and Mohr Siebeck for permis-
sion to re-use the material I have published with them. There is need for a new study of Bucer’s
relationship with England prior to his arrival, of his sojourn, and of the impact he had. The last full
study was that of Vogt, which dates to 1968, and a great deal of work has been done on mid-Tudor
England (and the broader European Reformation) since then. The present chapter is but a sketch
when it moves beyond Bucer’s lectures, and I hope to undertake a full study of Bucer and England
in the near future.
4
On the several invitations, see Vogt (1968, 18–19). Bucer’s relationship with Cranmer dated from
1536, when Bucer dedicated his commentary on Romans to the archbishop. They remained in
contact through the subsequent years, and from 1548 Cranmer had been pressing Bucer to take
refuge in England from the coming storm of the Emperor’s displeasure (not to mention the troubles
within Strasbourg itself). The full details of Bucer’s relationship with Cranmer can be found in
MacCulloch (1996). Cranmer’s letter was written on 2 October 1548 (Robinson 1846–7, 1: 19–20).
At the behest of Cranmer, Peter Alexander repeated the invitation on 24 March 1549 (Gorham
1857, 75–77).
5
For the arrival of Bucer and Fagius, see the letters of Bucer and Fagius to the Strasbourg Preachers,
26 April 1549 (Robinson 1846–7, 2: 534–537); and of Fagius to Johannes Marbach, 26 April 1549
(Gorham 1857, 77–80).
3.1 Bucer and England 51

to provide a commentary on the text—in effect, to produce a critical edition.6 The

purpose of the project was to provide a sound basis upon which a fresh English
translation of the Bible would be made from the new Latin text.7 In view of his
imminent posting to Cambridge, where he was intended to take up a teaching posi-
tion as Regius Professor of Divinity (and Fagius was to become the Regius Professor
of Hebrew), Bucer also began to work on the lectures he was to deliver.8 It seems
that Bucer was to lecture on the Gospel of John, while Fagius was to lecture on
Isaiah (Strype 1848, 2: 149). During this time, Bucer moved between Croydon and
Lambeth, presumably in the company of Cranmer, and was introduced in early May
to the King (MacCulloch 1996, 431).9
During the first week of July 1549, Bucer was sent by Cranmer to Cambridge,
where he was received at Christ’s College by the master, Richard Wilkes.10 As it
happened, Bucer arrived just as Ket’s Rebellion was breaking out (MacCulloch
1996, 431). In the midst of the several rebellions of that Summer, Bucer was pre-
vailed upon by the archbishop to produce a tract against the rebels (MacCulloch
1996, 435).11 He appears to have been resident for the most part in Cambridge from
this time forward, but there are several letters written in August that were sent from
Lambeth.12 His activities at Cambridge during these months were not connected
directly with teaching, since he had not been formally appointed to the Regius post.
Bucer was with Cranmer at Lambeth on 5 November 1549, having traveled up from
Cambridge with the Spanish evangelical Francis Dryander in order to attend the
meeting of Parliament which had opened on 4 November (MacCulloch 1996, 449).

6
See the letter of Fagius to Conrad Hubert, 7 May 1549 (Robinson 1846–7, 1: 334). See MacCulloch
(1996, 426–429) for a discussion of this project.
7
What remains of the part of the project upon which Bucer worked—the first eight chapters of the
Gospel according to Matthew—has been edited (with an introduction) by Herbert Vogt (Bucer and
Cranmer 1972). The manuscript is in the Parker Library, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge
(henceforth denoted as CCCC): CCCC MS 104, Nr. 1, 1–144. See also Null (2000, 276–277).
Bucer’s contribution consisted of translation of and comments on Matthew 4–8.
8
While there was never any doubt Bucer was to go to Cambridge, it appears that Fagius was origi-
nally slated to go to Oxford. See the letter of Fagius to Johannes Marbach, 26 April 1549 (Gorham
1857, 78).
9
See the letter of Fagius to Hubert, 7 May 1549 (Robinson 1846–7, 1: 333).
10
MacCulloch gives 8 July 1549 as the date for Bucer’s arrival. The letter of Bucer to Martyr of 20
June 1549—identified by Gorham as having been written in Cambridge (Gorham 1857, 82–92)—
was in fact written from Canterbury, that is, Cantuariae, as noted in Hubert (1577, 546–550). For
Wilkes, see Peile (1910, 12).
11
Peter Martyr Vermigli and Bernardino Ochino, two other emigre Protestant theologians, were
also employed in this capacity. The manuscript of Bucer’s tract (Cogitationes contra seditionem)
is CCCC MS 102, Nr. 32, 513–528.
12
On 13 August to: Conrad Hubert; Frau Wibrandis (his wife); Johannes Marbach, Hubert,
Christoph Söll; (with Peter Alexander, Peter Martyr Vermigli, and Fagius) to William Cecil. On 14
August to: Albert Hardenberg; John Calvin. On 24 August to Princess Elisabeth. On 27 August to
Edmund Allen. There are also letters to Hubert and to Ulrich Geiger from August with no place of
origin named. See the very valuable register of Bucer’s correspondence found in Vogt (1968, 181–
183) for these particular references.
52 3 “Remember the Readings and Preachings of God’s Prophet and True Preacher…

He was back in Cambridge shortly thereafter, for on 13 November he was with

Fagius when the latter died (Robinson 1846–7, 2: 549–551).13
Much to his frustration and deepening depression (which only increased with the
death of his close companion Fagius), Bucer was at this time still not formally
installed into his post as Regius Professor, a point of much embarrassment to
Cranmer (MacCulloch 1996, 470).14 It was not until early December that the letters
patent were approved.15 He was awarded the degree of Doctor of Theology at this
time, on which occasion he held forth in an oration on the nature of university edu-
cation.16 The ceremony was a relatively quiet one, at Bucer’s request (Hubert 1577,
190).17 As we have seen in Chap. 1, Bucer was reluctant to accept the honor, offered
to him in recognition of his accomplishments as a biblical scholar—“his excep-
tional work in explaining the Scriptures” [eius singularis opera in explicandis
Scripturis]—and as leader of the church in Strasbourg (Venn 1910, 67).

3.1.2 Cambridge and Regius Professor of Divinity, January

1550–February 1551

At last Bucer took up his duties as Regius Professor of Divinity in January of

1550, lecturing on the Letter to the Ephesians, apparently to much acclaim.18
He started with a full statement of the aims he had in view and the methods
he intended to employ, methods which we will see were those of biblical
humanism (Bucer 1562, [5]-16).19 His lectures had an immediate impact, and the
hall was packed both with students and senior members of the University among

13
Note that the letter of Bucer to the Strasbourg Preachers reporting on Fagius’s death should be
dated 26 December 1549 [not 1550].
14
For Cranmer’s embarrassment, see MacCulloch (1996, 422).
15
The correspondence regarding this includes: Edward VI to the (then) Vice-Chancellor of the
University of Cambridge, 4 December 1549 (CCCC MS 106, nr. 163, 457–460); also, Walter
Haddon to Matthew Parker, ca. 4 December 1549 (CCCC MS 106, nr. 166, 466), recommending
Bucer for the degree of doctor of theology.
16
See Sect. 1.1 above, where it is noted that the wording of the proclamation suggests an acknowl-
edgment that the award was somewhat irregular with respect to the statutory requirements. See
also Basil Hall’s brief discussion: (Hall 1994, 146–147).
17
Nicholas Carr also noted that Bucer received his degree Doctor without ceremony, as was his
wish: Carr to John Cheke, 15 March 1551 (Hubert 1577, 871).
18
For instance, there is the letter of Isaac Cellarius to Francis Dryander of 23 January 1550, quoted
in Harvey (1906, 47): “Bucer…began on 10 January to interpret publicly in the Schools the Epistle
to the Ephesians, with the great approbation of all.” [Bucerus…coepit 4 Iduum Januarii publice in
Scholis epistolam ad Ephesios interpretari, magno sane omnium applasu.] Vogt (1968, 45) notes
that just prior to Christmas, and after the confirmation of the Regius appointment, Bucer lectured
in his home on Psalm 119. See also Greschat (2004, 235).
19
These prefatory remarks will form the focus of Chap. 4 of the present investigation, and the lec-
tures as a whole are examined in greater detail in Chap. 5. We will return below to the matters of
the chronology of the lectures, and of the extant material for the lectures.
3.1 Bucer and England 53

his auditors.20 In fact, Bucer was sufficiently encouraged by the response to the
lectures to request on 12 May 1550 an extension of his leave of absence from the
Chapter of St Thomas in Strasbourg (Gorham 1857, 144–145). The way in which
Bucer’s appeal is worded is significant: “my office of reading lectures in Divinity
in this place, has, through the blessing of God, not been unprofitable; and I am laid
under an obligation to fulfill it with the utmost fidelity, by the very great liberality
both of the King’s Majesty, and also of some other noble and pious men” (Gorham
1857, 144). It was clearly his work in Cambridge (and specifically his office of
Regius Professor) that was central to his desire to remain in England. This is also
reflected in the letter he wrote to Johannes Brenz a few days later (15 May): “it is
a very great alleviation of my anxiety, that I am permitted to set forth the kingdom
of Christ with the most entire freedom, in my lectures, disputations, and Latin
sermons” (Robinson 1846–7, 2: 543).
Bucer was highly regarded by his hosts as a lecturer in theology.21 In addition to
Ephesians, upon which he expounded during the academic term, it appears that he
also taught from the Old Testament book of Micah out of term.22 The profoundly
biblical character of his lectures in theology left a strong impression, as Parker’s
eulogy for Bucer testified:
And for the manner of handling the causes he took in hand, with what profundity of learn-
ing in conferring and expending first and principally the Holy Scriptures; and as he was
able and did wade in them, by the great knowledge he had in all three tongues, [he] declared
it to appear a full absolute and sufficient doctrine, to prove all doctrine of salvation, to
improve all doctrine of error, sufficiently able to make the man of God whole and perfect in
all good works.23 (Parker 1551, D v verso; Hubert 1577, 877)

Parker took note of the content of Bucer’s lectures on Ephesians, and in so doing
made a nice summary of them. He was said to have dealt with weighty matters of
Christ’s religion:
As of election and grace, of faith and works, of original corruption of our nature, of justifi-
cation, of the abrogation of the Law, of the Church, of the ministration therein of the Word,
of Sacraments, of discipline, of the offices of all estates and such like. (Parker 1551, E viii
recto-verso; Hubert 1577, 890)

Bucer was respected as well for his grace and skill in conducting disputations
(Parker 1551, D v recto, D vii verso, D viii recto; Hubert 1577, 886, 887, 887,
respectively), and his sermons were highly regarded. He took on the duty of preaching

20
So Nicholas Carr reported to John Cheke on 15 March 1551 (Hubert 1577, 869).
21
See the judgment of Leedham-Green (1996, 52).
22
As testified to by Matthew Parker, Howe we ought to take the death of the Godly, a sermon made
in Cambridge at the buriall of the noble clerck, D. M. Bucer (London, 1551). Parker’s sermon is
on fols. A iii recto-C iii recto, and his eulogy on C iii verso-F vi recto; the specific reference here
is at E viii recto. The words of the eulogy are erroneously attributed to Walter Haddon in a Latin
translation printed in Hubert (1577, 882–892), as: Oratio funeris Gualteri Haddonis, Doctoris
Academiae Cantabrigiensis Oratoris Praestantissimi in Laudem D. Martini Buceri. This particular
reference is at 890.
23
I have modernized the spelling.
54 3 “Remember the Readings and Preachings of God’s Prophet and True Preacher…

in the University Church on any Sunday or Holy Day for which there was no English
sermon (Parker 1551, E i recto-verso; Hubert 1577, 887).24 In this connection, he is
reported at this time to have preached on John 6,25 no doubt to the wrath not only of
the Zürich theologians and their English co-religionists,26 but also of the Catholic
party, which was still strong at Cambridge—especially in Trinity College, where
Bucer became a member.
It is unclear whether Bucer lived in close proximity to the College from the
beginning, though records do indicate that he became a member of the College—
along with Fagius—sometime in the Fall of 1549.27 Certainly from the time of his
appointment he would have been entitled to certain rights at College in view of his
post as Regius Professor,28 and he lived in a house owned by the College in which
his friend Nicholas Carr (Regius Professor of Greek) subsequently lived (Hopf
1946, 15).29 This proximity would have thrown Bucer and his opponents into close

24
It is hardly necessary to note that Bucer’s sermons were in Latin.
25
So reported John Hooper to Heinrich Bullinger on 27 March, 1550: “The subject of his lecture is
the epistle to the Ephesians, and of his sermon, on holy-days, the sixth chapter of St. John”
(Robinson 1846–7, 1: 81).
26
Ever since the Wittenberg Concord of 1536, in which the southwest German cities and the
Lutheran cities came to an agreement on the question of Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper,
Bucer’s erstwhile Zwinglian allies viewed him with deep suspicion and regarded him as a traitor.
See Eells (1931) chapters 8, 10, 14, 16, and 20, for the background to this aspect of Bucer’s career.
It so happened that among the several Protestant exiles in England, those of the Zürich or Zwinglian
party were quite prominent. For Bucer to preach on John 6, a key text in the dispute between
Zwinglians and Lutherans, was to court trouble.
27
This was in anticipation of their imminent installation as Regius Professors. In view of their
appointment, they would have become members of the College. See Ball and Venn (1913–16, 2:
17). There are entries in the Trinity College “Senior Bursar’s Accounts, 1547–1563” reflecting
payments to Bucer in his capacity as Public Lector under the heading: Stipendia Collegii, 1550,
fol. 87 verso; Stipendia Collegii, 1551, fol. 135 verso.
28
Both Trinity College and the Regius Professorships were royal foundations. The professorships
dated from ca. 1540, and were originally supported by Westminster Abbey. Upon the foundation of
Trinity College in 1546, the professorships of Divinity, Hebrew and Greek drew their support from
it rather than the Abbey. See Logan (1977, 277). For the inclusion of these three Regius
Professorships in the foundation of Trinity College, see: “The proportion devised for Trinitie
College within the Towne and Universitie of Cambridge of King Henry theightes foundacion,”
Trinity College, Cambridge, Muniments, Box 29 CIIA. For this latter information, I am grateful to
C.D.C. Armstrong, MA, who has written an as yet unpublished article, “The foundation and early
years of Trinity College, Cambridge, 1546–1561.” See also Leader’s discussion of the relationship
between the Professorships and Trinity College in Leader (1988, 347–348).
29
Hopf refers to the letter of Bartholomew Dodington to Sir Walter Mildmay (“Cantabrigiae pridie
Calend. Novembris, 1570”). The lease to Carr is in “Trinity College Leases, 1547–1585,” fols. 54
verso—55 verso. On fol. 54 verso, we read: “Lease to Nicholas Carr (Fellow of Trinity College) of
Edith’s Chamber (Phiswick Hostel), in the parish of St Michael. … A lease of a certain tenement
called Edith’s Chamber in the town of Cambridge. … Fifth day of April in the sixth year of the
reign of … Edward the Sixth.” In the Trinity College “Senior Bursar’s Accounts, 1547–1563,”
there are multiple entries under the heading In edificiis recording expenses for various work on
Bucer’s lodgings, ranging from new walls, to daubing, to a chimney, windows and stables (fol. 98
recto, items 2, 7, 9; fol. 98 verso, items 2, 3, 6–12; fol. 99 recto, item 2; fol. 99 verso, items 4, 8,
10–13; fol. 100 recto, items 1, 5, 8, 12, 14; fol. 100 verso, items 5, 9; in 1551, fol. 143 verso, item 1.)
3.1 Bucer and England 55

contact, and Bucer’s status as a former priest, and a married one at that, would have
scandalized the largely Catholic fellows of Trinity,30 to say nothing of the doctrinal
issues upon which there was strong disagreement. It proved to be a troubled rela-
tionship, and was a thorn in Bucer’s flesh throughout his final days.
The nature of the opposition Bucer faced within Trinity is most clearly seen in
the events of the Summer of 1550. In June Bucer was challenged to a disputation by
three Catholic members of the University—two of Trinity College (Thomas
Sedgwick and John Young), and one of Peterhouse (Andrew Perne)—to be held
before Royal Visitors. He and his opponents clashed over a number of doctrinal
issues generated by his lectures on Ephesians, specifically the sufficiency of
Scripture, the fallibility of the Church, and the role of works in justification.31 His
principal interlocutors were Sedgwick and Young; Perne only briefly took part.32
Bucer appears to have acquitted himself well in the affair, yet the result of the
disputation was such that Young believed he had the better of the argument.33 When
Bucer left Cambridge in July in order to visit Peter Martyr Vermigli at Oxford
(Greschat 2004, 235),34 Young began a series of lectures (ostensibly on 1 Timothy),
focusing in particular on the issue of justification and attacking both Bucer’s posi-
tion in the earlier disputation, and Bucer personally (Vogt 1968, 52).35

Under the heading In reparationibus, further similar expenses are recorded (fol. 101 recto, items 2,
10, 14). It is not possible to be certain that this house was the same as that to which Dodington
referred, though there is no reason to doubt him. If it was, the house no longer exists, having
been demolished in the expansion of the Great Court at Trinity College in succeeding years.
It would have been in the vicinity of what is now the Trinity Lane entrance to the Great Court. With
thanks to Dr Elisabeth Leedham-Green for this last piece of information—but see also Morgan
(2004, 8)—and to Jonathan Smith, Archivist of Trinity College, Cambridge for his help in reading
the accounts.
30
An offense that would have only been increased with the arrival of Bucer’s wife and children in
November of 1549. Evidence of the strength of the Catholic party at Trinity during Ridley’s visita-
tion in 1549 is seen in a letter written by William Rogers to Thomas Smith, dated 14 May 1549
(PRO SP 10/7/10, fols. 39 recto to 40 verso): “There is suche a neste of them [Catholics] as the like
cannot be espied within the Realme/Yonge, Vavasor, Peacock, Parker, Morley, Rudde, Richardson,
Atkinson with a great rablement.” I thank C.D.C. Armstrong for this information (and Dr Richard
Rex, who alerted me to Mr Armstrong’s work).
31
The propositions as printed in Hubert (1577, 712): “Primum. Canonici libri docent soli abunde
renatos, quae sint saluti, omnia. Secundum. Nulla est in terris Ecclesia, quae non erret, tam in fide,
quam in moribus. Tertium. Ita gratis iustificamur a Deo, ut ante iustificationem revera peccatum sit,
iramque Dei in nos provocet, quicquid boni operis facere videamur. Iustificari autem bona opera
facimus necessario.”
32
Material from this dispute is printed in Hubert (1577, 711–784). Bucer first offers an explication
of his propositions (712–717), and then Sedgwick intervenes and the disputation proper begins
(717–732). Young then replaces Sedgwick (732–781), and then Perne intervenes (781–784).
33
A good, brief account of the affair can be found in Gorham (1857, 163–165), note “a” to Bucer’s
letter to Edmund Grindal, 31 August 1550. This account is based on the material presented in the
Scripta Anglicana (Hubert 1577).
34
See also the recollection of this visit in a letter of Peter Martyr to Conrad Hubert, 8 March 1551
(Robinson 1846–7, 2: 491), written shortly after Bucer’s death.
35
Bucer wrote to Cheke about this on 29 August 1550, a letter printed in Harvey (1906, 127–130);
the original is found in CCCC MS 113, nr. 39, 303–306.
56 3 “Remember the Readings and Preachings of God’s Prophet and True Preacher…

Upon his return from Oxford, Bucer confronted Young, demanding that he cease.
When the latter refused to desist from his attacks, Bucer presented a written account
of his side of the original disputation to Young and Sedgwick, and requested from
them the same (which they refused).36 Young began to work behind the scenes, seek-
ing to undermine Bucer’s standing in the University.37 Bucer took the threat very
seriously, and a flurry of letters was the result, to the University Senate on 24 August
(Hubert 1577, 797–807), to John Cheke on 29 August (Harvey 1906, 127–130),38 to
Edmund Grindal on 31 August (Gorham 1857, 163–167), to Peter Martyr Vermigli
on 31 August (Gorham 1857, 163–167), all of which give evidence of Bucer’s con-
cern regarding his position not only in the University, but (it would seem) with
respect to the Court as well. As he wrote to Grindal: “for the adversaries are striving
by wonderful artifices to lower the credit of my Office, wherever they are able; and
they are able among not a few noble and other persons” (Gorham 1857, 167). The
affair went on into early September, and a further disputation may have taken place,
but in any case the evidence suggests the matter ended inconclusively.39
In September 1550, Bucer was visited by John à Lasco, a leading “Züricher,” in
order to discuss matters of doctrine, including the question of Christ’s presence in
the Lord’s Supper. Shortly afterwards, Bucer sent a statement of his position to à
Lasco, which the latter annotated in order to refute Bucer and then in turn for-
warded on to Cranmer in an effort to undercut the presumed influence of Bucer
upon the metropolitan.40 Bucer then began to compose anew a fuller statement of

36
CCCC MS 102, nr. 1, nr. 1, 5–59 is a copy of Bucer’s record of his dispute with Young, et al. It
is in the hand of John Bradford. The account is prefaced by a letter of Bucer to the reader dated 3
Id. Augusti 1550. Pasted into this letter is a response of Young (also on behalf of Sedgwick) refus-
ing to respond to the account. This manuscript is likely one copy of the material Bucer supplied to
Grindal and Cheke in defense of himself against the attacks and falsehoods of Young, as noted in
Bucer’s letter to Grindal, 31 August 1550 (Gorham 1857, 166). It corresponds to the material
printed in Hubert (1577, 711–784).
37
These details are found in Bucer’s letter to Grindal 31 August 1550 (Gorham 1857, 163–167) and
Hubert (1577, 803).
38
Again, the original is found in CCCC MS 113, nr. 39, 303–306.
39
In addition to the original disputation of June printed in Hubert (1577, 711–784; CCCC MS 102,
nr. 1, 5–59), on 784–789 there is an appendix of Bucer to the affair (a fragment of the first para-
graphs is in CCCC MS 102, nr. 1, 59–60); further, there is a record of a dispute between Bucer
and Young on usury (789–796), and a record of a dispute between Young and Bucer on good
works (797–862). The chronology of these latter two disputes is uncertain; the dispute on good works
may, or may not, have taken place in late August or early September of 1550. There is no indication
of a date for a formal disputation on usury. Hopf (1946, 19) suggests that it arose in the course of
Bucer’s lectures on Ephesians 4:28, but if the reconstruction above of the chronology of the lectures
is correct (see below in Sect. 3.3.3 of this chapter), Bucer would not have reached the relevant
passage before his death. Bucer did, however, raise the issue in his doctoral oration in December
(Hubert 1577, 187–189). There is a need for further work on reconstructing Bucer’s various dispu-
tations, and his relationship with John Young.
40
Martin Micronius reported on this meeting to Heinrich Bullinger in a letter dated 13 October,
1550 (Robinson 1846–7, 2: 572). Bucer’s statement was later printed as Exomologesis sive
Confessio de S. Eucharistia aphoristice Scripta (Hubert 1577, 538–545). It appears in English
translation (with an introduction) in Wright (1972, 381–400).
3.1 Bucer and England 57

his position, which was incomplete upon his death.41 He was also at work at this
time on his last major work, De Regno Christi, a presentation copy of which was
sent to Edward VI by way of John Cheke, Provost of King’s College and tutor to
the King.42 At some time in the latter months of 1550, Bucer was consulted on the
matter of the demolition of altars, for which he wrote another statement (Gorham
1857, 209–212).43 In November 1550 he became involved in the Vestments
Controversy at the center of which was John Hooper, and in which he generally
supported Cranmer and Nicholas Ridley, bishop of London, against Hooper.44 He
was also at work on a review of the 1549 Book of Common Prayer, which he com-
pleted on 5 January 1551 and conveyed to Bishop Thomas Goodrich of Ely, who
was also a Privy Councillor.45
However, Bucer’s health, which was never good—he suffered several severe
attacks which interrupted his teaching46—finally turned for the worst, and he died
(as we have already noted) sometime in the night of 28 February/1 March 1551.47
His funeral was an impressive affair and a testimony to his impact upon all of
Cambridge, town and gown. John Cheke reported to Peter Martyr Vermigli that
some three thousand were in attendance (Gorham 1857, 238–239).48 Walter Haddon

41
This piece appears in CCCC, MS 113, nr. 48, 391–410. It is barely legible, and at one point Bucer
apologized for the feebleness of his hand. Matthew Parker wrote below the text, “the last of
M. Bucer’s studies to be written” [studiorum postremum scriptum M. Buceri].
42
Bucer’s letter to Cheke is in CCCC MS 119, nr. 18, 45–50, dated 21 October 1550; a copy of his
letter to Edward VI of the same date is in CCCC MS 119, nr. 2, 3–6. The original manuscript of the
treatise is lost. The presentation copy is BM MS Royal 8 B VII; there is another manuscript copy
owned by Pembroke College, Cambridge, MS 217. The critical edition is Wendel (1955), and from
whose introduction (liv-lvi) I have drawn the information regarding the manuscripts.
43
For the Latin, see Harvey (1906, 131–134). The addressee is unknown, and might have been
Matthew Parker, or possibly either Nicholas Ridley or Thomas Goodrich. The manuscript original
is in CCCC MS 113, nr. 8, 41–44.
44
For an account of this dispute, see Primus (1960, 43–55). See also MacCulloch (1996, 479–482).
Of particular interest are Bucer’s letters to Hooper, November 1550, and to Cranmer, 8 December
1550 (Gorham 1857, 200–209 and 214–221 respectively). On Bucer’s careful (and qualified) sup-
port for his patron, see Amos (1999, 44–45).
45
The piece is known under the title Censura Martini Buceri super libro sacrorum, and is found in
Hubert (1577, 456–503). A manuscript copy is in CCCC MS 172, nr. 1, 1–120. A useful edition,
with English and Latin texts on facing pages is Bucer (1974).
46
Bucer’s sojourn in England was plagued by illness. Van’t Spijker (1996, 455) notes that Bucer
was ill for nearly 10 months of his sojourn. See the excerpt of Bucer’s letter to Johann Echt of 13
May 1550 (Gorham 1857, 145–46 [CCCC MS 119, nr. 100, 279–282]). See also the letter of Carr
to Cheke of 15 March 1551, where he noted the successive illnesses of Bucer (Hubert 1577, 868,
870, 874).
47
The date 28 February is given in: Peter Martyr to Conrad Hubert, 8 March 1551 (Robinson
1846–7, 2: 491); Peter Martyr to the College of St Thomas in Strasbourg, 8 March 1551 (Gorham
1857, 237). The date 1 March is given in Nicholas Carr to John Cheke, 15 March 1551 (Hubert
1577, 867); the University of Cambridge to Edward VI, 4 March 1551, in CCCC MS 106, nr. 164,
461–464.
48
Cheke wrote to Peter Martyr on 10 March 1551 (Gorham 1857, 238–242). The Latin text of this
letter is in Hubert (1577, 864–867). See also Nicholas Carr’s letter to John Cheke, 15 March 1551
58 3 “Remember the Readings and Preachings of God’s Prophet and True Preacher…

gave the Latin oration,49 and Matthew Parker preached the sermon (on an Apocryphal
Book, the Wisdom of Solomon 4:7, 10, 14–19) and gave a eulogy in English.50 On
the following day, John Redman, Master of Trinity College, presided at a memorial
communion service at which 400 were in attendance (Gorham 1857, 240).51 Bucer
was laid to rest in the University church, Great St Mary’s.52

3.2 Bucer’s Lectures on Ephesians in Context

To this point we have considered the immediate historical context of Bucer’s English
sojourn, first with respect to those developments in Cambridge prior to his arrival
that had a bearing on the immediate curricular (and, to a lesser extent, confessional)
context of the lectures, and second with respect to the question of his setting within
Cambridge during his tenure as Regius Professor of Divinity. It remains to make a
few general observations about Bucer’s lectures on Ephesians with respect to this
context—in particular, about the extent to which they reflect this context and were
thus addressed to the situation Bucer found upon his arrival. Some suggestions will
also be offered as to why—with respect to this context—Bucer’s lectures had an
impact that could be described as “electric.”

3.2.1 The Influence of the Immediate Context

in Shaping the Lectures

The context almost certainly had an effect upon Bucer in his choice of the book of
Ephesians as the text upon which he would lecture. As we have already noted, when
he first arrived in England it seems Bucer was to lecture on the Gospel of John; there
was no reference at this time to Ephesians. Upon his arrival in Cambridge, he met
with Matthew Parker, Master of Corpus Christi and frequent Vice-Chancellor of the
University, on at least one occasion in the Autumn of 1549 with the express purpose

(Hubert 1577, 867–882).

49
Haddon’s oration is quoted in Carr’s letter to Cheke, 15 March 1551 (Hubert 1577, 876–878,
under the heading D. Gualteri Haddoni oratio).
50
I.e, Howe we ought to take the death of the Godly.
51
See also Carr to Cheke, 15 March 1551 (Hubert 1577, 879–880). As an aside, Redman (a man of
Catholic convictions) presents an interesting case in the confessional atmosphere of Cambridge.
See Null (2003) and Ryrie (2009, 12–17) for some recent considerations of him.
52
It proved to be an unquiet grave. In 1557, the University was placed under an interdict because
of the presence of Bucer’s body in Great St Mary’s and that of Fagius in St Michael’s. To remove
the interdict, the University dug up the remains of the Reformers, held a heresy trial, and then
burned their remains on Market Hill—one of the more macabre events of the Marian period. In
1560, Bucer and Fagius were restored to their honors by the University. The account of these
events is found in Hubert (1562); a portion of this work was translated in Goldyng (1562).
3.2 Bucer’s Lectures on Ephesians in Context 59

of discussing the lectures Bucer was to deliver (Parker 1853, 41).53 Subsequently, he
began his series in January of 1550 lecturing not on John but on Ephesians. Why the
change of subject?
A number of factors probably lay behind this apparent shift. One, we recall that
the Edwardian Statutes of 1549 stipulated that students studying for the BD were to
attend daily lectures on the Pauline Epistles, a mandate that took effect around (or
shortly after) the time of Bucer’s arrival in England (Heywood 1840, 28).54 It is not
hard to conceive that in light of the statute, the subject of Bucer’s discussions with
Parker touched upon the content of his lectures, and the decision was made to alter
their subject to fit better with the recent requirements.
Two, it could well be that Bucer was persuaded by the Zürich party (either
directly or indirectly) to avoid raising the issue of the presence of Christ in the
Lord’s Supper, something that would have been difficult to do if he were lectur-
ing on John (especially John 6, which was a key text for the Zürich stance on the
question of Christ’s presence).55 While the subject could not be avoided entirely
in lectures on Ephesians (notably in the course of Bucer’s treatment of the sacred
ministry), this particular Pauline epistle did not provide any of the key texts to
the Lord’s Supper dispute. For this reason, Bucer may well have chosen to avoid
controversy on this issue, and changed the subject of his lectures. It is worth not-
ing that Bucer did not totally abandon the work he had done on John’s Gospel;
this is suggested by the fact that he preached upon that Gospel during his
Cambridge residence.56
A third likely factor was the strong opposition of Catholics at the University to
the introduction of evangelical doctrine. As noted, the lax enforcement of the
Injunctions and the doctrinal conservatism of the Henrician regime (now only two
years past) had allowed the conservatives to preserve their strength in the years prior

53
The original is CCCC MS 119, nr. 22, 67. The letter is undated, but the context suggests it was
probably written in the Fall of 1549 (thus not 1550, as Parker’s editors posit). In his funeral oration
for Bucer, Parker spoke with some amazement that Bucer should have consulted with his hosts on
how he should proceed: “in such wise that he demitted himself so low, to consult with diverse of
us his weak disciples, to have our advice in the order of his labours” (Parker 1551, D iiii verso-D
v recto; Hubert 1577, 885–886).
54
See also Leedham-Green’s brief discussion of this (1996, 37–38).
55
John Hooper reported as much in a letter to Heinrich Bullinger, 27 March, 1550: “Master
Valerandus has recommended him [Bucer] by letter not to raise any controversy on the matter of
the eucharist. He replied that he should teach nothing contrary to the opinion of Peter Martyr,
which I sent you in manuscript about the middle of January” (Robinson 1846–7, 1: 82).
56
See the same letter of Hooper to Bullinger, 27 March 1550 (Robinson 1846–7, 1: 81), where he
also reports that Bucer has been preaching on John 6. In fact, Parker’s funeral oration testifies that
Bucer had just begun to take up the issue in his lectures at the very end: “Yet what a loss it was for
us to have him depart, when he was but newly entered the tractation [sic] of the greatest cause of
all controversy, the matter of the Supper of the Lord” (Parker 1551, E viii verso; Hubert 1577,
890). Alternatively, this reference could be to Bucer’s conversations with John à Lasco in September
1550 (noted in the previous section of this chapter), for which Bucer produced Exomologesis sive
Confessio de S. Eucharistia aphoristice Scripta (Hubert 1577, 538–545).
60 3 “Remember the Readings and Preachings of God’s Prophet and True Preacher…

to Edward VI’s succession.57 The result was that they were in a strong position to
oppose the introduction of evangelical theology, and Bucer provides evidence that
they did just that.
In several of his letters Bucer makes highly critical observations regarding life
in the colleges, and the probability is high that what he wrote is based upon what
he observed in Trinity College, the one he would have known best because of his
attachment to it. However, Bucer never mentioned the name of the college (or col-
leges) he had in view in the critical comments that appear in his correspondence
or other writings.
For instance, in a letter to John Calvin on Whitsunday 1550, he lauded the poten-
tial he saw in the University, but then went on to say with some rancor:
by far the greater part of the fellows are either the most bitter papists, or profligate epicure-
ans, who, as far as they are able, draw over the young men to their way of thinking, and
imbue them with an abhorrence of sound Christian doctrine and discipline. (Robinson
1846–7, 2: 546)

In a nearly contemporaneous letter to Johannes Brenz (written 15 May 1550), Bucer

expressed a similar view of the spiritual state of the University:
Of those devoted to the service of religion but a very small number have as yet entirely
addicted themselves to the kingdom of Christ. In the universities the Balthazars for the most
part have the direction of affairs; though there are not wanting very many, even among the
heads, who are sound in godliness and well instructed to the kingdom of God. (Robinson
1846–7, 2: 543)

Yet another like observation is found in De Regno Christi. In a passage that is

reminiscent of his letter to Calvin quoted above, he praised the potential of the
colleges, then turned sharply critical:
But the plague of Antichrist has invaded these colleges most seriously, so that very many in
these colleges, after the fashion of the wicked monks and false canons, lazily abuse the
good things of these colleges, decaying and growing old there in impious ease and preempt-
ing the place and opportunity of younger men who wish to dedicate themselves to true
theology and the ministries of the churches. Not content with this perversity, although it is
supremely damaging to the churches, most of them attack the pure doctrine of Christ wher-
ever they can and dare and not only estrange the hearts of younger men from it but even
frighten them away.58 (Bucer 1969, 274 [reprinted by permission of the publisher])

Faced with this set of circumstances, Bucer recognized the need to make a compel-
ling case for evangelicalism and this may have settled him upon Ephesians as the
book which most readily permitted him to set forth the essentials of evangelical
doctrine within a short compass—as he noted in the introduction to his lectures

57
The volatility of confessional politics during Edward’s reign permitted the conservatives to con-
tinue to hope. The prominence of conservatives in bringing about the fall of the evangelical
Protector Somerset in the Summer and Fall of 1549 (combined with the rebellions of 1549) may
have led the conservatives at the University to believe that there was about to be a Catholic reac-
tion. Regarding the fall of Somerset and conservative hopes for a restoration to power, see
MacCulloch (1996, 444–454).
58
Bucer made a similar comment in the Censura; see Bucer (1974, 152–155).
3.2 Bucer’s Lectures on Ephesians in Context 61

(Bucer 1562, 7C).59 In fact, it was his action in promoting evangelical doctrine in his
lectures that prompted the attacks of Young and Sedgwick, and led to the disputa-
tions that so dominated the Summer of 1550 for Bucer.

3.2.2 The Immediate Impact of the Lectures

Turning to the issue of the “electric” impact of Bucer’s lectures, we have already
noted the evidence provided by Isaac Cellarius, Carr, and especially Matthew Parker
on Bucer’s tremendous personal presence. However, there can be little doubt that
the excitement of the occasion can also be attributed in large part to the theological
challenge Bucer threw out to his conservative auditors on several key issues.
Furthermore, in choosing to lecture upon Ephesians in this manner, Bucer was able
to conform all the more closely to the intentions of the Cambridge Injunctions, and
in view of the opposition he faced, this would have served to heighten the impact of
his lectures—both because of the doctrine he taught, but also because of the method
by which he chose to “do” theology.
What is striking about these lectures (when considered within their historical
context) is the extent to which they conform—to the letter—with the requirements
of the Cambridge Injunctions, and with their spirit as well. It seems clear that the
Injunctions played their part in contributing to the shape of Bucer’s teaching, and he
acknowledged that he sought to teach in agreement with their requirements (Bucer
1562, 14B).60 That this was more than “lip-service” will become evident in the
course of close examination of the lectures themselves.
The intense interest in his lectures at the time he gave them may well have been
on account of their character as an exercise in biblical humanist method, in addition
to their forthright presentation of evangelical doctrine. As we have observed, for all
the statutory force of the Injunctions and for all the efforts to bring about a reform
of the theological curriculum at Cambridge before and after the Injunctions, there is
precious little evidence to indicate that much change in accordance with the spirit of
the Injunctions had in fact taken place. This lack of evidence should not be taken
categorically to mean that there was no change, but apart from Alexander Alesius’s
ill-fated lectures on the Psalms in 1536 little out of the ordinary seems to have taken
place over this time, suggesting a continuity of practice with what had gone before.
In sum, it is arguably the case that Bucer’s impact can be attributed first to the
fact that his lectures represented the longest presentation to date of evangelical
doctrine by a Professor in a Cambridge lecture hall. At no time before 1549 was the
“new learning” (in either sense of the phrase) taught in such a visible, prominent,

59
We will return to this in Chap. 5. W. P. Stephens notes this as well (1994, 47). Arguably, Romans
is in many ways better suited for such a purpose, but its length may have led to the selection of a
shorter book.
60
We will return to this point, as well as the question of Bucer’s “method,” in the discussion of the
prefatory lectures in Chap. 4 below.
62 3 “Remember the Readings and Preachings of God’s Prophet and True Preacher…

and authoritative forum. Second, the likelihood is great that Bucer was among the
few to lecture fully in accord with the spirit of the Injunctions (rather than merely
pay lip-service to them) and to deploy to the full the tools of biblical humanism in
a public forum.

3.3 The Ephesians Lectures and the Priority

of the Praelectiones

A remarkable feature of these lectures is that they survive, for—as we have seen
above in Chap. 2—there is very little evidence for the content of other lectures given
in England from this period. Together with those of Alexander Alesius in Cambridge
on Psalms 1-2561 and of Peter Martyr Vermigli in Oxford on 1 Corinthians and then
Romans,62 the Praelectiones constitute some of the most substantial evidence we
have for what went on in the Oxbridge lecture halls of the day. While there are
several extant texts (most printed) that provide evidence for the content of Bucer’s
lectures, the internal evidence suggests the Praelectiones (for all its admitted faults)
should be regarded as the primary witness to the lectures as they were given.

3.3.1 The Problems of Evidence

That the whole of Bucer’s lectures has survived to any significant extent is due in no
small part to the work of Immanuel Tremellius (1510–1580), whose labors resulted
in the printed text upon which the present study is based, the Praelectiones doctiss.
in Epistolam D. P. ad Ephesios.63 In addition to the work of Tremellius, a portion of
the lectures is printed in the Scripta Anglicana, the collection of Bucer’s writings
composed for the most part in England and later edited and published by his secre-
tary Conrad Hubert in 1577: namely, the De Vi et Usu Sacri Ministerii (Hubert
1577, 553–610). This lengthy treatise on the sacred ministry is found in the
Praelectiones as part of the lectures on Ephesians 4 (Bucer 1562, 108–157).64 Some
scholars have suggested that the Explicatio Martini Buceri in illud Apostoli Ephes.
IIII, also found in the Scripta Anglicana (Hubert 1577, 504–538), is further material

61
As noted in the previous chapter, these have been edited from the original manuscript and appear
in a critical edition in Wiedermann (1988, 141–246).
62
These were later published: Peter Martyr Vermigli, In selectissimam S. Pauli Priorem ad Corinth.
Epistolam Commentarii (Vermigli 1551); Vermigli, In Epistolam S. Pauli Apostoli ad Romanos
commentarii doctissimi (Vermigli 1558).
63
Tremellius is the subject of a fine study: Austin (2007). See Austin’s discussion of Tremellius and
Bucer’s lectures on 72–3 and 119–120.
64
Tremellius also published the material separately in 1562 under the title Libellus vere aureus
D. Martini Buceri.
3.3 The Ephesians Lectures and the Priority of the Praelectiones 63

from the Ephesians lectures, but we shall see there are reasons for doubting the
suggestion. A final witness to the lectures is in an unpublished manuscript of notes
by a student at Trinity College, John Banck, taken during the final series of lec-
tures given by Bucer on the sacred ministry, beginning in November 1550.65 These
notes provide evidence for what Bucer appears to have covered as part of his exposi-
tion of Ephesians 4, and correspond to the material found in Tremellius and Hubert
(specifically, De Vi et Usu Sacri Ministerii).
While it is true that we have in all of this material a relatively full record of what
Bucer taught, there are nevertheless several problems with the extant evidence that
only a critical edition will sort out.66

3.3.1.1 The Explicatio and the Ephesians Lectures

To begin with, there is the assumption several scholars have made regarding the
relationship between Bucer’s lectures and the Explicatio, which is an exposition of
Ephesians 4:2. While Hopf, Vogt and W. P. Stephens believe this to be part of (or at
least a version of a portion of) the lectures (Hopf 1946, 18–19; Vogt 1968, 45–7;
Stephens 1994, 45n3),67 a comparison of this material with that printed in the
Praelectiones would seem to indicate that we are dealing with two quite different
bodies of material. There is not much in common between the two treatments of the
text from Ephesians 4, even allowing for the possibility that the Explicatio is a
different version of the same material: the lectures treat the verse but briefly, in
barely three pages (Bucer 1562, 1102F-104B), whereas the Explicatio covers some
35 pages (Hubert 1577, 504–538). It is possible that the Explicatio is a full-text ver-
sion of the lectures on Ephesians 4:2, and that Tremellius’s version can be regarded
as an abbreviated version of the same material. Yet why only this portion of the
lectures should have survived in full-text form is not clear, and Hubert says nothing
in the Scripta Anglicana to indicate that he regarded this treatise as comprising part
of the lectures; he does so, however, with regard to De Vi et Usu (Hubert 1577, 553).
Both Willem van’t Spijker and Amy N. Burnett suggest that what we read in the
Explicatio is an ordination sermon rather than a part of Bucer’s Cambridge lectures,
and the internal evidence in this work would seem to support them (Van’t Spijker
1996, 348; Burnett 1994, 212).68 The fact that the text for the Explicatio exists in the

65
John Banck, “De privato ministerio, quod clericale vulgo appellatur….” MS Coll. Gonv. et Caius
423/423 (henceforth Banck 1551). Reference to this is by the kind permission of the Master and
Fellows of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge. I am grateful to the Library at Gonville and
Caius, which furnished me with a microfilm copy of this manuscript. Banck’s notes are signifi-
cantly different in detail from the evidence found in the Praelectiones and the Scripta Anglicana,
and would appear to cover only part of the material printed in the latter two versions.
66
Professor Willem van’t Spijker is working on a critical edition of the Praelectiones.
67
Vogt is in error when he states that Tremellius included the Explicatio in his edition of Bucer’s
lectures, and that the material is also found in Banck’s notes.
68
Van’t Spijker (348n23) draws attention to Hubert (1577, 512 and 515 respectively), and Bucer’s
references to “nunc ordinandi” and “ministerii celebranda ordinatio.” It is interesting to note that
64 3 “Remember the Readings and Preachings of God’s Prophet and True Preacher…

archives at Strasbourg, and in Bucer’s hand, suggests the existence of a manuscript

independent from the manuscript behind the lecture notes for the series on Ephesians
found in the Praelectiones, notes which are no longer extant.69

3.3.1.2 The Text of the Praelectiones and Its Source

A second problem is the state of the text of the Praelectiones, and the related ques-
tion of its source. Although I would argue for its priority as evidence of the lectures
as a whole, Tremellius’s edition—for all that it provides us with coverage of Bucer’s
treatment of Ephesians—presents a significant challenge to those who seek to work
with it. As David Wright has noted, the volume is a less than impressive achieve-
ment of editorial skill (Wright 1972, 107). Wright goes on to suggest—pointing to
the title page as evidence—that the reason for the many problems is the likelihood
that the text of the Praelectiones is based on notes which were taken down by
Tremellius as Bucer delivered his lectures (Wright 1972, 107).70
Yet even accepting that the major reason for the problematic state of the text is
due to its origin in hastily written notes, the question can still be asked: exactly
whose notes lie behind the Praelectiones, Tremellius’s, or Bucer’s? Since it is gen-
erally supposed that Tremellius took notes during the lectures, it is reasonable to
assume that it was these which he subsequently edited for publication.71 On the
other hand, there are some considerations that suggest Bucer’s own working lecture
notes cannot be ruled out as the source for the Praelectiones, and this may account
for the unsatisfactory state of its text as well.72

among the requirements to be met by the Regius Professor of Divinity was the following: “The
regius praelector of divinity…shall deliver those three sermons to the clergy, which are assigned
by the royal statutes for the beginning of each term” (Heywood 1840, 30). If the Explicatio was
preached in England, might not this piece have been appropriate for such an occasion? Especially
if it was (as Van’t Spijker and Burnett suggest) an ordination sermon?
69
Van’t Spijker (1996, 348n23), refers to AST [Archives du Chapitre de Saint-Thomas in
Strasbourg] 40: Quae ministri plebi et quae plebs ministris suis…praestare debeat.
70
The sub-title of the Praelectiones suggests that the printed version is based on notes taken during
the lectures: “ex ore praelegentis collectae” (Bucer 1562, title page). Wright notes that Tremellius’s
inattention to the details of editing can also be put forward as an additional reason, following Hopf
(1946, 19).
71
See, for instance, Wright (1972, 107).
72
This does not mean Tremellius did not have notes of his own to consult as well. In addition to
what follows, see also Hopf (1946, 20), who suggests that Tremellius had access to all of Bucer’s
manuscript, which became the basis for his edition. For another instance of the relationship
between lectures, notes, and the final production of a commentary, see the comments of Hobbs
(2009, 51–53, and especially 59–60). Hobbs discusses the relationship of lectures in Strasbourg
and commentaries published on their basis with reference to Vermigli, but also Bucer, to wit: “It
was the opinion of Ficker, based upon remarks in their various texts, that the Senior School faculty
dictated their lectures. This, of course, does not mean these were read from a fully written manu-
script; the rather complex syntax, the sometimes disordered structure of Bucer’s Psalms, suggests
that he may have lectured (or dictated) from notes, which he subsequently wrote out in full”
(Hobbs 2009, 59–60). Reprinted with permission of the publisher.
3.3 The Ephesians Lectures and the Priority of the Praelectiones 65

First, Tremellius’s statement in his dedicatory letter, in which he explained his

decision to print Bucer’s lectures, bears closer consideration. As part of his justification
for taking upon himself the task of editing Bucer’s lectures, he noted that not only
is it right to edit the complete works of an author, but so too those which have been
left incomplete: thus he has chosen to do for Bucer.
For this reason, as it is proper that not only the complete books of others, but [even] their
least fragments be gathered most diligently, and published with favor and benefit, I have
judged it right to do the same for this man also, who has never written or composed any-
thing except to the considerable profit of the Church. Testimony of this fact can be gathered
from other remarkable writings of his, but most directly from this commentary on the
Epistle to the Ephesians, which we have not been able to hold back any longer from issuing
for public consultation, in as reliable a version as that which we have formerly taken from
the mouth of the author himself.73 (Bucer 1562, 3B)

Tremellius asserted that the version he presents is as reliable as one to be had

from the lips of Bucer himself, but he did not explicitly state that he was working
from his own notes taken during the lectures. He appears to draw a distinction
between the edition he presented and that “which we have formerly taken from the
mouth of the author himself” (Bucer 1562, 3B). Indeed, his words could be read to
suggest that as one reads his edition, one comes as close to hearing Bucer’s lectures
as those who attended them in person.
Second, at another point in this dedicatory letter Tremellius seemed to suggest
that he was working from fragments left in an incomplete state by Bucer.
I hope that all pious and honest people, who through a zeal for truth will condescend to
read these things, will understand in what spirit I undertook the work of publishing this
book. I have held back to this point from the editing of it, because I preferred it to be done
by another.74 (Bucer 1562, 4[E])

He thus seems to say that he is editing material Bucer left unfinished, not his own
notes of Bucer’s lectures—hence his declaration that he would have preferred some-
one else to have edited them, a statement that would be incongruous if he were
referring to his own notes.
If indeed Bucer’s notes were the basis of the printed edition, this would serve to
explain the disordered state of the text, as a glance at any of his works that remain
in manuscript would confirm.75 Therefore, not only would Tremellius have had to

73
“Quamobrem enim (ut aequum est) aliorum non tantum iusti libri, sed minima quaeque frag-
menta studiosissime colligantur, & cum gratia ac fructu evulgentur, iustum esse putavi huic quo-
que viro idem praestare, qui nihil nisi ad luculentam aliquam Ecclesiae utilitatem scripsit aut
composuit unquam: cuius rei testimonium cum ex aliis illius praeclaris scriptis, tum ex hac
Epistolae ad Ephesios enarratione rectissime colligi potest: quam divitius retinere non potuimus,
quin ea fide qua olim eam ex ipsius autoris ore excerpsimus, illa quoque nunc ad consulendum in
commune emitteremus.”
74
“Quo vero animo ego hunc librum evulgandi, laborem susceperim, spero omnes pios ac candi-
dos, qui veritatis studio haec legere dignabuntur intellecturos. Ab eius editione me certe hactenus
continui, quod per alium hoc fieri mallem.”
75
It can be posited that Tremellius had the working draft, whereas Hubert had a more polished copy
of the portion he published. To take a work from the same period, one can point to CCCC MS 172,
66 3 “Remember the Readings and Preachings of God’s Prophet and True Preacher…

sort out the almost certainly chaotic state of Bucer’s unedited notes, but he would
have had the additional challenge of deciphering Bucer’s notoriously difficult
hand.76 The probability that Tremellius was unable fully to overcome these obsta-
cles would account for the unsatisfactory state of the finished product. Nevertheless,
the edition he presents renders for us the mind of Bucer, based as it is (I would
argue) on Bucer’s own working notes.77

3.3.1.3 The Versions of De vi et usu

A final problem that awaits resolution in a critical edition concerns that portion of
the lectures which dealt with the sacred ministry, upon which Bucer lectured from
November 1550. Specifically, what is the relationship between the three extant
versions of this material: that in the Praelectiones, that in the Scripta Anglicana,
and that in Banck’s notes? Briefly, the first two versions are much the same and bear
witness to a common written source, while that of Banck agrees with them only in
general outline.78 With respect to the two printed versions of this portion of the
lectures, it certainly seems clear that the text presented by Hubert in the Scripta
Anglicana is the more accurate. Testimony to this is found in the correspondence in
1562 between Hubert and Tremellius over whether it was right that the latter publish
this material when he was well aware that Hubert had in hand a collected edition
of Bucer’s work (and a superior manuscript of the treatise in question, at that).79
A comparison of the two versions also suggests the superiority of Hubert’s edition,
which is considerably clearer in presentation.80 However, additional questions arise
from the relationship among these three bodies of evidence, questions that have
more to do with the historical reality of the lectures themselves and their chronology
than with text-critical issues.

nr. 1, 1–120, Bucer’s original draft (in his hand) of his critique of the 1549 Book of Common
Prayer, commonly known as Censura Martini Buceri super libro sacrorum. Another manuscript of
this treatise is found on deposit in the Bodleian, New College MS 173, a manuscript much more
polished in form as it comes from the hand of a secretary with corrections made by Bucer. This
parallels what we see in the case of De vi et usu—a rough version (Tremellius’s) quite possibly
based on a manuscript in Bucer’s own hand, and a smooth version (Hubert’s) based on a manu-
script in the hand of an amanuensis. For a brief discussion of the two versions of the Censura, see
Hopf (1946, 59), and Whitaker’s introduction in Bucer (1974, 1–2).
76
Edmund Grindal once said that Bucer’s handwriting required a conjuror to decipher. Hopf
(1946, 33).
77
Again, it is possible that Tremellius also had to hand his own notes which he used to supplement
material left by Bucer.
78
We will have more to say about the specifics of the relationship between Banck and the other
witnesses below in the present chapter and in Chap. 5.
79
See the discussion of this by Hopf (1946, 19), and Vogt (1968, 46–47). See also Austin (2007,
119–120).
80
As suggested above, it can be posited that Tremellius had the working draft, whereas Hubert had
a more polished copy. Van’t Spijker (1996, 424n445) indicates a copy is included in Strasbourg
(AST 39), which presumably is the text upon which Hubert based his printed edition.
3.3 The Ephesians Lectures and the Priority of the Praelectiones 67

3.3.2 The Evidence for De vi et usu as a Record

of the Lectures as Delivered

When weighing the evidence for the lectures, the question arises: what was the
relationship between Bucer’s lectures on the sacred ministry (particularly the text of
De vi et usu printed in the two editions of Tremellius and the edition of Hubert) and
the scheme of the lectures as a whole? While there is no question that the substance
of the printed treatise was given as part of the series (the evidence of John Banck’s
notes confirms this), and that it fit with the outline of the lectures as Bucer intended
to give them (Bucer 1562, 6F-7A), it has been suggested by Willem van’t Spijker
(1996, 353–354) that this work may have been dependent upon a treatise that Bucer
had written prior to his arrival in England, a treatise that is now lost.81 Indeed,
Bucer’s statement immediately preceding this portion of the lectures (as Tremellius
recorded it) can be read to indicate that he was turning to a treatise or treatment he
had to hand by the name that is now used to designate it.
Now, after we have compared the passage from Corinthians with the locus [text, or theme]
which we have in hand, and have taken note of a few things which it seems necessary to take
into account, it appears that we should undertake a more extended discussion [tractatio]
of the significance and practice of the sacred ministry [de vi et usu sacri ministerii].82
(Bucer 1562, 108D)

The reference to a “more extended discussion” can be interpreted to suggest the

existence of just such a work as Van’t Spijker posits if we read tractatio as “treat-
ment,” or even “treatise”. In this respect, Tremellius’s note at the end of his version
of these lectures on the ministry is also suggestive, for he draws a distinction between
the “writings” [scripta] of Bucer as opposed to what was taken “from his lectures”
[ex praelectionibus eius] (Bucer 1562, 157A).83 Furthermore, the very close relation-
ship between the editions of Tremellius and Hubert and the marked difference
between them and Banck’s notes suggests that the former are based on a common
source—a treatment of the sacred ministry that had an existence independent from
the lecture notes.84 Finally, since Hubert did not include any other material from

81
Van’t Spijker also here suggests that the following statement in Bucer’s will, written in Strasbourg
on 23 January 1548, may well contain a reference to this treatise: “quem iam ad finem ferme per-
duxi, de vero intellectu Articuli Christianae fidei nostrae, Credo Ecclesiam catholicam, communio-
nem sanctorum.” A manuscript copy of the will is found in CCCC MS 119, nr. 24, 69–78 (the 1548
will is on 69–75; a codicil from February 1551 is on 76–78).
82
“Nunc, postquam locum ad Corinthios [to which Bucer had just referred immediately preceding
this quote] cum loco quem prae manibus habemus, contulimus, et pauca quae notanda esse vide-
bantur, notavimus, de vi & usu sacri Ministerii, prolixior nobis tractatio instituenda videtur.”
83
“Finiunt D. BUCERI scripta; quae sequuntur, ex praelectionibus eius sunt collecta.” This note
raises an additional question, about which more presently. For comparison, consider De regno
christi and the Censura on the Book of Common Prayer, both from this same time: each exists in
more than one manuscript copy, a point already raised above.
84
The evidence of Banck’s notes (which follow the printed text only in the most general way) could
suggest that Bucer had the treatise before him, but was extemporizing on the basis of it rather than
reading it verbatim.
68 3 “Remember the Readings and Preachings of God’s Prophet and True Preacher…

Bucer’s lectures in Cambridge,85 this also would suggest that De vi et usu—like the
Explicatio—had an existence independent of the Ephesians lectures.86
When one compares the content of the versions of Tremellius and Hubert with
Banck’s notes, another more historical question arises: how much of the text of De
vi et usu was actually heard by Bucer’s auditors? The inclusion of this piece whole
in the Praelectiones, combined with Bucer’s comment preceding this portion of the
lectures regarding the “more extended discussion” [prolixior … tractatio] to which
he was turning, would seem to suggest that the entire work was covered in the
lectures as Tremellius presented them (Bucer 1562, 108[D]). The same conclusion
can be drawn from Hubert’s edition, which is framed by notes indicating when
Bucer began the lectures and explaining the abrupt end of the text by Bucer’s sud-
den death.87 Banck’s manuscript is in agreement with both Tremellius’s and Hubert’s
texts, but only with respect to the end of the lectures.88 The beginning of Banck’s
account corresponds to the second major section of De vi et usu, on clerical
discipline,89 while in the printed editions the first major section is a discussion of the
doctrine of the Church.90 It could be that Bucer did not take up the subject of the
Church a second time, since he had covered it extensively in his lectures on
Ephesians 1 (Bucer 1562, 36–50). The lack of this portion in Banck’s notes might
suggest this. However, it is more likely that Banck’s notes did not begin until a later
stage in the lectures, for one additional piece of external evidence—Parker’s funeral
oration—suggests that Bucer did indeed cover all sections of De vi et usu (Parker
1551, E viii recto-verso; Hubert 1577, 890).91

85
Leaving aside the question of the Explicatio, with which I have already dealt above.
86
It is tempting, therefore, to conclude that the treatise to which Van’t Spijker refers may well be
the manuscript text of De vi et usu, or at the very least is substantially present in it.
87
The note at the beginning of Hubert’s printing of these lectures: “Coepta explicari Cantabrigiae
in nomine Domini ix.Novembris, Anno sal. M.D.L.” The final note at the end of the lectures: “Huc
isque Explicatione sua progressus doctissimus Theologus, in morbum incidit gravissimum: cuius
vehementia latius grassante, paulo post in Christo Servatore felicissime obdormivit, Cantabrigiae
in Anglia pridie Cal. Martias, Anno salutis M. D. LI.” Hubert (1577, 553 and 610 respectively).
88
His dedicatory letter to the Marquis of Dorset also indicates that Bucer’s death came during his
lectures on the ministry (Banck 1551, fol. 3). The ending of Banck’s notes is (like Hubert’s text)
abrupt (Banck 1551, fol. 63).
89
Compare Banck (1551, fols. 7–33) with Bucer (1562, 129B-143A), and with Hubert (1577,
578–594).
90
“Quid sit ecclesia,” (Bucer 1562, 111B-129A); compare with: Hubert (1577, 556–578). In both,
this is preceded by an opening paragraph and by introductory comments under the heading,
“Quibus de causis, quibusque viis adeo miserum in modum Ecclesiae Christi, & ministeriorum
eius vis & notitia interciderit, & horror quidam huius ministerii obrepserit.” (Bucer 1562,
108F-111A; Hubert 1577, 553–556). This preliminary material is also lacking in Banck’s
manuscript.
91
Parker declared here that Bucer taught “…of election and grace, of faith and works, of original
corruption of our nature, of justification, of the abrogation of the Law, of the church, of the minis-
tration therein of the word, of Sacraments, of discipline, of the offices of all estates and such like”
(the italicized items correspond to topics found in De vi et usu).
3.3 The Ephesians Lectures and the Priority of the Praelectiones 69

A problem with Tremellius’s text should be noted here. Following his comment
at the end of the portion of the lectures that corresponds to De Vi et Usu regarding
the end of Bucer’s scripta (Bucer 1562, 157A) he indicates that what follows is
taken from Bucer’s lectures. In fact, the material that immediately follows is not a
continuation of the lectures on Ephesians, but a version of a separate treatise on the
Lord’s Supper, known as Exomologesis sive Confessio de S. Eucharistia aphoristice
Scripta, the title under which it appears in the Scripta Anglicana (Hubert 1577,
538–545). Interestingly this piece follows immediately after the Explicatio in the
same volume, which we have already argued was a free-standing piece apart from
the Praelectiones. With reference to the Praelectiones, why the aphorisms on the
Eucharist have been inserted here is a mystery, for it seems doubtful that Bucer
lectured on them at this time—Banck’s notes do not corroborate this, and the style
of the text is quite different from the surrounding material. It may be that Tremellius
thought this was an appropriate spot to insert the aphorisms on the Supper, as the
subject Bucer was treating of at the end of the lectures was the matter of the Lord’s
Supper.92 Further, in a letter to Albert Hardenberg of 31 May 1551 commenting on
Bucer’s then recent death, John à Lasco stated that prior to his death, Bucer had
begun “to treat the Sacramentarian subject” (Gorham 1857, 263). This suggestive
piece of information notwithstanding, Tremellius’s note would make more sense if
we assume the lecture notes resumed where the text states: “Progrediamur in verbis
Pauli ad Ephesios” (Bucer 1562, 162D).
A final question concerning the lectures as an “event” is how much of the mate-
rial presented in the Praelectiones as a whole Bucer was able to cover before his
death. We have seen that the evidence of Hubert and Banck indicates that Bucer
died in the course of his lectures on the sacred ministry, and that Tremellius seems
to say something of the sort93: thus, it would appear that Bucer did not proceed
beyond Ephesians 4 and the extended locus on the ministry.
However, in his dedicatory letter to Throckmorton, Tremellius stated that before
his death Bucer had reached Ephesians 5 and Paul’s exhortations regarding “benev-
olence to be shown to wives” (Bucer 1562, 4D).94 Whether Tremellius meant that
Bucer lectured to that point, or only that his notes had reached that point is not clear;
it is true that the text of the Praelectiones presents Bucer’s 1551 exposition as con-
tinuing to the end of Ephesians 5.95 Assuming that the Praelectiones is based on

92
And, it should be added, both Hubert and Banck state that Bucer’s death came shortly after he
had reached this point in his lectures.
93
At least, Tremellius’s presentation of the lectures on the ministry end at the same point as do the
other versions.
94
“Nunc vero cum morte praeventus non ultra quam ad locum quinti capitis de Benevolentia uxori-
bus reddenda pervenire potuerit….” It is not clear whether he is saying that Bucer reached
Ephesians 5:25 or Ephesians 5:31. The printed text extends to the latter verse.
95
It is conceivable that Parker’s comment referring to Bucer’s teaching “of the offices of all estates
and such like” might indicate that Bucer actually lectured on Ephesians 5 which begins a section
of the letter addressing relations within the Christian household (Parker 1551, E viii verso).
However, the reference to “offices of all estates” is more plausibly read to refer to grades within
the ministry (that is, Ephesians 4:11), and to Bucer’s discussion in De Vi et Usu.
70 3 “Remember the Readings and Preachings of God’s Prophet and True Preacher…

Bucer’s own notes rather than those of Tremellius, it is a plausible conclusion that
Bucer had prepared notes for his lectures (somewhat) in advance.96 If this is so, then
there is no conflict between the evidence of Hubert and Banck, and that of the dedi-
catory letter of Tremellius: Bucer lectured through part of Ephesians 4 as the
Praelectiones presents it—that is, to the end of the discussion of the sacred ministry
(Bucer 1562, 167A)97—but he had in hand material that would have taken him
through Ephesians 5 (Bucer 1562, 183C).

3.3.3 Chronology of the Lectures

A brief reconstruction of the chronology of Bucer’s tenure as Regius Professor of

Divinity is in order to relate both the lectures and the questions raised above
(particularly the last) to the historical context. This reconstruction supports further
the arguments advanced in the previous section: that Bucer lectured only to the end
of the locus on the sacred ministry in Ephesians 4, and that what Tremellius has
printed are Bucer’s working notes.
The dates of the terms (Heywood 1840, 5–6) in which Bucer lectured, as well as
the interruption due to his illness in March of 1550, were as follows:
8 January to 30 March 1550 (Lent Term); Bucer began on 10 January, and ceased when he
fell ill in mid-March.
16 April to 10 July 1550 (Easter Term); Bucer resumed his lectures on 13 May.
10 July to 7 September 1550 (Vacation Term); Bucer does not appear to have lectured on
Ephesians, but instead participated in disputations, and traveled to Oxford.98
1 October to 13 December 1550 (Michaelmas Term); Bucer’s only full term of lectures
without interruption. On 9 November he began his lectures on what we know as De vi et usu
sacri ministerii.
8 January to 22 March 1551 (Lent Term); Bucer fell ill again, and presumably ceased lec-
turing some time before his death on 28 February/1 March 1551.99

Bucer therefore lectured for roughly 8 months. How much material did he cover in
each term?
Accepting for the moment the suggestion set out above—that Bucer’s lectures
only extended to the end of the locus on the ministry (i.e., De vi et usu)—this would
mean that the lectures as given (including the Praefatio) are represented by what
Tremellius printed in the Praelectiones (Bucer 1562, 5–157). If we were to assume
that Bucer only spoke in his lectures what is printed in the Praelectiones (excluding

96
The evidence of the Praelectiones indicates that he does appear to have completed the lecture
notes for Ephesians 5, but not for Ephesians 6. With respect to Ephesians 6, Tremellius acknowl-
edged that he included material taken from Bucer’s 1527 commentary rather than present an
incomplete work (Bucer 1562, [4]E).
97
Again, compare the Praelectiones with Hubert (1577, 610) and Banck (1551, fol. 63).
98
And, according to Parker’s Oration, he lectured on the Book of Micah (Parker 1551, E viii recto).
99
Bucer fell seriously ill on 13 February 1551 (Wendel 1955, xiii). Presumably, he ceased lecturing
shortly before this.
3.3 The Ephesians Lectures and the Priority of the Praelectiones 71

the text of Ephesians taken from Erasmus’s 1535 Novum Testamentum as printed at
the beginning of each chapter, which accounts for five pages of the total), this works
out to a rate of approximately 18.5 pages of text per month of lecturing. This figure
seems absurdly low; after all, by the terms of his appointment, he was to have lec-
tured 4 days per week for an hour each time (Heywood 1840, 6–7).100 These consid-
erations suggest two conclusions: first, that the Praelectiones presents either a
condensation of the lectures, or (what is practically speaking the same thing) the
essential notes on the basis of which Bucer taught; second, that Bucer may not have
actually lectured 4 days per week because of his fragile health.
There is no external evidence to indicate the likelihood of the latter conclusion,
though it cannot be ruled out even if we accept the former conclusion.101 It is clear
that Bucer’s health was quite poor for most of his sojourn. Even when he was able
to fulfil his duties, it could well be that his lectures proceeded at a pace as low as 52
words per minute.102
With respect to the former tentative conclusion, a comparison of the Praelectiones
with the notes taken by John Banck offers a further indication that the printed text
is not a word-for-word account of Bucer’s lectures, but rather the notes for the lec-
tures. As a consequence, the comparison also enables us to approach a more precise
measurement of the relationship between the available evidence and how much of
the lecture material Bucer was likely able to deliver before his death. Banck’s manu-
script ostensibly covers Bucer’s lectures between 9 November and 13 December
1550, and again between 8 January and sometime before 13 February 1551, though
it seems likely that Banck’s notes begin sometime after 9 November.103 We have
noted that a comparison with the text of the Praelectiones (Bucer 1562, 108–157)
and De vi et usu as printed in the Scripta Anglicana (Hubert 1577, 553–610) indi-
cates that Banck’s notes correspond to the material beginning at page 129 in the
former and page 578 in the latter, thereby missing out the first section dealing with
the Church.104 A rough word count of these pages in the printed editions (Scripta

100
This would work out to roughly one page per lecture hour.
101
However, a letter of Thomas Horton to Francis Dryander, dated 15 May 1550, refers to lectures
each day, which indicates that for at least part of Bucer’s tenure, he was able to lecture according
to the terms of his appointment: Burnett (1994, 216).
102
Here, the analysis of Calvin’s lectures given by T. H. L. Parker (1986, 22–23), is very helpful.
Following the guidelines used by the BBC, Parker notes that a lecturer should be able to read or
speak 120 words per minute, or some 7,000 words in an hour. A sampling of Calvin’s Old Testament
lectures (given later in his life) indicates that he was able to speak on average only some 52 words
per minute, in no small part due to his poor health. In view of Bucer’s own poor health in
Cambridge, we could suppose his pace would have been similar to Calvin’s. On the other hand, the
evidence could indicate that what we have is not word-for-word what Bucer spoke, but the basic
notes on the basis of which he lectured at greater length.
103
As noted above, in addition to the evidence of Tremellius and Hubert, Parker’s oration strongly
suggests that Bucer covered all parts of De vi et usu. This means, however, that Bucer covered all
50 pages of this section of the Praelectiones at a rate of 25 pages per month, which is a brisker pace
than was true for most of the lectures.
104
Even if it was the case that Bucer himself missed out the section on the Church, this would mean
he covered 28 pages of material as printed in the Praelectiones (Bucer 1562, 129–157) in the space
72 3 “Remember the Readings and Preachings of God’s Prophet and True Preacher…

Anglicana and Praelectiones) yields approximately 16,650 words; a rough estimate

of Banck’s manuscript yields around 11,500 words. We know for a fact that Banck’s
manuscript is based on notes taken down while Bucer lectured, and given that the
printed edition is only roughly 45 % longer, this would suggest that the latter is by
no means a full transcript of the spoken lectures, but instead presents a more com-
prehensive set of notes (such as one would expect a teacher to have to hand).
To return to the question of chronology, if we assign priority to the evidence
of the Praelectiones and the Scripta Anglicana, and assume that Bucer lectured
on the whole of De vi et usu, we can then fit the available evidence into the
following timetable:
10 January to mid-March 1550: the Praefatio and Chapter 1 (Bucer 1562, 5–50).
13 May to 10 July 1550: Chapter 2 (Bucer 1562, 52–91).
1 October to 13 December 1550: Chapters 3 and 4, including the beginning of De vi et usu
(Bucer 1562, 92-ca. 138).
8 January to 13 February 1551: the remainder of De vi et usu (Bucer 1562, ca. 138–157).

If this chronology is accurate, we can conclude that Bucer’s lectures did not
proceed beyond the end of his exposition on the sacred ministry, and thus he did
not lecture on Ephesians 5. In that one respect, therefore, the text of the
Praelectiones can be misleading if taken at face value. Yet if we accept the argu-
ment that Tremellius’s text is an edited version of Bucer’s own notes, then the
evidence of the Praelectiones remains trustworthy; the additional material beyond
the end of the lectures on the sacred ministry indicates that Bucer prepared his
notes somewhat in advance.105 In any case, Tremellius alone provides evidence for
the lectures as a whole, and his edition thus has greater historical value than has
been acknowledged.106
It is, therefore, in light of all the issues discussed above that I have elected to treat
the version of Bucer’s lectures that we have from Tremellius as a (relatively) accu-
rate record of what actually transpired in 1550–1. There are undeniable problems
with it, particularly the poor quality of the presentation and the inclusion of the
Exomologesis sive Confessio de S. Eucharistia aphoristice Scripta as part of
the lectures. As a witness to the lectures as an event, it is difficult to tell from the
Praelectiones where Bucer ended.107 Yet for all the difficulties that this text poses,
it would appear to be the only full account of Bucer’s teaching, certainly with refer-
ence to his exposition of the text of Ephesians 1–4. If the reconstruction of the

of roughly 2 months—14 pages per month—which is close to the estimated rate given above as the
pace of the lectures (18.5 pages per month).
105
Again, this excludes the material for Ephesians 6, taken from Bucer’s 1527 commentary.
106
Contra Wright (1972, 107), where he asserts that, as far as the lectures on the sacred ministry
are concerned, Banck’s notes and the material furnished by Hubert in the Scripta Anglicana have
greater historical value than the text produced by Tremellius.
107
This, of course, is no fault of Tremellius; he was, after all, attempting to do what Bucer himself
would have done, and produce the commentary that probably would have been developed on the
basis of the lectures. It was not his intent to recreate the lectures as they happened.
References 73

chronology of these lectures is accurate, we have a clearer idea of what Bucer

sought to achieve in the first instance, and of how we should understand his lengthy
work on the sacred ministry in relation to his original objectives as set forth in
January 1550.

3.4 Conclusion

Martin Bucer was the greatest foreign scholar to teach at Cambridge since
Erasmus,108 and unlike his predecessor he left a substantial body of evidence for his
sojourn.109 The connection between the two scholars with respect to Cambridge,
even if indirect, is nevertheless more than coincidental, for in many ways it could be
argued that Bucer fulfilled the designs of Erasmus for the teaching of theology—
though whether anyone at the time was conscious of that connection is an open
question.110 Bucer’s lectures on Ephesians constituted as well a very full expression
of the requirements of the Cambridge Injunctions (themselves of Erasmian inspira-
tion, as I have argued), and thus of the program of biblical humanism. In light of the
fact that these lectures constituted the heart of Bucer’s impact upon Cambridge, and
of the fact that Cambridge was the centre of Bucer’s English sojourn to an extent
that the Court and Privy Council were not, they deserve more attention than they
have received to date—both for their own sake, but also for the broader historical
question of Bucer in England.

References

Amos, N. Scott. 1999. “It is fallow ground here”: Martin Bucer as critic of the English Reformation.
Westminster Theological Journal 61(1): 41–52.
Amos, N. Scott. 2002. The Alsatian among the Athenians: Martin Bucer, Mid-Tudor Cambridge
and the Edwardian Reformation. Reformation and Renaissance Review 4(1): 94–124.

108
In fact, he was arguably the greatest Protestant scholar and theologian to teach in Cambridge in
the sixteenth century. Leedham-Green (1996, 52) comments on the esteem in which Bucer was
held by a generation of Cantabrigians.
109
Regarding the sojourn of Erasmus, it is said that he “left no trace in the University or college
archives.” Leader (1988, 291); reprinted by permission of the publisher.
110
It is worth noting a link drawn by Matthew Parker between Erasmus and Bucer: “The worthiness
of this man [Bucer] were most meet to be declared of such as hath known him by daily conversa-
tion this 20 or 30 years, in the whole which time, Erasmus’s epistles written wholly with his own
hand unto him can declare, how he was worthy to have the name of singular integrity of life, and
excellent zeal to the doctrine of Christ” (Parker 1551, D ii recto-verso; Hubert 1577, [885]).
Interestingly, among the contents of Bucer’s study that made their way in to the Parker collection
is a letter from Erasmus to Bucer (CCCC MS 119, nr. 21, 57–66). Might Parker have had this
particular letter in view?
74 3 “Remember the Readings and Preachings of God’s Prophet and True Preacher…

Amos, N. Scott. 2010. Protestant Exiles in England. Martin Bucer, the measured approach to
Reform, and the Elizabethan Settlement—“Eine gute, leidliche Reformation.” In Sister
Reformations: the Reformation in Germany and in England: symposium on the occasion of the
450th anniversary of the Elizabethan Settlement, September 23rd-26th, 2009/
Schwesterreformationen: die Reformation in Deutschland und in England: Symposion aus
Anlass des 450. Jahrestages des Elizabethan Settlement, 23.-26. September 2009, ed. Dorothea
Wendebourg, 151–174. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Armstrong, C.D.C. The foundation and early years of Trinity College, Cambridge, 1546–1561.
Unpublished paper.
Austin, Kenneth. 2007. From Judaism to Calvinism: The life and writings of Immanuel Tremellius
(c.1510-1580). Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
Ball, W.W. Rouse, and J.A. Venn. 1913. Admissions to Trinity College, Vol. 2: 1546–1700. London:
Macmillan.
Banck, John. 1551. De privato ministerio, quod clericale vulgo appellatur…. MS Coll. Gonv. et
Caius 423/423.
Bradford, John. 1848. Farewell to the University and Town of Cambridge. In The writings of John
Bradford, M.A., fellow of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, and prebendary of St. Paul’s, martyr,
1555, vol. II, ed. Aubrey Townsend, 441–447. Cambridge: Printed at the University Press.
British Museum MS Royal 8 B VII.
Bucer, Martin. 1562. Praelectiones doctiss. in Epistolam D. P. ad Ephesios, eximii doctoris
D. Martini Buceri, habitae Cantabrigiae in Anglia, Anno M D.L. et LI. Basel: Petrus Perna.
Bucer, Martin. 1969. De Regno Christi. In Melanchthon and Bucer, ed. Wilhelm Pauck, 174–394.
Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
Bucer, Martin. 1974. Martin Bucer and the Book of Common Prayer, ed. E.C. Whitaker. Great
Wakering: Mayhew-McCrimmon [for the] Alcuin Club.
Bucer, Martin, and Thomas Cranmer. 1972. Annotationes in Octo Priora Capita Evangelii
Secundum Matthaeum, Croydon 1549, ed. Herbert Vogt. Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum Verlag.
Burnett, Amy Nelson. 1994. The yoke of Christ: Martin Bucer and Christian discipline. Kirksville:
Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers.
CCCC [Corpus Christi College, Cambridge] MS 102, nr. 1, 5–59. Disputatio publica habita
Cantabrigiae inter M. Bucerum respondentem et magistros Yungum Sedgwicum et Pernum
opponentes.
CCCC MS 102, nr. 32, 513–528. Cogitationes Martini Buceri de eadem re (i.e., contra
seditionem).
CCCC MS 104, nr. 1, 1–144. Annotationes Martini Buceri in octo priora capita evangelii secun-
dum Matthaeum.
CCCC MS 106, nr. 163, 457–460. Letter from Edward VI. to the University of Cambridge appoint-
ing Martin Bucer reader in divinity Dec. 4, anno regni 3tio.
CCCC MS 106, nr. 164, 461–464. Literae academiae ad Edwardum VI. in quibus academia mor-
tem Buceri deplorat, uxoremque et familiam ejus regi commendat, Martii 4.
CCCC MS 106, nr. 166, 466. Literae Gualteri Haddon ad Mattheum Parker, quibus orat ut Bucerum
in ordinem doctoratus co-optatum coram academia admittendum sistat.
CCCC MS 113, nr. 8, 41–44. Epistola Buceri de demoliendis altaribus.
CCCC MS 113, nr. 39, 303–306. Epistola [ut videtur Buceri] ad Chekum de quodam domino
Jungio, qui publice praelegerat in priorem epistolam ad Timotheum, et de disputatione cum eo
habenda, data Cantabrigiae 29 Aug. 1550.
CCCC MS 113, nr. 48, 391–410. Responsio Buceri ad D. J. Alasco in expensione aphorismorum
ejus de sacro eucharistiae.
CCCC MS 119, nr. 2, 3–6. Epistola Martini Buceri ad Edwardum VI.
CCCC MS 119, nr. 18, 45–50. Epistola Martini Buceri ad Ioannem Chekum.
CCCC MS 119, nr. 21, 57–66. Epistola Erasmi ad Martinum Bucerum.
CCCC MS 119, nr. 22, 67. Duae epistolae Buceri ad Parkerum.
CCCC MS 119, nr. 24, 69–78. Testamentum Martini Buceri … 1548, cum codicil 1551.
References 75

CCCC MS 119, nr. 100, 279–282. Epistola Buceri ad Iohannem Echtium Colonensem medicum.
CCCC MS 172, nr. 1, 1–120. Martini Buceri annotationes in librum precum communium.
Collinson, Patrick. 1979. Archbishop Grindal: The struggle for a reformed Church. London:
Jonathan Cape.
Collinson, Patrick. 1983. The Reformer and the Archbishop: Martin Bucer and an English Buceran.
In Godly people: Essays on English Protestantism and Puritanism, ed. Patrick Collinson,
19–44. London: Hambledon Press.
Collinson, Patrick. 1994. Perne the Turncoat: An Elizabethan Reputation. In Elizabethan essays,
ed. Patrick Collinson, 179–217. London: Hambledon Press.
Eells, Hastings. 1931. Martin Bucer. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Goldyng, Arthur. 1562. A briefe treatise concerning the burnynge of Bucer and Phagius, at
Cambrydge in the time of quene Mary, with theyr restitution in the time of our most gracious
soverayne Lady that now is. London: Thomas Marshe.
Gorham, George Cornelius, comp. 1857. Gleanings of a few scattered ears, during the period of
the Reformation in England and of the times immediately succeeding, A.D. 1533 to A.D.
1588…. London: Bell and Daldy.
Great Britain, Public Records Office. SP 10/7/10.
Greschat, Martin. 2004. Martin Bucer: A Reformer and His Times. Trans. Stephen E. Buckwalter.
Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press.
Guy, John. 1988. Tudor England. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hall, Basil. 1977. Bucer et l’Angleterre. In Strasbourg au couer religieux de XVIe siècle; hommage
à Lucien Febvre: actes du Colloque international de Strasbourg, 2--9 mai 1975. Société
Savante d’Alsace et des Régions de l’Est. Collection Grandes Publications 12, ed. Georges
Livet and Francis Rapp, 401–429. Strasbourg: Librairie Istra.
Hall, Basil. 1993. Cranmer, the Eucharist and the Foreign Divines in the Reign of Edward VI. In
Thomas Cranmer: Churchman and Scholar, ed. Paul Ayris and David Selwyn, 217–258.
Woodbridge: Boydell Press.
Hall, Basil. 1994. Martin Bucer in England. In Martin Bucer: Reforming church and community,
ed. David F. Wright, 144–160. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harvey, A.E. 1906. Martin Bucer in England. Dissertation, Marburg.
Heywood, James (ed.). 1840. Collection of statutes for the University and the Colleges of
Cambridge. London: William Clowes and Sons.
Hobbs, R. Gerald. 2009. Strasbourg: Vermigli and the Senior School. In A companion to Peter
Martyr Vermigli, ed. Torrance Kirby, Emidio Campi, and Frank James III, 35–69. Leiden: Brill.
Hopf, Constantin. 1946. Martin Bucer and the English Reformation. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Hubert, Conrad (ed.). 1562. Historia vera de vita, obitu…Martini Buceri et Pauli Fagii. Strasbourg:
P. Marchaeropoeum.
Hubert, Conrad (ed.). 1577. Martini Buceri Scripta Anglicana fere omnia. Basel: Petrus Perna.
Leader, Damien Riehl. 1988. A history of the University of Cambridge. Vol. 1: The University to
1546. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leedham-Green, Elisabeth. 1996. A concise history of the University of Cambridge. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Logan, F.D. 1977. The origins of the so-called Regius Professorships: An aspect of the Renaissance
in Oxford and Cambridge. In Renaissance and renewal in Christian history, Studies in Church
history 14, ed. Derek Baker, 271–278. Oxford: Published for the Ecclesiastical History Society
by B. Blackwell.
MacCulloch, Diarmaid. 1996. Thomas Cranmer: A life. New Haven: Yale University Press.
MacCulloch, Diarmaid. 1999. Tudor Church Militant: Edward VI and the Protestant Reformation.
London: Allen Lane.
Morgan, Victor. 2004. A history of the University of Cambridge. Vol. 2: 1546-1750. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Null, Ashley. 2003. John Redman, the Gentle Ambler. In Westminster Abbey Reformed, 1540–
1640, ed. C.S. Knighton and Richard Mortimer, 38–74. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
76 3 “Remember the Readings and Preachings of God’s Prophet and True Preacher…

Parker, Matthew. 1551. Howe we ought to take the death of the Godly, a sermon made in Cambridge
at the buriall of the noble clerck, D. M. Bucer. London: R. Iugge.
Parker, Matthew. 1853. Correspondence of Matthew Parker, D.D. Archbishop of Canterbury, ed.
J. Bruce and T.T. Perowne. Cambridge: Printed at the University Press.
Parker, T.H.L. 1986. Calvin’s Old Testament commentaries. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
Pauck, Wilhelm. 1928. Das Reich Gottes auf Erden: Utopie und Wirklichkeit. Eine Untersuchung
zu Butzers ‘De Regno Christi’. Berlin: W. de Gruyter.
Peile, John, comp. 1910. Biographical Register of Christ’s College, and of the earlier foundation,
God’s house, 1448-1505. Vol. I: 1448–1665. Cambridge: University Press.
Primus, J.H. 1960. The Vestments Controversy. Kampen: J.H. Kok.
Robinson, Hastings, trans. and ed. 1846–7. Original letters relative to the English Reformation:
written during the reigns of King Henry VIII., King Edward VI., and Queen Mary: chiefly from
the archives of Zurich, 2 vols. Cambridge: Printed at the University Press.
Ryrie, Alec. 2009. Paths not taken in the British Reformations. Historical Journal 52(1): 1–22.
Stephens, Peter. 1994. The church in Bucer’s commentaries on the Epistle to the Ephesians. In
Martin Bucer: Reforming church and community, ed. David F. Wright, 45–60. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Strype, John. 1848. Memorials of the most reverend father in God Thomas Cranmer, sometime lord
archbishop of Caterbury. Wherein the history of the church, and the reformation of it, during
the primacy of the said archbishop, are greatly illustrated; and many singular matters relating
thereunto, now first published, 2 vols. Oxford, Printed by T. Combe for the Ecclesiastical
History Society.
Trinity College, Cambridge. Trinity College Leases, 1547–1585.
Trinity College. The proportion devised for Trinitie College within the Towne and Universitie of
Cambridge of King Henry theightes foundacion. Muniments, Box 29 CIIA.
Trinity College. Senior Bursar’s Accounts, 1547–1563.
Van’t Spijker, Willem. 1996. The Ecclesiastical Offices in the Thought of Martin Bucer. Trans.
John Vriend (text) and Lyle D. Bierma (notes). Leiden: Brill.
Venn, John (ed.). 1910. Grace Book Δ, containing the records of the University of Cambridge for
the years 1542–1589. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vermigli, Peter Martyr. 1551. In selectissimam S. Pauli Priorem ad Corinth. Epistolam
Commentarii. Zurich: Christoph Froschauer.
Vermigli, Peter Martyr. 1558. In Epistolam S. Pauli Apostoli ad Romanos commentarii doctissimi.
Basel: Petrus Perna.
Vogt, Herbert. 1968. Martin Bucer und die Kirche von England. Dissertation, Münster.
Wendel, François. 1955. Introduction. In Martini Buceri Opera Latina XV: De Regno Christi, ed.
F. Wendel, ix–liv. Paris/Gütersloh: PUF/Bertelsmann.
Wiedermann, Gotthelf. 1988. Der Reformator Alexander Alesius als Ausleger der Psalmen.
Dissertation, Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg.
Wright, David F. 1972. Introduction. In Common Places of Martin Bucer, ed. and trans.
D.F. Wright, 17–71. Appleford: The Sutton Courtenay Press.
Wright, David F. 1992. Martin Bucer (1491–1551) in England. Anvil: An Anglican Evangelical
Journal for Theology and Mission 9: 249–259.
Wright, David F. 1993. Martin Bucer and England–and Scotland. In Martin Bucer and sixteenth
century Europe: Actes du colloque de Strasbourg (28–31 Août 1991), 2 vols., vol. 2, ed.
Christian Kreiger and Marc Lienhard, 523–532. Leiden: Brill.
 Part II
The Praelectiones as an Exercise in Biblical
Humanist Exegetical Method
Chapter 4
“Ratio seu methodus Martini Buceri”: Bucer’s
Prefatory Lectures on Ephesians and His Use
of Biblical Humanist Theological Method

As noted in the previous chapter, Bucer commenced his lectures on Ephesians with
introductory comments that subsequently became the preface to the printed text of
1562 (Bucer 1562, [5]–16).1 In these remarks he offered his auditors a number
of preliminary statements on the letter, considering such matters as authorship,
historical setting, and the outline of the text as a whole.2 Yet in each of these respects,
there was nothing that Bucer said which strikes us as likely to generate any particular
excitement, given that such comments were traditionally made at the outset of such
lectures.
What is significant is the length to which Bucer went to describe and defend the
method he intended to employ in the lectures that were to follow.3 Towards the end
of these prefatory remarks, Bucer commented:
Therefore, so far as the Lord grants it, I shall in good faith follow and observe this very
method in explaining the letter I have taken up; and I hope in this to give less offense

Although the title of this chapter has obvious resonances with a key work of Erasmus, I have
adopted it in imitation of a similarly entitled chapter in Wengert (1998, 48–64).
1
At many points in the preface there are phrases indicating that the text presented by Tremellius
was originally given as a public address. For instance, Bucer frequently refers to “best listeners”
[optimi auditores] (Bucer 1562, 7A; 13C; 14D; 14E; 16D).
2
In this, the function of Bucer’s preface was not unlike that of the medieval accessus, wherein the
lecturer would briefly introduce the book to be lectured upon. See Evans (1984, 30–31).
3
The prefatory lectures were probably several in number. The relationship between the text of the
Praelectiones and Bucer’s actual lectures has been discussed in Chap. 3 above. Again, T.H.L. Parker
(1986, 22–23), provides guidance. Following Parker’s analysis of Calvin, a figure of 50 words per
minute would be reasonable for Bucer at this time given his poor health, which included respira-
tory problems. The word-count for the Praefatio is approximately 7,200 words. Hence, even if the
prefatory lectures were printed verbatim, it would have taken Bucer more than two hours to cover
the material, and we have seen that the Divinity lecturer was only to lecture an hour at a time.
However, I have already argued that the material printed in the Praelectiones is probably not
verbatim the full text of all that Bucer said, but instead the working notes from which he lectured.
This means that these lectures could well have been given over several sessions.

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 79

N.S. Amos, Bucer, Ephesians and Biblical Humanism, Studies in Early Modern
Religious Tradition, Culture and Society 7, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-10238-2_4
80 4 “Ratio seu methodus Martini Buceri”: Bucer’s Prefatory Lectures on Ephesians…

because it [the method] is consistent with the decree of the most reverend and renowned
gentlemen who oversaw the King’s investigation here.4 (Bucer 1562, 14E)

While it is likely that he refers to the Royal visitation of 1549 and its Injunctions (he
did not say, “the late King”), it possible that he also had in view the visitation of
1535 and the Cambridge Injunctions of that year which, as we have noted in Chap. 2
above, had yet to find an authoritative and effective expression in practice. The 1549
Injunctions (appended to the Edwardian Statutes of that year) addressed the method
of teaching theology only briefly, repeating what was enjoined more fully in the
Cambridge Injunctions.5 At any rate, Bucer positively linked what he intended to do
in his lectures with reforms that almost certainly can be traced back to the Cambridge
Injunctions. His appeal to the “decree of the most reverend and renowned gentle-
men,” combined with the immediate, “electric,” impact of his lectures, suggests that
his method was indeed something new and in the event exciting—a departure in the
way theology was to be “done.”
Indeed, Bucer’s prefatory lectures were an expression of the biblical humanist
program for the practice (and teaching) of theology and in effect constituted his own
version of a ratio verae theologiae. In addition to the Cambridge Injunctions, the
lectures have distinct resonances with the biblical humanism of Erasmus, especially
as it was expressed in his Ratio Verae Theologiae.6 They also stand in direct continu-
ity with Bucer’s career in Strasbourg and his deployment of the methods of the
Rhenish “school” (about which more below), a method which was concisely sum-
marized in Erasmus’s programmatic statement: “The foremost goal of theologians is
to interpret the divine Scriptures with wisdom, to speak seriously and effectively of
faith and piety, not to reason about trifling questions…and to inflame the hearts to
heavenly things” (Hoffmann 1994, 20 [reprinted by permission of the publisher]).7
In the present chapter, we will note the correspondences between what Bucer said in
these opening lectures and the Ratio of Erasmus, not because the intent is to argue for
the importance of Erasmus for Bucer to the exclusion of other sources of influence,
but because Erasmus provides a convenient point of reference for the broader biblical
humanist program. The examination will demonstrate that as the Regius Professor of
Divinity, Bucer was a theologian and a teacher of theology in the sense in which bibli-
cal humanism understood the term, and his practice was in continuity with that of his
Strasbourg career. It is worth a few moments, therefore, to consider aspects of Bucer’s
intellectual formation, and his career as a teacher of theology in Strasbourg, before
we turn to the methodological statements of his prefatory lectures in Cambridge.

4
“Hanc itaque ipsam ego rationem in explicanda epistola suscepta, bona fide quoad eius Dominus
dederit, sequar & observabo: idque eo spero minore offensione, quod ea consentanea sit decreto
Reverendissimorum & Clarissimorum virorum, qui Regiam hic inspectionem praefecerunt.”
5
The Edwardian Injunctions in effect briefly reiterated the requirement of the Cambridge
Injunctions that theology lectures be upon Scripture alone (Heywood 1840, 7; University of
Cambridge 1785, 146). See the discussion of both visitations in Sect. 2.2.3 above.
6
Among studies on Erasmus and his method, see: Boyle (1977); Christ-von Wedel (2013);
Hoffmann (1994); McConica (1991); Payne (1969); Rabil (1993); Rummel (1986).
7
Hoffman quotes from the Ratio of Erasmus (1519, 22/[Bb5] verso; Erasmus 1964, 193).
4.1 Bucer’s Intellectual Formation 81

4.1 Bucer’s Intellectual Formation8

The argument, or assumption, is often made that Bucer’s years as a Dominican left an
indelible stamp upon his thinking, especially in respect of theology—in terms of method,
as well as content.9 While it would be foolhardy to deny the effect on Bucer of several
years of instruction and drill in scholastic thought, and that at a formative stage in his
intellectual development, the impress of humanism, specifically biblical humanism (and
its leading exponent, Erasmus), in the shaping of Bucer’s fundamental assumptions
regarding theology and its practice is hard to overstate and arguably has priority, some-
thing to which Bucer himself bears witness. In the course of his De vera ecclesiarum
reconciliatione, published in 1542, he reflected upon the importance of Erasmus (and
thus, biblical humanism) for the reform movement in the Church as a whole, and upon
his importance for Bucer himself. In respect of Erasmus’s broader impact, Bucer wrote:
But when the Lord, moved with compassion at the ruinous oppression of his church, wanted
to come to its aid, he first brought forth in its midst Erasmus of Rotterdam who, with great
acumen and lively arguments and an eloquence and dexterity in which he prevailed, began
to impress upon us that our salvation cannot be renewed or conserved by ceremonies, but
only by a genuine trust in Christ (Bucer 1542, bb iv recto).10

Bucer argued further that Erasmus was important for a return of theology to the
work of the Church Fathers, for an ethical orientation to biblical religion in which
believers were urged to live “well and piously”, and—significantly—for his rejec-
tion of scholastic method in theology, all key elements of biblical humanism (Bucer
1542, bb iv recto).11 Bucer went on in a subsequent section of his treatise to relate
the importance of Erasmus for his own development:
For to speak now concerning myself only … when first from the books of Erasmus, then
[those] of Luther, then from both the admonition and the writings of the holy fathers, but
most of all from holy Scripture, I learned what true religion is, and what things pertain to it,
I had to confess those things and, given a place to teach them publicly, to teach and profess
openly (Bucer 1542, dd iii verso).12

8
Portions of this section and the next are drawn from Amos (2004), with some modification,
and are reprinted with permission of the publisher, Maney Publishing.
9
Some important works for the influence of scholastic thought upon Bucer are: Greschat (1976);
Leijssen (1979). See also the recent comments of Richard Muller (Muller 2003, 103).
10
“At cum Dominus, Ecclesiae suae misertus, tantae eius ac tam calamitosa oppressioni subvenire
aliquando vellet, Erasmum Roterdamum primum in medium produxit, qui magno acumine,
vivisque argumentis, et qua pollebat eloquentia ac dexteritate, commonere coepit, salutem nostram
non posse, ne reparari, nec conservari ceremoniis: sed fiducia vera in Christum.” I was alerted to
this passage and those that follow from De vera ecclesiarum reconciliatione by Van’t Spijker
(1996, 10, 228–229); the present translations are my own.
11
“…nec probari Deo posse opera, quae non iuxta preceptum, eo spectent et valeant, ut proximo,
ad bene pieque vivendum commodetur. Ac quo ista salutaris doctrina solide & pentius restitui posset,
author studiosis sacrarum rerum fuit, hucque efficacissima persuasione permovit, ut missis com-
mentis scholasticis, quae corruptione illo seculo obtinuerant, scripta sanctorum Patrum, inprimis
autem Divinas literas summo studio legerunt, & pertractarent.”
12
“Nam ut de me nunc solo loquar, […] ut primum ex libris Erasmi, deinde Lutheri, tum utriusque
monitur et ex scriptis S. Patrum, maxime vero ex divinis literis, quae vera esset religio, et quae ad
82 4 “Ratio seu methodus Martini Buceri”: Bucer’s Prefatory Lectures on Ephesians…

It is highly suggestive that in discussing his own theological formation, Bucer

makes no reference to Aquinas or other scholastics. In view of the fact that this work
comes from a period when Bucer was still deeply involved in ecumenical efforts
between Catholics and Evangelicals within the Holy Roman Empire, one might
have expected some positive reference to this element of his education, if for no
other reason than a tactical one. Through these words we glimpse the fundamental
elements of Bucer’s intellectual formation as he saw them, and they indicate for us
the central role of biblical humanism in the person of Erasmus (admittedly, alongside
the equally important role of Luther) for Bucer’s development as a Reformer.
The details of Bucer’s earliest education are shrouded in darkness, but it is gener-
ally supposed that he received his initial schooling at the famous Latin School of
Sélestat, the town of his birth (Eells 1931, 1–2; Greschat 2004, 12). The school was
very much a humanist institution, and one of the most famous of its kind. Hence, the
general character of this education was dominated by humanist pedagogy, of which
the teachers at this school were among the leading proponents in the Alsace.13 Bucer
remained enrolled at the school until at the age of 15, when he chose to enter the
Dominican Order in his home town rather than surrender his pursuit of learning.
Though his zeal for literary studies was frowned upon by his superiors, and he was
obliged to undertake the study of Thomas Aquinas, he nevertheless retained contact
with humanism through the Sélestat humanist sodalitas, which numbered among
its members friends such as Paul Volz, Beatus Rhenanus, and Johann Sapidius
(Krüger 1970, 40–41).
The leader of the sodalitas was Jakob Wimpfeling, and its orientation was decid-
edly Erasmian. Certainly, many of its members had personal connections with
Erasmus, and the great humanist even paid a visit to Sélestat in 1514 while on his
way to Basel (Krüger 1970, 40–41).14 In any case, it seems clear that Bucer was very
much inspired by the humanist movement from these early days, and regarded
himself as a disciple of Erasmus. When he left the Dominican convent in Sélestat
for studies at the University of Heidelberg, he had in his possession a copy of the
latter’s edition of the Greek New Testament (Hobbs 1991, 26).
Yet we cannot overlook the impact of his years as a monk in the Dominican
Order, and the education in scholastic thought and practice he received therein.15
Bucer’s formal education followed the general pattern of scholastic education

eam pertinerent, cognovi, ita confitieri ea, et dato docendi publicae loco, docere ac profiteri palam
mihi necesse fuit.”
13
With respect to Bucer’s earliest years, not to be overlooked is the role played by the humanism
of his native Alsace. On Alsatian humanism, see: Adam (1967); Gumbel (1938); and, Rott (1939).
14
There is no evidence that Bucer took part in this meeting (he was in the Dominican cloister at the
time), but it is possible he at least saw Erasmus from a distance and would certainly have been
aware of his visit.
15
In addition to Eells (1931, 3–4), and Greschat (2004, 13–18), see also: Greschat (1976), and
Leijssen (1979). Greschat’s study is the best available work on Bucer’s years as a Dominican, and
I rely upon this piece for much of what follows—though it will be evident that I disagree with some
of his conclusions. In many cases, other works that touch upon this aspect of Bucer’s life rely upon
Greschat for their substance.
4.1 Bucer’s Intellectual Formation 83

described in Chap. 2. Three years were given over to the study of logic, and 2 years
to natural philosophy, after which Bucer began the study of theology by means of
the Sentences of Peter Lombard. With respect to the chronology of Bucer’s educa-
tion, he undertook his logical studies between 1510 and 1512, and his studies in
natural philosophy between 1513 and 1514 (Greschat 1976, 37). After 10 years in
the convent in Sélestat, he moved in 1516 to Mainz and then to Heidelberg and
began his formal studies in theology, which focused upon the Bible and the
Sentences. In this, we find further evidence for the presence of the thought of
Aquinas in Bucer’s formation, as he had in his possession a copy of Aquinas’s com-
mentary on Lombard’s work; he also owned Cajetan’s (Thomas de Vio’s) commen-
tary on the first part of Aquinas’s Summa Theologica (Greschat 1976, 41–42).16
After his matriculation at the University of Heidelberg, Bucer became bacalarius
cursor and had both the right and obligation to lecture on the Bible, though in this
he was restricted by statute to keep his comments to a bare minimum. At the same
time, he may well have lectured on Aristotelian logic in the studium logicale, which
would explain why Bucer had in his library works of Aristotle and commentaries
upon him, as well as other works of logic. Although, as we noted above, Bucer
continued his humanistic studies while he pursued his obligatory course in scholas-
tic theology and philosophy, he complained that he had little time for the former—
in this, we find evidence of where his heart lay with respect to the two elements of
his intellectual formation (Greschat 1976, 44–46).
Whatever might be argued regarding the significance of Bucer’s education in a
scholastic setting, one should be cautious in making too much of this with respect
to his later work in terms of method and basic manner of expression.17 Even those
who argue for a stronger scholastic influence, such as Martin Greschat, acknowl-
edge that Bucer always criticized scholastic theology for both its form and method
(Greschat 1978, col. 83). The importance of scholastic method and concepts for
Bucer’s later practice is something that is more often suggested or assumed than
conclusively demonstrated. Among those who take a less positive view of Bucer,
sometimes the influence is discerned in the tortuous reasoning and subtle distinctions
to which Bucer would often resort in later years in his negotiations with various
parties at dispute,18 but it might be countered that this is not so much a case for the
influence of scholastic method and more a case for the extent to which Bucer sought
to compose differences with statements that permitted the widest possible range of

16
Greschat notes that we are not able to be as specific with respect to what aids Bucer used for the
study of the Bible, however.
17
This will become more evident in light of the further argument of this chapter below, and of the
book as a whole.
18
It might be worth observing that the judgment noted—with its negative characterizations of
tortured reasoning and over-subtle distinctions—reflects an assessment of scholastic method that
specialists in the field might find objectionable in its typecasting. For a more positive characteriza-
tion, see Strohl (1956, 123), where he argues that Bucer’s training in scholastic thought made
him “a redoubtable dialectician in the colloquies and controversies of his epoch [my translation].”
See also Strohl (1939b, 223–4), and Wright (1972, 19).
84 4 “Ratio seu methodus Martini Buceri”: Bucer’s Prefatory Lectures on Ephesians…

interpretations.19 Whether he was successful in what he sought to do is another matter,

but we must consider the motives and the contexts within which writings in this vein
were composed. At other times, his use of specific theological terms that were key
to scholastic dialectical argumentation,20 and the appearance of a general outline of
scholastic argument in some of his works is cited as evidence of his continued reli-
ance upon the tradition on which he turned his back.21 It has been argued that
Bucer’s earliest encounter with theological concepts was not in the context of bibli-
cal exegesis, but rather in the context of systematic reflection (such as one finds in
scholastic thought), and that his own expression of such concepts reflects this con-
text (Greschat 1978, cols. 83, 90).22 This may well be true, at least to the extent that
Bucer’s initial introduction to formal theology did take place within a scholastic
context, but it does not settle the question of what had the more profound impact
upon Bucer’s method as a theologian—his encounter with scholastic thought, or his
encounter with the Bible in the intellectual context of biblical humanism.
Whereas the lasting importance of scholastic thought for Bucer is a debated
issue, there is a general consensus regarding the importance of biblical humanism in
general and of Erasmus in particular for Bucer’s mature intellectual development.23
To pick up the humanist thread where we left it, although Bucer was required to
follow a scholastic course of study while in the convent in Sélestat and later at
Heidelberg, it remains the case that he continued his humanist studies as well—and

19
This characteristic of Bucer could also be attributed to his garrulousness, which was well-known
and attested to by his contemporaries.
20
However, even in this it can be argued that we see not so much the continued importance of
Bucer’s early training as a Dominican as we see the extent to which theological language contin-
ued to be impregnated with concepts and terminology of long standing use. It was simply not
possible within the space of 50 years or so (much less 10 years) to jettison the old categories and
terminology, and it was the inability to do so which may have contributed in the end to the return
of scholastic method to its place of dominance in the practice of theology.
21
Greschat suggests a close parallel between the structure of Bucer’s earliest printed work, Das ym
selbs (1523) and Aquinas’s Summa Theologica—see Greschat (1978, col. 89). The parallel is
rather vague, and could be equally attributed to the fact that both works followed the general pat-
tern of the Apostle’s Creed. Bernard Roussel similarly argues that the structure of Bucer’s Romans
commentary is that of an extended syllogism reminiscent of Aquinas—see Roussel (1970, 183).
Without commenting any further on the argument regarding the structure of Bucer’s Romans com-
mentary, it should be observed that it was written within a specific context and intended in part to
achieve a specific purpose. That context and purpose consisted of the efforts to secure a measure
of peace within the Holy Roman Empire between Catholics and Evangelicals, and in employing
more traditional categories of argumentation Bucer may well have had an apologetic aim in view.
On Bucer’s Romans commentary in the context of ecumenical dialogue in the 1530s, see Lugioyo
(2010).
22
A difficulty with this judgment of Greschat is that he relies upon statements made by Bucer in
the course of a disputation in the Dominican house at Heidelberg in 1518/1519. The context and
circumstances must qualify our interpretation of what Bucer said, and cannot be taken to reflect
forwards to his later career.
23
The two most substantial studies are Krüger (1970), and Peremans (1970). Also important is
Koch (1962). See also Krüger’s recent essay, Krüger (1993), available in English in Krüger (1994).
4.1 Bucer’s Intellectual Formation 85

his decided preference was for the latter (Van’t Spijker 1996, 8).24 Bucer was
self-consciously a humanist. He maintained his relationship with the Sélestat
sodalitas while at Heidelberg by means of correspondence, a correspondence which
extended more widely to included members of the sodalitas in Speyer, and other
figures of early sixteenth century humanism in Germany such as Wolfgang Capito,
Georg Spalatin, Ulrich von Hutten and Nicholas Gerbel (Krüger 1970, 42–44).25
While at Heidelberg, he established formal contact with Jakob Wimpfeling, some-
time between July 1519 and January 1520 (Greschat 2004, 33). His correspondence
with Beatus Rhenanus in particular is especially important for the light it sheds on
his relationship with biblical humanism, and his increasingly negative view of scho-
lastic method (Bucer 1979:1).26
As with many humanists inspired by Erasmus and the Novum Instrumentum,
Bucer began at this time to study Greek (a move looked upon with suspicion by his
superiors), taking as his tutor the future Lutheran Reformer, Johannes Brenz. He
also lectured privately to other monks on the works of Erasmus—among them the
Complaint of Peace and The Praise of Folly (Van’t Spijker 1996, 8–9; see also
Greschat 1976, 50). For Bucer to lecture in this way upon the latter piece—with its
provocative satire upon scholastic method and theologians—was to make a semi-
public declaration of his allegiance to the humanist cause in the ongoing humanist-
scholastic debate, and would have almost certainly earned him the disapprobation
of his superiors. Further evidence of his sympathies is found in a list he produced in
1518 of books in his possession.27 While admittedly it includes a fair number of
scholastic works—which would be expected for a Dominican who was under obli-
gation to lecture and study within the confines of a scholastic curriculum—it never-
theless has a pronouncedly humanist character and is of great importance for our
understanding of Bucer’s theological development to that point, as well as for the
question of the influence of Erasmus. It is of no small significance that at the very
beginning of his theological education, Bucer possessed some of the most important
theological works of Erasmus, including the Novum Instrumentum, which (as we
noted before) included prefatory material of the utmost importance for Erasmus’s
program of a new model for theology (Krüger 1970, 48).
That Erasmus was an influence upon Bucer in his formative years is beyond
question. Erasmus’s work and example informed Bucer’s own rejection of scholas-
tic method and teachings, and guided him in his first steps towards becoming a
Reformer. As we have seen above in Bucer’s remarks in De vera ecclesiarum,
Erasmus was instrumental in turning Bucer decisively towards the study of the
Church Fathers and especially the Bible. Bucer’s negative views on monasticism

24
E. Gordon Rupp notes that though Bucer was a Dominican, he did not take higher degrees
in theology, and the question regarding the extent of Aquinas’s influence remains an open one
(Rupp 1978, 379).
25
The critical edition of his correspondence testifies to this (Bucer 1979:1).
26
See letters 3–7, 11, 12, 31, and 34.
27
The list was appended to a letter to the prior of the Dominican Convent in Sélestat: letter 2,
printed in Bucer (1979:1, 42–58). See Greschat’s discussion of this list: Greschat (1975).
86 4 “Ratio seu methodus Martini Buceri”: Bucer’s Prefatory Lectures on Ephesians…

and “sophistry” were almost certainly reinforced by, if not due to, the influence of
Erasmus (Greschat 1976, 48–49). In many ways, Bucer was an Erasmian before he
was a Reformer. He positively identified himself with Erasmus in ways he never did
with either Aquinas or the scholastic method generally. While we cannot deny that
scholastic method had some role in his development as a theologian, it is hard to
avoid the conclusion that for his later career it was less important than biblical
humanism and the example of Erasmus.
Yet for all the importance of Erasmus for Bucer’s early formation, we should
acknowledge (however briefly) the role of Martin Luther as well. The dual legacy of
Luther and Erasmus for the early Reformers, including Bucer and others from
southwest Germany and Switzerland, is one that can be difficult to sort out.28 It is
clear after the Heidelberg Disputation of 1518 that Bucer was increasingly drawn to
Luther, as were many of his generation who were already aspiring biblical humanists.
Yet this does not mean that Erasmus did not have an initial primacy over Luther for
Bucer and others on the level of method. Future Reformers such as Bucer were
already under the influence of Erasmus before Luther emerged as the leading evan-
gelical theologian in Germany, and this influence was in terms of a turn towards
exegesis as the primary locus for theology.
It should not be overlooked that Bucer’s initial contact with Luther was condi-
tioned by a wider Erasmian/biblical humanist context. Bucer believed that the cause
of Erasmus and that of Reform were the same because he had himself grown into a
reformist thinker under his influence (Krüger 1970, 68). His report on the Heidelberg
Disputation of 1518 to his correspondent, Beatus Rhenanus, written on 1 May 1518,
gives evidence of his conviction of the nearness of Erasmus and Luther (Bucer
1979:1, 58–71 [Letter 3]). In this, he did not stand alone.29 It is often thought that
the judgment of such as Bucer regarding the common purpose pursued by both
Erasmus and Luther reflects a naïveté, but in fact in the context of the time such a
confusion is entirely understandable if one approaches the practice of the two in
terms of the methodology they employed and their initial stated objectives (Moeller
1982; Spitz 1967). Both men advocated a radical return to exegesis of Scripture as
the primary method of “doing” theology, and both appeared to have a common con-
cern with the centrality of Christ, and both were sharply critical of scholastic method
and result in theology. It was the perception of a common evangelical commitment
that permitted Bucer to ally himself with them both, and to see them as partners in
a common cause. When Erasmus later drew back from the radical implications of his
program, Bucer (like many others of his generation) shifted his primary allegiance
to Luther: or, more properly, to the one who retained a robustly evangelical, biblical
commitment.30 Increasingly, Erasmus was criticized by his erstwhile disciples,

28
See the significant articles of Bernd Moeller and of Lewis Spitz on the “constructive misunder-
standing” among many regarding the relationship between Luther and Erasmus: Moeller (1982);
Spitz (1967).
29
See, for instance, the brief discussion of this point in Augustijn (1991, 132–33).
30
By the same token, the continuing influence of Erasmus upon these men resulted in later tensions
with Luther himself, indicating the dual legacy of both men for the first generation of Protestant
Reformers.
4.2 Bucer, the Rhenish “School” of Exegesis, and Biblical Humanist Method… 87

including Bucer, for his faulty doctrine, but not for his method. To the extent that he
was rejected by them as a theologian—Melanchthon in particular was increasingly
sharp in his criticism of Erasmus31—it was in many ways because of his failure to
espouse evangelical theology, not because of his method per se. It was as if he were
criticized for not following through on the theological trajectory suggested by his
method that made him for his erstwhile followers a “bad” theologian.
To conclude this section, the argument here is that although Bucer’s early educa-
tion was shaped by his Dominican context, it was Erasmus who had the initial for-
mative influence for Bucer (and many others) on the level of method (both exegetical
and theological), a method that was reinforced and turned to decisively evangelical
ends by Luther’s practice and example—and in this Luther’s influence ultimately
overshadowed the influence of Erasmus. Yet in this respect, we are no longer speak-
ing of method alone, but of content as well, and here Luther was clearly the decisive
influence.

4.2 Bucer, the Rhenish “School” of Exegesis, and Biblical

Humanist Method in the Teaching of Theology

The earliest concrete evidence of Bucer’s sympathies with the biblical humanist
emphasis on Scripture in his own practice of teaching theology is found in 1520
while still in the Dominican convent at Heidelberg, when he began lecturing on the
Psalms (rather than lecturing on Lombard’s Sentences) in his capacity as sententarius.32
However, more substantial evidence of Bucer’s commitment is found when he
emerged in 1523 as one of the leaders of Reform in Strasbourg. His activity upon
arrival in Strasbourg set the pattern for his teaching career, centered as it was upon
the exposition of the Bible—not only in the popular forum as a preacher, but also in
the more academic forum of the lecture hall.33
In both respects, Bucer became part of a group of young biblical humanists
turned evangelical Reformers who had links to Erasmian piety and intellectual
method, a group that extended beyond the walls of Strasbourg and along the upper
Rhine into Switzerland.34 The influence of Erasmus and other biblical humanists
produced among this group of scholars a theology that was intensively biblical and

31
On this point, see especially Wengert (1998).
32
Although he was within his rights to lecture on the Bible, it was by his day the customary practice
to lecture on Lombard. Bucer met with resistance from his students, who complained that such
lectures did not prepare them for examinations (Greschat 2004, 33). It is interesting to note that in
Cambridge at roughly the same date, William Stafford followed the same pattern of lecturing, and
met with similar complaints from his auditors (see above, Sect. 2.2.2).
33
For the basic details of Bucer’s early career in Strasbourg, see Greschat (2004, 47–85).
34
On the links between humanism and the first generation of German-speaking Reformers, see
Moeller (1982); Spitz (1967).
88 4 “Ratio seu methodus Martini Buceri”: Bucer’s Prefatory Lectures on Ephesians…

focused on “ecclesial praxis” (Lang 1900, 35).35 This group has been described as a
“Rhenish school”, and was one of several “schools” of exegetical method that
emerged in the early years of the Reformation.36 Bucer’s development and matura-
tion as a biblical scholar and theologian, as well as a teacher of theology, took place
broadly within the intellectual context of this “school”.
Theological education was a significant focus in the developing Reformation in
Strasbourg.37 From early on, evangelicals sought to provide for the direct theological
instruction of the next generation of clergymen, and in this activity Bucer took the
lead.38 Shortly after his arrival in Strasbourg, he was publicly lecturing on the
Gospel of John in German, and then privately on the Letters to Timothy and Titus in
Latin, in both cases without official sanction; by the end of 1523, he had been
appointed (after an initial hesitation) by the city council of Strasbourg as a salaried
lecturer on the New Testament. Once formally established, the success of these
public lectures was such that Bucer and his earliest fellow-laborer, Wolfgang Capito,
were obliged to move their venue from Capito’s house (where the lectures were first
given) to the Carmelite monastery, and later the Dominican monastery (Eells 1931,
10–18; Greschat 2004, 55–56, 79–83; Chrisman 1967, 260–261). The subject mat-
ter of these theological lectures was invariably the Bible. At the outset, Bucer and
Capito lectured on alternate days, Bucer on the New Testament, Capito on the Old
Testament.39 Bucer taught on the Pauline epistles (specifically the Pastoral Epistles,
Colossians, and Ephesians), then on Matthew and John. He subsequently turned to
the Old Testament and lectured on Psalms and then Exodus (Eells 1931, 46–7, 65;
Greschat 2004, 81–82). It seems that over the course of his time in Strasbourg that
Bucer also lectured on Leviticus, Job, Ecclesiastes, Micah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Acts,
1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, and James (Schindling 1977, 342).40

35
On Erasmus and the Rhenish Reformers, see Kohls (1969).
36
The works of Roussel and Hobbs are fundamental to this subject. Unfortunately, little has been
done to follow up on their work. See: Roussel and Hobbs (1989); Roussel (1988). Most recently,
Hobbs has described the “school” (2007, 452–487). On the various “schools” of interpretation, see
Roussel (1989), and the contribution of Backus (1996).
37
A good, short survey is found in Chrisman (1967, 260–275); see also: Ficker (1912); Schindling
(1977, especially 341–357). A recent discussion is found in Hobbs (2009, 40–49). Many of the
formal statutes establishing education in Strasbourg are available in Fournier and Engel (1894, 4/1:
3–54). The relevant documents are 1962–2004. In what follows, references shall be to page
number(s), and then document number.
38
Among the several useful works on this, see: Chrisman (1967, 260–261, 266–267); Kohls (1963,
15–22); Strohl (1939c, 95–113); Schindling (1977, 341–357); Lienhard (1988).
39
Schindling (1977, 28), characterizes the content of the lectures as biblical theology He also noted
the non-systematic, non-scholastic character of Strasbourg lectures in theology, and the practice of
biblical exegesis and theology were influenced, or at least similar to, Erasmus (341–342).
40
The manuscripts were destroyed in the burning of the University Library in 1870. Schindling
(1977), provides a helpful summary of the principal instructors during Bucer’s tenure on the
following pages: Bucer (341–346); Capito (346–349); Caspar Hedio (349); François Lambert
(349–350); Calvin (350–352); Paul Fagius (352); Peter Martyr Vermigli (352–356); and Johannes
Marbach (356–357).
4.2 Bucer, the Rhenish “School” of Exegesis, and Biblical Humanist Method… 89

The lectures were gradually incorporated into the developing educational

establishments (Chrisman 1967, 266–268),41 taking on a more permanent shape in
the Strasbourg Gymnasium of 1538. The document that specified the curricular con-
tent for the Gymnasium in its first year included, under the heading Lectiones publicae,
lectures by Bucer on Leviticus, Capito on Isaiah, and Hedio on Mark, as well as a
lecture by Calvin on Philippians (Fournier and Engel 1894, 4/1: 31–32, doc. 1988).42
In 1547, the Lectiones publicae on Scripture were given by Peter Martyr Vermigli
on Leviticus, Bucer on Isaiah, Paul Fagius on Genesis, and Johannes Marbach on
Colossians (Fournier and Engel 1894, 4/1: 53–54, doc. 2004). It must be noted that
these lectures were styled lectures in theology, and no other topics are listed for
theological instruction apart from lectures on the Bible.
Whereas in earlier versions of the statutes for the Gymnasium relatively little was
said about theology, the revision of the statutes for the Gymnasium drafted in 1545
included a greater emphasis on theological education, and the pattern of the lectures
in theology was clearly that of Rhenish biblical humanism (Fournier and Engel 1894,
4/1: 53, doc. 2003). This is one of the few instances to this date where the shape of
theological education finds extended expression in the Strasbourg statutes, and what
is said is expressly focused on the exposition of the Bible. Henri Strohl points to the
fact that this was at Bucer’s direction, and the statutes thus give us a concrete instance
of Bucer’s own thinking on the matter (Strohl 1939a, 16).43 It is notable that the in the
relevant section, which appears under the heading Officium Theologorum (Fournier
and Engel 1894, 4/1: 50, doc. 2003), it was directed that the theological lectures be on
the Old Testament and New Testament. The books specified are Genesis, Exodus,
Deuteronomy, Judges, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah and the lesser Prophets, the Psalter,
Matthew, John, the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles (Fournier and Engel 1894,
4/1: 50, doc. 2003).44 Further, it is stated that lecturers “should above all diligently
explain [the Bible] according to the letter” of the text—hence, in the good biblical
humanist manner of grammatical-historical exegesis (Fournier and Engel 1894, 4/1:
50, doc. 2003).45 In the case of the Old Testament, lectures should be based on the
Bible in the original Hebrew; for the New Testament, the Greek (Fournier and Engel
1894, 4/1: 50, doc. 2003). With respect to the teaching of theology in these lectures, it
was to be based on the loci communes as they were drawn from Scripture and in the
course of the exposition of Scripture, not as a separate exercise or series of lectures.46

41
See also Hobbs (2009, 46–49), who provides a concise discussion.
42
It is noted in the document that Calvin is to read in theology, thus providing a further linkage
between the task of expounding Scripture and teaching theology.
43
See also Strohl (1937).
44
“Die sollen, uber das in gemeinen articlen von dem ampt publicorum professorum, versehen dass
täglich im alten und neuen Testament werde treulich gelesen....”
45
“…sollen sie vor allem den buchstaben fleissing erclären....”
46
It is true that the same statute also mandates the use of disputations and dialectic, but here we
should bear in mind the caution of Mordechai Feingold noted in 2.3 above. In any case, the form
of dialectic to be employed is a humanistic form, and “no absurd propositions” are to be the subject
of debate.
90 4 “Ratio seu methodus Martini Buceri”: Bucer’s Prefatory Lectures on Ephesians…

It is important to emphasize again that the biblical lectures noted above were
given as much as lectures in theology as they were lectures on the interpretation of
a given book, for theology in the Rhenish biblical humanist tradition was nothing
less (and nothing more) than the exposition of biblical teaching with as little admix-
ture as possible of anything external to the biblical text itself. There were no lectures
along the lines of academic or scholastic theology as it was described in Chap. 2
above. In this respect, Bucer (among others of his “school”) heeded Erasmus’s plea
for a reorientation of theology away from a focus on abstract, speculative questions
and towards one centered on exegesis of the Bible, and he put this call into practice
through his method of biblical commentary.
In summary, it is evident that Bucer was very much a part of the Rhenish “school”
of exegesis and theology, a school which invites further study by historians than it
has received to date. And beyond and behind this “school”, there is the figure of
Erasmus, whose influence was felt by Bucer from his earliest days as a pupil and
student, and through whom Bucer was introduced into the wider world of
Renaissance humanism. These influences are manifest in each of the areas that we
have considered above. From the time that he emerged as a leading Reformer in
Strasbourg, lecturing on the Bible was the predominant occupation of his academic
career. In his prescriptions for the structure of the theological curriculum that would
shape future generations of pastor-theologians, the linkage between exegesis and
theology was equally clear. Bucer gave evidence of the conviction that theology
arose from a direct engagement with the text of Scripture, and that the task of bibli-
cal interpretation and theological formulation should not be practiced separately,
much less in isolation from one another. His 1550/1 lectures on Ephesians are thus
of a piece with his earlier work in the exposition of Scripture and the teaching of
theology, and reflect his continued commitment to the program of biblical humanism
for the practice of theology in an exegetical context. In the light of what we have
considered in this section, it is little wonder then that Bucer should have found the
Cambridge Injunctions so congenial when he set out to lecture on Ephesians in
1550, and that in his prefatory lectures he should have set forth a method that was
essentially that of biblical humanism.

4.3 Bucer’s “Ratio” of 1550

Bucer’s prefatory lectures divide into three unequal parts. First, he gave his reasons
for choosing to teach on the letter to the Ephesians, in the course of which he ful-
filled what he regarded to be the customary obligation of teachers to praise the
author and the book which they have undertaken to teach (Bucer 1562, 5A).
In respect of this obligation, he felt his task somewhat unnecessary in view of the
fact that the ultimate author was the Holy Spirit, Who was in no need of the praise
of Bucer or anyone else in order to establish a rationale for studying what He wrote
(Bucer 1562, 5A). Hence, Bucer chose instead to explain why the letter was espe-
cially worthy of close attention by those who sought instruction in sacred doctrine
4.3 Bucer’s “Ratio” of 1550 91

(Bucer 1562, 5A–8D).47 Second, he undertook to set forth and defend the method he
intended to follow in these lectures. This was the lengthiest section of the lectures,
and exhibits several features that mark his method as that of biblical humanism
(Bucer 1562, 8D–14E). Third, he pointed to his obligation not only to teach the
doctrines of Scripture, but to impress upon his auditors their need actively to receive
that doctrine and put it into practice—to be transformed in their lives by the knowl-
edge they acquire from the study of Scripture (Bucer 1562, 14E–16E).
In the prefatory lectures as a whole, but especially in the first two sections, we
encounter Bucer’s final statement of his principles of biblical interpretation,48 and in
all three sections, his commitment to the program of biblical humanism.49

4.3.1 Ephesians as a Compendium of Doctrine

It was largely in the first portion of his lectures that Bucer addressed introductory
issues such as the authorship, setting, and purpose of the letter, but this was not his
primary concern in the circumstances. Instead, Bucer seemed most intent to justify
the focus of his lectures upon one of the shorter Pauline epistles, and (in light of the
mandate of the Cambridge Injunctions) to justify the teaching of theology on the
basis of Scripture without recourse to any other source. In respect of both of these
latter issues, he gave clear evidence of his conviction that the letter was a compen-
dium of doctrine ideally suited to the situation he faced in Cambridge. Bucer firmly
believed that what was needed by his hosts was a clear statement of the fundamental
doctrines of salvation, and in his view Ephesians provided just such a statement.50
With respect to these introductory issues, Bucer’s lectures testify to his deploy-
ment of the biblical humanist method that can be observed in Erasmus and the
Rhenish “school.” Yet as we shall see, Bucer’s discussion of the introductory issues was
subservient to his larger goal in this portion of the lectures. He identified the Apostle

47
In fact, Bucer does fulfil the customary obligation in this section of the preface, contrary to what
he states at the outset.
48
In what follows, the intent is not to offer a full discussion of Bucer’s principles of biblical inter-
pretation, but instead only an elucidation of what he states in the Praelectiones. There is a need for
a fresh study of the broader subject. Müller (1965) remains the most comprehensive study. For
various aspects of this subject, see also: Hobbs (1978); Hobbs (1984); Lang (1900); Noblesse-
Rocher (2010); Pak (2010, 55–75); Roussel (1977); Roussel (1993); Selderhuis (1999, 272–287);
Stephens (1970, 142–155); Tait (2008); Timmerman (2007); Wright (1998); and Wursten (2010,
183–215).
49
As noted at the outset of this chapter, reference will be made at appropriate points to the Rhenish
“school” and Bucer’s earlier career, as well as to the program of Erasmus as found in the Ratio.
Attention will also be drawn to how other interpreters handled some of the introductory exegetical
details.
50
The dedicatory letter of Tremellius to Nicholas Throckmorton (Bucer 1562, 3C–4A) seems to
suggest this: “Therefore he treats here many notable topics of doctrine and respectable morals,
whose explication he foresaw as applying to us.” [Ideo multos hic insignes doctrinae & honesto-
rum morum locos tractat, quorum explicationem…ad nos pertinere praevidit.]
92 4 “Ratio seu methodus Martini Buceri”: Bucer’s Prefatory Lectures on Ephesians…

Paul as the proximate author of the letter in his capacity as an “assistant” [administer]
to the Holy Spirit, Who was the ultimate author (Bucer 1562, 5A).51 Though Bucer
stressed the divine authorship of Scripture, he did not advance a simple dictation
theory of inspiration, as becomes evident in the remarks that follow; rather, he dwelt
on the Pauline (and hence human) authorship of the letter, and upon Paul’s standing
as a pastor-theologian addressing his original audience (just as Bucer was addressing
Cambridge in 1550).52
Bucer emphasized the importance of the historical context of the letter, for he
believed it to have been written by Paul while a prisoner at Rome awaiting execution
(Bucer 1562, 5B, 7B).53 It is in his discussion of this historical context that we see
how the larger goal of Bucer’s prefatory lectures emerges, for he argued that in this
letter Paul conveyed to the Ephesians (and to the Church at large) a final statement
of doctrine, thus composing in the letter a compendium of Christian doctrine, in
which he summed up all that he had taught them in the past.
[Paul]…wrote it as (so to speak) a most perfect commentary on the entire doctrine of Christ
in which might be contained everything he had ever taught the Ephesians or others.54 (Bucer
1562, 5B)

In support of this point, Bucer referred to Paul’s previous relationship with the
Church at Ephesus, and especially to his meeting at Miletus with the elders of the
Ephesian Church as related in Acts 20. There, Bucer noted, Paul declared that dur-
ing the time he labored among them, he held nothing back that might have been of
use to their salvation and their new life in Christ; indeed, he declared to them the
whole counsel of God (Bucer 1562, 5B).55 Furthermore, Paul’s status as a con-
demned prisoner served to underscore the letter’s character as a summary statement
(Bucer 1562, 5B, 7C).56

51
We will return to the issue of divine authorship shortly. None of the exegetes with whom Bucer will
be compared below suggested that anyone else wrote the letter. However, Erasmus did note that the
style of the letter was different from other letters of Paul (Erasmus 1535, 591/Dd2 recto). Bullinger
took note of Erasmus’s observation, without further comment (Bullinger 1539, 404/L4 verso).
52
Generally speaking, Bucer maintained that the individual authors of the biblical text, account of
whom must be taken by the exegete in the practice of interpretation, did not invent the message
they transmitted; but the words which they used to transmit it were their own (Roussel 1993).
Roussel goes on to note that Bucer never formulated a proper theory of the inspiration of the
human authors of the Bible.
53
The observation that Paul was a prisoner was an exegetical commonplace. One can observe here
a stress on the historical context that was characteristic of Erasmus as well (Erasmus 1519, 24/
[Bb6] verso; Erasmus 1964, 196).
54
“…scripsit…ceu doctrinae Christi totius absolutissimum quoddam commentarium, in quo inesset
quicquid unquam sive Ephesios, sive alios docuisset.” Bucer said much the same in his 1527
Commentary (Bucer 1527, A5 recto), where he gave similar reasons to those of 1550 for why he
chose to expound the epistle, which he thought was particularly appropriate to the needs of Strasbourg.
55
Bucer referred again to this meeting, and stressed how in the narrative in Acts 20 Paul himself
refers to having taught the Ephesians the whole counsel of God (Bucer 1562, 7C).
56
Though other commentators took note of the fact that Paul was a prisoner, only Bucer saw substan-
tial significance in this with respect to the nature of the letter. Bullinger comes close to saying some-
thing similar, though without Bucer’s particular emphasis seen here (Bullinger 1539, 404/L4 verso).
4.3 Bucer’s “Ratio” of 1550 93

Bucer’s point seems to be that because the letter is a summation of Paul’s teaching,
it is perfectly suited to the task at hand, which was to teach theology directly from
Scripture. It provided in short compass all the essential doctrines for the Christian
life. Bucer believed this to be self-evident from the text of the letter itself:
Who, having once diligently and religiously read through this letter, may not see how rich
it is with the doctrine of Christ, with the doctrine of eternal salvation, so that it teaches and
explains all the principal topics [loci] of our religion, yes with few words, but with [words]
incredibly clear, eloquent, full, and far from all obscurity?57 (Bucer 1562, 5C)

Bucer proceeded to reinforce his argument that the letter is a compendium of doc-
trine by summarizing its contents, chapter by chapter, in order to draw attention to
the structure of the letter and the points of doctrine treated within each chapter.58
Hence, while this outline of the text served much the same purpose as the traditional
accessus, it also served the purposes of his wider argument in the prefatory
lectures.
Bucer argued that the first chapter begins with the fundamental starting point of
God’s eternal election of believers in His Son, the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
(Bucer 1562, 5C–6D). Next there comes a discussion of the nature and strength of
faith [fides]. The chapter concludes with the doctrine of the Church, in the course of
which Paul is said to describe the Kingdom of Christ (Bucer 1562, 6D).59
In the second chapter, Bucer found that Paul takes up original sin, and then turns
to the restoration and justification of believers by the grace of God in Jesus Christ.
Bucer noted as well a discussion [locus] on good works, to which the elect have

57
“Quis enim non videat, qui hanc epistolam, vel semel diligenter & religiose perlegerit, quam
dives illa sit doctrinae Christi, doctrinae salutis aeternae, ut principes religionis nostrae locos
omnes, paucis quidem verbis, tamen incredibiliter perspicuis, disertis, plenis, procul omni ambigu-
itate & obscuritate doceat & explicet?” These words are reminiscent of Bugenhagen’s Argumentum
Epistolae: “Haec epistola paucis quidem verbis, sed mire foecundis, ita ut nihil addere queas:
summam totius praedicationis Paulinae, atque adeo evangelicae complectitur” (Bugenhagen 1524,
A2 recto).
58
A similar summary is found in Bucer (1527, [A7] verso-[A8] verso). However, Bucer does not
draw attention to the loci of Paul’s epistle in the earlier commentary, though he observed the pres-
ence of many of the same subjects in what Paul wrote. Aquinas provided a very brief outline of the
letter as a whole (Aquinas 1541, 169 verso/y i verso; Aquinas 1953, 2: 3). Erasmus offered a very
brief “Argument” (Erasmus 1532, 206–207/S verso-S2 recto; Erasmus 1706, 7: 971–972).
Bugenhagen gave only the briefest of outlines, and then provided a list of the eight loci covered in
Paul’s epistle, with a note of the chapter(s) in which they appeared (Bugenhagen 1524, A verso
[comment referring to the commentary as an index of Paul’s letters]; A2 recto-A3 recto [list of loci]).
Because of the character of this commentary, the treatment of the letter is considerably briefer,
focusing on the loci with reference to their context in Paul’s argument. Calvin for his part provided
a brief outline of the letter in his Argumentum, in which he concentrates on Chapters 1–4 (Calvin
1965, 121–122; Calvin 1548, 105–106/h recto-h verso). Bullinger’s outline is similarly brief, divid-
ing the letter in two: a doctrinal section (Chs. 1–3), and a section of moral exhortation based on the
doctrine (Chs. 4–6) (Bullinger 1539, 404/L4 verso). Because of the length and prominence of
Bucer’s summary in the prefatory lectures, he conveyed a greater sense of the letter as a treatise.
59
While Bucer did note Paul’s emphasis on election and predestination in the 1527 Commentary,
there was no similar attention given to the Church in as direct a manner, and his treatment of
faith was in the context of the opening verses of the letter and tied to his discussion of election.
See Stephens (1994, 47–8).
94 4 “Ratio seu methodus Martini Buceri”: Bucer’s Prefatory Lectures on Ephesians…

been fashioned for the glory of God, works which God had prepared beforehand.
The flow of the epistle then turns to the relationship of the people of God in the New
Testament (including contemporary believers) with the people of God in the Old
Testament. Bucer argued that Paul declares both to be the one people of God;
Christians have been joined to the people of Israel into one temple.60 In the same
discussion (Bucer noted) Paul explains that Christ is our peace, and that in Him one
people has been formed. The chapter concludes with Paul’s teaching on how the
Mosaic ceremonial Law has been abolished (Bucer 1562, 6D-E).
In his summary of the argument of Chap. 3, Bucer identified Paul’s central con-
cern to be with the mystery of the grace of God, specifically with how believers
have been made with Christ to be co-heirs of God and partakers of the gifts of God.
He noted that Paul also deals with the power of faith [fides] and in what way faith
differs from trust [fiducia]. Bucer stressed that these things are taught so that believ-
ers will more fully comprehend the love of Christ for them and thus live in its light.
He does not, however, explicitly identify any topics or loci in this chapter (Bucer
1562, 6F).
In Chap. 4, however, Bucer did discern additional loci in Paul’s “compendium,”
first noting one on the unity of the Church, and then one on the various forms of the
sacred ministry that underlie that unity. In both instances, the kind of life believers
are to live was plainly a key concern of Bucer (as he found it to be a key concern of
Paul). This led to the final locus of the chapter, dealing with the Christian life—spe-
cifically, the putting off of the old and the putting on of the new (Bucer 1562,
6F–7A).61 Bucer’s summary of the letter concluded with a swift overview of Chaps.
5 and 6, wherein he noted that Paul set forth the precepts that govern family life, and
then taught further about the Christian life with reference to the whole armor of
God, and the relationship of individual members of the Church to one another
(Bucer 1562, 7A).
Bucer then returned to the principal point he sought to establish by means of this
survey of the contents of the letter: it is a full compendium of the essential doctrines
of the faith. He declared:
You see, O most excellent listeners, how great a treasury of the Christian doctrine of eternal
salvation, how great the light and abundance of understanding, worshiping, and enjoying

60
This points us to Bucer’s understanding of the organic relationship between the Old and New
Testaments, which was one of the distinguishing features of his thought. In a lengthy discussion in
his 1530 Gospels commentary prompted by Matthew 5:19 on the binding validity of the Moral
Law, Bucer made clear he firmly believed that the message of the Testaments was “the same in
substance” [idem in substantia est]: both spoke of the same God, and the peoples of each Testament
(Israel of the Old and the faithful of the New Testament) are both His people (Bucer 1530, 48
verso/h6 verso). See the comments on this point in Müller (1965, 201). A recent discussion of
Bucer’s views on the unity of the two testaments is found in Pak (2010, 57–59).
61
A striking difference between this outline and that in the commentary of 1527 is that in the latter
Bucer observed no similar emphasis on the sacred ministry, whereas he did note the other two of
Paul’s emphases. He did draw attention to the references to various forms of office in the Church,
however (Bucer 1527, [A8] verso).
4.3 Bucer’s “Ratio” of 1550 95

God rightly—which is eternal life—that the Holy Spirit presents to us in this letter.62
(Bucer 1562, 7B)

Bucer acknowledged that the letter was written within a specific context and
addressed in the first instance to a particular audience, but the implicit thrust of his
argument is that it was more than an occasional letter: it was a treatise of Paul, it was
a concise statement of Apostolic doctrine. It was written as “an exposition of the
whole teaching of salvation” [commentarium totius doctrinae salutis] (Bucer 1562, 7B).
As such, it was as relevant for mid-Tudor Cambridge as it was when first written.
We observe here a fundamental assumption of Bucer regarding Scripture: every-
thing (including Ephesians) was written propter nos.63 It is evident that Bucer
believed one could not ask for a better summary of the Christian faith in short com-
pass than one finds in Ephesians. The letter is truly “an incomparable gift of God”
[incomparabile Dei donum], and for all the reasons stated—its divinity, its Pauline
authorship, its character as a compendium of essential doctrine—Bucer chose to
lecture upon it in his capacity as Regius Professor of Divinity (Bucer 1562, 7B).

4.3.2 The Particulars of Bucer’s Method

Having set forth to his satisfaction the reasons that led him to lecture on Ephesians,
Bucer returned to the question of the method he intended to employ: “However,
I judge that I must say something concerning the faithfulness, which I shall strive to
show, and the method, which I shall strive to follow, in explaining this letter” (Bucer
1562, 8D).64 The method that he followed resonated with that of the biblical human-
ism of Erasmus, but also as it was found in the Rhenish “school.”65 This is true not
only with respect to method narrowly understood—the application of the tools of
humanist learning—but also with respect to matters such as the clarity of Scripture
(critical to teaching theology on the basis of Scripture alone) and the spiritual state
of the individual interpreter.66 These three features were interwoven in Bucer’s
“ratio” of 1550.
In the course of his treatment of method, it is clear that he set himself to make a
positive statement and to engage in a refutation of what he perceived to be the errors

62
“Videtes, optimi auditores, quantum doctrinae Christianae, sempiternae felicitatis thesaurum,
quantam scientiae Deum rite cognoscendi, colendi, & fruendi, quae est vita aeterna, lucem &
copiam nobis Spiritus sanctus in hac epistola exhibeat.”
63
On this feature of Bucer’s thought, see Müller (1965, 142ff).
64
“Dicendum autem mihi arbitror nonnihil de fide, quam praestare, & ratione, quam sequi studebo,
hanc epistolam explanando.” The 1527 Commentary does not have a like discussion.
65
For more on the former, see Amos (2003); for more on the latter, see Amos (2004).
66
All these features can be discerned in the biblical humanism of both Erasmus and the Rhenish
“school.” However, it should be acknowledged that while Erasmus initially emphasized the clarity
of Scripture, in the course of his debate with Luther in 1525 he retreated from his earlier stance.
This emphasis in Bucer reminds us of the evangelical character of his biblical humanism.
96 4 “Ratio seu methodus Martini Buceri”: Bucer’s Prefatory Lectures on Ephesians…

of the Catholic opposition at Cambridge.67 It was for this reason that he made
several fundamental points regarding the doctrine of Scripture, with reference both
direct and indirect to the stance of his opponents within the University as well as to
Catholic doctrine more generally. All of these statements, therefore, would have
served to heighten the immediate impact of his lectures and the electricity of the
occasion. Moreover, his method overall demonstrates the close connection in
Bucer’s practice between the exposition of Scripture and theological formulation.

4.3.2.1 The Clarity of Scripture

Bucer held to the clarity of Scripture as a foundational principle of theology, but

with reference to Scripture as a whole; it is evident that he did not maintain this to
be true of every verse when read on its own. He began with a declaration that “since
the whole of [Scripture] has been dictated and transmitted by the Holy Spirit,” he
would develop his exposition of Ephesians as far as possible on the basis of the let-
ter itself, calling upon other books of Scripture to elucidate what might be unclear
(Bucer 1562, 8D).68 In this we can see one of the fundamental assumptions that
underlay Bucer’s interpretation of a particular verse or passage, an assumption that
was characteristic of biblical humanism (if not necessarily unique to it): the exegete
should use Scripture to interpret Scripture.69 He qualified this application of the
principle sola scriptura in an important respect. In his reading and interpretation of
the Bible, Bucer indicated his intention to turn to the Church Fathers and thus to
the exegetical tradition.70 He was careful to note that he would follow the Fathers

67
In this respect, there is a difference between these lectures and his 1527 commentary. The latter
was directed primarily against Anabaptist doctrine (though Catholic doctrine is also in view) and
reflected the nature of the struggles between the leaders of Reform in Strasbourg and those of the
Anabaptist and Spiritualist wings of the Reformation. See Stephens (1994, 46). On the setting of
the 1527 Commentary, see Roussel (1987).
68
The close link of Scripture and the Holy Spirit was an important feature of Bucer’s thought from
early on in his career, and resonates with a similar emphasis in Erasmus, but also the work of fel-
low Reformers such as Zwingli, and we will return below to this point and what it meant in practical
terms. In his work against the Catholic Treger in the 1520s, Bucer was emphatic that not only was
Scripture the supreme source of doctrine, but that the Holy Spirit was the supreme judge in its inter-
pretation: “Therefore to the Scriptures, to the Scriptures, to the Scriptures, they are the rule and
guiding principle, but the judge is the Holy Spirit” [Darumb ad scripturas, zůr geschrifft, zůr
geschrifft, die is die regel und richtschnůr, der richter aber der heylig geist] (Bucer 1524, Oii recto).
69
He returns to this principle later (Bucer 1562, 11C and 14D). Irena Backus suggests that Bucer’s
employment of the principle was due in no small part to the influence of Erasmus, who used it
throughout his own work (Backus 1988, xlii). See Erasmus (1519, 24 and 58/[Bb6] verso and
[Ee5] verso; Erasmus 1964, 197 and 291–292). On the latter leaf/pages he advocates the use of
loci, and the use of Scripture to interpret Scripture. See also Roussel (1988).
70
On Bucer’s use of the Church Fathers, see especially Backus (1993) and Backus (1997). In his
funeral oration, Matthew Parker commented on Bucer’s deep knowledge of “the most old and
ancient authors, and of the most approved writers of all ages” (Parker 1551, D vi recto). In this
connection, it is worth noting that Parker and Bucer shared a deep interest in the Fathers, as wit-
nessed by CCCC MS 418: a common-place book of Bucer, now known as Florilegium Patristicum,
4.3 Bucer’s “Ratio” of 1550 97

insofar as their interpretations are drawn forth from and are in agreement with the
Holy Spirit (that is, with Scripture), but at the same time he also indicated his belief
that the consensus of the “Old Churches” [veterum Ecclesiarum] was guided by
the Holy Spirit, and served to confirm the proper interpretation in the minds of the
faithful (Bucer 1562, 8E).71
Bucer’s repeated stress on the clarity of Scripture was a prominent feature of the
prefatory lectures, and constituted the polemical context for Bucer’s statements on
the centrality of Scripture, which extended to its own interpretation. He declared
that it was his aim to demonstrate that he is far removed from a grave error he per-
ceived in his Catholic opponents in these matters: namely, their determination to
interpose the teaching authority of the Church between the people and the Word of
God. In what was effectively an excursus on the clarity of Scripture, Bucer was keen
to attack the claim that the Scriptures are too difficult for the people of God to
understand, put forth by those who
dare to contend that the Divine Scriptures are so obscure, so ambiguous, that their certain
and salutary sense must be derived not from [the Scriptures] themselves but only from the
commentaries of the Holy Fathers and from the authority of the Church.72 (Bucer 1562, 8E)

He insisted to the contrary that the Bible is to be read by everyone, and that this
claim had divine warrant: “thus He [that is, God] has commanded His sacred books,
which are all contained in the Gospel, be read by everyone” (Bucer 1562, 8E).73
In a move that may have been calculated to annoy his Catholic auditors, Bucer even
called upon Pope Gregory the Great for support, noting that this revered Pontiff
called the sacred books the universal epistle of God addressed to His creatures
(Bucer 1562, 8E). If God wrote this letter in such a way that it was full of ambiguity
and obscurity, how could it serve its salvific function? To insist on such obscurity
was, in Bucer’s view, the blasphemy he declared it to be at the outset of this section
(Bucer 1562, 8E–F).
Bucer maintained in his lectures that the Scriptures are fundamental to the
knowledge each individual should possess of salvation. It is, he repeated, a folly
and indeed a blasphemy to teach that God does not hand on the knowledge of the

to which Matthew Parker also contributed. It is a compilation of extracts from Canon Law and the
Church Fathers on a variety of ecclesiastical issues. There is now a critical edition of this piece
(Bucer and Parker 1988).
71
Erasmus enjoined the use of the Fathers in interpreting Scripture, but not in such a way that they
would supplant the direct reading of Scripture itself (Erasmus 1519, 59–60/[Ee6] recto-verso;
Erasmus 1964, 295).
72
“…audent contendere, Divinas scripturas sic esse obscuras, sic ambiguas, ut certus earum &
salutaris sensus, non ex ipsis, sed tantum ex narrationibus sanctorum patrum, atque ab Ecclesiae sit
autoritate petendus.”
73
“…ita praecepit sacros suos libros, qui Evangelio omnes continentur, legi ab omnibus.” Note the
affinities between this statement and Erasmus’s famous call in the Paraclesis (the introduction to
his Novum Instrumentum) for the right of the laity to read and understand Scripture for themselves
(Erasmus 1519, 8/Aa4 verso; Erasmus 1964, 142).
98 4 “Ratio seu methodus Martini Buceri”: Bucer’s Prefatory Lectures on Ephesians…

doctrines of salvation with clarity and certainty (Bucer 1562, 8F–9A).74 In support
of this, he cited Psalm 18 [Vulgate numbering] and 2 Timothy 3:16 (Bucer 1562,
8F–9A). Because of the clarity of the Scriptures, what more, Bucer asked rhetori-
cally, could one want apart from them? If, as the Bible itself teaches, it furnishes
believers with all knowledge, wisdom and instruction and guides them in their
lives before God, “what further do you require, either of light or certitude” (Bucer
1562, 9A)?75
Bucer readily admitted that many individuals misread Scripture, but he argued
that it was the frailty of human nature that prevents some from acquiring a proper
understanding, not the presumed obscurity or ambiguity of the text. He noted that
for all the clarity of the works of Hippocrates, Plato, Demosthenes, Cicero, Galen,
and of Justinian’s Pandects, the interpretation of all these works is disputed by
some, and misunderstood by others. He observed parenthetically that this does not
therefore mean that only a few should be allowed to read them (Bucer 1562, 9A).
However (he asks), if individuals have difficulty in reading these profane works, is
it not to be expected that the sacred writings will pose a challenge, since the
Scriptures clearly require that they be read with a mind renewed by the Spirit
(Bucer 1562, 9A)?76 He concluded his point with an exhortation:
Let us not, therefore, ascribe to the divine books themselves, and to the Holy Spirit Himself
besides, that weakness in ourselves which is from the feebleness of our mind, from our
lukewarmness in prayer, from our negligence in consecrating ourselves to the principles of
God.77 (Bucer 1562, 9B)

The difficulties faced by readers of the Bible are due not only to the frailty and limi-
tations of human intellect, but are all too often the result of sin.

4.3.2.2 The Spiritual State of the Interpreter

This led Bucer to a pronounced stress on the need for spiritual renewal in the inter-
preter, a stress that has strong affinities to the program of Erasmus as found in his
Ratio (Erasmus 1519, 14 and 15/Bb verso-Bb2 recto and Bb2 recto; Erasmus 1964,
179 and 180). To read Scripture aright, Bucer declared,
these three things must be present in you: a soul [animus] wholly confirmed to do what you
have read; ardent prayers for the Spirit who interprets the Scriptures; and, the spirit of the

74
Note again the affinity of this sentiment with that of Erasmus in the passage of the Paraclesis just
mentioned above.
75
“…quid praeterea requiras, vel lucis, vel certitudinis?” In arguing for the sufficiency of Scripture,
Bucer raised a subject that would furnish the first thesis at issue in his disputation with Young,
Sedgwick and Perne in the Summer of 1550. The thesis, as printed in Hubert (1577, 712): “Primum.
Canonici libri docent soli abunde renatos, quae sint saluti, omnia.”
76
An allusion to 1 Corinthians 2: 14–15. He returned to this point at 10E.
77
“Ne igitur quod vitii inest nobis a mentis nostrae imbecillitate, a tepore precandi, a remissa nostri
ad placita dei consecratione, divinis ipsis libris, ipsique adeo spiritui sancto adscribamus.”
4.3 Bucer’s “Ratio” of 1550 99

flesh being restrained, a mind [mens] listening to the Holy Spirit as conscientiously as
possible.78 (Bucer 1562, 9B)

For all the difficulties there may be in reading the Scriptures as a whole, Bucer was
insistent that in terms of the fundamentals of salvation, all that is needful can be
known by every believer through a reverent and prayerful reading of the Bible.
The spiritual state of the interpreter is crucial, perhaps more important than tech-
nical ability. Bucer argued that the two things one needs to understand the heavenly
philosophy [philosophia caelestis] are “an ability to understand its first principles,
and a desire to know which surely follows from them” (Bucer 1562, 10D).79
However, the ability to understand the first principles of the “heavenly philosophy”
is one that is born of moral and spiritual regeneration, and is not a natural ability
(Bucer 1562, 10D–E).80 Bucer quoted a number of Scriptural texts to undergird his
point: 1 Corinthians 2: 14–15; Matthew 16:17; Luke 24:45ff; Acts 16:14; Psalm
119; Ephesians 1:17–18 (Bucer 1562, 10D). Bucer summarized these Scriptural
passages by stating that however naturally talented the interpreter may be, the work
of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the believer is fundamental to the understanding of
Scripture:
From these and similarly clear testimonies of the Holy Spirit one may learn quite clearly
that however clever and zealous men are in other things, they can understand absolutely
nothing at all rightly and plainly in divine literature, unless they are mentally enlightened
by heavenly light, and given a new spirit, the Spirit of God, the Spirit of true wisdom.81
(Bucer 1562, 10E)

He declared a little further on that it was because Porphyry, Galen, Libanius, and
others (including those of Bucer’s own age) lacked—on account of their unbelief—
the indwelling Holy Spirit that they were unable to obtain a true understanding of
Scripture and were therefore fierce in their attack on those who sought to declare its
teaching. Being wise in their own eyes, they were blind to the things of God (Bucer
1562, 10E). Access to the Holy Spirit is through prayer, and the process of interpre-
tation involves the Trinity:

78
“At nisi tria haec adsint tibi, animus faciendi quae legeris omnino confirmatus, preces pro spiritu
interprete scripturarum ardentes, & represso spiritu carnis, mens Spiritui sancto auscultans quam
religiosissime....”
79
“…ingenio intelligendi prima eius principia, & studio cognoscendi, quae ex his certo consequantur…”
Bucer’s use of the phrase “heavenly philosophy” has resonances with Erasmus’s philosophia
Christi, and Erasmus himself used the phrase “heavenly philosophy” in his Ratio (Erasmus 1519,
14 and 28/Bb verso and Cc2 verso; Erasmus 1964, 178 and 204).
80
This is an emphasis that was significant in Erasmus: for instance, Erasmus (1519, 8 and 14/Aa 4
verso and Bb verso; Erasmus 1964, 141–142 and 179).
81
“Ex his et similibus clarissimus testimoniis Spiritus sancti evidentissime sane cognoscitur, homines
quantum vis alias ingeniosos et studiosos, nihil tamen prorsus posse in divinis literis recte & plane
intelligere, nisi illuminati sint mente, luce caelesti, & donati spiritu novo, spiritu Dei, spiritu verae
sapientiae.”
100 4 “Ratio seu methodus Martini Buceri”: Bucer’s Prefatory Lectures on Ephesians…

In the same manner let us, with all the saints, unceasingly pray [to receive] from the
Heavenly Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ, [for] the Spirit of God’s sons, the Spirit
that searches out the deep things of God.82 (Bucer 1562, 10E)

With reference to the Lord’s Prayer, Bucer emphasized that a spirit of repentance
and a zeal for the Kingdom must be foremost in the minds of those who seek to read
Scripture (Bucer 1562, 10E–F).

4.3.2.3 Pious Learning, Learned Piety83

In the course of this discussion of spiritual renewal and the need for piety in the
interpreter, Bucer began to turn to the question of the proper method to use in read-
ing and interpreting the Scriptures, and he gradually returned to discussing the
method (narrowly speaking) that he sought to employ in his lectures.
Furthermore, just as the other arts can never be thoroughly learned by those who lack either
the talent for learning the principles of each skill, or the zeal for examining closely what,
true or false, one may conclude from those principles, so also in order to grasp the heavenly
philosophy, these two things are needed: an ability to understand its first principles, and a
desire to know which surely follows from them, and what otherwise.84 (Bucer 1562,
9C–10D)

Every science and art has its method: so too does the reading of Scripture.
Clearly the interrelationship of personal piety and the application of proper
method are inseparable in Bucer’s prefatory lectures, and in this respect he demon-
strated another clear affinity with the program of Erasmus. While on the one hand
Bucer stressed the dependence of the reader of Scripture upon the Author of the text
for its interpretation (that is, the Holy Spirit), on the other hand he was careful to
emphasize the need for hard and diligent study to be applied “to this worthy knowl-
edge, the knowledge I say of salvation and eternal life” (Bucer 1562, 10F).85 It is an
arduous task he had in view, one that requires much of those who undertake it (Bucer
1562, 10F).86 In pursuit of a right understanding of this knowledge, Bucer urged that

82
“Proinde cum sanctis omnibus oremus assidue a patre caelesti, per Dominum nostrum Iesum
Christum, spiritum filiorum Dei, spiritum perscrutatorem profundorum Dei.” Compare this with
Erasmus (1519, 14 and 15/Bb verso and Bb2 recto; Erasmus 1964, 179 and 180).
83
The title for this section is borrowed from James Tracy’s discussion of the pedagogical program
of Erasmus (Tracy 1996, 21). Tracy notes that the original phrase (pia doctrina et docta pietate)
occurred in the letter of Erasmus to Paul Volz that appears in the 1518 edition of the former’s
Enchiridion militis christiani.
84
“Porro sicut caeteras artes nunquam possunt perdiscere, quibus deest vel ingenium cuiusque
scientiae principia cognoscendi, vel studium pervestigandi, quid ex principiis illis vere concludas,
an falso: ita etiam ad percipiendam philosophiam caelestem, his duabus rebus opus est, ingenio
intelligendi prima eius principia, & studio cognoscendi, quae ex his certo consequantur, & quae
secus.”
85
“…hac dignum scientia, scientia inquam salutis & vitae aeternae.”
86
A point made by Erasmus (1519, 59/[Ee6] recto; Erasmus 1964, 294).
4.3 Bucer’s “Ratio” of 1550 101

“all the divine books must be read and re-read and meditated upon day and night”
(Bucer 1562, 10F).87 Bucer had to this point clearly emphasized the right of all
believers to read Scripture for themselves, but he nevertheless maintained that pious
scholars must bring erudition to bear upon the Word if the Church was to grow in its
understanding of Christian doctrine and to advance in the Christian life.88 In this con-
nection, he stressed the tremendous value of a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew to
the reading of the Bible, and he urged that both of them “must be thoroughly learned”
[perdiscendae sunt] by those who have the ability to learn languages (Bucer 1562,
10F).89 To those who persevere in learning the sacred languages, the Heavenly Father
will disclose from the texts themselves “as clearly and solidly as possible…the nec-
essary dogmas of the sacred Scriptures, and the first principles of the knowledge of
salvation” (Bucer 1562, 10F).90 Somewhat later in these lectures, Bucer noted the
knowledge of Hebrew will enable the learned interpreter to understand the phrasing
and idiom of poetic expressions, thus making clear what otherwise is obscure (Bucer
1562, 11[B]).91 Near the end of the prefatory lectures, he returned to this point,
underscoring the need for attention to the properties of the holy languages [linguae
sanctae], each of which must be learned by his auditors (Bucer 1562, 14D).
Bucer then raised several literary issues related to interpretation. In respect of
poetic language, he did allow that there are passages in the Prophets which are
“briefly and poetically spoken” [breviter et poetice dicta], and “thus indeed with
ambiguous words” [ita verbis sane ambiguis] (Bucer 1562, 11[A]).92 Nevertheless,
Bucer asserted that those interpreters who properly [probe] held to divine doctrines—
such as he had been stressing to this point—are able properly [probe] to consider
passages where a prophet has said something uncertain, if they do so with reference
to the aim [scopus] of the prophet in both the specific passage and in the book as a
whole (Bucer 1562, 11[A]). In any case, whatever meaning one may draw “from
these ambiguous sayings of the seers of God” [ex flexiloquis illis vatum Dei dictis]
must contribute to the establishment of piety. Bucer was emphatic that while there
will be specific passages where the meaning will continue to elude the interpreter,
there is no ambiguity regarding the doctrines of salvation, nor are these doctrines
affected by the uncertainties in some of the Prophetic books or other similar texts
(Bucer 1562, 11[A]).

87
“…legendi sunt divini libri omnes, & relegendi, ac meditandi dies & noctes.” Erasmus also
stressed the need to read all of Scripture (Erasmus 1519, 57/[Ee5] recto; Erasmus 1964, 286).
88
For the more unskilled [rudiores], Bucer argued a little further on that the Holy Spirit uses the
Decalogue, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Apostles’ Creed, along with the institution of Baptism, the
Eucharist, and ecclesiastical discipline to build them up in knowledge and life (Bucer 1562, 10F).
89
This was another point of contact with Erasmus (1519, 15/Bb2 recto; Erasmus 1964, 181). With
respect to the Rhenish “school,” see Roussel (1988, 39), and the discussion in Sect. 4.2 above, and
Amos (2004, 142–151).
90
“…revelat quam clarissime & solidissime…necessaria sacrarum scripturarum dogmata, & prima
scientiae salutis principia.”
91
This echoes Erasmus (1519, 49/Ee recto; Erasmus 1964, 266).
92
See the similar comments of Erasmus (1519, 20, 48, and 49/Bb4 verso, [Dd6] verso, and Ee
recto; Erasmus 1964, 190, 259 and 266).
102 4 “Ratio seu methodus Martini Buceri”: Bucer’s Prefatory Lectures on Ephesians…

In fact, Bucer took a positive view of difficult passages, seeing in them what was
effectively an admonition against our ingratitude towards the riches of Scripture, an
ingratitude that has resulted, through human indolence towards the Bible, in the loss
“of almost countless renowned books of the Prophets and of Solomon” [innumeri
prope praeclari libri Prophetarum et Salomonis] (Bucer 1562, 11[A]). We should
note that in this we see Bucer’s high regard for the Old Testament, in which he
believed there are “such rich and overflowing veins of the teaching of salvation that
we could never exhaust them by our study” (Bucer 1562, 11[A]).93 Further, Bucer
referred to Augustine’s opinion that texts of an uncertain meaning [sensus ambigui]
were intended by the Holy Spirit to bear more than one sense in order to build up the
faith, although he hastened to add that these senses are all in agreement with the aim
[scopus] and purpose of the prophets as these are clear in other places (Bucer 1562,
11[A]).94 Bucer noted as well Augustine’s argument that as the Holy Spirit has cho-
sen to feed believers through opening up the meaning of the Scriptures, so He uses
the difficult passages to stir up the faithful to study more carefully the whole of the
Bible (Bucer 1562, 11[A]).95 Difficult passages serve to remind us as well of the
feebleness of the human mind; if there are things that cannot be understood, the dif-
ficulties should be attributed to ourselves and not to the text or to the Author of the
text, who is the Holy Spirit (Bucer 1562, 11[B]).

93
“…venis doctrinae salutis tam divitibus & redundantibus, ut exhaurire nos illas nullo nostro
studio possemus.”
94
It is interesting that Bucer has nothing to say here directly about the employment of allegorical
interpretation, which in the exegetical tradition was often resorted to in the explanation of difficult
passages from the Old Testament. For his very sharp critique of allegorical interpretation, see
Bucer (1946, 32–75). There, Bucer recognized the antiquity of the practice, and that it had been
employed by many—including a few of the “learned and good men” of his own day [hodie doctis
et bonis aliquot], perhaps referring to Erasmus. However, he concluded that he would prefer to see
it abolished, for it is indeed the “cunning of Satan” [callidam Satanae] that turns us “away from
the true and efficacious warnings and examples of Christ” [a veris et efficacibus Christi monitis et
exemplis] (Bucer 1946, 56); Latin text reprinted by permission of the publisher. Although he was
in principle opposed to allegorical interpretation, he did not rule it out entirely. On occasion, he
grudgingly admitted that the term “allegory” did in fact occur in the text of Scripture, and that in
certain limited circumstances the employment of the method could be countenanced. He was
reluctant to do so, and placed severe restraints upon the practice, preferring to keep to simplicity
and a straightforward reading of the text. Notice should be taken of the fact that Bucer did employ
another method of figurative interpretation: typology. In his 1527 Ephesians commentary, he
included a discussion of “Rule to be observed in interpreting Scripture” [Canon observandus inter-
pretandi scripturis], in which he described this method (Bucer 1527, 101 recto-103 recto/N5 recto-
[N7] recto). This followed his treatment of Ephesians 5:22–33. (Note, he did not include a like
statement in his Cambridge lectures.) Bucer also provided a more extensive discussion in his 1528
commentary on John (Bucer 1528, 79 recto-87 verso/[K7] recto-[L7] verso); the locus is identified
in a list of loci on the verso of the commentary title page as “De typicis expositionibus scripturae,
de certis allegoriis, vel anagogis.” See the modern critical edition as well (Bucer 1988, 142–157).
For a brief discussion of both, see Wright (1998, 161–162), upon which I am here reliant.
95
Erasmus made a similar point in Ratio (Erasmus 1519, 24 and 48/[Bb6] verso and [Dd6] verso;
Erasmus 1964, 197 and 259–260), suggesting that Christ used such language to provoke thinking
about His teaching. He also argued that difficulties such as apparent contradictions in Scripture
served to call for even more intensive study to resolve the problems (Erasmus 1519, 58/[Ee5]
verso; Erasmus 1964, 292).
4.3 Bucer’s “Ratio” of 1550 103

Bucer then turned to the principle of interpreting a text within its wider literary
context. He again pointed out that no one is able to understand difficult texts without
reference to the mind of the author, and thus one should study obscure texts with
reference to the scope and the style of the author as seen in other passages in the
same book or in other books of the same author (Bucer 1562, 11[C]).96 It was, he
argued, in this way that the Church Fathers interpreted Scripture, both in Church
Councils and in their own writings. In either case, they stressed that whatever they
themselves have written must be judged according to Scripture itself—not, Bucer
alleged, as was the case with the Popes, who claimed the reverse (Bucer 1562,
11[C]–12[D]).97
With this last point, Bucer turned yet again to the issue of the clarity of Scripture
and to the stance of his Catholic opponents, who (he said) argued that chaos would
result if everyone is allowed to interpret Scripture for themselves apart from the
authority of the Church: in such a situation, it was said, there will be as many
interpretations of the Bible as there are interpreters. They strenuously argued
that the authority of the Church is the only safeguard against such a circumstance
(Bucer 1562, 12[D]). Bucer was careful to stress that he venerated the Church—to
the extent that she is dependent upon the Word of her Bridegroom—and valued the
decrees of the Church as found in the consensus of teaching represented by the Symbols,
that is, the Apostolic, Nicene and Chalcedonian Creeds (Bucer 1562, 12[D]).98
He acknowledged that these Symbols set forth the principal doctrines of Scripture,
and to that extent provide a guide in the reading of Scripture: “Because these
[the doctrines set forth in the Symbols] are the principal dogmas/doctrines of the
divine Scriptures, and serve as the first axioms of the knowledge of the Scriptures,
we use these rules scrupulously in every interpretation of the Scriptures” (Bucer
1562, 12[D]).99
But Bucer’s point was that the doctrines found in the Symbols are subordinate
to the Bible, they are rooted in the Bible, and thus they are compendia of biblical
doctrines—hence, they have value only to the extent that they present teaching that
is fundamentally biblical teaching. Bucer argued that the Church did not devise

96
As we shall see in our examination of the lectures themselves, Bucer made clear that his primary
intention in interpreting the text was to determine what was the aim or intention [scopus] of the
author. He stressed elsewhere that this should be the task of every interpreter; for instance, Bucer
(1946, 58). This scopus would vary from book to book, but inasmuch as the Bible had one ultimate
author, all interpretation of Scripture should have as its aim the setting forth what he believed to be
the scopus of the Holy Spirit—to build up believers in their knowledge of the faith, a belief that
was true of Bucer throughout his career. He returned to this point later in the lectures, when he
stressed the need for attention to the style or diction [phrasis] of each of the writers of Scripture
(Bucer 1562, 14D). For the Rhenish “school” on this, see Roussel (1988, 39).
97
In an addition first found in the 1522 edition of the Ratio, Erasmus noted that Augustine did not
wish his own writings to be read any differently than the writings of other authors (and by implica-
tion, they were not to be accorded the authority held by Scripture): see Erasmus (1964, 205).
98
In an addition first found in the 1520 edition, Erasmus similarly noted the importance of the
Apostles’ Creed, though stressing it as subordinate to Scripture (Erasmus 1964, 211).
99
“His quia primaria sunt divinarum scripturarum dogmata, & ut primis scientiae Scripturarum
axiomatis, iis tamquam regulis in omni Scripturarum interpretatione religiose utimur.”
104 4 “Ratio seu methodus Martini Buceri”: Bucer’s Prefatory Lectures on Ephesians…

these doctrines independently of Scripture (Bucer 1562, 12[D]). Moreover, that the
Church was enabled to compose such documents was due to the presence of Christ
in its midst. Alluding to Matthew 18:19–20 and Romans 12:6ff, Bucer offered the
crucial qualification that the Church he venerated was the true Church as it was
guided by the Holy Spirit: “In the same way, indeed, we gladly admit that a true
understanding and interpretation of the Scriptures is maintained only in the true
Churches of Christ, just as the Holy Spirit was promised to these alone, and now
guides them” (Bucer 1562, 12[E]).100
With respect to the relationship between the Church and the individual believer,
Bucer further stressed that the Church is not to be understood as the institutional
structure, but rather as consisting of all believers, each of whom has the Holy Spirit
as guide. He therefore refused to permit the institutional Church to claim for itself
the authority to rule on the interpretation of Scripture to the exclusion of the indi-
vidual believer’s right and duty to read and interpret (Bucer 1562, 12[F]).101 As with
individuals, so too the Church was dependent upon the Holy Spirit for guidance in
interpreting the Bible. As with individuals, so it was equally true that the Church
apart from the Holy Spirit was as prone to error (Bucer 1562, 12[F]). Likewise,
neither the Church collectively nor believers individually were able to arrive at a
correct understanding by natural ability. Both can be deceived and both are guilty of
deceiving others; he referred to Psalm 116, noting that the Holy Spirit called every
man in the world false (Bucer 1562, 12[F]).102 However, by these admissions Bucer
did not want it to be understood that he believed a true interpretation of the Scriptures
to be beyond believers (individually or collectively), and that the meaning of the text
will always be uncertain: “Far from it!” [Absit] (Bucer 1562, 12[F]). No, it was the
role of the Holy Spirit, “the divine and only paraclete” [divinus et solus paracletus]
who in the interpretive process would lead the Church and individual believers into
all truth. Bucer did admit that heretics make the same claim, but he was confident
that believers will not be led astray by them. True believers are known by their Lord,
they know His voice, they follow Him, and thus His doctrines, an allusion to John
10 (Bucer 1562, 12[F]–13A).
Bucer repeated again a point he made several times earlier: the true and certain
knowledge of Scripture of which he has been speaking is that relating to the “teachings
necessary for salvation” [in necessariis ad salutem dogmatis]; these were available
to all (Bucer 1562, 13A). He goes on to imply that there are some doctrines that are
not as essential to salvation as others when he referred to “other [doctrines], of which

100
“Ac proinde quidem libenter fatemur, nonnisi in Ecclesiis Christis veris, veram Scripturarum
intelligentiam atque interpretationem haberi, ita ut his solis Spiritus sanctus promissus est, &
moderatur.”
101
This conviction resonates with the “Paraclesis” of Erasmus (1519, 8/Aa4 verso; Erasmus 1964, 142).
102
As we have seen above in Sect. 3.1.2, in the Summer of 1550 Bucer would argue (against Young,
Sedgwick and Perne), that there is no Church on earth without error. This was the second of three
theses at issue (Hubert 1577, 712): “Secundum. Nulla est in terris Ecclesia, quae non erret, tam in
fide, quam in moribus.” No doubt his comments here and in his locus on the Church at the end of
Ephesians 1 (especially Bucer 1562, 45A–47A) excited the anger of his opponents.
4.3 Bucer’s “Ratio” of 1550 105

certain and undoubted knowledge is not required as necessary for salvation”

[caeteris…quorum notitia certa & indubia ad salutem non requiritur necessario]
(Bucer 1562, 13A). Indeed, he went so far as to allow for differences among the
faithful in regards to such non-essential matters, provided that these differences do
not result in a departure from the “first and necessary doctrines of our religion”
[primis & necessariis religionis nostrae dogmatis] (Bucer 1562, 13A).103
The centrality of Scripture to method and theology is manifest in these lectures.
Bucer argued that the method he has been describing was that of the Apostles and
the Apostolic Churches. By this method alone they were able to hold to Christ’s
teaching, for “this [teaching] can be obtained and preserved by no other methods”
[nec ea aliis rationibus potest obtineri & conservari] (Bucer 1562, 13B). For this
reason, he argued,
let us follow the same [methods], so that we seek all certain interpretation of the Scriptures,
and all right understanding of the doctrine of Christ, from the very Spirit and Word of God.
[…] Moreover, let us test everything through the Word of God, that we may keep those
things which are truly of God.104 (Bucer 1562, 13B-C)

Bucer stated again that he would not spurn the exegetical tradition of the Church—
the Apostolic Churches, the Councils, the Church Fathers. All will be reverently
read. But at the same time, all will be judged according to Scripture (Bucer 1562,
13B–C). Somewhat later in the lectures, he made clear that he did not want anyone
to think that when he took the judgments of the Fathers and measured them against
the Word of God that he in any way held the Fathers in contempt. Instead, he does
so because of his respect for Scripture, and he argued that the Fathers themselves
called for the same action (Bucer 1562, 14E).
Bucer exhorted his listeners to test everything, including what he has said, by the
same standard—the Word of God: “you ought both to examine [everything] according
to the Word of God, and to judge as accurately as possible” [debetis, et ad verbum
Dei exigere et diiudicare quam accuratissime] (Bucer 1562, 13C). He urged upon
his auditors—as those who join him in valuing the Word of God above all human
writings—to read and re-read the Scriptures with the “greatest scrupulousness”
[religione summa], and “from these alone let us strengthen faith and the knowledge
of the first doctrines, and the catechism of common topics of our religion” (Bucer
1562, 13C–14D).105

103
He also urged that in such discussions and disagreements, there was a need for mutual love and
respect—a fundamental point of his teaching regarding life within the Church from the very begin-
ning of his career (Bucer 1562, 13A–B). This has affinities with Erasmus’s remarks in the Ratio,
added in 1520, about the need for avoiding contention in sacred studies (Erasmus 1964, 246).
104
“Easdem igitur et nos sequamur, ut omnem certam Scripturarum interpretationem, cunctamque
doctrinae Christi iustam intelligentiam ab ipso Dei spiritu & verbo petamus. […] Probemus autem
per verbum Domini omnia, ut quae vere Dei sunt, retineamus.”
105
“…atque ex his solis fidem nobis et cognitionem primorum dogmatum, et locorum communium
religionis nostrae catechismum confirmemus.”
106 4 “Ratio seu methodus Martini Buceri”: Bucer’s Prefatory Lectures on Ephesians…

Bucer then proceeded to summarize for his audience the chief points of the
method he had been advocating:
And [for] those whose duty is to learn more exactly individual books, let them diligently
observe in the case of each book its common topics [locos communes], and repeatedly look
back to them in considering other topics. Let them also properly observe the style of each
author, and the properties of holy language, which must be studiously learned. And yet let
them compare as studiously as possible what they appear to have learned by this way (again
and again adding their prayers) with the primary dogmas of our religion, with the aim [scopus]
of the Sacred Scriptures and the idioms of holy language, until the Holy Spirit, who alone
leads into all truth, seals on the mind of the [scholar] the sense and teaching [of the book],
and renders [that teaching] certain.106 (Bucer 1562, 14D)

There is in this a blending of learning and piety that is characteristic of biblical

humanism, and of Erasmus in particular.107
At this point, Bucer was effectively done with his statement of method. Surveying
what he had said to this point, he declared: “I recognize this as truly the only salu-
tary method of both learning and teaching the divine Scriptures” (Bucer 1562,
14D).108 He declared that he would therefore strive to explain everything that was to
follow in his lectures from the words of the Apostle Paul, both in the letter to the
Ephesians and in other of his letters (Bucer 1562, 14D). He would also consult the
work of other exegetes, for “if anything has been explained well by others, indeed
I should not defraud them of their praise and honorable mention” [tum si quid elu-
cidatum probe sit ab aliis, illos quidem laude sua & mentione honorifica non
fraudare] (Bucer 1562, 14D). Nevertheless, God’s Word remains central, and com-
mentaries upon it and pronouncements drawn from it should be read with reference
to the Word to see “whether the interpretation is a necessary conclusion or only a
probable one” [sive ea interpretatio conclusa sit necessario, sive tantum probabiliter]
(Bucer 1562, 14D). Bucer recognized the value of those conclusions in theology
that were only probable, but as with all things in theology, they ought to be referred
“to the first principle of theology: God has spoken” (Bucer 1562, 14D–E).109

106
“Ac quibus singulos libros cognoscere exactius in officio est, hi cuisuque libri, & locos eius
communes diligenter observent, & ad eos identidem in considerandis caeteris locis respiciant:
phrasim quoque cuiusque scriptoris, & linguae sanctae proprietatem, quae propterea studiose dis-
cenda est, probe animadvertant. Et tamen quod hoc pacto didicisse videbuntur, iterum ac iterum
adiunctis precibus, cum primariis religionis nostrae dogmatis, scopo sacrarum scripturarum et lin-
guae sanctae idiomatis quam studiosissime conferant, donec Spiritus sanctus, qui solus inducit in
omnem veritatem, suum in animo eius sensum, suamque doctrinam obsignet, & certam reddat.”
Compare with Erasmus (1519, 58/[Ee5] verso; Erasmus 1964, 291).
107
Note also the reference to common topics which, as we will see in Chap. 5, was a key feature of
Bucer’s combination of exegesis and theology, specifically how he did theology in an exegetical
context.
108
“Hanc equidem unicam agnosco rationem divinas scripturas & discendi, & docendi
salutarem.”
109
“Nam & probabila in Theologia, dum non possunt necessario, debent tamen probabiliter, ad
primum Theologiae principium referri, quod est: Deus dixit.”
4.3 Bucer’s “Ratio” of 1550 107

4.3.2.4 From Knowledge to Practice

In the final section of his prefatory lectures, Bucer briefly but powerfully addressed
the close and vital relationship that must obtain between doctrine and practice.
He fervently believed that it was the duty of every interpreter of Scripture to
strengthen the faith of their auditors and to kindle in their hearts a desire for per-
sonal renewal on the basis of what they have learned (Bucer 1562, 14E).110 Scripture
has been given not only for the increase of knowledge of divine truth and of the love
of God in Christ, “but also so that we may daily be transformed into the likeness of
God by renewing our lives according to God’s Word, and ‘may be holy and blame-
less in His sight, in love’” (Bucer 1562, 14F).111
Bucer stressed for his students that correct knowledge of divine things was insuf-
ficient in itself: “by no means ought it be enough for us to have understood what the
Holy Spirit teaches in His writings, so that we can explain very clearly and teach
others” (Bucer 1562, 14F).112 True students of Scripture must also have remorse for
their sins; and “in any case, let us grow continuously into Him who is our Head,
Jesus Christ” [utque crescamus continenter in eum, qui caput est, Christum
Dominum] (Bucer 1562, 14F). Bucer found it a scandal that so many failed in this
regard, and declared that the Lord would fail to recognize them. It is not enough to
hear and teach the truth, but one must also practice it (Bucer 1562, 14F).
Bucer lamented the sad state of religion in his day, where one could find people
who read the Scriptures with care and taught them correctly and sought to guard
them, but nevertheless lived lives that were in flat contradiction of biblical teaching
(Bucer 1562, 15A). This lead him to deplore the lack of Church discipline every-
where, a highly significant concern to Bucer (Bucer 1562, 15A),113 as well as the
practice of clergy holding many benefices and not performing pastoral duties in any
of them (Bucer 1562, 15A–B).

110
Matthew Parker noted Bucer’s constant exhortations in this respect: “you know how he pow-
dered his lessons with weighty exhortations to godly life, and with fatherly increpations [sic] to
have us amend…;” “…his lessons and exhortations could not be but of Godly force” (Parker 1551,
D vi recto-verso). A different perspective is found in the letter of Thomas Horton to Francis
Dryander, 15 May 1550: “Dr. Bucer complains incessantly, both in daily lectures and in his fre-
quent sermons, that we should repent, give up all depraved customs of hypocritical religion, cor-
rect the abuses of feast days, attend as well as give sermons more frequently, that we should be
bound to maintain discipline of some kind. He impresses on us many things of this kind even ad
nauseam et fastidium.” Quoted in Burnett (1994, 216); reprinted by permission of the publisher.
111
“…verumetiam ut ad Dei imaginem, innovatione vitae, iuxta Dei verbum quotidie reformemur,
simusque sancti & irreprehensibiles in conspectu eius, in dilectione.” Bucer quoted from Ephesians
1:4. Compare this with the statement of Erasmus (1519, 15/Bb2 recto; Erasmus 1964, 180): “Let this
be your first and only aim, this your prayer, this your one purpose—that you be changed, be trans-
ported, be inspired and transformed into that which you study.” [Hic primus et unicus tibi sit scopus,
hoc votum, hoc unum age, ut muteris, ut rapiaris, ut affleris, ut transformis in ea, quae discis.]
112
“Proinde haudquaquam nobis satis esse debet intellexisse, quid in scriptis suis docet Spiritus
sanctus, ita ut possimus praeclare de eo disserere, & alios docere.”
113
The best study of this aspect of Bucer’s thought is found in Burnett (1994).
108 4 “Ratio seu methodus Martini Buceri”: Bucer’s Prefatory Lectures on Ephesians…

Bucer concluded these opening lectures with a final recapitulation regarding his
method. He stated that to “the method I declare myself to follow [in explaining the
letter] I have added reasons taken from the Word of God” [rationem sequendam
mihi iudicem, adieci ex verbo Domini causas]. It was his desire that his auditors
would read the letter for themselves with the utmost devotion, and diligently learn
the “principal topics of Christian doctrine, which are so clearly taught within it”
[doctrinae Christianae principes locos, qui tam praeclare in ea docentur] (Bucer
1562, 16D). Bucer closed by asking that prayer be offered to the Lord, so that
He may grant not only that Bucer and his auditors would know the things of the
Lord, but that they will live them as well (Bucer 1562, 16E).

4.4 Conclusion

The “method” Bucer set forth at the beginning of his lectures was a positive state-
ment of biblical humanist method. The connection between his approach to the task
at hand and that of scholars such as Erasmus is clear not only in Bucer’s reference
to the method enjoined by University statutes (Bucer 1562, 14E), but also, as I have
argued, in the substance of the remarks that constituted his prefatory lectures.
Whether or not one chooses to link what Bucer said directly with what Erasmus
wrote, the latter’s biblical humanist program for theology—and that of the Rhenish
“school”—finds resonance in Bucer’s account of the methodology he would employ.
“The foremost goal of theologians is to interpret the divine Scriptures with wisdom,
to speak seriously and effectively of faith and piety, not to reason about trifling
questions…and to inflame the hearts to heavenly things” (Erasmus 1519, 22/[Bb5]
verso; Erasmus 1964, 193).114 This programmatic statement of Erasmus could very
easily be taken as a concise summation of what Bucer set for himself to teach his
students at Cambridge in 1550.
The significance of these prefatory remarks is found not only in what they tell us
about how Bucer intended to proceed in the lecture hall in Cambridge in 1550–1,
but also in the way that they set the context for the exposition of Scripture that fol-
lowed and thus reveal the fundamental assumptions that informed Bucer’s under-
standing of the relationship between exegesis and theology. It is when exegesis
takes place under the terms that he set forth at the outset of his series that it becomes
more than the preliminary task of theology and instead becomes the principal task
of theology.
In one sense, the exposition that followed over the next several months was no
different from that conducted by Aquinas or Calvin or anyone else expounding the
text of Scripture in a classroom. If we approach what Bucer did simply from the

114
As before, I have quoted the English translation found in Hoffman (1994, 20), reprinted by
permission of the publisher. The text of 1519 reads: “At praecipuus theologorum scopus est sapi-
enter enarrare divinas litteras, de fide, non de frivolis quaestionibus rationem reddere, de pietate
graviter atque efficaciter disserere, lachrymas excutere ad coelestia inflammare animos.”
References 109

vantage point of Scriptural exposition, though, we miss the context within which his
exposition took place and the point of the lectures: they were intended as lectures in
theology grounded in the exegesis of Scripture. Bucer’s intent was to teach theology
directly from the text of Scripture, and as guided by the text of Scripture. He did not
turn to a framework for his discussion of theology such as Lombard’s Sentences—
which was banned in Cambridge anyway—nor even Melanchthon’s Loci Communes.
Instead, he turned to the Apostle Paul—not only for the substance of his lectures in
theology, but also the outline of his lectures in theology—and applied the methods
of biblical humanism in the fulfillment of his calling as Regius Professor of Divinity.

References

Adam, Paul. 1967. L’humanisme à Sélestat: L’école, les humanistes, la bibliothèque, 2nd ed.
Sélestat: Impr. Alsatia.
Amos, N. Scott. 2003. New learning, old theology: Renaissance biblical humanism, scripture, and
the question of theological method. Renaissance Studies 17(1): 39–54.
Amos, N. Scott. 2004. Bucer among the biblical humanists: The context for his practice in the
teaching of theology in Strasbourg, 1523–1548. Reformation and Renaissance Review 6(2):
134–154.
Aquinas, Thomas. 1541. Divi Thomae Aquinatis…in omnes beati Pauli Apostoli epistolas com-
mentaria. Paris: A. Girault.
Aquinas, Thomas. 1953. Super Epistolas S. Pauli Lectura, vol. II, ed. P. Raphael, 37–247. Rome:
Marietti.
Augustijn, Cornelis. 1991. Erasmus: His Life, Works, and Influence. Trans. J.C. Grayson. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Backus, Irena. 1988. Introduction to Enarratio in Evangelion Iohannis (1528, 1530, 1536), by
Martin Bucer, ed. Irena Backus. Leiden: Brill.
Backus, Irena. 1993. Martin Bucer and the patristic tradition. In Martin Bucer and sixteenth
century Europe: Actes du colloque de Strasbourg (28–31 Août 1991), 2 vols., vol. 1, ed.
Christian Kreiger and Marc Lienhard, 55–69. Leiden: Brill.
Backus, Irena. 1996. Bible: Biblical hermeneutics and exegesis. In The Oxford encyclopedia of the
reformation, ed. Hans J. Hillerbrand, 152–158. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Backus, Irena. 1997. The reception of the Church Fathers in the West: From the Carolingians to the
Maurists, 2 vols., vol. 2, ed. Irena Backus, 627–660. Leiden: Brill.
Boyle, Marjorie O’Rourke. 1977. Erasmus on language and method in theology. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Bucer, Martin. 1524. Ein kurtzer warhafftiger bericht von Disputationen vnd grantz handel, so
zwischen Cnrat Treger Prouincial der Augustiner, uñ den predigern des Euãgelij z Strassburg
sich begeben hat. Sein des Tregers Sendtbrieff an den Bischoff z Losan. Und hundert Paradoxa
oder wunderreden vom gewalt der Schrifft, Kirchen, unnd Goneilien verteütscht. Schrifftlich
verantwortung und widerlegung der selbigen. Strasbourg: Schott.
Bucer, Martin. 1527. Epistola D. Pauli ad Ephesios, qua rationem Christianismi breviter iuxta &
locuplete, ut nulla brevius simul & locupletius explicat, versa paulo liberiu…In eandem
Commentarius. Strasbourg: s.n.
Bucer, Martin. 1528. Enarratio in Evangelion Iohannis. Strasbourg: Johannes Herwagen.
Bucer, Martin. 1530. Enarrationes perpetuae, in Sacra Quatuor Evangelia. Strasbourg: Georg
Ulricher.
Bucer, Martin. 1542. De vera ecclesiarum in doctrina, ceremoniis et disciplina reconciliatione et
compositione … Responsio ad Calumnias Alberti Pighii…. [S. l., S. n.]
110 4 “Ratio seu methodus Martini Buceri”: Bucer’s Prefatory Lectures on Ephesians…

Bucer, Martin. 1562. Praelectiones doctiss. in Epistolam D. P. ad Ephesios, eximii doctoris

D. Martini Buceri, habitae Cantabrigiae in Anglia, Anno M D.L. et LI. Basel: Petrus Perna.
Bucer, Martin. 1946. Quomodo S. Litterae pro Concionibus tractandae sint Instructio. Revue
d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 26: 32–75.
Bucer, Martin. 1979. Correspondance de Martin Bucer, Tome I (jusqu en 1524), publié par Jean
Rott. Leiden: Brill.
Bucer, Martin. 1988. Enarratio in Evangelion Iohannis (1528, 1530, 1536), ed. Irena Backus.
Leiden: Brill.
Bucer, Martin and Matthew Parker. 1988. Florilegium Patristicum, ed. Pierre Fraenkel. Leiden:
Brill.
Bugenhagen, Johannes. 1524. Annotationes Ioan. Bugenhagii Pomerani in decem Epistolas Pauli,
scilicet ad Ephesios, Philippenses, Colossenses, Thessalonicenses primam et secun. Timotheum
primam & secundam, Titum, Philemonem, Hebraeos. Item Concordia Evangelistarum a
Resurrectione ad Ascensionem domini. Nuremberg: Ioan. Petreium.
Bullinger, Heinrich. 1539. In omnes apostolicas epistolas, divi videlicet Pauli XIIII et VIII canonicas,
commentarii. Zurich: Christoph Froschauer.
Burnett, Amy Nelson. 1994. The yoke of Christ: Martin Bucer and Christian discipline. Kirksville:
Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers.
Calvin, John. 1548. Ioannis Calvini Commentarii, in quatuor Pauli Epistolas: Ad Galatas, Ad
Ephesios, Ad Philippenses, Ad Colossenes. Geneva: Jean Girard.
Calvin, John. 1965. The epistle to the Ephesians. In The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the
Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas
F. Torrance, 121–224. Trans. T.H.L. Parker. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company.
Chrisman, Miriam Usher. 1967. Strasbourg and the reform: A study in the process of change. New
Haven/London: Yale University Press.
Christ-von Wedel, Christine. 2013. Erasmus of Rotterdam: Advocate of a new Christianity.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Eells, Hastings. 1931. Martin Bucer. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Erasmus, Desiderius. 1519. Novum Testamentum omne, multo quam antehac diligentius ab Erasmo
Roterodamo recognitu, emedatum ac translatum … : una cum annotationibus recognitis, ac
magna accessione locupletatis. Basel: Johannes Froben.
Erasmus, Desiderius. 1532. Tomus secundus continens paraphrasim D. Erasmi Roterodami in
omneis epistolas apostolicas. Basel: Johannes Froben.
Erasmus, Desiderius. 1535. Novum Testamentum iam quintam accuratissima cura recognitum a
Des. Erasmo Roter. cum Annotationibus eiusdem ita locupletatis, ut propemodum opus novum
cbrrvideri possit. Basel: Johannes Froben.
Erasmus, Desiderius. 1706. In epistolam Pauli Apostoli ad Ephesios Paraphrasis per Des.
Erasmum Roterodamum. In Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami Opera Omnia, vol. 7, ed. Jean
LeClerc, 972–990. Leiden: Peter Vander Aa.
Erasmus, Desiderius. 1964. Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus: Ausgewählte Werke, ed. Hajo
Holborn and Annemarie Holborn. München: C.H. Beck.
Evans, G.R. 1984. The language and logic of the Bible: The earlier Middle Ages. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ficker, Johannes. 1912. Die Anfänge der Akademischen Studien in Strassburg. Strasbourg: Heitz.
Fournier, Marcel, and Charles Engel (eds.). 1894. Les statuts et privilèges des universités fran-
çaises depuis leur fondation jusqu’en 1789, tome 4/1: Gymnase, Académie, Université de
Strasbourg. Paris: L. Larose.
Greschat, Martin. 1975. Martin Bucers Bücherverziechnis. Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 57: 162–185.
Greschat, Martin. 1976. Martin Bucer als Dominikanermönch. In Bucer und seine Zeit Zeit:
Forschungsbeiträge und Bibliographie, ed. Marijn de Kroon and Friedhelm Krüger, 30–53.
Wiesbaden: F. Steiner.
Greschat, Martin. 1978. Der Ansatz der Theologie Martin Bucers. Theologisches Literaturzeitung
103: 81–96.
References 111

Greschat, Martin. 2004. Martin Bucer: A Reformer and His Times. Trans. Stephen E. Buckwalter.
Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press.
Gumbel, Hermann. 1938. Humanitas Alsatica: Strassburger Humanismus von Jakob Wimpferling
zu Johann und Jakob Sturm. Elsass-Lotharingsches Jahrbuch 17: 1–36.
Heywood, James (ed.). 1840. Collection of statutes for the university and the colleges of Cambridge.
London: William Clowes and Sons.
Hobbs, R. Gerald. 1978. Martin Bucer on Psalm 22: A study in the application of rabbinic exegesis
by a Christian Hebraist. In Histoire de l’Exégèse au 16e siècle: Textes du colloque international
tenu à Genève en 1976, ed. Olivier Fatio and P. Fraenkel, 144–163. Geneva: Droz.
Hobbs, R. Gerald. 1984. How firm a foundation: Martin Bucer’s historical exegesis of the Psalms.
Church History 53: 477–491.
Hobbs, R. Gerald. 1991. Martin Bucer et la Bible/Martin Bucer und die Bibel. In Strasbourg et
l’Europe: Exposition à l’occasion du 500e anniversaire du réformateur strasbourgeois Martin
Bucer 1491–1551, ed. Martin Bucer, 25–32. Strasbourg: Église Saint-Thomas.
Hobbs, R. Gerald. 2007. Pluriformity of early reformation scriptural interpretation. In Hebrew
Bible/Old Testament: The history of its interpretation. Volume II: From the Renaissance to the
enlightenment, ed. Magne Sæbø, in cooperation with Michael Fishbane and Jean Louis Ska, SJ,
452–511. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.
Hobbs, R. Gerald. 2009. Strasbourg: Vermigli and the Senior School. In A companion to Peter
Martyr Vermigli, ed. Torrance Kirby, Emidio Campi, and Frank James III, 35–69. Leiden: Brill.
Hoffmann, Manfred. 1994. Rhetoric and theology: The hermeneutic of Erasmus. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Hubert, Conrad (ed.). 1577. Martini Buceri Scripta Anglicana fere omnia. Basel: Petrus Perna.
Koch, Karl. 1962. Studium Pietas: Martin Bucer als Ethiker. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag.
Kohls, Ernst-Wilhelm. 1963. Die Schule bei Martin Bucer in ihrem Verhältnis zu Kirche und
Obrigkeit. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer.
Kohls, Ernst-Wilhelm. 1969. Die theologische Lebensaufgabe des Erasmus und die oberrhein-
ischen Reformatoren: zur Durchdringung von Humanismus und Reformation. Stuttgart: Calwer
Verlag.
Krüger, Friedhelm. 1970. Bucer und Erasmus: Eine Untersuchung zum Einfluss des Erasmus auf
die Theologie Martin Bucers (bis zum Evangelien-Kommentar von 1530). Wiesbaden:
F. Steiner.
Krüger, Friedhelm. 1993. Bucer und Erasmus. In Martin Bucer and sixteenth century Europe:
Actes du colloque de Strasbourg (28–31 Août 1991), 2 vols., vol. 2, ed. Christian Kreiger and
Marc Lienhard, 583–594. Leiden: Brill.
Krüger, Friedhelm. 1994. Bucer and Erasmus. The Mennonite Quarterly Review 18: 11–23.
Lang, August. 1900. Der Evangelienkommentar Martin Butzers und die Grundzüge seine
Theologie. Leipzig: Dietrich.
Leijssen, Lambert. 1979. Martin Bucer und Thomas von Aquin. Ephemerides Theologicae
Louvanienses 55: 266–296.
Lienhard, Marc. 1988. La Faculté de Théologique Protestante de Strasbourg Hier et Aujourd’hui
(1538–1588): mémorial du 450e anniversaire de la Faculté. Strasbourg: Editions Oberlin.
Lugioyo, Brian. 2010. Martin Bucer’s doctrine of justification: Reformation theology and early
modern Irenicism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McConica, James. 1991. Erasmus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Moeller, Bernd. 1982. The German humanists and the beginnings of the reformation. In Imperial
cities and the Reformation: Three essays, ed. and trans. H. C. Erik Midelfort and Mark
U. Edwards, 19–38. Durham: The Labyrinth Press.
Müller, Johannes. 1965. Martin Bucers Hermeneutik. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus
G. Mohn.
Muller, Richard A. 2003. Post-reformation reformed dogmatics: The rise and development of
reformed orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, Volume 1: Prolegomena to theology, 2nd edn. Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic.
112 4 “Ratio seu methodus Martini Buceri”: Bucer’s Prefatory Lectures on Ephesians…

Noblesse-Rocher, Annie. 2010. “À L’Instar des Prophètes…”. La Rhétorique au Service de la

Prophétie dans le Tzephaniah Epitomographus de Martin Bucer (1528). In Between Lay Piety
and academic theology: Studies presented to Christoph Burger on the occasion of his 65th
birthday, ed. A.A. den Hollander, Wim Janse, Christoph Burger, and Ulrike Hascher-Burger,
235–264. Leiden: Brill.
Pak, Sujin. 2010. The Judaizing Calvin: Sixteenth-century debates over the Messianic Psalms.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Parker, Matthew. 1551. Howe we ought to take the death of the Godly, a sermon made in Cambridge
at the buriall of the noble clerck, D. M. Bucer. London: R. Iugge.
Parker, T.H.L. 1986. Calvin’s Old Testament commentaries. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
Payne, J.B. 1969. Toward the hermeneutic of Erasmus. In Scrinium Erasmianum: Mélanges histo-
riques publiés sous le patronage de l’Université de Louvain à l’occasion du cinquième cente-
naire de la naissance d’Érasme. Historische opstellen gepubliceerd onder de auspiciën van de
Universiteit te Leuven naar aanleiding van het vijfde eeuwfeest van Erasmus’ geboorte.,
2 vols., vol. 2, ed. Joseph Coppens, 13–49. Leiden: Brill.
Peremans, Nicole. 1970. Érasme et Bucer d’après leur correspondance. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Rabil Jr., Albert. 1993. Erasmus and the New Testament: The mind of a Christian humanist.
Lanham: University Press of America.
Rott, Jean. 1939. L’Humanisme et la Réforme Pédagogique en Alsace. In L’Humanisme en Alsace,
ed. Association Guillaume Budé, 64–82. Paris: Société d’édition “Les Belles Lettres.
Roussel, Bernard. 1970. Martin Bucer, Lecteur de l’epître aux Romains. Dissertation, Strasbourg.
Roussel, Bernard. 1977. Martin Bucer Exégète. In Strasbourg au coeur religieux du XVIe siècle:
hommage à Lucien Febvre: actes du Colloque international de Strasbourg, 2--9 mai 1975, ed.
Georges Livet and Francis Rapp, 153–166. Strasbourg: Librairie Istra.
Roussel, Bernard. 1987. Martin Bucer Tourmenté par les “Spiritualistes”: L’Exégèse Polémique de
l’Epître aux Ephésiens (1527). In Anabaptistes et Dissidents au XVIe siècle. Actes du Colloque
Internatinal Stuttgart, 1987, eds. Jean Rott and Simon Verheus, 413–447. Baden-Baden and
Bouxwiller.
Roussel, Bernard. 1988. De Strasbourg à Bâle et Zurich: Une “École Rhénane” d’exégèse ca.
1525 – ca. 1540. Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 68: 19–39.
Roussel, Bernard. 1989. La Bible de 1530 à 1600. In Bible de tous les Temps 5: Le temps des
Réformes et la Bible, ed. Bedouelle Guy and Roussel Bernard, 125–305. Paris: Beauchesne.
Roussel, Bernard. 1993. Bucer Exégète. In Martin Bucer and sixteenth century Europe: Actes du
colloque de Strasbourg (28–31 Août 1991), 2 vols., vol. 2, ed. Christian Kreiger and Marc
Lienhard, 39–54. Leiden: Brill.
Roussel, Bernard, and R.G. Hobbs. 1989. Strasbourg et l’École Rhénane d’exégèse (1525–1540).
Bulletin de la Société de l’Histoire du Protestantisme Français 135: 36–53.
Rummel, Erika. 1986. Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament: From philologist to theolo-
gian. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Rupp, E. Gordon. 1978. Philip Melanchthon and Martin Bucer. In A history of Christian Doctrine,
ed. H. Cunliffe-Jones and B. Drewery, 371–383. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Schindling, Anton. 1977. Humanistische Hochschule und freie Reichsstadt: Gymnasium und
Akademie in Strassburg, 1538–1621. Wiesbaden: Steiner.
Selderhuis, H.J. 1999. Marriage and Divorce in the Thought of Martin Bucer. Trans. John Vriend
and Lyle D. Bierma. Kirksville: Thomas Jefferson University Press.
Spitz, Lewis W. 1967. The third generation of German Renaissance humanists. In Aspects of the
Renaissance: A symposium, ed. Archibald R. Lewis, 105–121. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Stephens, W.P. 1970. The holy spirit in the theology of Martin Bucer. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Stephens, W.P. 1994. The church in Bucer’s commentaries on the Epistle to the Ephesians. In
Martin Bucer: Reforming church and community, ed. David F. Wright, 45–60. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
References 113

Strohl, Henri. 1937. Théologie et humanisme à Strasbourg au moment de la création de la Haute-

École. Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 17: 435–456.
Strohl, Henri. 1939a. Bucer, humaniste chrétien. Paris: Librairie Alcan.
Strohl, Henri. 1939b. Bucer Interprète de Luther. Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses
19: 223–261.
Strohl, Henri. 1939c. L’Influence de l’humanisme sur l’enseignement de la théologie à Strasbourg
dans la première moitiée du XVIe siècle. In L’Humanisme en Alsace, ed. Association Guillaume
Budé, 95–113. Paris: Société d’édition “Les Belles-lettres”.
Strohl, Henri. 1956. L’activité scientifique de Bucer. Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses
36: 122–135.
Tait, Edwin W. 2008. The law and its works in Martin Bucer’s 1536 Romans commentary.
In Reformation readings of Romans, ed. R. Ward Holder and Kathy Ehrensperger, 57–69.
London: T & T Clark.
Timmerman, Daniel. 2007. Martin Bucer as interpreter of the Old Testament: A re-examination of
previous scholarship in light of Bucer’s Enarrationes in librum Judicum (ca. 1540). Renaissance
and Reformation Review: Journal of the Society for Reformation Studies 9(1): 27–44.
Tracy, James D. 1996. Erasmus of the Low Countries. Berkeley: University of California Press.
University of Cambridge. 1785. Statuta Academiae Cantabrigiensis. Cambridge: Typis Academicis
Excudebat J. Archdeacon.
Van’t Spijker, Willem. 1996. The Ecclesiastical Offices in the Thought of Martin Bucer. Trans.
John Vriend (text) and Lyle D. Bierma (notes). Leiden: Brill.
Wengert, Timothy. 1998. Human freedom, Christian righteousness: Philip Melanchthon’s exegeti-
cal dispute with Erasmus of Rotterdam. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wright, David F. 1972. Martin Bucer 1491–1551: Ecumenical theologian. In Common places of
Martin Bucer. Abingdon: Sutton Courtenay Press.
Wright, David F. 1998. Bucer, Martin. In Handbook of major biblical interpreters, ed. Donald
K. McKim, 157–164. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press.
Wursten, Dick. 2010. Martin Bucer’s Hermeneutics. In Clement Marot and religion: A reassess-
ment in the light of his Psalm paraphrases, 183–215. Leiden: Brill.
Chapter 5
“An Exposition of the Whole Doctrine
of Salvation:” Bucer’s Deployment of Biblical
Humanist Method and the 1550 Ephesians
Lectures as a Whole

True to the terms of his appointment, Bucer spent the whole of his tenure as Regius
Professor of Divinity lecturing on the Bible, specifically the Letter to the Ephesians.
In the view of at least one of his auditors, Matthew Parker, the lectures were a rare
combination of profound biblical learning and theological acumen, in which Bucer
made the exposition of Scripture central to the task of theology:
And for the manner of handling the causes he took in hand, with what profundity of learn-
ing and conferring and expending first and principally the Holy Scriptures; and as he was
able and did wade in them, by the great knowledge he had in all three tongues, [he] declared
it to appear a full and absolute and sufficient doctrine, to prove all doctrine of salvation, to
improve all doctrine of error, sufficiently able to make the man of God whole and perfect in
all good works. (Parker 1551, D v verso; Hubert 1577, 890)

Indeed, Parker was also struck by the comprehensiveness of the exposition of

Ephesians—not so much as an exercise in biblical commentary (though that was no
doubt the case), but in respect of weighty matters of Christian doctrine. As we noted
before, he declared Bucer to have taught:
of election and grace, of faith and works, of original corruption of our nature, of justification,
of the abrogation of the Law, of the church, of the ministration therein of the word, of
Sacraments, of discipline, of the offices of all estates and such like. (Parker 1551, E viii
recto-verso; Hubert 1577, 890)

In view of Parker’s eulogy, it would seem that Bucer fulfilled the requirements of
the Cambridge Injunctions according to letter and spirit, and was true to the biblical
humanist method he set himself to follow in his lectures. He taught theology almost
exclusively from Scripture alone, and he made clear that the exposition of Scripture
was central to the task of theology, even that it was the chief task of theology.
Having examined Bucer’s statement of methodology in his Praefatio and seen
that it was an expression of the program of biblical humanism for the practice of
theology and exegesis, we will now analyze the lectures themselves to determine
the extent to which Bucer’s method was indeed reflected in practice—with respect
to the broad scope of the lectures as a whole, as well as to the details. Subsequent
chapters will examine closely Bucer’s treatment of two specific passages. In the

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 115

N.S. Amos, Bucer, Ephesians and Biblical Humanism, Studies in Early Modern
Religious Tradition, Culture and Society 7, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-10238-2_5
116 5 “An Exposition of the Whole Doctrine of Salvation:” Bucer’s Deployment…

present chapter we shall look to the lectures as a whole, and consider them in the
light of the biblical humanist program Bucer set himself to follow in his prefatory
lectures.1
We will conduct the overview of the lectures with particular attention to their
structure, and we will observe the extent to which Bucer adhered to the summary of
Ephesians as a compendium of theology as he set this forth in his prefatory
remarks—thus, the extent to which his lectures themselves served as a compendium
of theology. In view of Bucer’s use of a form of the loci method for theological
discussion, there will be a brief consideration of how this method was employed by
Melanchthon, Calvin, and Vermigli in order to provide a context for a discussion of
(and point to the distinctiveness of) Bucer’s approach in these lectures. We will also
make some observations regarding the two models for setting forth theological
loci that Bucer used to balance exegesis of the text with exposition of theology as a
prelude to the more extensive discussion in the remainder of this book of Bucer’s
treatment of two such loci.2 However, we will begin with a short survey of the way
in which Bucer’s lectures in general manifest the features of biblical humanist
exegetical method.

5.1 The Praelectiones as an Exercise in Biblical

Humanist Exegetical Method

Subsequent to his introductory lectures, Bucer turned directly to the exposition of

the letter. With respect to his treatment of the text of Ephesians, he proceeded with
a straightforward, running commentary. Bucer expounded the text according to its
natural, historical sense,3 and addressed himself to words and phrases (sometimes
entire sentences), seeking to put each within the framework of the wider argument
of the epistle. In its general form and appearance, his overall pattern of comment
appears entirely traditional, as a glance at the work of Chrysostom, Aquinas, and Calvin

1
The discussion will not aim at presenting all aspects of Bucer’s method of biblical interpretation,
but only those aspects that are prominent in the Cambridge lectures. Note as well that because the
primary concern in this chapter is with the lectures as a whole as an exercise in the practice of
theology and not with how Bucer interpreted Ephesians per se, there will be minimal reference to
the other exegetes with whom we have chosen to compare Bucer. Comparisons with respect to
interpretive matters will be reserved for Chaps. 6 and 7 below, where we take up Bucer’s treatment
of specific passages.
2
More detailed consideration will follow in our examination of Bucer’s treatment of Ephesians
1:3–6 and Ephesians 1:13–18 in Chaps. 6 and 7 respectively.
3
From early in his career, his stated goal in commentaries was to expound the words of the text in
their “natural meaning” [germano sensu]; for instance, see the introduction to his 1527 Gospels
commentary (Bucer 1527a, [A 10] recto). In his 1529 Psalms commentary, he affirmed the
importance of a correct interpretation in reference to the historical context [iuxta historicum]
(Bucer 1529, a6 verso).
5.1 The Praelectiones as an Exercise in Biblical Humanist Exegetical Method 117

(or, indeed, most of the other commentators we have selected) would confirm.4
Yet there were several features of his approach that merit particular attention,
inasmuch as they testify to his deployment of biblical humanist method, especially
as that was applied by the Rhenish “school”.5
In this respect, his lectures followed faithfully the ratio he set forth in the prefa-
tory lectures. Our survey of this aspect of the lectures will consider the following
issues in turn: the text of the letter; Bucer’s recourse to original languages; his atten-
tion to matters of grammar and rhetoric; his attention to the author in historical
context, including the author’s scopus; his use of Scripture to interpret Scripture; and
his use of non-Scriptural authorities, principally the Church Fathers.6 His attention
to theological loci was another feature of biblical humanist method, but one that we
shall return to in the present chapter following our survey of the lectures as a whole.

5.1.1 Text-Critical Matters

True to his general practice as seen in his earlier commentaries, Bucer did not devote
any time to establishing the text of the letter.7 Nor, in the present instance, did he
appear to have provided his own fresh translation of Ephesians as a whole.8 Each
chapter in the Praelectiones begins with the Latin translation of the epistle taken
from the 1535 edition of Erasmus’s Novum Testamentum (Erasmus 1535). With
respect to the original lectures, Tremellius did not indicate how Bucer actually used
the text in his lectures: did he publicly read through the portion of the text he
intended to cover on a given day before expounding it, or did he simply read out the
word, phrase or verse he was about to expound as he progressed through the lecture?
In any case, in view of Bucer’s earlier practice it is not improbable that he would
have used Erasmus’s translation, and Tremellius’s use of the Novum Testamentum
like as not accurately represents the text Bucer used in the Ephesians lectures.

4
We will return to this issue in the next two chapters when the pattern of Bucer’s exegesis is
examined more closely.
5
Compare what follows in this section with Hobbs (2009, 59–69), where he surveys Vermigli’s
application of the methods of the Rhenish “school” in a number of his commentaries.
6
In the survey of Bucer’s lectures that follows, the specific instances cited are only meant to be
representative examples.
7
A pattern in his career observed by Roussel (1993, 43). Hobbs has pointed out that Bucer was
content to leave to others the work of text-criticism (Hobbs 1991, 30).
8
In his earlier commentaries he either provided a fresh translation of his own from the original
language (as in the case of the 1527 Ephesians commentary), or—more often than not—used the
text of Erasmus (Hobbs 1991, 31). We might note here that for the Old Testament, he used the
Rabbinic Bible of Daniel Bomberg, printed in Venice (Hobbs 1991, 27).
118 5 “An Exposition of the Whole Doctrine of Salvation:” Bucer’s Deployment…

5.1.2 Philological Issues

In one significant respect, however, Bucer does not seem to have accepted Erasmus’s
text without qualification. There are occasional differences between the Novum
Testamentum and the phrases Bucer quoted in the course of his running exposition.
For example, the text Tremellius furnishes for the opening of the letter reads,
“Paulus Apostolus Iesu Christi per voluntatem Dei,” whereas in the lectures them-
selves Bucer quotes the text thus: “Paulus ex voluntate Dei legatus Iesu Christi &c”
(Bucer 1562, 17A and 18F, respectively). The former is Erasmus’s text (1535,
314/D verso); the latter is a use of the version found in Bucer’s earlier commentary
(1527b, 9 recto/B recto). In other instances, Bucer’s Latin text does not correspond
to either his 1527 commentary or Erasmus’s text: as an example of this, at several
points in his treatment of the opening verses of Ephesians 4, the phrases Bucer
quoted varied from the Novum Testamentum (Bucer 1562, 102E–104D). In these
two examples (and elsewhere), the differences are not very significant, but they do
suggest that Bucer may have substituted his own translation of the phrase or word
in question, rather than slavishly follow Erasmus in every respect. Bucer demon-
strated himself very much the humanist in his attention to the original languages
that lay behind the Latin text of the Bible (and for that matter, behind the Greek text
in those instances when the Greek was a translation of a Hebrew original).
Bucer was careful to refer to Greek and Hebrew in order to elucidate the text at
hand. A survey of Bucer’s lectures indicates that in general he had recourse to the
original languages to buttress a point, but he did not dwell on them. However, while
his lectures were not studded with references to the Greek or Hebrew that lay behind
a given phrase, they were frequent enough to impress his auditors, as the comment
of Parker in the funeral oration testifies (Parker 1551, D v verso; Hubert 1577, 866).
In addition, Bucer drew attention on occasion to such matters as the fact that a
given phrase was a Hebraism, such as this comment on Ephesians 2:3:
Sons of wrath.) This is a Hebraism, as sons of death: and it signifies those consigned to Hell,
the damned, the heirs of the wrath of God, without any exception not even of the elect.9
(Bucer 1562, 55B)

He also could comment on the Hebrew that lay behind the Greek word or phrase
under consideration (in reference to Ephesians 2:12):
To the covenants of promise.) The Hebrew word berith signifies agreement or pact. And
because a testament is a species of agreements and pledges, therefore the New Scripture is
called a testament.... But diatheke [or] berith means the same as the kind of agreement
princes enter into with subordinates, for whose obedience in good faith the prince in turn
promises peace and a pleasant life.10 (Bucer 1562, 71B)

9
“Filii irae.) Hebraismus est, ut filii mortis: & significat addictos gehennae, damnatos, haeredes
irae Dei, sine ulla exceptione ne electorum quidem.”
10
“A testamentis promissionum.) Hebraica vox placitum sive pactum significat. Et quia testa-
mentum est species placitorum & pollicitationum, ideo nova Scriptura testamentum est appel-
lata.... Verum διαθήκη significat idem quod foedus quale principes ineunt cum subditis,
quibus ex fide obedientibus promittit vicissim princeps pacem & commodam vitam.”
5.1 The Praelectiones as an Exercise in Biblical Humanist Exegetical Method 119

With respect to translation, he occasionally commented, as in a locus on the Law in

the course of commenting on Ephesians 2, on the relationship that obtained among
the Hebrew, Greek and Latin of a given phrase (and at the same time, on how the
Church Fathers handled translation):
And first, diatheke signifies the same as berith for the Hebrews, which Jerome more cor-
rectly renders as pactum; but certain people have rendered [it] less correctly [as] testamen-
tum.11 (Bucer 1562, 78E)

Again, however, the effect of his prudent use of languages is to indicate their impor-
tance rather than to make a showy display of learning.

5.1.3 Grammar and Rhetoric

Closely related to Bucer’s attention to philological issues was his attention to

matters of grammar. In many cases, this was closely tied to languages, as in such
comments as those noted above regarding phrases that were Hebraisms, or on how
a passage should be translated from Hebrew or Greek.12 Bucer could note as well
such matters as when the substantive was used as an adjective in the manner of
Hebrew usage.13
In reference to rhetorical issues, Bucer had frequent recourse to the flow of Paul’s
argument and its emphases, as we will see in our analysis of the structure of Bucer’s
lectures below. He commented on the form of the letter with reference to its three-
fold genre: admonition, doctrine, and exhortation (Bucer 1562, 18E).14 He drew
attention to the oratory of Paul, and the passionate nature of his argument in the
letter (Bucer 1562, 92D). Though committed to the explanation of the natural, his-
torical sense of the text, Bucer’s practice of interpretation was informed by the
understanding that the text could—and often did—include figurative meanings15 as
well (metaphor, analogy, simile, and so on), which were included within the literal

11
“Ac primum διαθήκη idem significat quod Hebraeis, quod Hieronymus rectius vertit pac-
tum, minus autem recte quidam verterunt, testamentum.”
12
See, for instance, Bucer (1562, 55B and 78E), quoted above.
13
To name one example, in reference to Ephesians 2:2: “Nunc agens in filiis contumacibus.) Graece
[sic], substantivo pro adiectivo more Hebraico.” (Bucer 1562, 53C–54D).
14
“Complectitur autem haec epistola tria genera, nempe, admonitorium, doctrinale &
exhortatorium.”
15
As noted in Chap. 4, Bucer did not take a favorable view of figurative meaning as handled by
allegorical exegesis; see especially his short work on biblical interpretation in connection with
preaching (Bucer 1946, especially 54–56). On the other hand, as we noted above in Chap. 4, he did
affirm typological interpretation, as seen in an excursus following his treatment of Ephesians 5:22–
23 as found in his 1527 Ephesians commentary (Bucer 1527b, 101 recto-103 recto/N5 recto-[N7]
recto), and at greater length in his John commentary of 1528 in a locus following the interpretation
of John 3:14 (Bucer 1528, 79 recto-87 verso/[K7] recto-[L7] verso).
120 5 “An Exposition of the Whole Doctrine of Salvation:” Bucer’s Deployment…

sense by the author and were best studied by means of literary tools.16 Hence, Bucer
employed rhetorical analysis to elucidate the meaning of the text, though this is
less prominent in his work than it was in that of Erasmus or his fellow Reformers
(such as Melanchthon). In the Praelectiones, he drew attention to various forms of
rhetoric as Paul used them, such as metaphor (Bucer 1562, 31C),17 antonomasia
(Bucer 1562, 24D),18 simile (Bucer 1562, 63A), metonymy (Bucer 1562, 71C),19
hyperbole (Bucer 1562, 79B),20 synecdoche (Bucer 1562, 154E–157A).21

5.1.4 The Author in Context

In accord with his comments in the prefatory lectures, Bucer kept the fact of the
particular human author of Ephesians (Paul) and his aims before his auditors. His
treatment of the letter thus followed closely the dictum of Erasmus:
Here some light will also be added for understanding the sense of the Scriptures, if we
weigh carefully not only what is said, but also by whom it is said, to whom it is said, with
what words it is said, in what circumstances, on what occasion, what precedes it, [and] what
follows it.22 (Erasmus 1519, 24/[Bb6] verso; Erasmus 1964, 196)

16
Compare with Erasmus (1519, 48 and 49/[Dd6] verso, and Ee recto; Erasmus 1964, 259–60,
266). Hobbs (1984, 485) suggests that Bucer, in his Pslams commentary in particular, reflects the
influence of Erasmus and Melanchthon in his rhetorical analysis of the individual psalms.
17
“Spiritus est afflatus Dei in nobis, energia, & vis divina, quae in nobis salutem perficit nostram.
Vocatur Spiritus, metaphora sumpta a vento spirante vehementissime, propter eius in nobis
efficaciam.”
18
“In dilecto adiecit, quia scilicet in eo nihil habuit quod odio prosequeretur pater. Et est hic
antonomasia, qua declaratur Christus unice dilectus a patre, per quem oporteat diligi, & in gratiam
recipi omnes, quos Deus in gratiam recipit.”
19
“Vos, inquit, quondam gentes in carne vocabimini praeputium: Id est, eratis immundi,
abominandi, alieni a salute, nascebamini alieni a populo Dei. Praeputium, id est, incircuncisi, est
Metonymia.”
20
“Substantia ergo est eadem, sed conditiones sunt variatae. Ratio est nova, quia gentes in foedere
sunt comprehensae, & revelatio plenior facta est. Locus igitur Ieremiae non simpliciter, sed secun-
dum quid est intelligendus, quae figura frequenter in sacris litteris occurrit. Sic & Christus loqui-
tur: Doctrina mea non est mea, quatenus homo sum, qualem vos me tantum consideratis. Vides
hyperbolicum illum sermonem fuisse & restringendum deinde esse. Sic foedus quod Ieremias
vocat novum, secundum quid est novum, nempe quatenus non iam amplius Iudaeorum tantum
Deus, quemadmodum olim notus tantum in Iudea erat, sed etiam Gentium. Iudaeorum quidem
reliquias servat, at Gentes quoque assumptas illis in eodem foedere coniunxit.”
21
This last is a lengthy discussion of the words spoken at the Last Supper as the bread and wine
were distributed by Christ, along with analogies to the use of synedoche in connection with the rite
of circumcision at the establishment of the Abrahamic covenant. It is worth noting that these were
among the last words Bucer spoke from the professorial lectern.
22
“Accedet hinc quoque lucis nonnihil ad intelligendum scripturae sensum, si perpendamus non
modo quid dicatur, verumetiam a quo dicatur, cui dicatur, quibus verbis dicatur, quo tempore, qua
occasione, quid praecedat, quid consequatur.”
5.1 The Praelectiones as an Exercise in Biblical Humanist Exegetical Method 121

It is worth noting that Bucer made little reference to the Holy Spirit as Author of the
text, in contrast to what he said in the prefatory lectures (Bucer 1562, 5B). In his
actual practice, Bucer’s attention was focused on the human author.
By virtue of his attention to Paul’s argument (which we will discuss below in the
next section of this chapter), and his presentation of the letter as a compendium or
treatise, Bucer underscored the importance of the author to the practice of interpre-
tation. Especially in the early portion of the lectures, Bucer routinely referred to
Paul, and often to Paul’s scopus or intent in a given passage, as well as the letter as
a whole (Bucer 1562, 18 F, 20D, 27A, 29B). His references to historical matters—
the original setting of the letter (Bucer 1562, 18D–19B), Paul’s relationship with the
Ephesian Church (Bucer 1562, 19B), including his meeting with its elders at Miletus
(Bucer 1562, 162F–163A), and Paul’s own allusion in Ephesians 3:2ff to his dispute
with Peter in Galatians 2 (Bucer 1562, 93A)—were intended to elucidate the inter-
pretation of the letter, but at the same time they effectively pointed up the impor-
tance of the author (and letter) in their original context.

5.1.5 The Use of Scripture to Interpret Scripture

One of the fundamental assumptions that underlay Bucer’s employment of the

wider literary context to understand the meaning of a particular verse or passage
was the hermeneutical principle which held that one should use Scripture to interpret
Scripture.23 Throughout the Cambridge lectures, Bucer made constant reference to
other passages of Scripture, and drew upon both Testaments either to explain a
given text or to supplement a point. A reading of the lectures makes clear that the
Bible is the authority to which Bucer appealed most frequently in interpreting the
text of Ephesians, as well as the source of doctrine. A statistical sampling of his
usage, for instance the explicit references to the Bible in his treatment of Ephesians
2, indicates the prominent place he gave to the practice of using Scripture to inter-
pret Scripture. Bucer cited from the Old Testament some 55 times, and from the
New Testament some 168 times (hence, a total of 223 citations overall).24 Sometimes
he would simply list relevant texts,25 sometimes actually quote them,26 and on

23
Irena Backus (1988, xlii) suggests that Bucer’s employment of the principle was due in no small
part to the influence of Erasmus, who used it throughout his own work. Compare with Erasmus
(1519, 24/[Bb6] verso; Erasmus 1964, 197).
24
These totals are based on the number of times Bucer furnished a citation (generally of a book and
chapter), the simplest way of counting references. The totals would no doubt be greater if allusions
and partial quotations (without citation) were taken into account.
25
For instance, in connection with his discussion of justification: “Loci autem, qui potissimum
considerandi sunt pro significatione & vi huius vocis sunt, Isa. 50, Roman. 8.5.6. Act. 13” (Bucer
1562, 61A).
26
For instance, in his discussion of the abrogation of the Law: “Christus ait, Non veni, ut solverem,
sed ut implerem Legem. & Paul. ad Romanos 3. dicit, se stabilire Legem. In 2. autem Corinth.3.
abrogatum dicit ministerium Mosis. Et Roman.7. dicit, Nos esse liberos a Lege: & multis aliis
122 5 “An Exposition of the Whole Doctrine of Salvation:” Bucer’s Deployment…

occasion provide a brief exegesis of them.27 His practice of using Scripture as its
own interpreter is seen in his running exegesis of Ephesians, as well as in his doctri-
nal discussions.28
In one respect, his employment of the principle was an extension of his focus on
Paul as the author of the text, for his appeal was frequently to what Paul had written
in his other letters.29 In another respect, his practice was rooted in his belief in the
ultimate unity of Scripture, and in the ultimate authorship of the Holy Spirit. In any
event, Bucer’s practice served to underscore the preeminent authority of Scripture
in the task of theology, not only for the content of doctrine but also for the interpre-
tation of Scripture itself.

5.1.6 The Use of Non-scriptural Authorities

This last point becomes all the clearer when we observe the recourse Bucer had to
non-Scriptural authorities in his lectures, principally the Church Fathers, but also
works of Classical authors. A sample survey, again of his treatment of Ephesians 2,
reveals that he made some 52 references to Patristic authorities—among whom
Augustine (354–430) is most prominent with 28 citations—as opposed to 223
explicit references to Scripture.30 Of other authorities cited, he made some reference
to Plato and Aristotle. The only medieval theologian whom Bucer cited explicitly
was Bernard of Clairvaux (1090–1153), with nine citations. In the lectures as a
whole, he also referred to Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 315–403), Gregory Nazianzus
(c. 329–390), John Chrysostom, Vincent of Lerins (d. before 450), (Pseudo-)
Dionysius the Areopagite (fl. 500), and Gregory I the Great (540–604). Of those
who were not theologians or biblical commentators, he referred to Euripides
(c. 484-407/6 B.C.), Xenophon (c. 444-c. 357 B.C.), Galen (129-c. 210), Prudentius
(c. 348- after 405), Socrates Scholasticus (c. 380–450), Sozomen (fifth century),
Justinian I (482–565), Gratian (fl. 1140), and Polydore Vergil (1470–1555).
That this feature of his lectures made a strong impression on his auditors is testi-
fied to by Parker, who in his funeral oration observed:

in locis apud Paulum huiusmodi de stabilitione legis, & eius abrogatione leguntur” (Bucer 1562,
80F).
27
For instance, in his discussion of the abrogation of the Law he very briefly exegetes I Corinthians
10 (Bucer 1562, 77A).
28
We will examine his use of this principle in some detail in the following two chapters.
29
Of the 168 explicit citations of the New Testament, 119 were of passages from Paul’s epistles (58
of them from Romans).
30
He also cited Irenaeus (c. 115-c. 202), Tertullian (fl. 200), Origen (c. 185-c. 251), Cyprian
(c.200–258), Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260-c. 339), Hilary of Poitiers (c. 315-c. 367), Basil of
Caesarea (330–379), Ambrose (c. 339–397, although some of these citations were from
Ambrosiaster), Jerome, and Gennadius I of Constantinople (d. 471).
5.2 The Lectures in Overview 123

He was not Bucer only for experience of controversies of our time, nor yet singularly
Augustine, Athanasius, or Jerome, or any other most expert in their singular causes and
controversies, as they were specially exercised within their times: but he was an universal
Epiphanius in that knowledge, expert in the controversies of all times, or rather a book of
commonplaces drawn by long study and excellent memory out of the store of them all.
(Parker 1551, E vii verso; Hubert 1577, 889–890)

Thus, despite the fact that Bucer’s recourse to Scripture was much greater, as the
terms of the Cambridge Injunctions dictated, he did have significant recourse to the
Church Fathers while expounding Ephesians and the doctrines it taught,31 as, indeed,
he declared he would do in his prefatory lectures (Bucer 1562, 8E).32

5.1.7 Section Conclusion

This brief survey is only suggestive of the extent to which Bucer’s lectures broadly
exhibited features that marked his practice as that of a biblical humanist with respect
to exegesis. A more conclusive picture in respect of his biblical humanist method
will emerge from the closer examination of his exposition that we will conduct in
Chaps. 6 and 7. Nevertheless, what we have observed above suffices to establish
that in his 1550/1 Ephesians lectures Bucer deployed significant elements of the
exegetical methods of biblical humanism. However, Bucer’s use of biblical humanist
method in these lectures was not confined to the practice of exegesis, but extended
to the practice of theology, which he integrated with the exposition of Scripture, as
the following examination of the structure of the lectures will reveal.

5.2 The Lectures in Overview

In his attention to the scopus or intent of Paul in writing to the Ephesians, Bucer not
only gave evidence of his deployment of biblical humanist exegetical method, but
he also offered a reading of Ephesians as a compendium of essential doctrine for the
Christian life. As we have seen, he was quite clear in his introductory lectures on
this point, and his interpretation of the letter in the lectures proper followed suit.
While his analysis of the structure of the epistle was not rigorous in the manner of
Aquinas,33 nor did he display quite the attention to rhetorical structure such as one

31
These remarks are only intended to point to the place of the Fathers in the Praelectiones. The
brief summary does not say anything about the actual use he made of these authorities, which is a
different and more involved matter.
32
See the discussion of this in Chap. 4 above.
33
See below in Chap. 6, where there is a brief discussion of the structure of Aquinas’s analysis of
Ephesians 1; this will illustrate the rigorous character of his approach.
124 5 “An Exposition of the Whole Doctrine of Salvation:” Bucer’s Deployment…

sees in Melanchthon’s work on other Pauline epistles,34 Bucer did make it a point to
draw the attention of his students to the structure of the theological argument of
Ephesians, especially in his treatment of Ephesians 1 and 2. This is not to argue for
Bucer’s uniqueness in this regard with respect to Ephesians. For instance, Aquinas
and (among Bucer’s contemporaries) Calvin, Bugenhagen and Bullinger all com-
mented as appropriate on the doctrine taught in the text as they observed the flow of
the letter’s argument.35 The point to emphasize here, however, is that in his remarks
concerning the structure of Paul’s theological argument, Bucer was following
through in his lectures what he sketched out in his introductory remarks. It was in
this way that he used the occasion of lectures on Ephesians to teach fundamental
doctrine to his students. His lectures intentionally bound exposition of Ephesians
with the exposition of doctrine, and emphasized the close connection between the
two aspects of sacred study.

5.2.1 Ephesians 1–3: “Everything Necessary

to be Believed unto Salvation”36

The connection of biblical exposition and theological statement is clear from the
very beginning of Bucer’s lectures. After his treatment of the greeting (vv 1–2), he
turned to the body of the letter, identified in the Praelectiones by the heading,
“INITIUM EPISTOLAE” (Bucer 1562, 19C).37 He immediately drew attention to
the character of the letter as a compendium of theology when he noted at the begin-
ning of his exposition of verse 3:
The first locus of theology which Paul treats in this epistle is that of our election to an eter-
nal inheritance. For with this epistle he recalls to mind to the Ephesians the benefits which
God conferred to them. Therefore, he begins with the first of them all, and the greatest,
namely the election and eternal embrace by which God, before all time, has embraced them
and all of his own to life and eternal salvation. Of this he says the efficient cause is the pure

34
Among the best recent works on this aspect of Melanchton are Wengert (1996) and Wengert
(1998, 48–64). Melanchthon did not comment on Ephesians.
35
The comments of Bugenhagen (1524) were oriented more towards key doctrines with minimal
attention to the text (a pattern seen in Melanchthon, about which more in the next section of this
chapter). Calvin (1548, 1965) was concerned with exposition of the text and referred readers to his
Institutes for more extensive doctrinal considerations. Bullinger (1539), too, was more intent on
commentary than doctrinal discussion, though in this regard his work was closer to Bucer’s. In
respect of all of these commentators (save Melanchthon), this point will become clear in the fol-
lowing two chapters.
36
The context for this phrase (taken from Bucer 1562, 93B) will be discussed below; it serves
as Bucer’s own summation of what Paul sets forth in the first half of the Letter.
37
Whether this heading reflects Bucer’s notes, or was an editorial decision of Tremellius, cannot be
determined.
5.2 The Lectures in Overview 125

grace of God and the merit of Christ. […] The final causes are the sanctification of life and
the glory of God.38 (Bucer 1562, 19C)

He followed this up in the next paragraph with a comment that the second locus was
that “of calling and faith” [de Vocatione & fide], and then declared that “the aim [of
the writer] must always be held before our eyes” [semper est scopus habendus prae
oculis] (Bucer 1562, 20D). He declared that the aim [scopus] in the present epistle
“is the increase of piety, not only in knowledge, but also in practice, both among the
Ephesians and ourselves” (Bucer 1562, 20D).39 It should be observed in this
summation of the scopus that Bucer exhibited a biblical humanist concern with the
ethical and practical implications of doctrine.
Bucer made clear by these comments that he believed the letter to be an orga-
nized statement of doctrine, and the manner in which he went about the task of
teaching strengthens the impression that he intended his lectures to be a combina-
tion of the exegesis of Ephesians and a statement of the theology it taught, holding
the two aspects of sacred study in close conjunction. His treatment of the first locus
on election, which was interwoven with his exegesis of the epistle, continued until
he reached Ephesians 1:7, at which point he proceeded with what is largely a
straightforward exposition of the text (Bucer 1562, 24D–27A). Yet he maintained a
focus on the letter as a presentation of doctrine, for in his treatment of 1:7–12, he
raised the issue of the order of salvation [ordo salutis] (Bucer 1562, 24D).40 It was
in this context that he addressed the topics of effectual calling [vocatio] and regen-
eration [regeneratio], although without developing these doctrines in the same man-
ner or to the same extent that he did with regard to election.41 Why this should have
been the case is not clear, for it would certainly seem to have contributed to his
overall argument regarding the letter as a compendium of the doctrine of salvation
had he made more of the ordo salutis and its constituent elements.42

38
“Primus locus Theologiae, quem Paulus hac epistola tractat, est de Electione nostri ad haeredita-
tem aeternam. Revocat enim hac Epistola Ephesiis in memoriam beneficia, quae Deus illis contul-
erat: Ergo ab omnium primo, & maximo incipit, nimirum ab Electione & complexu aeterno, quo
ipsos & omnes suos, ante omne tempus, ad vitam & salutem aeternam complexus est. Huius
causam efficientem dicit esse meram gratiam Dei, & meritum Christi. […] Causae finales sunt,
vitae sanctificatio, & gloria Dei.” It is interesting to observe the use of the Aristotelian language of
causality in this passage. This locus will receive extended consideration in Chap. 6 below.
39
“Est autem in hac Epistola scopus, incrementum pietatis, non solum in cognitione, sed etiam in
praxi, tam in ipsis Ephesiis, quam in nobis....”
40
“Totum salutis nostrae ordinem explicat & declarat, quomodo oporteat nos participes fieri aeter-
nae electionis.” It should be noted that he briefly touches on two other minor loci in connection
with verse 9, both dealing with the mystery of God’s will (Bucer 1562, 25A).
41
Curiously, Bucer did not mention the phrase ordo salutis in his introductory lectures.
42
It should be noted that while the concept of an order of salvation was established by Bucer’s time,
the exact phrase, ordo salutis, was not. It has been thought that the first usage of the exact phrase
was in 1554, by Heinrich Bullinger, and that the first extensive development of the phrase in a
dogmatic context was in 1723 by J. F. Buddeus and J. Carpov (Steiger 1990:25/3–4, 372). Bucer’s
use of the term here clearly predates that of Bullinger. For a recent treatment of the origins of the
ordo, see Muller (2012, 161–201).
126 5 “An Exposition of the Whole Doctrine of Salvation:” Bucer’s Deployment…

When he reached Ephesians 1:13, Bucer again drew attention to the scopus of the
epistle—the increase in knowledge and piety among believers—and turned his
attention to the exposition of faith in the context of what Paul wrote in this verse
(Bucer 1562, 27A). The scopus of the letter is then mentioned a third time (Bucer
1562, 27A),43 and Bucer goes on to make a more explicit statement concerning the
ordo salutis:
He describes the order of our salvation [ordinem salutis nostrae]. First of all, there is
election: then an effective and regenerating call through the Gospel. [Then] faith and
hope, to which love is joined at the same time, by the hearing of the word of truth.44
(Bucer 1562, 27A)

Yet as before, he does not elaborate on the subject of the ordo at any length, turning
instead to a development of the locus on faith in the context of his exegesis of
1:13–18. Unlike his earlier discussion of election, Bucer here did not combine
exegesis and the formulation of theology to the same extent. Instead, he continued
with his exegesis of the letter, interweaving a limited discussion of calling and faith
(chiefly the latter) with biblical exposition until he reached Ephesians 1:18, at which
point he resumed straightforward biblical exposition (Bucer 1562, 27A–32E).45
It was after he began to discuss Ephesians 1:21 that he then dealt more directly
with the second locus of the epistle as he had earlier identified it: faith (Bucer 1562,
33C).46 He continued with a systematic discussion of faith, and then returned briefly
to the text of the epistle at Ephesians 1:22 (Bucer 1562, 35C). He commented on the
relationship of Head and members in reference to Ephesians 1:23, and then took up
a discussion of the Church as prompted by this verse.47 In the course of this discus-
sion (which formed a locus) he offered a definition of the Church, indicated what
marks identify a true Church, and what constitutes its unity; he then addressed him-
self to seven arguments that the Catholic opposition advanced against his position
(Bucer 1562, 36D–50E).48 His discussion of the doctrine of the Church constituted
the remainder of his treatment of Ephesians 1, although it should be noted that the
connection between the text of Ephesians and the discussion of the Church is
tenuous; he had little to say about the Church in his brief exegesis of the biblical text,

43
The terms he used were much the same as earlier: “that they might believe to a greater extent, and
might be grateful throughout their whole life” [ut magis fiderent, & grati essent tota vita]. He
mentioned the scopus at 29B as well, in much the same manner. Clearly, the linking of knowledge
and life were of major importance to Bucer: this exhibits strong affinities with biblical humanism
and Erasmus.
44
“Ordinem salutis nostrae describit. Omnium prima est electio: deinde per Evangelium vocatio
efficax, & regeneratrix. Fides & spes, quibus simul est coniuncta charitas, audito verbo veritatis.”
45
The locus on faith—in the context of the exegesis of 1:3–18, and in the separate discussion that
follows 1:21—will be examined in greater detail in Chap. 7 below.
46
He notes in passing two minor loci, both concerning angelic beings (good and evil), for which he
provides a list of texts where the reader or listener should seek fuller information.
47
Thus the opening sentence of this treatment begins: “Here the entire matter of the body must be
considered....” [Hic tota ratio corporis consideranda…]: Bucer (1562, 36D).
48
This treatment of the Church will be returned to later in this chapter in a discussion of Bucer’s
locus method. His teaching on this doctrinal point was undoubtedly what prompted Young,
Sedgwick and Perne to seek a disputation in June 1550: see above, Sect. 3.1.2.
5.2 The Lectures in Overview 127

which makes the discussion seem all the more disconnected from the biblical
exposition that precedes it.
When Bucer turned to Ephesians 2, it is evident that he continued to combine
exposition of the text with the presentation of theology, and gave further demonstra-
tion of his belief that the epistle is a compendium of doctrine. Indeed, in his expla-
nation of this chapter Bucer was, if anything, more explicit regarding the epistle as
an organized statement of doctrine than in his treatment of the other chapters. In
harmony with the outline he gave in his prefatory lectures, Bucer identified at the
very beginning of his treatment “five very necessary loci” which Paul discussed in
the chapter, each of which Bucer believed all Christians needed to understand.
In the second chapter five very necessary loci are discussed, in order that they may be prop-
erly recognized.
The first concerns the harm of sin, into which we all have been born, […] how widely it
extends, how much damage it may cause. [This locus extends] as far as the words: “But God
who is rich, etc.”
The second locus concerns our restoration, and the mystery of justification.
The third concerns good works: their necessity, and their true causes. Then there is an
amplification of the moral fault of our nature, and he magnifies the ruin of sin, and thus
there is a return to the first locus.
The fourth locus concerns our union with the old people of God, with whom we are one
temple of God.
The fifth concerns the abrogation of the Mosaic ceremonial Law.49 (Bucer 1562, 52D)

Bucer does not, however, elaborate on why he regards these five—and the last two
in particular—as so important. It is also curious that in respect of the first three, he
did not link them to the ordo salutis mentioned in the exposition of Ephesians 1, as
we might have expected him to do.50
Whereas Bucer had followed no set pattern with regard to the relationship
between exegesis and treatment of locus in Ephesians 1, he did so in his treatment
of Ephesians 2 (with the possible exception of the third locus). The link between
each pericope he dealt with and the treatment of the locus that followed is clear, and
is similar to his treatment of faith in Ephesians 1, with the difference that there is no

49
As it appears in the printed text:
In secundo capite tractantur quinque loci pernecessarii, ut probe cognoscantur.
Primus, de noxa peccati, in quo nati sumus omnes, […] quam late pateat, quanta damna
adferat: usque ad haec verba: Sed Deus cum dives est &c.
Alter locus de restitutione nostri, & iustificationis mysterio.
Tertius de bonis operibus, eorum necessitate, & veris eorum causis. Deinde est amplifi-
catio vitii naturae nostrae, & exaggerat perniciem peccati, atque ita est regressio ad primum
locum.
Quartus locus de unione nostri cum veteri populo Dei, cum quo unum templum Dei
sumus.
Quintus de abrogatione ceremoniarum legis Mosaicae.
50
In later Reformed dogmatics, justification followed faith in the ordo salutis, and was in turn
followed by sanctification (some mention of which could have been made by Bucer with reference
to sin and good works). Further, when Bucer took up the discussion of the mortification of the old
man and the putting on of the new (that is, sanctification) in Ephesians 4 (Bucer 1562, 108D and
162D–170B), there was no reference to the ordo.
128 5 “An Exposition of the Whole Doctrine of Salvation:” Bucer’s Deployment…

separation between the exegetical treatment of the locus and the more systematic
treatment that follows (unlike his handling of the locus on faith). Furthermore,
Bucer phrased either the conclusion of each systematic treatment or the beginning
of the next section of exegesis in such a way as to emphasize the connection between
his treatment of the locus and the wider argument of Ephesians.51
Bucer began his treatment of the chapter with the exegesis of Ephesians 2:1–3,
following which he addressed the locus on original sin (Bucer 1562, 52E–55C
[exegesis], 55C–58E [locus]). He then returned to the exegesis of Ephesians 2:4–10,
following which he dealt with the locus on justification (Bucer 1562, 58E–61B
[exegesis], 61B–69C [locus]). Bucer’s reference to the third locus, on good works,
followed directly after this treatment of justification. In fact his treatment of the third
locus was to a degree combined with the second, in as much as the textual prompt for
this was Ephesians 2:10. He therefore provided only a brief further discussion of the
text and the locus together (Bucer 1562, 69C–70F). Bucer then took up the exposition
of Ephesians 2:11–12, followed by another brief discussion of the locus on the union
of Christians with Israel through their union with Christ (Bucer 1562, 70F–71B
[exegesis], 71B–72D [locus]). The chapter concluded with an exposition of Ephesians
2:13–22, followed by a lengthy treatment of the final locus on the abrogation of the
Mosaic ceremonial Law, in the course of which he discussed the relationship of the
Old and New Testaments, the concept of the Covenant, and the definition of the Law
and its proper place in the Christian life (Bucer 1562, 72E–75A [exegesis], 75A–91A
[locus]).52 Again, the lectures for Ephesians 2 conformed to the outline Bucer
projected in his introductory lectures (Bucer 1562, 6D–E).
Bucer’s treatment of Ephesians 3 was considerably shorter than that of the first
two chapters. In view of the fact that his outline of the letter in the prefatory lectures
suggested that his treatment would likely be abbreviated, we should not wonder at
the result in the lectures themselves (Bucer 1562, 6F).53 Bucer began with a brief
statement of the contents of the chapter. He noted that Paul begins with a heartfelt
amplificatio on the ministry of the Gospel, in the course of which he commended his
own ministry to the Ephesians and others. This is followed by a brief recapitulation
of the nature and relationship of fides and fiducia, after which (Bucer observes)
there is a prayer in which Paul asks that the Ephesians be given to understand the

51
For instance, at the beginning of the second locus, Bucer said: “The second locus concerns justi-
fication; it is brief, to be sure, but in words very forceful and very clear....” [Alter locus est de
Iustificatione, brevis quidem, sed verbis vehementissimus & expressissimus....] At the end of the
third locus and the beginning of the fourth, Bucer stated: “Thus far the third locus. The fourth locus
concerns our wonderful union with the people of old, on account of which the ceremonial Law was
abolished, which separated us from them: but concerning ceremonies, [this subject] will be dis-
cussed in the last locus.” [Hucusque de tertio loco. Quartus locus, est de admirabili coniunctione
nostri cum veteri populo, propter quam sublata est lex ceremonialis, quae nos ab illis discernebat:
sed de ceremoniis postremo loco agetur.] See Bucer (1562, 58 E and 70F, respectively).
52
See Sect. 5.3.2 below for more on this locus.
53
At the same time, it is possible that Bucer’s own illness had a role to play in his abbreviated treat-
ment of Ephesians 3. After a good start at the beginning of 1550, Bucer fell seriously ill by March
and had to curtail his lectures: this circumstance may well have contributed to the relative paucity
of material for his treatment of the chapter. See the discussion in Chap. 3 above concerning the
interruption of Bucer’s teaching by illness in his first months in England.
5.2 The Lectures in Overview 129

fullness of God’s love for them, and in which at the same time he teaches them that
it is necessary to pray and for what they should pray (Bucer 1562, 92D).54
The remainder of Bucer’s treatment of the chapter was a straightforward exposi-
tion of the text (Bucer 1562, 92D–100F). It is interesting to find Bucer stating that
the substance of essential Christian doctrine was found in its entirety in the phrase,
“the mystery of Christ” [mysterium Christi] found in Ephesians 3:4, and that this
had already been expounded by Paul in the first two chapters:
By “the mystery of Christ” he understands the entire doctrine concerning God and our sal-
vation. And certainly in the two prior chapters everything necessary to be believed unto
salvation is taught.55 (Bucer 1562, 93B)

This suggests that he regarded Paul’s further comments in Ephesians 3 to be of a

supplemental nature to what had been stated earlier, which could further explain the
brevity of his remarks on the chapter.

5.2.2 Ephesians 4–5: The Sacred Ministry

and the Life of the Body

By contrast with his lectures on Ephesians 3, Bucer’s coverage of Ephesians 4 was

(on the face of it) much more extensive, covering some 68 pages in Tremellius’s
volume. However, of these, approximately 49 pages are taken up with the “more
extended discussion on the significance and practice of the sacred ministry” [de vi
et usu sacri Ministerii, prolixior…tractatio], as well as another six pages with the
aphorisms on the Lord’s Supper, the so-called Exomologesis (Bucer 1562,
102D–170E).56 As was his custom at the beginning of his treatment of a new chap-
ter, Bucer indicated what loci are contained in the text: “the unity of the saints
among themselves” [de unitate sanctorum inter se]; the sacred ministry [de sacro
ministerio], which has an important part to play in that unity; and a locus concerning
“the putting off the old man with all his inordinate desires” [de vetere homine
exuendo cum omnibus suis concupiscentiis] (Bucer 1562, 102D–E).57 It is important

54
“In tertio capite continentur, Amplificatio admirabilis & ardentissimi pectoris, qua munus ac
beneficium divinum amplificat, in eo quod ad gentes propagatum sit Evangelium tanta face, ut nec
maiori nec pari unquam antea. Atque inter amplificandum commendat suum ministerium, de dis-
pensatione Evangelii sibi commissa ad ampliorem in Ephesiis fidem erga Evangelium Christi.
Naturam praeterea fidei & fiduciae in Dominum paucis, sed clare & perspicue commemorat.
Postremo subiungit orationem, qua orat, ut detur illis posse percipere quam plenissime Dei erga
eos dilectionem, ac simul docet necessarium esse orare, & quid orandum.”
55
“Per mysterium Christi intelligit totam doctrinam de Deo, & nostra salute. Et certe duobus priori-
bus capitibus omnia creditu ad salutem necessaria docentur.”
56
De vi et usu sacri ministerii takes up 108F–157A, and the Exomologesis, 157A–162D. See the
discussion in Sect. 3.3.2 above of the evidence for this portion of the lectures, where it is argued
that the latter text was not likely part of Bucer’s lectures.
57
Here he looks ahead as well to the link between this locus and that part of Ephesians 5 where Paul
dealt with the duties of married persons: “Quam exhortationem producit ad bonam usque quinti
capitis partem, usque ad eum locum, ubi de officio coniugum disserit.”
130 5 “An Exposition of the Whole Doctrine of Salvation:” Bucer’s Deployment…

to observe that with Ephesians 4, Bucer has shifted his discussion of doctrine to
more decidedly practical matters; this shift underscores the ethical, practical
concerns that for him (as an evangelical biblical humanist) constituted the true end
of theology.
Bucer commenced with an exposition of Ephesians 4:1–6, noting that Paul’s
locus on the unity of the Church begins at verse two, which he said in itself contains
a summation of it (Bucer 1562, 102F).58 Here, he followed the pattern we saw above
in respect of election in Ephesians 1:3–6, where his exegesis and his discussion of
the theology of the text were combined: his biblical exposition was not followed
with a separate discussion of the locus. Upon finishing his treatment of this section
of the epistle, Bucer drew attention to the second of the loci, on the sacred ministry
(Bucer 1562, 105A),59 and then turned to the exposition of Ephesians 4:7–11, in the
course of which he dealt with both the text and (less comprehensively) the locus it
contained, much after the fashion of his treatment of faith in Ephesians 1 (Bucer
1562, 105A–108D). The fact that he intended to turn to a lengthy discussion on the
sacred ministry accounts no doubt for the less developed discussion of the subject
in his exegesis (thus mirroring the way in which he dealt with faith in Ephesians 1).
What is interesting to observe is that when Bucer reached Ephesians 4:12, he
noted that Paul’s discussion of the sacred ministry is complete, and that the argu-
ment in the letter shifts to the third locus, on putting to death the old man, in which
process the sacred ministry plays a crucial role, as he noted in his comments at the
beginning of the chapter (Bucer 1562, 108D).60 Bucer briefly discussed I Corinthians
12 and spiritual gifts, which continues his discussion of ministry in the Church
(Bucer 1562, 108D–E), but he then turned to what appears to have been a treatise he
had to hand that was appropriate to the second of Paul’s loci, the sacred ministry.61
It would seem that Bucer acknowledged this piece to be a digression from the
lectures as he had been conducting them to this point:
Now, after we have compared the passage from Corinthians with the locus which we have
in hand, and have taken note of a few things which it seems necessary to take into account,

58
“Studentes observare unitatem spiritus &c.) In quibus verbis continetur summa primi loci.”
It was this verse that Bucer expounded at length in the Explicatio found in Hubert (1577, 504–
538). It is interesting to note the order in which Bucer proceeds through the text: he moves from
verse 1 to verse 3, and then goes back to verse 2, after which he takes up verse 4 (Bucer 1562,
102E–104E); the locus continues to 105A.
59
The text reads: “Now—suitably, after the prior locus concerning our unity among ourselves—he
[Paul] crosses over to the locus concerning the sacred ministry of the Church.” [Iam commode a
priore loco de unitate nostri inter nos, transit ad locum de sancto Ecclesiae ministerio….]
60
“Superest nunc tertius locus, ad quid sit institutum ecclesiasticum ministerium de quo
sequitur.”
61
See the discussion regarding the text-critical issues concerning this portion of the lectures in
Sect. 3.3.1 above. To very briefly recapitulate, it is suggested that De vi et usu sacri ministerii was
not in its original form part of the lectures per se, but instead a partially completed treatise Bucer
had brought with him to England and thus had to hand. It should be noted, however, that it con-
formed to his original intentions as seen in the prefatory outline.
5.2 The Lectures in Overview 131

it appears that we should undertake a more extended discussion of the significance and
practice of the sacred ministry.62 (Bucer 1562, 108 F)

Bucer’s lectures proceeded with an extensive treatment of the sacred ministry,

which served as his treatment of the third locus (Bucer 1562, 108F–157A).63 In the
course of his teaching, he dealt with: the Church (Bucer 1562, 111B–129A)64; cleri-
cal discipline (Bucer 1562, 129B–143A)65; the doctrine (or preaching) of the Gospel
(Bucer 1562, 143A–B)66; Baptism (Bucer 1562, 143C–146B)67; and the Lord’s
Supper (Bucer 1562, 146B–157A).68
At this point, the relationship between what follows in the printed text of
Praelectiones and what happened in the actual lectures is unclear, as the remarks in
Sect. 3.3.2 above have already indicated with regard to the text-critical issues.
As argued in the reconstruction of the chronology for the lectures, Bucer lectured no
farther than the end of the excursus on the sacred ministry. The evidence of both
Banck and Hubert indicates this. Tremellius, on the other hand, is not so clear. For
one thing, he appended Bucer’s late treatise on the Lord’s Supper to his comments
on the ministry in such a way as to suggest it was a continuation of Bucer’s lectures
(Bucer 1562, 157A–162D).69 Then, following this apparent digression (if we take
Tremellius’s note at face value), the text of the Praelectiones indicates that Bucer
turned back to the text of Ephesians: “Let us proceed with the words of Paul to the
Ephesians” [Progrediamur in verbis Pauli ad Ephesios]—though it is likely that this
additional material reflects Bucer’s working notes for that portion of the lectures he
was prevented from delivering by his death (Bucer 1562, 162D). The text indicates
that Bucer identified the third locus of Paul’s argument:

62
“Nunc, postquam locum ad Corinthios cum loco quem prae manibus habemus, contulimus, et
pauca quae notanda esse videbantur, notavimus, de vi & usu sacri Ministerii, prolixior nobis
tractatio instituenda videtur.”
63
Compare with Hubert (1577, 553–610) and Banck (1551). As noted in Sect. 3.3.1.3 above, it is
difficult to find exact correspondences between Banck’s notes and the printed texts of the lecture,
even with respect to the headings for the relevant sections.
64
Compare with Hubert (1577, 556–578). Banck does not have notes on this section of the
lectures.
65
Compare with Hubert (1577, 578–594). Banck (1551) divides this section into two: the first has
the title, “Hactenus summatim de ministerio” (fols. 7–21); the second is entitled “De vi, et usu
sacri ministerii” (fols. 21–33). Hubert (1577, 586), adds another heading that does not appear in
Tremellius’s text: “DE VI ET EFFICACIA, VEROQUE USU MINISTERIORUM OMNIUM IN
GENERE.” This corresponds to the second section noted here in Banck’s manuscript.
66
Compare with Hubert (1577, 594–95) and Banck (1551, fols. 33–34).
67
Compare with Hubert (1577, 595–598) and Banck (1551, fols. 34–44).
68
Compare with Hubert (1577, 598–610) and Banck (1551, fols. 45–63). Hubert includes three
additional lines of text that do not appear in Tremellius’s edition.
69
This is what subsequently became Exomologesis sive Confessio de S. Eucharistia aphoristice
Scripta. As we have seen already (Sect. 3.3.2), there are grounds for questioning the inclusion of
this material as part of the lectures themselves. Neither Hubert nor Banck suggest that Bucer taught
the material as presented in these aphorisms.
132 5 “An Exposition of the Whole Doctrine of Salvation:” Bucer’s Deployment…

After Paul treated of the sacred ministry, he moved on [lit., descended] to the third locus,
which is that concerning the destruction of the old man with all his inordinate desires, and
that exhortation is unbroken which extends right up to the locus [here, most likely meaning
text] of chapter five concerning the duty of husbands and wives.70 (Bucer 1562, 162D)

Bucer then continued with an exposition of the remaining verses of Ephesians 4,

and here the theological discussion of the locus is combined with his exegesis of the
text. It is worth noting that the remarks are briefer than those seen earlier in the com-
mentary. Of interest with respect to his Cambridge sojourn is that he dealt with the
subject of pleonexia and usury in this section—the subject of controversy with John
Young, though more briefly than one might have expected in light of their quarrel
(Bucer 1562, 165F–166A). As this was the subject of an apparent disputation
between Bucer and Young, this raises an additional historical question about Bucer’s
tenure that will require resolution. The lectures on Ephesians 4 end rather abruptly
(Bucer 1562, 170B).71
The treatment of Ephesians 5 is similarly terse in Tremellius’s edition, and is a
straightforward exposition of the text (Bucer 1562, 172D–183C).72 The published
text of the Praelectiones does include coverage of Ephesians 6 (Bucer 1562,
184F–190D) but, as we noted above in Chap. 3, the material Tremellius presented
was taken straight out of Bucer’s 1527 commentary, and thus does not represent
Bucer’s thinking in 1551—hence, this material should not be taken into account
with respect to Bucer’s practice at the end of his career.

5.2.3 Section Conclusion

Three things are clear from our survey of Bucer’s lectures as a whole. First, he
followed fairly closely the outline of the epistle he set forth in his introductory lec-
tures, especially with respect to the text up to Ephesians 4:12. The treatment of the
remainder of the book as we find it in Tremellius’s edition is somewhat problematic
(for reasons detailed above in the present chapter and in Chap. 2), but even here the
final result reflected to a substantial degree Bucer’s initial intentions. Second, this
overview has found that Bucer sought to balance exposition of the text with an
exposition of fundamental points of doctrine by means of attention to theological
loci. His discussion of theology was, for the most part, either tightly bound with the
exegesis of the text, as in his treatment of election in Ephesians 1:3–6, or it was

70
“Posteaquam de sacro ministerio Paulus…disseruit, ad tertium locum descendit, qui est de vetere
homine exeundo cum omnibus suis concupiscentiis, estque perpetua illa exhortatio quam producit
usque ad locum quinti capitis de officio coniugum.”
71
The final verse he dealt with in this chapter was Ephesians 4:31: “Et maledicentia tollatur a vobis
cum omni malitia.” Nevertheless, the outline of the chapter was in harmony with Bucer’s sketch in
the introduction (Bucer 1562, 6F–7A).
72
So too Bucer’s earlier outline (Bucer 1562, 7A).
5.3 The Loci Method and the Practice of Exegesis and Theology 133

handled in an excursus paired relatively closely with the exposition of the text, as in
his treatment of faith in Ephesians 1:13–18, or the several loci in Chap. 2.
Third, Bucer’s lectures were a compendium of theology in so far as they were an
expression of what he took to be the central points or loci of Paul’s argument. It was
Bucer’s attention to these loci that made the lectures both biblical exposition of
Ephesians and an exposition of theology. It is important to note that Bucer did not
suggest Paul set forth the whole of Christian doctrine in Ephesians, but rather “an
exposition of the whole doctrine of salvation” (emphasis mine). Hence, Bucer’s
compendium was a statement of the fundamentals of soteriology, with an emphasis
on the application to the Christian life of the redemption found in the life, death and
resurrection of Jesus Christ. It seems clear that the constituent elements of the
doctrine of salvation constituted for Bucer the most important loci of theology, in no
small part because of their practical import for the Christian life. Indeed, notwith-
standing his underdevelopment of the concept, several of the loci which he identi-
fied in Ephesians 1 and 2 were those of the ordo salutis: election, faith, and
justification; in his discussion of good works in Ephesians 2, he also touched on
sanctification (to which he would have returned at some length in his treatment of
the putting off the old man and putting on the new in Ephesians 4 had he lived long
enough). In addition to the elements of the ordo salutis, Bucer also set forth more
obviously practical loci relating to the Christian life, both for individual Christians
and for the Church as the body of Christ: the doctrine of the Church in general, the
place of the Law, the unity of the Church, the sacred ministry, the mortification
of sin.
Bucer’s several references to Paul’s loci, and his development of theology in an
exegetical context with reference to these loci, make clear that his method of teach-
ing theology in the Ephesians lectures involved the development of the theological
loci of Paul’s letter. We now turn to a brief, general discussion of what is known as
the loci communes method in order better to understand this important feature of the
humanist character of Bucer’s lectures.

5.3 The Loci Method and the Practice

of Exegesis and Theology73

A major contribution of Renaissance humanism to the practice of theology in the

sixteenth century was the method associated with the identification, in authoritative
texts, of loci communes.74 Renaissance humanists, especially Lorenzo Valla (1407–
1457) and Rudolph Agricola (1444–1485), developed the loci method as a means of
analyzing ancient texts (in their case, chiefly Classical texts). The interpreter would

73
Material in this section has (with modifications) been drawn from Amos (2009, 175–194), by
permission of the publisher, Brill Academic.
74
The standard reference on the loci method is Joachimsen (1926). See also Lechner (1962);
Gilbert (1960); and Vasoli (1980). Also very useful is Muller (2003:2, 63–80).
134 5 “An Exposition of the Whole Doctrine of Salvation:” Bucer’s Deployment…

identify the chief points (loci) that an author made in his work, and then gather them
together to come to an understanding of the author’s argument. Further, it is worth
noting that the method was rooted in the practice of rhetoric, and was explicitly
advanced as an alternative to scholastic approaches which used dialectic for the
study of texts and the formulation of doctrine, approaches which were denigrated by
the humanists.
For our purposes, the most important proponent of the loci method was Erasmus,
whose advocacy of its use in the interpretation of Scripture and the practice of theol-
ogy was famously expressed in his Ratio verae theologiae which, it bears noting
again, was directed against the dominant method of scholastic theology.75 He
proposed in the Ratio that beginning theologians take themes or topics (loci) as they
are found in the course of the study of Scripture and note all of the relevant texts that
have a bearing on them. In addition to building a knowledge of these themes as they
are dealt with in the whole of Scripture, these loci will also aid in the interpretation
of obscure passages by means of reference to the clear, which would appear to be a
primary reason for his advocacy of the practice (Erasmus 1519, 58/Ee5 verso;
Erasmus 1964, 291–292).
The loci communes method was thus received by the early evangelical Reformers
as it had been developed by Valla, Agricola and especially Erasmus, and these early
Reformers saw themselves as following a trajectory marked out by their humanist
predecessors, making extensive use of the method and adapting it as a means both
of interpreting Scripture and developing a theology more securely based on the
exegesis of Scripture; indeed, it was used as a means of doing theology in an
exegetical context. However, though we can speak of the method in the singular,
there were actually a variety of ways in which it was applied among the Reformers.

5.3.1 Varieties of Approach: Melanchthon,

Calvin and Vermigli

Melanchthon was the earliest among the evangelicals to put the method into use as
seen in his first major theological treatise, the Loci communes of 1521.76 This work,
when taken together with De rhetorica libri tres (1519) and Compendaria dialec-
tica (1520), provides us with his theory regarding proper method in the arts as well
as in theology (Schneider 1997, 29–30). He demonstrated in them that he was heir

75
It has been argued recently that Erasmus employed loci for the purposes of historical-exegetical
study rather than theology. They were taken over by early Reformers and used for dogmatic, proto-
systematic ends, but this was not, it is further argued, Erasmus’s aim (Christ-von Wedel 2013, 86
and 90).
76
The key works on this aspect of Melanchthon’s thought are: Joachimsen (1926); Maurer (1960,
1–50); and Widenhofer (1976). Also important are Wengert (1987, 2009), and Schneider (1990,
205–262). A helpful sketch is Green (1999, 282–285).
5.3 The Loci Method and the Practice of Exegesis and Theology 135

to the work of Agricola and Erasmus (Schneider 1997, 26).77 In Melanchthon’s use
of the method with respect to the formulation of theology, key texts of Scripture
either provide loci, or are themselves loci, thus becoming seats of argument. By
means of the proper method, these loci were drawn from Scripture in the course of
exegesis, after which they could then be arranged into a sequence of theological
topics, and thus furnish (it has been argued) a theological system (Muller 2000,
110). However, it also can be argued that Melanchthon extracted the texts from
Scripture in the course of exegesis and then used them to put together the Loci com-
munes treatise of 1521 primarily to provide a guide for the reading of Scripture,
rather than to serve as a “systematic” theology on its own.78 What happened with
subsequent editions of the treatise is beyond the scope of the present discussion.
When Melanchthon applied the loci method in his biblical commentaries, it was
as a means of discerning the fundamental themes and concepts that are found in an
author’s work.79 A practical result of this approach was that Melanchthon would
expound only those verses that had direct relevance to what he took to be the loci of
the author’s argument; his commentaries thus became, as it were, indices to the
doctrinal content of the books under examination rather than full expositions of the
text.80 In both instances of Melanchthon’s use of the method, however, it bears
repeating that it was focused on the interpretation of Scripture.
Calvin employed a version of the loci communes method as well, but in a manner
different from that of Melanchthon.81 His thinking on this matter was most clearly
and concisely expressed in the prefatory letters to his Romans commentary (letter
dated 1539, commentary, 1540) and the 1539 edition of the Institutes of the Christian
Religion. In the book on Romans, he reviewed the method of commentary employed
by Melanchthon and Bucer (Calvin 1960a, 1–4).82 For all the praise he had for
Melanchthon, he criticized the Praeceptor Germaniae for focusing on those verses
that provided the loci, skipping over the many other details of the text—thus
criticizing Melanchthon’s application of the loci communes method to the task of

77
Schneider notes, correctly, that Melanchthon’s relationship to Erasmus is a complicated and
controversial issue. On this, see Wengert (1998). See also: Breen (1968); and Mack (1993,
320–333).
78
As he wrote in the dedicatory letter to the 1521 edition of the Loci communes: “[T]he book is to
function more as an index than a commentary. I am therefore merely stating a list of the topics to
which a person roaming through Scripture should be directed. Further, I am setting forth in only a
few words the elements on which the main points of Christian doctrine are based. I do this not to
call students away from the Scriptures to obscure and complicated arguments but, rather, to sum-
mon them to the Scriptures if I can” (Melanchthon 1969, 19 [reprinted by permission of the
publisher]).
79
Two very useful examinations of this are Wengert (1987, 182–191) and Kolb (1987, 571–572).
80
For this characterization of Melanchthon’s commentaries, see Wengert (1987, 212).
81
An authoritative treatment of Calvin’s method is Muller (2000), especially chapters 2, 4, 6, and
8. Muller also treats Calvin briefly in a broader discussion of the loci method in Muller (2003, 2,
74–76). Still very useful is Parker (1993), especially chapters 3 and 4. Also important is McKee
(1991).
82
He also mentioned Bullinger as another esteemed commentator on Romans, but passed over him
when it came to his comments on method, and focused his critique on Melanchthon and Bucer.
136 5 “An Exposition of the Whole Doctrine of Salvation:” Bucer’s Deployment…

biblical commentary (Calvin 1960a, 2, 3). At the same time, Calvin also criticized
Bucer’s approach, which (in the case of the latter’s 1536 Romans commentary)
sought to do too many things at once, in combining attention to the loci with exposi-
tion of the text and much else besides (Calvin 1960a, 3).83 For his part, Calvin indi-
cated he would focus in his commentaries on a simple, clear exposition of the text,
addressing the whole text and not attempting to put in too much detail (Calvin
1960a, 3).
It is important to note that Calvin did not criticize the loci method itself, but
rather the applications of it made by his esteemed contemporaries in respect of
biblical commentary. He used the method, but he chose to reserve his discussion of
doctrinal loci communes for the Institutes, a point made clear in the 1539 edition
(Calvin 1960b, 4–5). For reasons of clarity of teaching, he would keep the task of
exegesis and that of theological formulation separate—though it needs to be stressed
that there is an intimate relationship between the two, and it is an error to treat either
of Calvin’s accomplishments (his commentaries and the Institutes) in isolation from
one another.84 Indeed, in respect of the division of labor, the most famous works of
Calvin and Melanchthon were alike. Calvin’s Institutes fulfilled a similar aim to that
of Melanchthon’s Loci communes, namely to provide a guide to the reading of
Scripture, rather than to stand on its own (as it has too often been treated).
For more directly comparative purposes with Bucer, it is worth considering at
somewhat greater length Peter Martyr Vermigli’s practice, which shares some
significant common ground with that of Bucer, and which set both of them apart
from either Melanchthon or Calvin—though in what follows we shall also antici-
pate the ways in which Bucer’s method differed from his friend and colleague.
Bucer and Vermigli followed an approach that was grounded in the context of bibli-
cal exposition, with the aim of making the practice of commentary a comprehensive
exercise in exegesis and theological formulation. In their respective lectures on
Paul’s epistles, Vermigli and Bucer deliberately included extended discussion of
doctrinal loci—a use of loci that did not intentionally result in a separate systematic
statement of theology (even in the form of a handbook to aid in the reading of
Scripture). The method is one that can be associated with the Rhenish “school” to
which reference has already been made. In this connection, note that both men came
to England from Strasbourg, which we have seen was a major center of this approach
to exegesis and theology, and both men taught in the theological schools there, lec-
turing on Scripture. It is also worth recalling that, like Bucer’s Cambridge lectures
on Ephesians, Vermigli’s Oxford lectures on Romans (Vermigli 1568a)85 were given

83
See Parker (1993, 85–90) for a discussion of Calvin’s comments on Melanchthon and Bucer.
84
A point made emphatically by Muller (2000), as well as McKee (1991). That said, it remains the
case that the two tasks were separated, though subtly and not sharply as among later Medieval
scholastic theologians as we considered them above in Sect. 2.1.
85
This is the third edition, to which references below are made. I have consulted the first and sec-
ond editions (Vermigli 1558 and 1560). I have consulted as well the 1568 English translation of Sir
Henry Billingsley, Most Learned and Fruitfull Commentaries upon the Epistle of S. Paul to the
Romanes (Vermigli 1568b). It should be noted, again, that Vermigli also lectured on I Corinthians
while at Oxford, but the focus here will be on his Romans lectures.
5.3 The Loci Method and the Practice of Exegesis and Theology 137

under the auspices of his position as Regius Professor of Divinity, and at very nearly
the same time (Bucer’s lectures, 1550–51; Vermigli’s lectures, 1550–52), and thus
bear witness to a common commitment to exegesis of Scripture as the central task
of theology.
In teaching theology by means of lecturing on Scripture, Vermigli sought to
expound the entirety of the text under consideration.86 Furthermore, the exposition
of Romans itself shows the influence of biblical humanism, with close attention to
exegetical detail (including recourse to the Hebrew that lay behind Paul’s expres-
sion in a number of places), attention to theological detail, and a recourse to the
exegetical tradition of the Church—one heavily weighted towards that of the
Patristic tradition, giving evidence of his deep and wide knowledge of it. Indeed,
Vermigli’s employment of the exegetical tradition is actually clearer than that of
Bucer, with less allusion and more explicit citation. At the same time, however,
Vermigli (like Bucer) demonstrated a willingness to engage in extended theological
discussion in the context of his exposition, as prompted by the text of Paul’s letter.
He singled out what he took to be the principal loci of Romans, and thus the chief
points of the letter as a whole: the doctrines of predestination and justification
(Vermigli 1568a, 418–456 [predestination], 543–613 [justification]).87
Yet there were differences between Vermigli and Bucer that must be acknowl-
edged. Vermigli’s intent to concentrate on the exegesis of Romans as a letter is clear
from his preface, especially when compared with Bucer’s preface to the Ephesians
lectures. We have observed already that Bucer took time to highlight the structure of
Paul’s argument in terms that presented the letter as a kind of summary statement of
essential Christian doctrine, noting along the way the many loci to be found.
Vermigli gives a sparer outline of Romans without seeking to draw attention to the
various loci the letter contains in the manner in which Bucer did for Ephesians
(Vermigli 1568a, t2 recto-t2 verso).88 In this way, Vermigli’s emphasis on straight-
forward exposition of Paul’s letter is, if anything, heightened.
But perhaps what is the most noticeable difference is the manner in which the
loci communes method of theological discussion is employed, a point that will be
clearer as we come to our consideration of Bucer’s use of the loci method below. In
Vermigli’s Romans lectures, it is much more limited (anticipated, as we can see, by
the differences between his preface and that of Bucer). Whereas Bucer, following
his prefatory outline, identifies and treats of many loci over the course of his lectures,

86
On Vermigli’s exegetical practice, James (1998, 242); and Thompson (1996, 256–257). A more
recent discussion of Vermigli on loci communes is Strohm (2002), a discussion that also takes in to
account Calvin. See also Muller’s brief discussion of Vermigli’s practice: Muller (2003:2, 72–73).
87
See also Billingsley’s translation in Verimgli (1568b, 287 [not 285] recto-312 verso [predestina-
tion], 367 verso-410 verso [justification]). On the lectures on Romans and these loci on predestina-
tion and justification, see the introductory discussion by Frank James in Vermigli (2003, xv–xliv),
who also furnishes a presentation of these loci (Vermigli 2003, 87–230). On Martyr’s sojourn more
generally, see McNair (1980); Loach (1986); and MacCulloch (2002).
88
See also Vermigli (1568b, Bii recto-Bii verso). However, it is worth noting that he began each
chapter in the body of the commentary with brief attention to the methodus of Paul in what
follows.
138 5 “An Exposition of the Whole Doctrine of Salvation:” Bucer’s Deployment…

sometimes embedded within his exposition, sometimes at length in a separate

treatment, Vermigli highlights only two and addresses them in a separate treatment
(though it must be said that his Romans commentary later provided the substance
for some 22 loci in his later [posthumous] work, Loci communes).89
The contrast in approach within the extended discussions of Vermigli and Bucer
is also noteworthy. Vermigli is much more clearly “scholastic” in the way he struc-
tures the discussion, which makes for a contrast as well with his own wider biblical
exposition.90 However one wishes to understand the term “scholastic,”91 it is clear
that Vermigli’s discussion of each of these loci is well-ordered in a way that, alas,
Bucer’s is not. The shape of these discussions, and their contrast with Vermigli’s
wider exposition, does raise the question of their origin, and whether they were
inserted into the text of the lectures when they were later published, and thus sug-
gesting the possibility they did not constitute part of the lectures as given. However,
it has been plausibly suggested that they do fit as given within the academic context
of Oxford, with its requirement of regular disputations, and may reflect disputations
held on these topics during Vermigli’s lectures (James 2003, xxii-xxiii).92

5.3.2 The Loci Method in the Praelectiones

Like Melanchthon, Calvin and Vermigli, Bucer used the loci method, yet it is clear
that in his Ephesians lectures (and, for that matter, in his published commentaries)
he did so in a manner that differed from theirs, though less obviously so in the case

89
See the analysis of Vermigli’s Loci Communes in McLelland (2007, 58–61). James does note
that in other of his commentaries, Vermigli did supply a larger number of shorter loci: James
(2003, xxi).
90
It has been argued that this more scholastic form is an implicit departure from biblical exegesis
as the primary context for theology (Donnelly 1976, 64). To this, Frank James—correctly, I
think—responds that what Vermigli does is not a move beyond the text, but instead an effort to
summarize and thus clarify the argument put forth by the biblical writer (James 2003, xxii, fn. 39
[where he also cites Donnelly’s contention]). See also McLelland (2007, 9–10), and Muller (2003,
2, 72–73); Muller notes how in Vermigli one observes the trajectory from exegesis to identification
of loci to subsequent organization of loci in a more systematic fashion—though in the case of
Vermigli, this last step was not one he undertook himself.
91
Note, in reference to the shape of the loci, Frank James maintains that the ordered structure of the
loci does not of itself make him a scholastic (Vermigli 2003, xxii, fn. 39).
92
This may, incidentally, shed light on Bucer’s own disjunctive loci, though I think there are other
factors that came into play in his case. And to turn the analogy around, it could be that Vermigli,
like Bucer, did expound on these loci in the course of his lectures, but was using material he had to
hand which he had previously composed for another use, but which seemed especially pertinent to
the moment. It is also worth noting that in the case of both men, the extended discussion has some-
thing of the appearance of an arbitrary placement in the course of the wider exposition. As some-
times the case with Bucer, it is not entirely clear why Vermigli chose to treat the two loci where he
did—it could be argued that predestination might have been as logically dealt with in the context
of Romans 8, and justification in the context of Romans 3 or 4, rather than (respectively) Romans
9, and Romans 11.
5.3 The Loci Method and the Practice of Exegesis and Theology 139

of Vermigli. As Calvin’s acute comments in his letter to Grynaeus suggest, Bucer’s

method of biblical interpretation was rather more than verbose biblical commentary
(Calvin 1960a, 3). In fact, Bucer sought to make the practice of commentary a com-
prehensive exercise in exegesis and theological formulation. In this respect, Bucer’s
practice is clearly to be distinguished from that of Calvin, for while both shared a
commitment to comment on the whole of the biblical text, Bucer, unlike Calvin,
deliberately included extended discussion of doctrinal loci in his exposition.
It might be thought that Bucer’s use of the loci communes method was therefore
closer to that of Melanchthon. Bucer’s identification of loci in the course of his
exposition of Ephesians—substantive evidence of the influence of the loci method
upon his approach to analyzing the letter—was in a manner similar to Melanchthon.
The resonance of his procedure with that of Melanchthon can be seen as well as in
Bucer’s evident belief that the loci he singled out for discussion were the major
doctrinal themes that formed Paul’s wider argument. We have already noted that this
was especially the case with the preliminary outline of the letter in Bucer’s prefatory
lectures, as well as in his treatment of Ephesians 1 and 2, where the loci were explic-
itly identified as constituent elements of Paul’s argument. Bucer’s practice demon-
strated a further affinity with that of Melanchthon in the detailed attention he gave
to the content of the loci upon which he expounded in the course of his exposition
of the letter, sometimes at great length.
Yet Bucer’s approach in the Praelectiones is to be distinguished from that of
Melanchthon in that Bucer sought to explain the whole of Ephesians, rather than
concentrate on the loci alone. It was his intent to maintain a balance between
exegesis of text and discussion of loci. As important as the understanding of the loci
is to understanding of the letter, Bucer believed it was not sufficient simply to con-
centrate on the chief points of Paul’s argument at the expense of the whole of the
epistle, which after all was in its entirety the Word of God. Every phrase was worthy
of attention. At the same time, however, Bucer clearly felt (contra Calvin) that the-
ology was appropriately developed in the context of biblical exposition, however
cumbersome the joint task might become.
With respect to Bucer’s use of the loci method in the Ephesians lectures, another
noteworthy feature is the way in which he applied it in practice, as we observed in
our overview of the lectures. He used one of two models, exemplified by the first
two loci to which he gave extended attention—a treatment of the locus as an integral
part of his exegesis of the text (election and Ephesians 1:3–6), and a somewhat less
exhaustive treatment of the locus in the course of exegesis, followed by a separate
discussion (Ephesians 1:13–18 and faith). When he reached Ephesians 2, Bucer
appears to have settled on a rhythm of exposition with limited treatment of the given
locus, followed by a discussion in which he dealt with the locus in a more systematic
fashion—the pattern of his treatment of faith in Ephesians 1. Yet in his treatment of
Ephesians 3 he chose to concentrate on exposition without detailed attention to loci.
This may well have been due to Bucer’s belief that the main loci of Paul’s letter had
been set forth in the first two chapters, and that Ephesians 3 contributed nothing new
in this respect (Bucer 1562, 93B). The pattern of Ephesians 4 has the appearance of
that seen in Ephesians 1. The locus on the unity of the Church is interwoven into his
140 5 “An Exposition of the Whole Doctrine of Salvation:” Bucer’s Deployment…

exegesis of Ephesians 4:1–6; the locus on the sacred ministry is addressed in his
exegesis of Ephesians 4:7–11, followed by a discussion that is related to the portion
of the epistle that precedes it (though the relationship is not as close as was the case
in other such treatments).93
This lack of a consistent pattern of usage suggests that Bucer did not seek rigidly
to apply a single approach to loci, but instead employed different models as he saw
fit. Unfortunately, it is not clear what led him to vary his approach—was it a matter
of his own preferences, did he see something in the text or in the locus that demanded
separate treatment, or were there external factors (such as the Catholic opposition
he faced in Cambridge) that came into play?
However, a more important issue concerning the manner of Bucer’s use of the
loci method—especially with reference to a principal interest of the present investi-
gation—is the relationship of exegesis and theology, a relationship that raises a
number of questions, particularly with respect to those instances where Bucer dealt
with the locus in a separate, supplemental discussion. First, what was the relation-
ship between the biblical text which contained the locus and the discussion that
followed it? Second, what was the relationship between theology and exegesis
within the separate discussion: to what extent was the discussion itself reliant upon
biblical exegesis, and to what extent was it a straightforward systematic statement
of doctrine?
These questions will be addressed below in greater detail in Chaps. 6 and 7 as we
take up the examination of two portions of Bucer’s treatment of exegesis and theol-
ogy in Ephesians 1.94 With respect to the lectures more generally, exegesis and the-
ology were closely related in Bucer’s practice. The majority of the loci were dealt
with by Bucer in close conjunction with the exegesis of the texts that prompted
them, according to the patterns described earlier: either the discussion of locus and
exegesis were inseparably bound together, or there was limited discussion of the
locus in the course of exegesis, with a more systematic treatment following imme-
diately afterwards. In most instances of the systematic treatment, exegesis played a
prominent role, and the link between pericope and the separate discussion is fairly
clear in so far as the latter is intended to explain at greater length the locus found in
the biblical text.
However, in the case of the three extended discussions—on the Church, on the
abrogation of the Mosaic ceremonial Law, and on the sacred ministry—the relation-
ship is somewhat more problematic, certainly with respect to their relationship to
the pericope that prompted each. These loci come close to constituting a third cat-
egory of locus; they do, however, in essence conform to the second of the categories
described above. Bucer made some attempt to link each with the flow of Paul’s
“treatise,” but the connection can be less clear than it is with most supplemental

93
The disjunctive character of the locus on sacred ministry could be attributed in part to the
possibility that it was an independent work pressed into service for the lectures; see the discussion
of this in Chap. 3 above.
94
Specifically, Ephesians 1:3–6 and election (Chap. 6), and Ephesians 1:13–18 and faith (Chap. 7).
These will also serve as case studies for the two patterns of the loci method Bucer employed.
5.3 The Loci Method and the Practice of Exegesis and Theology 141

treatments of loci. The remainder of the present discussion of Bucer’s use of the loci
method will briefly address the questions raised above with respect to two of the
three extended discussions, those dealing with the Church and with the Law (Bucer
1562, 36D–50E and 75A–91A, respectively).95 The problematic relationship of
exegesis and theology, seen in the discussion of the Church in particular, serves to
show that Bucer’s practice was not always able to live up to his intentions.
We have noted that Bucer used the reference to the Church as the Body of Christ
in Ephesians 1:23 as the occasion for a general discussion of the Church. Nonetheless,
it is not clear that the topic is a significant issue in Paul’s argument at this point.
Clearly, the Church is a prominent theme in the letter as a whole, and Paul did make
reference to the Church in Ephesians 1:23. However, the emphasis of the broader
pericope in which this text is found (namely, Ephesians 1:19–23) is the supremacy
of Jesus Christ, and the Church is mentioned within that context. (In this respect, a
discussion of the Church might have made more sense in the context of Ephesians
2:19–22, or Ephesians 4:11–16. In fact, Bucer did discuss the Church again in
connection with the latter passage, at the beginning of his treatment of the sacred
ministry.) Furthermore, while Bucer had indicated in his prefatory outline that the
Church was a significant theme in Paul’s argument in Ephesians 1 (Bucer 1562,
6D), he did not repeat the point in the opening remarks at the beginning of his treat-
ment of the chapter (Bucer 1562, 19C). Neither did he anticipate the ensuing discus-
sion when commenting on the pericope that presumably prompted it; there is very
little development of the subject in its exegetical context (Bucer 1562, 35B–36D).
In the light of his comment in the prefatory lectures that the Church was a major
topic in the letter at this juncture, the opening of the discussion itself is rather
detached: “Here the entire matter of the body must be considered, which will
remind us of matters of the greatest importance concerning the union of Christ with
ourselves” (Bucer 1562, 36D).96 Bucer did not make an explicit link to Paul’s argu-
ment in Ephesians, apart from the reference to Ephesians 1:23 and the “matter of
the body.” Moreover, as he worked through the discussion, Bucer made no signifi-
cant, further effort to tie this discussion of the Church to Ephesians 1:22–23 nor, for
that matter, to the rest of the epistle. He did make some reference to what the
Apostle says later in the letter,97 but the point to be stressed here is that Paul does
not figure significantly in a discussion which is supposed to be a development of a
locus in the wider argument of Ephesians. With respect to the text of Ephesians,
exegesis and the theological formulation that presumably arises from it sit rather
loosely to one another.

95
The present study does not include the discussion on the sacred ministry, primarily because it
was likely a treatise originally written to serve another end, and was not intentionally composed
for these lectures.
96
“Hic tota ratio corporis consideranda, quae nos maximarum rerum admonent in coniunctione
Christi nobiscum.” Wright (1972, 228n1) suggests “admonent” be read as “admonet” or
“admoneat.”
97
For instance, Bucer (1562, 39B–C) refers to Ephesians 4:2.
142 5 “An Exposition of the Whole Doctrine of Salvation:” Bucer’s Deployment…

With regard to the relationship between exegesis and theology within the
discussion, matters are equally problematic. To a significant degree, the discussion
was very largely a straightforward, relatively ordered statement of doctrine.98 Bucer
began with a definition of the Church (Bucer 1562, 36D–37C). This was followed
by a discussion of the marks of the true Church, which are five in number: it heeds
the voice of its Master (Bucer 1562, 37C); it has the ministry of teaching (Bucer
1562, 37C); it has suitable ministers (Bucer 1562, 37C); it has the lawful dispensa-
tion of baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Bucer 1562, 38D); and it is characterized by
a holiness of life (Bucer 1562, 38D–E). Bucer next considered in what sense the
Church is “the pillar of truth” [columna veritatis] (Bucer 1562, 38F–39B), and then
addressed the question: in what does the unity of the Church consist? In the course
of his response, he stated: it has unity in essentials, but diversity in rites of human
devising (Bucer 1562, 39B–40F) it exhibits unity in fellowship (Bucer 1562, 40F–
41B); and it maintains unity by means of discipline (Bucer 1562, 41B–C).
In the remainder of the discussion Bucer addressed in turn seven arguments
advanced by his Catholic adversaries in opposition to his teaching.99 The first argu-
ment concerns “the definition the Church and its members” [Prima controversia est
de definitione ecclesiae, & membrorum eius] (Bucer 1562, 41C–42E). The second
is “whether the Church has one head on earth” [an sit Ecclesiae unum caput in ter-
ris] (Bucer 1562, 42E–43B). The third argument relates to “the antiquity of the
Church” [de antiquitate Ecclesiae] (Bucer 1562, 43B–44D). This leads directly to
the next two arguments, which concern the relationship of the Church and Scripture:
four, whether the Church “has the power to alter [the teaching of] Scripture” [habet
potestatem mutandi Scripturam], which Bucer said the Catholics affirm (Bucer
1562, 44D–F); and five, whether the Church guarantees the authority of Scripture
(the Catholic position) and not vice versa, the position to which Bucer held (Bucer
1562, 44F–45A). The sixth point at issue is the Catholic claim that “the Church can-
not err” [Ecclesiam non posse errare] (Bucer 1562, 45A–47A). The seventh and
final argument is whether “the Church in all ages enjoys equal authority” [ecclesia
semper est paris autoritatis] (Bucer 1562, 47A–B). The discussion concluded with
a deliberation concerning who it is that has a higher regard “concerning the catholic
consensus of the Churches” [de consensu catholico ecclesiarum]—the Catholics, or
Bucer and his fellow Protestants (Bucer 1562, 47B–50E)?
However, the part played in the discussion by the exegesis of Scripture is not as
prominent as one might have expected in light of the broader argument of the pres-
ent examination. Certainly, Bucer made frequent reference to biblical texts in order
to support a given point, but he offered no exegesis of these texts—they are simply
cited. Bucer’s use of Scripture within the discussion thus tends to strengthen the

98
This is not to suggest that the discussion is abstract or speculative; it was, rather, intensely practi-
cal in its thrust.
99
It is worth commenting that although the discussion that follows is in the form of refutation of a
number of Catholic positions, it does not have the rigorous character of the disputatio that one
finds in scholastic treatises or, for that matter, in Vermigli.
5.3 The Loci Method and the Practice of Exegesis and Theology 143

impression that the connection between it and Bucer’s exposition of Scripture

(including Ephesians) is minimal. In the light of all these points, the text of Ephesians
1:23 would seem to have been little more than a convenient occasion to insert a
systematic (albeit, practical) discussion of the Church, a discussion in which the use
of the Bible was limited to citations to support a point.
By contrast, the discussion on the abrogation of the ceremonial Law is less prob-
lematic with respect to its relationship to Bucer’s broader exposition of Ephesians.
The linkage between the separate theological discussion and the pericope on which
it is based is more clearly drawn than was the case with that on the Church. Not only
did Bucer anticipate it in the outline of the chapter in the prefatory lectures as well
as in the introductory comments at the head of Ephesians 2 (Bucer 1562, 6E and
52D, respectively), but he also made an explicit reference to the locus as part of
Paul’s argument in the course of his exegesis of Ephesians 2:13–22—although, as
with the discussion of the Church, once the separate treatment begins, Bucer does
not refer to any significant degree to Paul’s argument in Ephesians. Furthermore, the
question of the Law and its abrogation is prominent enough in the latter half of
Ephesians 2 to warrant a discussion of the topic here, more so than was the case with
the Church and Ephesians 1:23.
It is true that the separate discussion on the Law has a systematic character like
that on the Church.100 Bucer’s overarching intent in his discussion was to ask what
distinctions obtain between the Old Testament and the New Testament. He began by
addressing what things are common to all the people of God (Jew and Gentile), and
what are unique to each (Bucer 1562, 75A–78D). He then examined directly the
relationship between the Testaments, and in the course of this discussed the
Covenants (Bucer 1562, 78D–80D). This brought him to the central question: in
what way is the Law abrogated? He briefly defined the Law in terms of its three
forms (moral, judicial, and ceremonial), and then asked, what is the place of the
Law in the Christian life (Bucer 1562, 80D–89C)? He concluded the discussion
with a brief summary of the main points of the preceding discussion: he itemized
the three ways in which the Law has been abolished (Bucer 1562, 89C–90D), and
he reviewed what the Law is and what is its function (Bucer 1562, 90D–91A).
Unlike the discussion on the Church, that on the Law made significantly greater
use of Scripture in that Bucer provided a measure of exegesis (albeit often very
brief) of a number of the passages he cited.101 While the treatment of the locus does
have a detached air in respect of the exposition of Ephesians (due to its length and
systematic character), the greater use of Scripture within it does serve to link the
discussion and the exegesis of the epistle more closely.

100
Like the treatment of the Church it is both systematic and practical. Good biblical humanist that
he is, Bucer has little time for speculative discussions in theology.
101
See, for example, the battery of texts to which he refers (with brief exegesis) in connection with
his discussion of the abrogation of the Law (Bucer 1562, 80E–85A).
144 5 “An Exposition of the Whole Doctrine of Salvation:” Bucer’s Deployment…

5.3.3 Section Conclusion

Such was the relationship of exegesis and theology in the context of the loci
communes method among Reformers more generally, and in two of Bucer’s longer
treatments of loci in the Praelectiones in particular; we will take up the issue in
respect of his more compact discussions (which, after all, form the large majority in
the lectures) in the two succeeding chapters of the present book. Yet here it can be
said that even when seen in the most positive light, Bucer’s use of the loci com-
munes method as a means of tying the exegesis of Ephesians with an exposition of
theology was less than successful when the separate treatment of the locus was as
long and detailed as are those on the Church, on the abrogation of the Law, or (for
that matter) the sacred ministry. In the case of such treatments, we can see that it
would be but a small step to collect them from their original location in the midst of
biblical commentary and organize them into a more systematic statement of theol-
ogy, thus breaking (in form, at least) the close connection between exegesis and
theology that marked the practice of evangelical biblical humanism.102

5.4 Chapter Conclusion

This chapter has found that Bucer’s practice was consistent with his stated aims in
the prefatory lectures: he combined biblical exposition and theological formulation
as a single exercise in divinity. He sought to take a series of lectures on Ephesians
and turn them into an exposition of the “doctrine of salvation.” The lectures were an
application of biblical humanist method on the level of biblical interpretation, as we
saw in our consideration of the details of his exegetical method. In his attention to
philology, grammar and rhetoric, the historical context of Paul and Paul’s original
scopus, to the use of Scripture to interpret Scripture, and to the judicious use of the
Church Fathers, as Regius Professor Bucer demonstrated himself to be a biblical
humanist in his conduct of the task of exegesis.
More significantly with respect to the present study, Bucer’s lectures were also
an exercise in biblical humanist method in the manner in which he “did” theology
within an exegetical context. In pointing to the structure of Paul’s theological argu-
ment and emphasizing the character of Ephesians as a compendium of theology,
Bucer demonstrated for his auditors how theology can (and should) be ordered in
the light of biblical priorities and emphases. Without saying so explicitly, Bucer
made clear that in his view (and following Paul), theology should in its essence be
focused on the doctrine or doctrines of salvation, and in particular on the application
of the redemption that is in Jesus Christ to the individual Christian life and the life
of the Church as a whole. Theology is both doctrine (found principally in Ephesians
1–3), and the practical outworking of that doctrine in the life of the Church

102
Again, a development that took place with the work of Vermilgi, though only after his death.
Appendix: Loci in Earlier Commentaries of Bucer 145

(Ephesians 4–6). Theology is about redemption accomplished and applied; it is

practical, not theoretical.
Bucer achieved his aims in large part by employing the loci communes method
of theology, a method which we have seen was another feature of Bucer’s biblical
humanist inheritance. Whether he was entirely successful in his endeavor in these
lectures to expound the biblical text and teach theology while maintaining the integ-
rity of both tasks is a question the answer to which awaits a closer evaluation of his
use of the loci method. The next two chapters will furnish just such an examination
of two of Bucer’s treatments of loci, and seek (among other things) to answer this
question. Yet our survey has shown that to a significant extent Bucer’s lectures—as an
exercise in biblical humanist method—successfully met the demands of the
Cambridge Injunctions and constituted (to adapt Bucer’s characterization of
Ephesians itself) “an exposition of the whole doctrine of salvation” (Bucer 1562, 7C).

Appendix: Loci in Earlier Commentaries of Bucer

In most of his commentaries, Bucer made clear in the title and introduction that he
intended to offer the reader not only an exposition of the text of the chosen book, but
also discussion of the important loci communes included in the biblical book.
The role of these theological discussions is clearly prominent in his Synoptics com-
mentary, where he provided a list of them with page references at the beginning of
the commentary, just prior to the exegesis (Bucer 1536b, [*8] recto-verso).103
In every instance, his discussion of specific theological topics was in the context of
the exegesis of the text, and thus tied to the flow of the biblical argument/presenta-
tion. As we noted, the topics are identified by means of the table positioned imme-
diately prior to the text of the commentary, and attention is drawn to them by
marginal flags in the course of the commentary.104 The commonplaces varied con-
siderably in length, from the very short to the quite lengthy. It appears that these
theological discussions were intended to be read in the context of the commentary.
There is no indication that Bucer ever intended these discussions to be read indepen-
dently, or that he had any intention that they should be published separately.
In the commentary on John (Bucer 1528), Bucer provided a list of loci on the
verso of the title page (“Praecipui ex locis comminibus in hac narratione tractates”),
and there is also an index which includes references to the theological discussions
included therein; hence, theological discussion is very much a part of the commen-
tary (Bucer 1528, [A verso] and [276] verso-280 recto/Mm4 verso-[Mm8] recto,
respectively). In the commentary itself he included a section of observationes

103
This was so in all editions. The list of loci was relatively short in the earlier editions, but notice-
ably longer in the 1536 edition.
104
The topics are included in the exposition without a separate heading, apart from a marginal note
indicating the discussion. For instance, “De Abrogatione Legis” in Bucer (1536b, 118–127/[k5]
verso-l4 recto). Here, the discussion is in context of Mt 5:19, “quisquis soluerit.”
146 5 “An Exposition of the Whole Doctrine of Salvation:” Bucer’s Deployment…

following his annotationes (as his commentary is called in this work), in which he
expounded (often at length) on doctrinal topics in addition to making moral exhorta-
tions. In a fashion similar to his Synoptics commentary, Bucer combined exegesis
with theology, though in this particular instance the theological discussion is clearly
separated out from the exposition of the text, while still related to and prompted
by it.
Another variation of the pattern is seen in Bucer’s Psalms commentary (Bucer
1529). Following the Argumentum (a brief statement of the argument of the psalm),
a Latin version of the Psalm (ad verbum, which he has divided into verses), and the
Explanatio (or, Familiaris Explanatio) which is his commentary proper, one verse
at a time, Bucer included a further discussion of the teaching of each Psalm, which
in this commentary is the pattern of theological discussion. There is no separate
section of loci communes. For instance, in the case of Psalm 1, the principal focus
of what he writes is on the issue of “Law”, but while exegesis and theology are
discrete, the distinction between the two is not sharp (Bucer 1529, 1 recto-18 recto/A
recto-E2 recto).
The final commentary of Bucer’s that we shall consider is that on Romans (Bucer
1536a). Though composed after a hiatus of several years, Bucer’s commentary on
Romans displayed his continued commitment to keep the work of the exegete and
the theologian closely together. In fact, it was intended to be the first of a series of
commentaries on all of the Pauline epistles, though in the end it was the only volume
on them to appear apart from the two commentaries on Ephesians, each of which
was independent of this massive project.105 Unlike the commentary on the Synoptic
Gospels, there is not an extensive list of loci communes at the beginning of the
text—nor, for that matter, is there an index as in the John commentary—yet it is
clear from the title that Bucer intended in his commentary to draw attention to all
the principal theological points that are found in Paul’s letter (Bucer 1536a, 11–40/
[a vi] recto-[d iiii] verso).106 In addition, he began the commentary with a series of
prefaces which dealt with a number of preliminary issues among which are some of
an explicitly theological character.107

105
It also is apparent that unlike the other commentaries we have considered (including the
Praelectiones) the Romans commentary was not based on lectures, or at least was not the immedi-
ate product of lectures. He labored on it between 1534 and 1536 when he had time amidst his many
other duties (Eells 1931, 196).
106
Indeed, he goes so far to say in the title: “in which as the Apostle treated the principal topics of
the whole of theology most accurately and completely as possible, so in this volume the greater
part of the entirety not so much of Pauline, but of the whole of sacred philosophy is explained” [in
qua ut Apostolus praecipuos totius Theolgiae locos tractavit quam exactissime et plenissime, ita
est hoc Tomo maxima pars totius non tam Paulinae, quam universae S. Philosophiae explicata]:
Bucer (1536a, t.p.).
107
These are: on the meaning of iustificari and iustificatio (Bucer 1536a, 11–14/[a vi] recto-b
recto); the meaning of fidei and credere (Bucer 1536a, 14–23/b recto-[b vi] recto); the meaning of
lex and opera Legis (Bucer 1536a, 23–28/[b vi] recto-c ii verso); on whether philosophy and Paul’s
teaching agree (Bucer 1536a, 28–39/c ii verso-[d iiii] recto); and whether Paul abides by the ars
dicendi (Bucer 1536a, 39–40/[d iiii] vecto-verso).
References 147

The organization of the commentary was relatively straightforward.108 Bucer

divided the text into three books, each of which was subdivided according to chap-
ters. At set points, he included a paraphrase or metaphrasis of the text of the epistle.
In the prefatory letter, addressed to Thomas Cranmer, he declared that the discus-
sion of the commentary would divided into sections, each of which he began with
the expositio (Bucer 1536a, iiii verso-[v] recto), where he was concerned to set forth
the overall argument of each of the sections. After this, there is the interpretatio
(Bucer 1536a, [v] recto), in which he commented on the individual sentences and
words of the section. Finally, there are observationes (Bucer 1536a, [v] recto),
where he discussed the chief themes of each section for the benefit of “the less
learned” [minus instructi] (Bucer 1536a, [v] recto). Despite this last phrase, it is
here (in the observationes) that Bucer included his theological discussion. On occa-
sion, he also included a quaestio in which he raised specific questions, as well as a
section entitled conciliatio, in which he sought to reconcile apparently conflicting
passages of Scripture. In all of this, it was Bucer’s intention to combine exegesis and
theology in such a way that neither can be properly separated from the other.

References

Amos, N. Scott. 2009. Exegesis and theological method. In A companion to Peter Martyr Vermigli,
ed. Torrance Kirby, Emidio Campi, and Frank James III, 175–194. Leiden: Brill.
Backus, Irena. 1988. Introduction to Enarratio in Evangelion Iohannis (1528, 1530, 1536), by
Martin Bucer, ed. Irena Backus. Leiden: Brill.
Banck, John. 1551. De privato ministerio, quod clericale vulgo appellatur.... MS Coll. Gonv. et
Caius 423.
Breen, Quirinus. 1968. The Terms “Loci communes” and “Loci” in Melanchthon. In Christianity
and humanism: Studies in the history of ideas, ed. Quirinus Breen, 93–97. Grand Rapids:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Bucer, Martin. 1527a. Enarrationum in Evangelia Matthaei, Marci, & Lucae, Libri duo. Strasbourg:
Johannes Herwagen.
Bucer, Martin. 1527b. Epistola D. Pauli ad Ephesios, qua rationem Christianismi breviter iuxta &
locuplete, ut nulla brevius simul & locupletius explicat, versa paulo liberiu…In eandem
Commentarius. Strasbourg: s.n.
Bucer, Martin. 1528. Enarratio in Evangelion Iohannis. Strasbourg: Johannes Herwagen.
Bucer, Martin. 1529. S. Psalmorum libri quinque ad Ebraiecam veritatem versi, et familiari
explanatione elucidati. Strasbourg: G. Ulricher.
Bucer, Martin. 1536a. Metaphrases Enarrationes Perpetuae Epistolarum D. Pauli Apostoli […]
Tomus Primus continens metaphrasim et ennarationem in Epistolam ad Romanos. Strasbourg:
Wendelin Rihel.
Bucer, Martin. 1536b. In Sacra Quatuor Evangelia, Enarrationes perpetuae, secundum et postre-
mum recognitae. Quibus inspersi sunt syncerioris Theologiae Loci communes, ad Scripturarum
fidem simpliciter et nullius cum insectatione tractati: adiectis etiam aliquot locorum tracta-
tionibus, et Indice copiosissimo. Strasbourg: Wendelin Rihel.

108
Parker (1986, 40–61) provides an excellent overview of this commentary, which I have used in
combination with a consultation of the commentary itself. The fact that Parker’s outline is itself 21
pages long should give one a sense of the mammoth size of the book.
148 5 “An Exposition of the Whole Doctrine of Salvation:” Bucer’s Deployment…

Bucer, Martin. 1562. Praelectiones doctiss. in Epistolam D. P. ad Ephesios, eximii doctoris

D. Martini Buceri, habitae Cantabrigiae in Anglia, Anno M D.L. et LI. Basel: Petrus Perna.
Bucer, Martin. 1946. Quomodo S. Litterae pro Concionibus tractandae sint Instructio. Revue
d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 26:32–75.
Bugenhagen, Johannes. 1524. Annotationes Ioan. Bugenhagii Pomerani in decem Epistolas Pauli,
scilicet ad Ephesios, Philippenses, Colossenses, Thessalonicenses primam et secun. Timotheum
primam & secundam, Titum, Philemonem, Hebraeos. Item Concordia Evangelistarum a
Resurrectione ad Ascensionem domini. Nuremberg: Ioan. Petreium.
Bullinger, Heinrich. 1539. In omnes apostolicas epistolas, divi videlicet Pauli XIIII et VIII canoni-
cas, commentarii. Zurich: Christoph Froschauer.
Calvin, John. 1548. Ioannis Calvini Commentarii, in quatuor Pauli Epistolas: Ad Galatas,
Ad Ephesios, Ad Philippenses, Ad Colossenes. Geneva: Jean Girard.
Calvin, John. 1960a. John Calvin to Simon Grynaeus. In The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the
Romans and to the Thessalonians, Trans. Ross MacKenzie, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas
F. Torrance, 1–4. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Calvin, John. 1960b. John Calvin to the Reader. In Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John
T. McNeill, 3–5. Trans. Ford Lewis Battles. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
Calvin, John. 1965. The Epistle to the Ephesians. In The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the
Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, Trans. T.H.L. Parker, eds. David
W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, 121–224. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company.
Christ-von Wedel, Christine. 2013. Erasmus of Rotterdam: Advocate of a new Christianity.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Donnelly, John Patrick. 1976. Calvinism and scholasticism in Vermigli’s doctrine of man and
grace. Leiden: Brill.
Eells, Hastings. 1931. Martin Bucer. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Erasmus, Desiderius. 1519. Novum Testamentum omne, multo quam antehac diligentius ab Erasmo
Roterodamo recognitu, emedatum ac translatum …: una cum annotationibus recognitis, ac
magna accessione locupletatis. Basel: Johannes Froben.
Erasmus, Desiderius. 1535. Novum Testamentum iam quintam accuratissima cura recognitum a
Des. Erasmo Roter. cum Annotationibus eiusdem ita locupletatis, ut propemodum opus novum
videri possit. Basel: Johannes Froben.
Erasmus Desiderius. 1964. Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus: Ausgewählte Werke, ed. Hajo
Holborn and Annemarie Holborn. München: C.H. Beck.
Gilbert, Neal. 1960. Renaissance concepts of method. New York: Columbia University Press.
Green, Lowell C. 1999. Melanchthon’s relation to scholasticism. In Protestant scholasticism:
Essays in reassessment, ed. Carl R. Trueman and R. Scott Clark, 273–288. Carlisle: Paternoster
Press.
Hobbs, R. Gerald. 1984. How firm a foundation: Martin Bucer’s historical exegesis of the Psalms.
Church History 53: 477–491.
Hobbs, R. Gerald. 1991. Martin Bucer et la Bible/Martin Bucer und die Bibel. In Martin Bucer:
Strasbourg et l’Europe. Exposition à l’occasion du 500e anniversaire du réformateur
Strasbourgeois Martin Bucer, 25–32. Strasbourg: Consistoire de St-Thomas.
Hobbs, R. Gerald. 2009. Strasbourg: Vermigli and the Senior School. In A companion to Peter
Martyr Vermigli, ed. Torrance Kirby, Emidio Campi, and Frank A. James, III, 35–69. Leiden:
Brill.
Hubert, Conrad (ed.). 1577. Martini Buceri Scripta Anglicana fere omnia. Basel: Petrus Perna.
James, F.A. III. 1998. Vermigli, Peter Martyr (1499–1562). In Handbook of major biblical
interpreters, ed. Donald K. McKim, 239–245. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press.
James, Frank A. III. 2003. Translator’s introduction to Predestination and justification: Two theo-
logical loci by Peter Martyr Vermigli. Trans. and ed. Frank A. James III. Kirksville: Truman
State University Press.
Joachimsen, P. 1926. Loci Communes: Eine Untersuchung zur Geistesgeschichte des Humanismus
und der Reformation. Luther-Jahrbuch 8: 27–97.
References 149

Kolb, Robert. 1987. Teaching the text: The commonplace method in sixteenth century Lutheran
biblical commentary. Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 49: 571–585.
Lechner, Joan Marie. 1962. Renaissance concepts of the commonplaces. New York: Pageant Press.
Loach, Jennifer. 1986. Reformation controversies. In The history of the University of Oxford, The
Collegiate University, vol. III, ed. James McConica, 363–396. Oxford: Clarendon.
MacCulloch, Diarmaid. 2002. Peter Martyr and Thomas Cranmer. In Peter Martyr Vermigli:
Humanism, republicanism, reformation/Petrus Martyr Vermigli: Humanismus,
Republikanismus, Reformation, ed. Emidio Campi, with Frank A. James III and Peter Opitz,
173–201. Genève: Droz.
Mack, P. 1993. Renaissance argument: Valla and Agricola in the traditions of rhetoric and
dialectic. Leiden: Brill.
Maurer, Wilhelm. 1960. Melanchthons Loci communes von 1521 als wissenschaftliche
Programmschrift: Ein Beitrag zur Hermeneutik der Reformationszeit. Luther-Jahrbuch
27: 1–50.
McKee, Elsie Anne. 1991. Some reflections on relating Calvin’s exegesis and theology. In Biblical
hermeneutics in historical perspective: Studies in honor of Karlfried Froehlich on his sixtieth
birthday, ed. Mark S. Burrows and Paul Rorem, 215–226. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company.
McLelland, Joseph C. 2007. Peter Martyr’s Loci Communes: A Literary History, ed. Torrance
Kirby with a bibliography compiled by Jason Zuidema. Montreal: McGill University Press.
McNair, Philip M.J. 1980. Peter Martyr in England. In Peter Martyr Vermigli and Italian reform,
ed. Joseph C. McLelland, 85–105. Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier University Press.
Melanchthon, Philip. 1969. Loci communes theologici. In Melanchthon and Bucer, ed. Wilhelm
Pauck, 18–152. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
Muller, Richard A. 2000. The unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the foundation of a theological
tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Muller, Richard A. 2003. Post-reformation reformed dogmatics: The rise and development of
reformed orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, 2nd edn. Volume 2: Holy scripture: The cognitive
foundation of theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Muller, Richard A. 2012. Calvin and the reformed tradition: On the work of Christ and the order
of salvation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Parker, Matthew. 1551. Howe we ought to take the death of the Godly, a sermon made in Cambridge
at the buriall of the noble clerck, D. M. Bucer. London: R. Iugge.
Parker, T.H.L. 1986. Commentaries on the epistle to the Romans, 1532–1542. Edinburgh: T. &
T. Clark.
Parker, T.H.L. 1993. Calvin’s New Testament commentaries. Louisville: Wesminster/John Knox
Press.
Roussel, Bernard. 1993. Bucer Exégète. In Martin Bucer and sixteenth century Europe: Actes du
colloque de Strasbourg (28–31 Août 1991), 2 vols., vol, 2, ed. Christian Kreiger and Marc
Lienhard, 39–54. Leiden: Brill.
Schneider, J.R. 1990. Philip Melanchthon’s rhetorical construal of biblical authority: Oratio
Sacra. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press.
Schneider, J.R. 1997. The hermeneutics of commentary: Origins of Melanchthon’s integration of
dialectic into rhetoric. In Philip Melanchthon (1497–1560) and the commentary, ed. Timothy
J. Wengert and M. Patrick Graham, 29–30. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Steiger, Johann Anselm. 1990. Ordo Salutis. Theologische Realenzyklopädie 25(3–4): 371–376.
Strohm, Christoph. 2002. Petrus Martyr Vermiglis Loci Communes und Calvins Institutio
Christianae Religionis. In Peter Martyr Vermigli: Humanism, republicanism, reformation/
Petrus Martyr Vermigli: Humanismus, Republikanismus, Reformation, ed. Emidio Campi, with
Frank A. James III and Peter Opitz, 77–104. Genève: Droz.
Thompson, John L. 1996. Allegorical argumentation in Peter Martyr Vermigli’s Old Testament
exegesis. In Biblical interpretation in the era of the reformation: Essays presented to David
C. Steinmetz in honor of his sixtieth birthday, ed. Richard A. Muller and John L. Thompson,
255–271. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
150 5 “An Exposition of the Whole Doctrine of Salvation:” Bucer’s Deployment…

Vasoli, Cesare. 1980. Loci Communes and the rhetorical and dialectical traditions. In Peter Martyr
Vermigli and Italian reform, ed. Joseph C. McLelland, 17–28. Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier
University Press.
Vermigli, Peter Martyr. 1558. In Epistolam S. Pauli Apostoli ad Romanos commentarii doctissimi.
Basel: Petrus Perna.
Vermigli, Peter Martyr. 1560. In Epistolam S. Pauli Apostoli Ad Rom. Basel: Petrus Perna.
Vermigli, Peter Martyr. 1568a. In epistolam S. Pauli apostoli ad Romanos. Basel: Petrus Perna.
Vermigli, Peter Martyr. 1568b. Most learned and fruitfull commentaries upon the Epistle of S. Paul
to the Romanes. Trans. Sir Henry Billingsley. London: John Daye.
Vermigli, Peter Martyr. 2003. Predestination and justification: Two theological loci. Trans. and ed.
by Frank A. James III. Kirksville: Truman State University Press.
Wengert, Timothy. 1987. Philip Melanchthon’s Annotationes in Johannem in relation to its prede-
cessors and contemporaries. Geneva: Droz.
Wengert, Timothy. 1996. Philip Melanchthon’s 1522 annotations on Romans and the Lutheran
origins of rhetorical criticism. In Biblical interpretation in the era of the reformation: Essays
presented to David C. Steinmetz in honor of his sixtieth birthday, ed. Richard A. Muller and
John L. Thompson, 118–140. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Wengert, Timothy. 1998. Human freedom, Christian righteousness: Philip Melanchthon’s exegeti-
cal dispute with Erasmus of Rotterdam. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wengert, Timothy. 2009. The rhetorical Paul: Philip Melanchthon’s interpretation of the Pauline
Epistles. In A companion to Paul in the Reformation, ed. R. Ward Holder, 129–164. Leiden:
Brill.
Widenhofer, Siegfried. 1976. Formalstrukturen humanistischer und reformatorischer Theologie
bei Philipp Melanchthon, 2 vols. Frankfurt: Herbert Lang.
Wright, David F. 1972. Introduction. In Common places of Martin Bucer, ed. and trans. D. F.
Wright, 17–71. Appleford: The Sutton Courtenay Press.
Chapter 6
Theology in an Exegetical Context:
Bucer on Ephesians 1:3–6
and the Doctrine of Election

As we have seen in the previous chapter, the notable feature of Bucer’s approach to
the teaching of theology in his Regius Divinity lectures was that it was explicitly
rooted in exegesis; indeed, theology was “done” specifically in the exegetical con-
text of Ephesians. It was his attention to theological loci as they are found in the
course of Paul’s argument, as well as his argument that the letter as a whole was a
compendium of theology, that made Bucer’s lectures both exegesis and theology.
The task in this chapter and the next is to examine more closely Bucer’s treatment
of two of the many pericopes in which he found a locus that called for elucidation.
The present chapter will examine Bucer’s exposition of Ephesians 1:3–6 and the
doctrine of election, and seek to understand more fully how he proceeded in his
treatment of the text, and how he taught theology entirely in the context of biblical
exposition rather than in a separate, systematic treatment of doctrine. We will
address the following questions. What does Bucer’s handling of election tell us
about his exegetical/theological methodology? Did Bucer’s effort to expound theol-
ogy in these lectures influence his exegesis of the text? In other words, did the fact
that the lectures were (formally speaking) in theology have an effect on his interpre-
tation of Ephesians that could be construed as detrimental from an exegetical
standpoint?
Furthermore, in respect of the connections between the doctrine of election and
aspects of the doctrine of God (His will, His decrees, and the doctrine of predestina-
tion), does Bucer give evidence of any theological speculation in his exposition?
Ephesians 1:3–6 is, after all, among the more important passages from which the
doctrine of election has been drawn, and it is thus unsurprising that the doctrine
should have been central in Bucer’s exegesis of the passage. Given the importance
of the doctrine of election to the Augustinian tradition and to Reformed theology in
general in the sixteenth century (and beyond), and given that Bucer’s lectures on

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 151

N.S. Amos, Bucer, Ephesians and Biblical Humanism, Studies in Early Modern
Religious Tradition, Culture and Society 7, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-10238-2_6
152 6 Theology in an Exegetical Context: Bucer on Ephesians 1:3–6 and the Doctrine…

Ephesians were presented as lectures in theology, this text offers us a good

opportunity to consider the nature of Bucer’s approach to theology in general.1
What will become clear is that from the outset of his lectures, Bucer made it
plain that even with a doctrine such as election—which lends itself to theological
speculation—he was keen to stress the “practical,” not the theoretical. He was con-
cerned with Paul’s teaching in this epistle and the relationship of Paul’s doctrine to
the life that Christians live in the world here and now. Despite the fact that Bucer’s
lectures were given under the heading of theology, and notwithstanding the oppor-
tunity there was to set forth a separate discussion on the doctrine (thus providing an
opportunity to import a more pronouncedly speculative theology into an exegetical
setting), Bucer was content to restrict himself to the exposition of what he took to
be Paul’s doctrine and emphases.2 In this, we see that for Bucer the practice of
exegesis and the practice of theological formulation were in large measure one and
the same.
As indicated in Chap. 1 above, we will employ the methods of the history of
biblical interpretation in this chapter and the next. As we work through Bucer’s
lectures, we will consider Bucer’s treatment of the text of Ephesians in the context
of the exegetical tradition in order to observe how much of what he did was tradi-
tional and how much was indeed a departure from previous practice and interpreta-
tion, and, more significantly for this examination, what about his practice made him
distinctive as an exegete and a theologian. After a brief discussion of the general
pattern of Bucer’s treatment of Ephesians 1:3–6 in the context of how others
approached the text, the examination will proceed through Bucer’s lectures, for the
most part verse-by-verse.3 Each section will focus on a portion of the text in
sequence, considering Bucer’s exposition of the passage in light of the exegetical
tradition, noting what was distinctive about the manner in which he developed the
doctrine of election as he worked through the passage.

1
It has been said that, within the broader doctrine of predestination, election is fundamental to the
theology of Bucer (Stephens 1970, 23). For a comprehensive examination of this doctrine with
respect to the whole of Bucer’s career, see Stephens’s work, especially Chapter 1. For more recent
assessments, see also: Hammann (1993) and Krieger (1993). A recent discussion of both in the
context of Bucer’s commentary on Romans is found in Lugioyo (2010, 71–74). However, in refer-
ence to predestination, it is worth bearing in mind the comment of Wright (1972, 95): the doctrine
is not a principal focus in Bucer’s thought to the degree Lang (1900) has argued, and was less
important for Bucer than it was for Luther and Calvin. Wright (1972) translated a portion of
Bucer’s Romans commentary on this topic (a locus following the exposition of Romans 8:28–34)
on pp. 95–105.
2
By the same token, the intention in the present chapter is to focus on what Bucer said in the
exegetical context of Ephesians 1:3–6, and not to pronounce on Bucer’s thinking regarding this
doctrine as it is expressed elsewhere in the corpus of his works.
3
Note, the rendering of Bucer’s Latin that follows is my own, but I have consulted the translation
of this portion of the Praelectiones found in Wright (1972, 109–116).
6.1 Ephesians 1:3–6—The General Pattern of Treatment 153

6.1 Ephesians 1:3–6—The General Pattern of Treatment

In respect of its general form, there was nothing remarkably different about Bucer’s
treatment of the passage when read in the context of the history of its interpretation.
Chrysostom’s exposition of these verses was as part of a homily on the first ten
verses of the chapter, and he did not mark verses 3–6 as a unit for particular com-
ment (Chrysostom 1889, 50–55; Chrysostom 1539, cols. 779–783/KK recto-KK
verso; Chrysostom 1862, cols. 11–16). As commentaries, the works of Jerome
(Jerome 1516, 101 recto-101 verso/r5 recto-r5 verso; Jerome 1845, cols. 444–450),
Ambrosiaster (Ambrose 1527, 939–940/k2 recto-k2 verso; Ambrosiaster 1966, 73),
and Theophylact (Theophylact 1540, 111 recto-111 verso/t3 recto-t3 verso;
Theophylact 1864, cols. 1034–1038) commented on this pericope verse by verse or,
in the case of Pseudo-Jerome (Pseudo-Jerome 1516, 174 recto-174 verso/G2
recto-G2 verso; Pelagius 1926, 345), by phrases and verses without arranging them
in any particular way. Aquinas’s treatment of Ephesians was—like Bucer’s—part of
a series of lectures on the book, and the first lecture was on 1:1–6a, which he first
quoted before turning to his analysis (Aquinas 1541, 169 verso-170 verso/y i verso-
y ii verso; Aquinas 1953, 2: 3–6).4 In fact, the largest part of this lecture was on
verses 3–6, in which he considered the first three of six blessings he identifies in
Ephesians 1 (praise of God, election, and predestination). Haymo of Auxerre com-
mented on verse 3, and then on verses 4–6 (Haymo of Halberstadt 1530, 217 verso-
219 recto/E i verso-E iii recto; Haymo of Halberstadt 1881, cols. 701D–703C). The
commentaries of the other medieval commentators selected for comparison—
the Glossa (Froehlich and Gibson 1992, 4: 369), Nicholas of Lyra (Nicholas of Lyra
1545, 6: 89 verso-90 recto/n5 verso-n6 recto), and Denis the Carthusian (Denis the
Carthusian 1531, 237 recto-238 recto/G v recto-[G vi] recto; Denis the Carthusian
1901, 13: 299–300)—commented on individual verses or phrases, and did not treat
verses 3–6 as a unit.
Among Bucer’s contemporaries, Erasmus’s Paraphrases (Erasmus 1532,
207–208/S2 recto-S2 verso; Erasmus 1706, 7: 971F–973A) was not divided by

4
The tight structure of his analysis is worth taking note of, if only because of the contrast it pro-
vides to that of another Dominican (by early training, at least), namely Bucer. Aquinas briefly
discussed verses one and two (Aquinas 1541, 169 verso/y i verso; Aquinas 1953, 2: 3–4), and then
turned to verse three—but first he paused to show how the first three chapters are related to the
blessing spoken of in verse three, which blessing he believed strengthened the Ephesians in three
ways, each corresponding to a chapter (Aquinas 1541, 169 verso/y i verso; Aquinas 1953, 4). He
then further subdivided the first of these “ways”—the substance of the first half of Chapter 1—into
three sections (Aquinas 1541, 169 verso/y i verso; Aquinas 1953, 4). His division of blessings in
the first half of Chapter 1 is: general blessings (Ephesians 1:3–7); blessings bestowed upon the
Apostles (1:8–12); blessings given to the Ephesians in particular (1:13–14). He then subdivided the
first of these subdivisions (which actually runs to verse seven) into a further six sections, each
dealing with a blessing (Aquinas 1541, 169 verso/y i verso; Aquinas 1953, 4). The blessings are:
praising God (Ephesians 1:3); election (1:4); predestination (1:5); grace (1:6b); redemption (1:7a);
pardon (1:7b). Whatever else one may wish to say about this method, it is certainly rigorous and
analytical, and reflects Aquinas’s systematic approach to the reading of texts.
154 6 Theology in an Exegetical Context: Bucer on Ephesians 1:3–6 and the Doctrine…

verse and phrase, where his Annotations necessarily worked through the text by
phrase, sometimes by verse (Erasmus 1535, 591–592/Dd2 recto-Dd2 verso).
Cajetan likewise covered the verses in the course of a running commentary, quoting
the text by phrase or word as he proceeded (Cajetan 1540, 254 recto-255 recto/[I vi]
recto-[I vii] recto). Bugenhagen, in the manner of the Wittenberg “school,” high-
lighted the key phrases that served to illustrate the loci he found in the text
(Bugenhagen 1524, A3 recto-A4 verso); beyond this, his commentary as a whole
was divided only by chapters. Bullinger divided the passage into two units. First he
quoted and then dealt with verses three and four, and then did the same with verses
five and six (Bullinger 1539, 405–407/[L5] recto-[L6] recto). Finally, Calvin, like
Aquinas, dealt with Ephesians 1:1–6 as a unit. He began by quoting the passage, but
focused most of his running commentary on verses 3–6 (Calvin 1965, 123–127;
Calvin 1548, 107–111/h2 recto-h4 recto).
We have already observed in Chap. 5 that the form of Bucer’s lectures was more
like a running commentary than anything else. In that he does not appear to have
quoted the text in units (other than verses, phrases, and words as he progressed
through the letter), the general shape of the Praelectiones, including his treatment
of Ephesians 1:3–6, was therefore like the commentaries of the Church Fathers,
the medieval commentators (other than Aquinas), and Cajetan; in other words, quite
traditional.5 Apart from the note “Initium Epistolae,” printed so as to mark the
beginning of his treatment of the body of the letter,6 he (or his editor) does not seem
to have divided the text of the epistle by sections in quite as explicit a manner as did
Aquinas, Bullinger and Calvin. Nevertheless, as we shall see, he clearly treated
Ephesians 1:3–6 as a unit, and in that respect was in agreement with these latter
three.
What we find at the outset is that Bucer’s treatment of this pericope is consistent
with his introductory analysis in the prefatory lectures: significantly, he found that
the epistle as a whole has the character of a theological compendium.7 As Bucer
read it, Paul begins his compendium with the doctrine of election, the first of several
doctrines:
The first locus of theology which Paul treats in this epistle is that of our election to an eter-
nal inheritance. For with this epistle to the Ephesians he recalls to mind the benefits which
God conferred on them. Therefore, he begins from the first of them all and the greatest,
namely the election and eternal embrace by which God, before all time, has embraced them
and all of his own to life and eternal salvation. Of this he says the efficient cause is the pure

5
In 1527, however, he explicitly divided the text into sections; verses 3 and 4 constituted section 2,
and verses 5 and 6, section 3 (Bucer 1527, 23 verso-26 recto/[C7] verso-D2 recto [sect. 2]; 26
verso-27 recto/D2 verso-D3 recto [sect. 3]).
6
As we observed in Chap. 3, whether this rubric was something found in Bucer’s notes, or an
editorial decision of Tremellius, is not known.
7
Bullinger comments in a similar vein that in these opening verses is contained the sum total of the
Gospel (Bullinger 1539, 405/[L5] recto).
6.1 Ephesians 1:3–6—The General Pattern of Treatment 155

grace of God and the merit of Christ. […] The final causes are the sanctification of life and
the glory of God.8 (Bucer 1562, 19C)

Bucer regarded election as only one of the blessings which Paul calls to mind for his
readers. At the same time, it was the controlling doctrine for his discussion of these
opening verses because, as we see here, he regarded it as the most important of
God’s blessings to His people.9
What is distinctive is the way in which he treats election as the first of several
doctrines included in the letter (which itself, we have already noted, is regarded by
him as a kind of summa of essential Christian doctrine): he developed a discussion
of this doctrinal locus, yet without setting aside the exegesis of the whole of the text.
In intent, as well as practice, Bucer established a close relationship between the
exegesis of the text of Ephesians and a discussion of the locus on election.
Bucer was careful to stress that in his lectures he sought to follow the intent of
Paul (Bucer 1562, 20D)10; as Paul begins with election, so Bucer’s lectures in theol-
ogy will begin with election. It should be observed as well that we find at the outset
of Bucer’s exposition what I have earlier identified as a biblical humanist stress on
the close connection of doctrine and life—on theology as a practical body of knowl-
edge, rather than a speculative body of knowledge—a connection which Bucer
believed to be central to Paul’s teaching in this epistle:
The aim in this epistle is the increase of piety, not only in knowledge but also in practice…
by which a faith more emboldened may extend more widely for every good work.11 (Bucer
1562, 20D)

8
“Primus locus Theologiae, quem Paulus hac epistola tractat, est de Electione nostri ad haeredita-
tem aeternam. Revocat enim hac Epistola Ephesiis in memoriam beneficia, quae Deus illis
contulerat: Ergo ab omnium primo, & maximo incipit, nimirum ab Electione & complexu aeterno,
quo ipsos & omnes suos, ante omne tempus, ad vitam & salutem aeternam complexus est. Huius
causam efficientem dicit esse meram gratiam Dei, & meritum Christi. […] Causae finales sunt,
vitae sanctificatio, & gloria Dei.” His references to the “efficient cause” of election (the grace of
God and Christ’s merit) and the “final causes” (the sanctification of life and God’s glory—though
it is the latter to which he gives priority) have a distinctly Aristotelian flavor. This might have sug-
gested to his auditors that a “scholastic” presentation was to follow, but such was not forthcoming.
Torrance (1956, 73), suggests that Bucer’s use of the language of causality in this context reflects
the influence of Calvin’s own 1548 Commentary on Ephesians, though Torrance did not develop
the point. Whereas Calvin identified all four causes (efficient, formal, material, final), Bucer only
mentioned two (efficient and final), and the manner in which he characterized them differs from
Calvin. See below our discussion of this in connection with Calvin’s exegesis of verse 5.
9
In his 1527 commentary, the emphasis is more on the character of praise and thanksgiving, which
he states is the dominant emphasis of the first chapter. Election is given a fair amount of attention
(Bucer actually alternates between speaking of election and of predestination), but it is not as
prominent as it is in the 1550 lectures (Bucer 1527, 23 verso/[C7] verso, 25 recto-25 verso/D recto-
D verso).
10
“Atque semper est scopus habendus prae oculis.”
11
“Est autem in hac Epistola scopus, incrementum pietatis, non solum in cognitione, sed etiam in
praxi…quo fides magis confirmata, latius se ad omnia opera bona explicet.”
156 6 Theology in an Exegetical Context: Bucer on Ephesians 1:3–6 and the Doctrine…

It is for this reason, he argued, that Paul begins with the praise of God for His
blessings—especially for His electing grace,12 knowledge of which will strengthen
in believers faith and confidence in what God has done for them, and which will
encourage a zeal for purity.13

6.2 Ephesians 1:3 and the Blessing of the Elect People

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with all spiritual
blessing in the heavenlies, in Christ.14 (Bucer 1562, 17A)

As a conscientious exegete Bucer did not move immediately to an exposition of the

doctrine identified as the central issue in the passage (here, election), as one might
expect to happen in the case of Melanchthon and other early Lutherans such as
Bugenhagen once they had identified the central locus.15 Though election was the
central issue in his wider discussion, it did not supplant exegesis of the text at hand:
we are reminded again that the relationship between exegesis of the text and the
development of the doctrinal locus was one of balance. Bucer followed the order of
the text under examination, and thus gave attention in the first instance to the
question of blessing. In this, he followed the exegetical tradition.
Bucer’s discussion of blessing in verse three began with a philological consider-
ation: how the Hebrew for “bless” should be interpreted.
Blessed be the God, etc.) By which words Paul expresses briefly the benefits of God, and
recalls them to mind, of both the Ephesians and ourselves. The Hebrew word , that is,
“He blessed,” sometimes means “to bestow a benefit,” and sometimes means “to praise.”
When it is said of God, then it means His showering us with blessings; when indeed it is
ascribed to us, then it means to praise and give thanks.16 (Bucer 1562, 20D)

12
Somewhat earlier in the lecture (Bucer 1562, 19C), he was careful to define the meaning of
“grace”: here it “signifies the gratuitous favor and benevolence of God” [gratuitum Dei favorem &
benevolentiam hoc loco significat] as in the present instance, and it can also refer to “the gratuitous
gifts of God through a figure of speech” [gratuita Dei dona, per figuram].
13
In the 1527 commentary, he similarly stressed that the letter was intended to encourage the
Ephesians to live a life worthy of the name Christian (Bucer 1527, 23 verso/[C7] verso).
14
“Benedictus Deus & pater Domini nostri Iesu Christi, qui benedixit nos omni benedictione spiri-
tuali in caelestibus, Christo.” In this chapter and the next, the English text of Ephesians is my own
translation of the Latin text of Erasmus as furnished by Bucer’s editor, Tremellius, and placed at
the beginning of each chapter as it is taken up in the Praelectiones.
15
Bugenhagen’s treatment of the text was focused largely on Paul’s handling of the doctrine of
predestination, and he did not address every portion of the text of the letter.
16
“Benedictus Deus, &c. Quibus verbis summatim comprehendit Dei beneficia, & ea Ephesiis, &
nobis in memoriam revocat. Verbum Hebraicum id est, Benedixit, interdum significat benefi-
cium conferre, & aliquando est laudare. Cum de Deo dicitur, tum significat beneificiis ubertim
afficere: cum vero tribuitur nobis, tum significat laudare & gratias agere.” In 1527, Bucer drew
attention to the linguistic affinity of the phrase in the Greek text to the Hebrew
phrase that lies behind it (Bucer, Martin 1527, 23 verso/[C7] verso). Bullinger also
6.2 Ephesians 1:3 and the Blessing of the Elect People 157

Having indicated the ultimate root of the concept in the Old Testament, Bucer then
took issue with Chrysostom’s argument that there was a distinction to be drawn
between the blessings of God towards the Jews and those towards Christians.
Chrysostom regards these blessings of ours are as if [they are] diametrically opposed to the
blessings of the people of old, because to them He promises and presents only temporal
blessings, but for us spiritual ones.17 (Bucer 1562, 20E)

Like Bucer, Chrysostom focused on blessing in his exposition of verse three.

What is striking is that Chrysostom made such a sharp distinction between the spiri-
tual blessings of which Paul wrote and the earthly blessings of the Jews, and argued
that the contrast was intentional, albeit by allusion (Chrysostom 1889, 50;
Chrysostom 1539, col. 779/KK recto; Chrysostom 1862, col. 11).18 Chyrsostom
acknowledged that the Jews were indeed blessed, but the blessing was confined to
this life (Chrysostom 1889, 50; Chrysostom 1539, col. 779/KK recto; Chrysostom
1862, col. 11).19 By contrast, the blessings of the Christians to which Paul explicitly
refers are spiritual—immortality, freedom from sin, adoption as children of God,
righteousness, an interest in the heavenly inheritance, the promise of glorification
with Christ (Chrysostom 1889, 50; Chrysostom 1539, col. 779/KK recto;
Chrysostom 1862, col. 11). Because the “spiritual blessings” are tied to the “heav-
enlies”, they are not upon the earth, “as was the case with the Jews” (Chrysostom
1889, 50; Chrysostom 1539, col. 779/KK recto; Chrysostom 1862, col. 11).20
Chrysostom emphasized how blessing in the Old Testament was exclusively earthly
or physical, whereas in the New Testament blessings are all spiritual (Chrysostom
1889, 50–51; Chrysostom 1539, col. 779/KK recto; Chrysostom 1862, col. 11).21
He insisted that Paul “every where … speaketh of Heaven, nowhere of earth, or of
the things of the earth” (Chrysostom 1889, 51; Chrysostom 1539, col. 779/KK
recto; Chrysostom 1862, col. 11).22 A final distinction between Jews and Christians

made reference to the Hebraic idiom that lay behind Paul’s language here, and similar usage in
other of his epistles (Bullinger 1539, 405/[L5] recto).
17
“Chrysostomus vult has nostras benedictiones, quasi ex diametro opponi benedictionibus veteris
populi, quod illis tantum temporalia, nobis autem spiritualia promittat & exhibeat.”
18
Neither Jerome, Pseudo-Jerome, nor Ambrosiaster made this distinction, and in fact Jerome
referred to blessing in the Old Testament without taking care to make the distinction that
Chrysostom has drawn: Jerome (1516, 101 recto/r5 recto; Jerome 1845, cols. 445A–446A);
Pseudo-Jerome (1516, 174 recto/G2 recto; Pelagius 1926, 345); Ambrose (1527, 939/k2 recto;
Ambrosiaster 1966, 72); Theophylact did, however, follow Chrysostom: Theophylact (1540, 111
recto/t3 recto; Theophylact 1864, cols. 1034D–1035A).
19
He cited in support of this Deuteronomy 7:13 and 27:4.
20
The 1539 Latin translation of Musculus reads: “Non in terris, inquit, quemadmodum apud
Iudaeos legimus.” The Patrologia Graeca reads: “Non in terra, inquit, sicut apud Judaeos.”
21
The Old Testament texts were Is 1:9, Ex 3:8, and Deut 7:13; the New Testament texts were Jo
14:23, Mt 7:24–5, Mt 10:32–3, Mt 5:8, Mt 5:3, and Mt 5:11–12.
22
The 1539 translation by Musculus and the Patrologia Graeca text are virtually the same: “Vides
ubique caelos [1539, coelos] , nusquam terram, neque quae sunt in terra?” Likewise, Ambrosiaster
stressed that Paul is speaking strictly of the former to the exclusion of the latter, as did Pseudo-
Jerome, and Jerome emphasized the spiritual character of the blessings of which Paul writes:
158 6 Theology in an Exegetical Context: Bucer on Ephesians 1:3–6 and the Doctrine…

was that for the former, blessing was mediated by a man, Moses, whereas for the
latter it was mediated by Christ Jesus the God-Man. Hence, Christians surpass the
Jews “not only in the quality of the blessings, but in the Mediator also” (Chrysostom
1889, 51; Chrysostom 1539, col. 780/KK recto; Chrysostom 1862, col. 11).23
For all the respect Bucer had for Chrysostom, he did not find that there is an
implied contrast between the blessings of the Christians and the Jews. Instead,
Bucer stated that in fact God extended spiritual and temporal blessings to the Jews
as well as to the Christians, arguing that Deuteronomy does bear witness to this
“when it says that He Himself has chosen [or, elected] that people in order to make
them share in all good things, and even of eternal life” (Bucer 1562, 20E).24 It is
interesting that Bucer did not make a similar comment in his 1527 Ephesians com-
mentary, either regarding Chrysostom or the relationship between the blessings of
Christians and Jews (Bucer 1527, 24 verso/[C8] verso),25 which raises the question
of what prompted the comment in the 1550 lectures. (It is entirely possible, of
course, that a fresh reading of Chrysostom might have prompted this remark.) It was
not a major issue in the exegetical tradition. However, of the commentators surveyed
for the comparative frame of reference for our study of Bucer, two of them, Cajetan
and Calvin, followed Chrysostom. Could they have prompted Bucer to speak to this
issue?
It is true that Cajetan made the same contrast as the Greek Father, in particular
noting the distinction between the blessings of Christians and those of the Jewish
people as found in Deuteronomy. The latter are corporal, the former are spiritual
(Cajetan 1540, 254 verso/[I vi] verso).26 But Cajetan does not mention Chrysostom
by name, and thus would be unlikely to have prompted Bucer to make his reference
to the Greek Father. On the other hand, Calvin did explicitly and favorably cite this

Ambrose (1527, 939/K2 recto; Ambrosiaster 1966, 72); Pseudo-Jerome (1516, 174 recto/G2
recto), Pelagius (1926, 345); Jerome (1516, 101 recto/r5 recto; Jerome 1845, col. 445B–C).
23
The 1539 text reads: “Itaque non solum benedictionis qualitate, sed & ipso mediatore vos excel-
limus.” The Patrologia Graeca reads, “Quare non solum qualitate, sed etiam intercessore excelli-
mus.” Theophylact makes a similar comment: “Hoc est, per Jesum Christum nobis benedictio
contingit, non per Mosem, velut Judaeis” (Theophylact 1540, 111 recto/t3 recto; Theophylact
1864, col. 1035B). The Latin translation of Theophylact is the same in both the 1540 and 1864
texts.
24
“…ubi dicit, se populum illum elegisse, ut eum participem faceret omnium bonorum, atque
etiam vitae aeternae.”
25
For that matter, neither Bugenhagen or Bullinger picked up on this comment of Chrysostom.
Bugenhagen discussed two types of blessing, corporal and spiritual (as external and invisible
respectively), but without privileging the latter over the former (Bugenhagen 1524, A3 verso-A4
recto). Bullinger also made a distinction between spiritual and corporal blessings (without a refer-
ence to the contrast drawn by Chrysostom), and argued Paul refers to the former in this instance
(Bullinger 1539, 405/[L5] recto).
26
“Spiritual. In distinction from the corporal blessings, with which the Jewish people are blessed
in Deuteronomy. Thus our God has not blessed us with such [corporal] blessings, but with all spiri-
tual blessings.” [Spiritualis. Ad differentiam benedictionum corporalium, quibus in Deute.
Benedictus est populus Iudaicus: non sic talibus benedictionibus benedixit nos deus, sed spirituali-
bus beneficiis omnibus.]
6.2 Ephesians 1:3 and the Blessing of the Elect People 159

observation of Chrysostom in his own 1548 commentary, a commentary which

would likely have been known to at least some in the Cambridge community and
certainly to Bucer. It may come as a surprise that the commentator who might well
have moved Bucer to the “defense” of the Jews was his fellow Reformer, Calvin.27
Calvin’s discussion of blessing in verse 3 was in relation to election, which he
took up with verse 4 (Calvin 1965, 124; Calvin 1548, 108/h2 verso). He maintained
that the purpose Paul had in extolling the blessing of God was so that the Ephesians
would not fall prey to false doctrine. If they were more fully convinced of the full-
ness of God’s grace towards them, they would not be open to persuasion to any
other doctrine. As Calvin observed, Paul stressed that certainty of salvation resides
in the revelation of the love of God in Christ. It is made more certain still by the fact
of election; thus the blessing spoken of in verse three is subsumed under the teach-
ing on election beginning in verse four (Calvin 1965, 124; Calvin 1548, 108/h2
verso).
Hence, Calvin discussed the meaning of blessing only briefly, in the course of
which he commented on the observation of Chrysostom regarding the implied con-
trast regarding blessings between those of Moses and those of Christ (Calvin 1965,
124; Calvin 1548, 108/h2 verso). He indicated that he had no objection to this sug-
gestion, and regarded the blessings of the Law as a figuration of the blessings found
in Christ. Calvin had no particular opinion regarding how to interpret “the heaven-
lies”—whether the phrase refers to a place or to benefits28—and argued that what
Paul intended to convey here was that the grace of Christ was of a superior order and
that the blessings thereof are to be most fully experienced and enjoyed in heaven
(Calvin 1965, 124; Calvin 1548, 108/h2 verso).29 He did acknowledge that there are
blessings to be enjoyed in this life, but it will be in heaven that the faithful will
experience them to the greatest degree. He concluded his remarks on verse three by
noting again the implied contrast between “Christ and all the Jewish symbols, in
which the blessing under the Law was contained” [Christum opponit Iudaicis omni-
bus symbolis, quibus inclusa fuit benedictio sub lege] (Calvin 1965, 124 [reprinted
by permission of the publisher]; Calvin 1548, 108/h2 verso).
Why did Bucer feel the need to differ from Chrysostom explicitly and, perhaps
implicitly, from Calvin? Was there an exegetical issue at work, or was there a theo-
logical concern that motivated him? The evidence of the lectures themselves
suggests that it was the latter, in no small part arising from a much higher view of
the people of Israel vis-à-vis the blessings of God than was commonly the case. No
doubt Bucer’s belief that the essential message of the Old Testament and the New
Testament “is the same in substance” [idem in substantia est] extended to this more

27
This adds weight to Torrance’s suggestion regarding Bucer and Calvin’s 1548 Ephesians
commentary, noted a few pages earlier.
28
Although he did interpret the phrase to refer to the future (place or benefits), and not to those
available now.
29
Bugenhagen (1524, A4 recto) commented very briefly on this phrase with reference to the incor-
poreal, spiritual realm, noting the link between this passage and Paul’s reference to evil spiritual
beings in Chapter 6.
160 6 Theology in an Exegetical Context: Bucer on Ephesians 1:3–6 and the Doctrine…

positive view of the people of the Old Testament (Bucer 1530, 48 verso/h6 verso).30
Like Christians, they too are the elect people of God. As we have already observed
in Chap. 4, as well as in our discussion in Chap. 5 of his treatment of the locus on
the abrogation of the ceremonial Law (Bucer 1562, 75A–91A), Bucer firmly
believed that the two Testaments spoke of the same God, and that the peoples of
each Testament (Israel of the Old Testament and the faithful believers of the New
Testament) are both His people. In fact, he went on to note that Christians are like
the Jews in their common need to pray to the Father for their daily needs (Bucer
1562, 20E).
An additional reason why Bucer singled out Chrysostom’s interpretation for
comment may have been his concern to emphasize the reality of blessing in this life
as well as the next, and the continuity between the two. In this respect, he was
distinctive in the context of the other commentators chosen for comparison. We
have already considered what Chrysostom, Cajetan and Calvin had to say on this
above, in the context of the supposed contrast of Jews and Christians. Aquinas, who
did not make this latter contrast, did place a greater stress on the spiritual, non-
corporeal character of the blessings, because believers will ultimately receive them
in heaven (as he understands “heavenly places”). They are bodily only with respect
to the spiritual bodies of believers; hence, their fundamentally heavenly character
(Aquinas 1541, 169 verso-170 recto/y i verso-y ii recto; Aquinas 1953, 4).31 Erasmus
also made a similar contrast between physical blessing and spiritual blessing in the
Paraphrases (Erasmus 1532, 207/S2 recto; Erasmus 1706, 7: 973B). Even Bucer, in
his earlier Ephesians commentary, followed the common exegetical path. His com-
ments in 1527 focused exclusively on the spiritual character of the blessings spoken
of by Paul, with minimal reference to their reception by believers in this life (Bucer
1527, 24 verso/[C8] verso).
Without denying the spiritual aspect of the blessings, Bucer’s 1550 comments
drew attention to their present, this-worldly aspect, and it was perhaps in this con-
text that we should read his discussion of the reference to “heavenlies,” where he
concluded that its meaning in the present text has to do with the good things that
come to the elect in this life as they are bestowed by Christ (hence, they are “heav-
enly things”). The implication is that while Paul’s teaching is often concerned with
spiritual matters, it also has a strong, practical concern with, and immediate

30
See above in Sect. 4.3.1.
31
He cited I Corinthians 15:44 and Philippians 3:21. Haymo of Auxerre also argued that the bless-
ings spoken of are principally spiritual. If Paul had only said “blessings,” this would have implied
those that are temporal and earthly, not spiritual and eternal. He stressed that the spiritual blessings
come to believers in Christ (Haymo of Halberstadt 1530, 218 recto/E ii recto; Haymo of Halberstadt
1881, col. 702A–B). The marginal gloss of the Glossa Ordinaria was silent on the distinction
between spiritual and earthly blessings, but did note that the blessings are given in Christ. The
interlinear gloss mentions both spiritual and corporal blessings (Froehlich and Gibson 1992, 4:
369, col. I.) Nicholas of Lyra stressed the spiritual and ultimately heavenly character of the bless-
ings, which come in Christ (Nicholas of Lyra 1545, 6: 89 verso/n5 verso). Denis the Carthusian
emphasized spiritual blessings (Denis the Carthusian 1531, 237 recto-237 verso/G v recto-verso;
Denis the Carthusian 1901, 13: 299).
6.3 Ephesians 1:4—Election and Its Ethical Imperative 161

relevance to, the Christian life in this world. Read in this way, it can be conjectured
that Bucer thus further distanced himself from an interpretation that would draw
sharp distinctions between the blessings of God to Israel in the Old Testament and
His blessings to Christians (Bucer 1562, 20E).32

6.3 Ephesians 1:4—Election and Its Ethical Imperative

Just as he elected us in him before the foundations of the world were established, that we
should be holy and blameless before him....33 (Bucer 1562, 17A)

As he moved on to verse 4, Bucer paused to re-state the direction of Paul’s argument

in verse 3, a statement that served Bucer’s theological aims as much as (if not more
than) his exegesis. Conscientious exegete that he was, his intent was to be faithful in
his exposition of each portion of the text, discussing the argument of the author as it
is presented rather than focusing only on what he took to be the principal point (that
is, election). Yet in his attention to the details he did not lose sight of the whole, and
kept before his auditors what he regarded as the wider scope of Paul’s argument, and
hence the theology of the text. In this brief summation, Bucer stressed that Paul’s
emphasis on gratitude for God’s blessings to believers—“election, adoption, calling,
faith, etc.” [Electionem, adoptionem, vocationem, fidem, &c.]—should lead the
faithful to have a zeal for God and a zeal to know Him experientially as benefactor
in every aspect of life (Bucer 1562, 20E). It is worth noting that in this summary,
Bucer emphasized again the relationship between Paul’s doctrinal teaching and the
manner of life believers should seek to follow, underscoring again his intent in these
lectures to set forth theology as well as exegesis. Bucer was careful not to make the
blessings of God dependent upon the deeds or worth of believers, for the gifts are all
of the grace of God, but he was keen to stress that these gifts are to be actively
received and experienced in a life of gratitude and obedience to the Lord (Bucer
1562, 20F).34 The knowledge that one has been “elected” or chosen by the Lord to
receive these blessings should, in Bucer’s view, lead one to be “inflamed with an
incredible desire and zeal to hold fast to the benefits of God, and [a zeal] to know
the Benefactor in the whole of one’s life” (Bucer 1562, 20F).35
Bucer began his treatment of verse 4 (though without quoting the text) with a
practical matter concerning the doctrine of election and its relation to the Christian

32
In passing, Bucer also notes that the phrase can have reference to the abode of spiritual beings
(specifically, evil ones), as in the case of Ephesians 6:12. Apart from Bugenhagen (1524, A4 recto),
none of the other commentators under consideration made this suggestion.
33
“Quemadmodem elegit nos in ipso, antequam iacerentur fundamenta mundi, ut essemus sancti &
irreprehensibiles coram illo....”
34
He said much the same in 1527 (Bucer 1527, 24 verso/[C8] verso).
35
“Qui serio cogitat se electum esse a Deo antequam esset, incredibili accenditur desiderio, &
studio retinendi beneficia Dei, & agnoscendi benefactorem omni vita sua.” This resonates with
Erasmus in the Paraphrases (Erasmus 1532, 207–208/S2 recto-S2 verso; Erasmus 1706, 7: 973 C.)
162 6 Theology in an Exegetical Context: Bucer on Ephesians 1:3–6 and the Doctrine…

life: should election be spoken of at all among the common people, lest they use it
as a pretext for a libertine way of life? In the exegetical context of Ephesians 1:4, the
matter was of no explicit concern to the Patristic or medieval exegetes we have
considered. Though Cajetan was careful to hedge about the understanding of
election with the need for virtuous living so as to preclude a libertine understanding
of the doctrine, he did not express the sort of concerns to which Bucer was respond-
ing (Cajetan 1540, 255 recto/[I vii] recto). It is also worth noting that Bucer himself
was not concerned to make this particular point in 1527. Of those with whom we
have compared with Bucer, only Calvin raised the question. To the charge that the
doctrine of election will give way to license and an indifference to the moral life,
Calvin responded that Paul binds together holiness of life and the election of God
(Calvin 1965, 126; Calvin 1548, 110/h3 verso).36 To separate them would do griev-
ous harm. At the same time, it is an error to teach that a morally perfect life can be
attained in this world, for such perfection will only be achieved at the end of one’s
life (Calvin 1965, 126; Calvin 1548, 110/h3 verso). Calvin implicitly acknowledged
that both positions (a false confidence, or moral libertinism) have been advanced as
reasons for remaining silent on the doctrines of election and predestination, but he
insisted that in fact both doctrines are of tremendous value when handled properly.
He held up this passage as an example of how they should be taught, for in it Paul
stresses the immense goodness or kindness of God [immensam Dei bonitatem] with
a view to stirring the faithful to give thanks to Him for what He has done (Calvin
1965, 126; Calvin 1548, 110/h3 verso). Election and predestination settle the argu-
ment if nothing else will do, and prevent the impious from claiming anything for
themselves (Calvin 1965, 126; Calvin 1548, 110/h3 verso). Not unlike Calvin,
Bucer for his part insisted that the doctrine of election be taught openly not only
because it is the greatest of the blessings of God, all of which must be proclaimed
among His people, but also because if properly taught it strengthens the faith of
believers.
Since the blessings of God must be enlarged upon among the people, surely this one, which
is the greatest, must not be passed over. Following the example of Paul, confidence concern-
ing election must be commended and strengthened among the people....37 (Bucer 1562, 20F)

36
Bullinger (1539, 405/[L5] recto) was likewise concerned to guard against the libertine applica-
tion of this doctrine, for which reason he believed that Paul adds that believers are elected to be
holy and blameless.
37
“Sed cum beneficia Dei apud homines sint amplificanda, certe hoc quod maximum est, non est
praetermittendum, sed Pauli exemplo commemorandum est, & confirmanda in hominibus fides de
electione....” Calvin only briefly touched on this positive reason for teaching of election (Calvin
1965, 126; Calvin 1548, 110/h3 verso). Bullinger (1539, 405/[L5] recto) was more expansive,
stressing that it must be taught but with reverence and fear and in such a way that none would either
presume too much or, to the contrary, despair. Regarding the latter response, he believed it best to
preach that all those who believe in Christ are elect, and that they should be encouraged to trust in
the promises of the Gospel, and not become introspective. His position was not dissimilar to
Bucer’s.
6.3 Ephesians 1:4—Election and Its Ethical Imperative 163

In light of this, he dismissed the concerns of those who fear that in teaching this
doctrine it may lead to the “dissolution of all life and religion” [vitae & religionis
omnis dissolutionem] (Bucer 1562, 20 F).38
Furthermore, Bucer emphasized that election—which he defined in the present
context as that gracious act of God whereby some have been called out of the ruined
mass of fallen humanity to be appointed to the knowledge of God’s will and
ultimately to eternal life—is essential to the ability of believers to resist the attacks
of the Devil (Bucer 1562, 21A). The Devil is always attacking the faith of believers,
and it is only through the knowledge of election that they can resist.
For if we lack this certitude of faith, if we are not convinced of it, [then] we are unable to
look forward to eternal life, we are unable to acknowledge God as Father, and Christ as
Redeemer: in short, nothing of solid piety and the true love of God can reside in us.39 (Bucer
1562, 21A)

Take away the teaching of election, and you leave the faithful defenseless and
subject to the vicissitudes of doubt; for this reason he strongly refutes those who
would maintain a silence in the Church regarding the doctrine of election (Bucer
1562, 21A).40
Quoting 1:4b, Bucer went on to say that the goal of election is found in Paul’s
statement that believers are called to be holy and blameless, which he took to
mean that believers should know their Lord (as well as love and worship Him)
and that they should follow His will in their daily life. He argued, on the basis of
Paul’s statement that God chose believers “in Himself,” that all notion of human
merit is excluded, as well as any idea that God acted on the basis of a foreknowl-
edge of either what believers would do or on the basis of their future faith (Bucer
1562, 21A).41
It is interesting to observe that on the matter of merit, Bucer stands once again in
sharp contrast to Chrysostom, despite their common concern to emphasize the ethi-
cal aspect of Paul’s teaching. Chrysostom argued that believers should not rest on
faith (and by implication, election) alone. He acknowledged the place of faith, but
at the same time he stressed the place of conduct as well (Chrysostom 1889, 51;
Chrysostom 1539, col. 780/KK recto; Chrysostom 1862, col. 12).42 The ethical
dimension of his exposition is strengthened by his observation that the election of

38
Compare this with Bucer’s similar statements in his locus on predestination in the Romans
commentary (Bucer 1536, 358–361/H3 verso-[H5] recto; Wright 1972, 99–102).
39
“Nam si hac fidei certitudine careamus, si de ea persuasi non sumus, non possumus vitam aeter-
nam expectare: Deum pro patre, & Christum pro redemptore non possumus agnoscere: nihil
denique solidae pietatis, & verae dilectionis Dei in nobis esse potest.”
40
Bucer (like Bullinger) stressed the encouragement that believers can derive from the doctrine in
the face of Satanic doubts. As we have seen, Calvin also stressed (albeit briefly) the positive aspects
of the doctrine, and the usefulness of a proper teaching of it. He was more concerned to guard
against the libertine abuse of election (Calvin 1965, 126; Calvin 1548, 110/h3 verso).
41
Bucer made a similar point in his earlier Ephesians commentary (Bucer 1527, 24 verso/[C8]
verso). On this issue, there was not a consensus in the exegetical tradition, although all stress the
priority of God’s grace in Christ.
42
It comes as no surprise that Bucer agreed with the stress on conduct.
164 6 Theology in an Exegetical Context: Bucer on Ephesians 1:3–6 and the Doctrine…

believers was for a particular purpose, that they “should be holy and without
blemish” (Chrysostom 1889, 51; Chrysostom 1539, col. 780/KK recto; Chrysostom
1862, col. 12).43 It was for this purpose that God “formerly…chose the Jews,” citing
Deuteronomy 14:2 (Chrysostom 1889, 51; Chrysostom 1539, col. 780/KK recto;
Chrysostom 1862, col. 12).44 Chrysostom went on to say that God would choose
only the best, and that in choosing the Jews, we see not only “a token of the loving
kindness of God” but also “of their moral goodness,” a position that goes against the
Augustinian tradition and indeed Paul’s teaching, both of which Bucer affirmed
(Chrysostom 1889, 51; Chrysostom 1539, col. 780/KK recto; Chrysostom 1862,
col. 12).45 Yet whereas Bucer had explicitly rejected Chrysostom’s interpretation of
the distinction between the blessing of Christians and that of the Jews, we shall see
that he passed over their differences in silence on this particular point. For Bucer,
God’s choice had its origin with respect to His will and to Jesus Christ, and nothing
else.46 Bucer turned to Augustine’s anti-Pelagian writings for support, and then
cited 2 Corinthians 2:14 in order to emphasize that it is the work of the Spirit that
moves individuals to believe, a work that is the result of the electing grace of
God (Bucer 1562, 21A–B).47 He noted as well that we cannot understand divine
choice by making an analogy with human choice, for they are quite different (Bucer
1562, 21B).
Bucer remarked that Paul treats of election in its proper place in Romans 8, in the
context of trials and afflictions—thus along the lines that Bucer has followed in his
exposition of Ephesians, hence reinforcing his contention that knowledge of election
has a key role to play in the life of the believer (Bucer 1562, 21C).48 In this connec-
tion, he extolled the force and eloquence of the present argument (which he here
attributed to the Holy Spirit), an argument he maintained surpasses the Church
Fathers in lucidity and persuasiveness (Bucer 1562, 21C). Salvation is ascribed to
the grace and love of God in Christ, and yet in such a way that believers are encour-

43
In the 1539 translation of Musculus, this read, “ut sancti simus atque irreprehensibiles;” in the
Patrologia Graeca, “ut essemus sancti et immaculati.”
44
In the 1539 text, “Elegerat aliquando & Iudaeos”; in the Patrologia Graeca, “Elegit etiam
aliquando Judaeos.”
45
In the 1539 text, “Eligi vero & divinae benignitatis indicium est, & virtutis eorum qui eliguntur.
Omnino, siquidem probatos eligit.” In the Patrologia Graeca, “Electos quoque esses, est Dei
benignitatis ac elementiae et ipsorum virtutis indicium: omnino enim probatos eligit.”
46
It is worth noting that Chyrsostom (Chrysostom 1889, 51; Chrysostom 1539, col. 780/KK recto;
Chrysostom 1862, col. 12), Ambrose (1527, 939/k2 recto; Ambrosiaster 1966, 73), and Pseudo-
Jerome (1516, 174 recto/G2 recto; Pelagius 1926, 345) all articulated the notion of God’s fore-
knowledge as a factor. None of the other exegetes surveyed made this connection.
47
According to David Wright (1972, 117), Bucer’s allusion is probably to Augustine, De praedes-
tinatione sanctorum (Patrologia Latina, vol. 44). Interestingly, the Glossa ordinaria (Froehlich
and Gibson 1992, 4: 369, col. II) also refers to this treatise in the same context. Bucer called upon
Jerome and Chrysostom for support on this point, though without a citation of particular texts.
48
It is also worth noting the priority Bucer assigns here to election rather than predestination.
6.3 Ephesians 1:4—Election and Its Ethical Imperative 165

aged actively to live out their salvation as it is applied to them, echoing perhaps the
language of Philippians 2:12–13 (Bucer 1562, 21C).49
Bucer’s focus on election, therefore, did not lead him to minimize, much less
overlook, the implicit ethical imperative in Paul’s statement in Ephesians 1:4b that
believers are to be holy and blameless, to which Bucer returned after his brief
digression. He acknowledged this imperative, and went on to state that the reference
in the phrase “before Him” [coram ipso] meant that believers are to be blameless in
heart and thus blameless in the presence of God, not merely to exhibit the public
appearance of blamelessness of the kind that a hypocrite could exhibit (Bucer 1562,
21C).50 Bucer also gave attention to what he took to be the meaning of the Hebrew
word that underlies Paul’s words— , which he said “signifies those who are
whole, such as it is proper for the faithful elect (the worshipers of God) to be,
removed, that is, from earthly desires” (Bucer 1562, 21C).51
Bucer then addressed the question that might be posed by those who—pointing
to other passages of Scripture which declare that no one living can be thus blameless
(specifically, Psalm 143:2, and possibly Romans 3:20)—ask how such blameless-
ness can be possible in this life (Bucer 1562, 21C).52 He argued that such passages
(the truth of which he did not deny) refer to a blamelessness born of human merit,
something which he acknowledged is an impossibility. Yet these passages do not
contradict the teaching of Ephesians. The blamelessness spoken of in Ephesians has
its ultimate and effective root in the mercy and compassion of God, whereby He has
imputed the righteousness of the Son to the elect: “Of our own merits, no one will
be justified before Him, but out of His mercy on account of His Son, He imputes the
perfection of His will unto the Elect” (Bucer 1562, 21C–22D).53
Bucer maintained that it is in the light of this gracious action of God that we are
to understand that the answer to the question of Romans 8:33, “Who shall lay charge
against the elect of God?” is, “no one.” It was by God’s grace, he went on to argue,
that Elizabeth and Zachariah are said to be righteous before the Lord (Luke 1:5–6),
not because of any inherent righteousness within them (Bucer 1562, 22D). In this
way, he drove home his earlier point about the benefits of an understanding of

49
The printed text at this point may exhibit some disorder. As it reads (and as we have followed it),
Bucer spoke of the role of election in strengthening the saints, then of disputes among the Fathers
over the doctrine (and the fact that it is best to rely on Scripture in this regard), then of the role of
election in Romans 8, and then on the superiority of Scripture over the Fathers. It can be suggested
that the brief discussion on Romans 8 be moved to follow on his discussion of election and its role
in strengthening the saints, followed by his comments on the Fathers and the superiority of
Scripture.
50
He made the same observations in 1527 (Bucer 1527, 25 verso-26 recto/D verso-D2 recto); he
referred to hypocrites at 26 recto/D2 recto. Like observations are made by most of the other com-
mentators we have surveyed.
51
“…quod integros significat, quales fideles electos, Dei cultores esse decet, abstractos, scilicet a
desideriis terrenis.”
52
No one else put forward this question.
53
“Ex nostris meritis nunquam iustificatur ullus homo coram illo, sed ex misericordia sua propter
filium imputat perfectionem suae voluntatis in Electis.”
166 6 Theology in an Exegetical Context: Bucer on Ephesians 1:3–6 and the Doctrine…

election that is rooted in the gracious action of God in Christ. As the believer
understands the true nature of election and the true nature of the holiness and blame-
lessness before God which is the visible fruit to be seen in the one who lives a life
of gratitude in the light of their election, so he will find his doubts answered and his
conscience eased as the Holy Spirit effects this confirmation (Bucer 1562, 22D).
Bucer clearly emphasized the need for holiness and righteousness in the life of
the believer, for the believer who keeps the commandments knows that he is of
God, an allusion to I John 2:3 (Bucer 1562, 22D). However, Bucer did not teach that
perfection is available in this life. He noted that even if an individual believes,
repents, hears the word of the Gospel and of election, even if one trusts in election
and is found to be holy and blameless as Paul urges, still he remains imperfect in
this life apart from the work of Christ.
However, on account of the merit of Christ we are regarded as blameless, and our imperfec-
tion pardoned: indeed, it is even made perfect. Our innocence consists in this, that God has
absolved us through Christ; wherefore, no one of the elect can be condemned.54 (Bucer
1562, 22D)

In Him alone is perfection found, and believers attain to this perfection only as they
are found in Him. Bucer’s point was that the faithful will continue in this life to be
both sinful and righteous (no doubt reflecting Luther); hence, the value of the
knowledge of election is such that if believers keep it in view their failures in this
life will not obscure the certainty of their salvation (Bucer 1562, 22D).

6.4 Ephesians 1:5–6—Predestination and the Glory of God

[…] through love, who [or he] predestined us that he might adopt [us] as sons to himself in
Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of his will, in order that the glory of his grace
might be praised, whereby he rendered us dear in the beloved.55 (Bucer 1562, 17A)

Before he turned to his interpretation of verse 5, Bucer addressed the question of

how the words, “through love” [per charitatem], should be read, a matter on which
there was some disagreement in the exegetical tradition. Should they be read as part
of Ephesians 1:4 or as the beginning of Ephesians 1:5?
Did Paul mean by these words the love each believer should have for his neigh-
bor, adding the dimension of love to the kind of life the believer is to live (and thus
read with 1:4b)? Of Bucer’s contemporaries, Calvin linked the phrase to verse 4,
and though he allowed that these words can be taken to refer to God (thus meaning

54
“Propter meritum autem Christi habemur irreprehensibiles, & condonatur nobis nostra imperfec-
tio: imo perficitur etiam. Innocentia nostra in eo consistit, quod Deus nos absolvit per Christum.
Quare nemo electus potest condemnari.”
55
“…per charitatem, qui praedestinavit nos, ut adoptaret in filios per Iesum Christum in sese, iuxta
beneplacitum voluntatis suae: ut laudetur gloria gratiae suae, qua charos reddidit nos per [illum]
dilectum.” The printing of the text in Praelectiones lacks “illum.”
6.4 Ephesians 1:5–6—Predestination and the Glory of God 167

that the love of God was the motivation for his electing or predestinating the
faithful), he preferred to tie them to the idea that the “perfection of believers consists
in love” [perfectionem fidelium in charitate sitam esse], which is the evidence of the
fear of God and the obedience of the heart (Calvin 1965, 126 [reprinted by permis-
sion of the publisher]; Calvin 1548, 110/h3 verso). Regarding the placement of the
phrase, “in/through love,” Bugenhagen was silent (Bugenhagen 1524, A4 verso);
Bullinger, like Calvin, linked it to verse 4, with the added suggestion that love of
God by believers was also in view—hence, the Great Commandment (Bullinger
1539, 405/[L5] recto). The Bucer of 1527 would have agreed (Bucer 1527, 26 recto/
D2 recto), and apart from the Patristic commentators (with one exception), the
majority of the exegetes chosen for this study interpreted the phrase as linked to
verse 5.56
Or, asks Bucer in 1550, did Paul instead have in view “our love passively [under-
stood], whereby God has loved us” (Bucer 1562, 22E),57 thus read with 1:5a? In the
latter case, Bucer suggested this constitutes a reference to the sole cause of election,
namely “the immense love of God, by which He embraces us in the Son” (Bucer
1562, 22E).58 Apart from Ambrosiaster, the selected Patristic exegetes opted to link
the phrase with 1:5a.59 It is this second option that Bucer preferred in 1550 (Bucer
1562, 22E). This is perhaps surprising, in view of his stress on the character of the
Christian life, and his own earlier decision in 1527, but this choice emphasizes again
the centrality of God’s grace in election, which Bucer has demonstrated to be the
central matter in 1:3–6. Hence, the decision was no doubt influenced by Bucer’s
stress in this portion of the lectures on election and therefore a theological judgment
influenced his exegesis. God chooses on the basis of His love for believers in Christ,
and not on the basis of anything within the individuals so chosen. In themselves,
they are children of wrath, and those whom God has passed over have no one to
blame but themselves for their condition (Bucer 1562, 22E).
This last comment of Bucer is of interest with respect to his discussion of predes-
tination in verse five, and to the doctrine of predestination more generally, for he

56
Ambrose (1527, 939/k2 recto; Ambrosiaster 1966,73), is the sole Patristic exegete to link the
phrase with verse 4. For others who chose this option: the Glossa (Froehlich and Gibson 1992, 4:
369, cols.I-II, interlinear); Denis the Carthusian (1531, 237 verso/G v verso; Denis the Carthusian
1901, 13: 300); Nicholas of Lyra (1545, 6:89 verso/n5 verso); Erasmus (1532, 207-208/S2 recto-
S2 verso; Erasmus 1706, 7:973C); Erasmus (1535, 591/Dd2 recto); Cajetan (1540, 254 verso/[I vi]
verso); Aquinas links the phrase with verse 4, and the kind of life the elect were to live, rather than
to verse 5 and God’s electing or predestining will (Aquinas 1541, 170 recto/y ii recto; Aquinas
1953, 4).
57
“…per nostram charitatem, passive, qua scilicet Deus nos dilexit....”
58
“…ut sit repetitio causae nostrae electionis, quae est sola Dei immensa dilectio, qua nos in filio
amplectitur..”
59
See: Chrysostom (Chrysostom 1889, 51; Chrysostom 1539, col. 780/KK recto; Chrysostom
1862, col. 12); Jerome (1516, 101 verso/r5 verso; Jerome 1845, col. 448B-C) and Theophylact
(1540, 111 verso/t3 verso; Theophylact 1864, col. 1035D) agreed with Chrysostom on this point.
Pseudo-Jerome’s reading agreed with this basic sense, although he seems to have read the phrase
as part of verse 4 with reference to God’s choice (Pseudo-Jerome 1516, 174 recto/G2 verso;
Pelagius 1926, 345).
168 6 Theology in an Exegetical Context: Bucer on Ephesians 1:3–6 and the Doctrine…

does not directly address the issue of double predestination, nor does he allude to
it.60 In this particular instance, he refers to those whom God has left in their fallen
state; there is no suggestion that these were in some way predestined to this state
(Bucer 1562, 22E). Indeed, when Bucer reached the explicit reference to predestina-
tion in verse five, it is interesting to observe that he had relatively little directly to
say about it apart from what he has already said in connection with election, and
again he did not speak of the negative aspect of the doctrine. This is in contrast to a
number of other exegetes, including those who stood in the same theological and
exegetical tradition as Bucer. For instance, in his treatment of verse five Aquinas
discussed the third of the blessings, “namely that of predestination in the preor-
dained association of those who are good” (Aquinas 1541, 170 recto/y ii recto;
Aquinas 1953, 4),61 which has six characteristics: it is eternal, it has believers as the
temporal object, it offers adoption through Jesus Christ as the “present blessing”
[praesens commodum], it has a future result (according to the will of God), it is
gratuitous (again, according to His will) , and it has as its effect the praise of the
glory of God’s grace (Aquinas 1541, 170 recto/y ii recto; Aquinas 1953, 4–5).
Calvin, when he turned to verses five and six, took up the doctrine of predestination
and while it is evident that he believed its place in Ephesians 1:3–6 to be subordinate
to election, he understood predestination to be theologically prior to election and
that election is a doctrinal locus subsumed under predestination. He argued that in
the present context Paul mentions predestination to heighten “still further the com-
mendation of divine grace” (Calvin 1965, 126 [reprinted by permission of the
publisher]; Calvin 1548, 110/h3 verso.)62 The passage is thus (in his view) deserving
of particular attention. Likewise, Bullinger found Paul’s use of the word πρooρίζας
(following on the Apostle’s previous discussion of election) to be a most appropri-
ate one to describe more fully God’s action in the salvation of believers. His discus-
sion of predestination was similarly as extended as Calvin’s (Bullinger 1539, 406/
[L5] verso).
Rather than predestination, Bucer’s concern in verse five was first to note Paul’s
stress on Christ, in Whom the Father has embraced believers in love, and in Whom
is found the assurance of faith (Bucer 1562, 22E). There is a general consensus in
the exegetical tradition on this point, but in some ways Bucer’s argument resonated
in particular with that of Chrysostom in reference to Christ and predestination.
Chrysostom noted that Christ is in view in the work of predestination (as in elec-
tion): “do you observe how that nothing is done without Christ” (Chrysostom
1889889, 52; Chrysostom 1539, col. 781/KK verso; Chrysostom 1862, col. 13)?63

60
In his 1527 Ephesians comment on this verse, he mentioned reprobation, but predestination to
eternal life formed the focus of his remarks (Bucer 1527, 26 verso/D2 verso). On the other hand,
in the locus on predestination in the Romans commentary, he did discuss reprobation and did not
offer any softening of the doctrine (Bucer 1536, 358–359/H3 verso-H4 recto; Wright 1972, 97–99).
61
“… scilicet praedestinationis, in praeordinata associatione cum bonis.”
62
“Quae sequuntur adhuc magis augent commendationem divinae gratiae.”
63
In the 1539 translation, this reads, “Vides quomodo nihil geratur sine Christo?” In the Patrologia
Graeca, “Vides quomodo nihil sine Christo?” Jerome (1516, 101 verso/r5 verso; Jerome 1845,
6.4 Ephesians 1:5–6—Predestination and the Glory of God 169

The blessings are all the greater because they come through Christ, and have their
source in the favor and at the pleasure of God (Chrysostom 1889, 52; Chrysostom
1539, col. 781/KK verso; Chrysostom 1862, col. 13). However, it should be noted
that in his treatment of predestination here Chrysostom was keen to stress the role
played by believers in their salvation; while he assigned a priority to the love of God
in predestination, he repeated the necessity of individual virtue, that is, good works
(Chrysostom 1889, 51; Chrysostom 1539, col. 780/KK recto; Chrysostom 1862,
col. 12). If it was of love alone, then all would be saved without distinction; if it was
on the basis of virtue alone, then “were His [Christ’s] coming needless, and the
whole dispensation [of salvation]” (Chrysostom 1889, 52; Chrysostom 1539, col.
780/KK recto; Chrysostom 1862, cols. 12–13).64 He advanced a synergistic
understanding of salvation: “it is the result neither of His love alone, nor yet of our
virtue, but of both” (Chrysostom 1889, 52; Chrysostom 1539, col. 781/KK verso;
Chrysostom 1862, col. 13).65 For Bucer, in contrast, there is no synergistic note:
salvation is assured both because Christ is the reconciler and the One Who is the
righteousness of believers, and because the immutable God and Father has so
decreed it (Bucer 1562, 22E).66
What is rather remarkable is that Bucer has little to say regarding the adoption of
believers in Christ, despite the fact that the text of Ephesians would indicate that this
was the purpose of predestination.67 Yet within the context of the exegetical tradi-
tion, this is not a peculiarity of Bucer. It is true that Aquinas observes the place of
adoption in this passage, as did the other medieval commentators selected for com-
parison.68 Yet none of the Patristic commentators make much of adoption. There is

cols. 448C–449A) and Theophylact (1540, 111 verso/t3 verso; Theophylact 1864, col. 1038A)
make similar comments.
64
Musculus’s translation reads: “Neque enim ex laboribus, sed ex dilectione est: immo neque ex
dilectione solum, sed & ex nostra quoque virtute. Nam si ex sola esset dilectione, oporteret omnes
salvari. Rursus si ex sola nostra virtute esset, superfluus fuisset & Christi adventus, & quaecunque
per illum dispensata sunt.” Patrologia Graeca: “Non enim sit a laboribus et gestis, sed a caritate:
neque a caritate solum, sed etiam a nostra virtute. Nam si a caritate sola, oporteret omnes esse
salvos: si autem rursus a nostra sola virtute, supervacaneus fuisset eius adventus, et quaecumque
facta sunt per dispensationem.”
65
Musculus: “Itaque neque ex sola dilectione, neque ex sola nostra virtutes est, sed ex utrisque.”
Patrologia Graeca: “Sed neque a sola caritate, neque a nostra virtute, sed ex utrisque.”
66
See also Bucer (1527, 25 verso/D verso). The stress on the assurance that believers have because
of Christ is one that is found only in Bucer and his fellow Reformers: Bugenhagen (1524, A3 recto-
A3 verso); Bullinger (1539, 406/[L5] verso); Calvin (1965, 124; Calvin 1548, 108/h2 verso).
67
In 1527, though, he did (Bucer 1527, 25 verso-26 recto/D verso-D2 recto).
68
According to Aquinas (Aquinas 1541, 170 recto/y ii recto; Aquinas 1953, 5), foremost is the
stress Paul lays upon the fact that God has chosen the faithful through his grace alone that they
might become his children by adoption. For this to happen, it had to be through Jesus Christ (the
third of the enumerated characteristics of predestination), which lead Aquinas to state that believ-
ers are adopted as they are conformed to the likeness of their Saviour. He cited Galatians 4:4–5 and
I John 3:1–2. Haymo of Auxerre (1530, 218 verso/E ii verso ; Haymo of Auxerre 1881, col. 703B)
regarded adoption as the act of God whereby the elect—through their belief in Christ—become
children of God, something that they are not by nature. In reference to adoption, the Glossa
Ordinaria only noted (in the Interlinear Gloss) that believers are sons in Christ (Froehlich and
170 6 Theology in an Exegetical Context: Bucer on Ephesians 1:3–6 and the Doctrine…

no mention by Erasmus of adoption, even though it is plainly in the text; Cajetan,

however, commented that the elect have been predestined to be adoptive children
through Jesus Christ and on the basis of His merits (Cajetan 1540, 255 recto/[I vii]
recto). Among Bucer’s Protestant contemporaries, Calvin only mentioned adoption
in passing (Calvin 1965, 126; Calvin 1548, 110/h3 verso). Bugenhagen did discuss
briefly the adoption of believers as children by God through the work and person of
Jesus Christ (according to his humanity as in distinction from his divinity). Thus
believers become God’s children, and God becomes their Father. Bugenhagen had
nothing further to say about predestination, however (Bugenhagen 1524, A4 verso).
Bullinger also commented briefly on the act of adoption in a similar vein (Bullinger
1539, 406/[L5] verso).
Though still discussing verse five, Bucer appeared to allude to the first half of
verse six and what he identified as the “last, final cause of our election” (Bucer
1562, 22E),69 namely, that God’s goodness and Christ’s righteousness might be
glorified in the sight and hearing of all.70 With reference to the language of causality
(both here and at 19C), it is worth noting again that there may be an echo of Aristotle
arising from Bucer’s Dominican training. As we have already noted, it is on this
passage and the earlier one (at 19C) that Thomas Torrance no doubt based his argu-
ment concerning Calvin’s influence on Bucer in the interpretation of Ephesians
(Torrance 1956, 73). Calvin employed a fourfold Aristotelian causality to expand on
the doctrine and provide the framework for his discussion: “the efficient cause is the
good pleasure of the will of God; the material cause is Christ; and the final cause is
the praise of His grace” (Calvin 1965, 126 [reprinted by permission of the pub-
lisher]; Calvin 1548, 110/h3 verso).71 Bucer had earlier in the lecture identified only
two causes, and characterized them somewhat differently: the efficient, namely “the
pure grace of God and the merit of Christ”; and the final cause, “the sanctification
of life and the Glory of God” (Bucer 1562, 19C).72 It is not, he argued, that God

Gibson 1992, 4:369, col. II). Nicholas of Lyra (1545, 6:89 verso-90 recto/n6 recto) stated that
adoption begins through grace and is completed in glory, that it is through Christ, and that this
adoptive sonship is akin to natural sonship. Denis the Carthusian (1531, 237 verso/Gv verso;
Denis the Carthusian 1901, 13:300) commented that it is through the Son that predestined believers
receive the power to become sons of God, i.e, they receive adoption, and followed Lyra on the
point regarding the likeness of adoptive sonship to natural sonship. He also noted that believers
thus become co-heirs with Christ.
69
“Ultima autem finalis causa nostrae electionis....” In the same way, Calvin identified the praise of
God’s glory as the “final cause” of salvation (Calvin 1965, 126; Calvin 1548, 110/h3 verso).
70
What we now identify as verse six reads thus in the text of Erasmus: “ut laudetur gloria gratiae
suae, qua charos reddidit nos per illum dilectum” (Erasmus 1535, 314/D verso) Bucer’s reference
thus would seem to be to the first half of this verse, which does not appear in the printed text in the
body of the lectures themselves. The second half of the verse does, however (Bucer 1562, 24D).
71
“Causa efficiens est beneplacitum voluntatis Dei. Causa materialis est Christus. Causa finalis,
laus gratiae.” A little further on, he covered the formal cause (the preaching of the Gospel) in his
discussion of verse eight (Calvin 1965, 128; Calvin 1548, 111–112/h4 recto-h4 verso).
72
“Huius causam efficientem dicit esse meram gratiam Dei & meritum Christi. […] Causae finales
sunt, vitae sanctificatio & gloria Dei.” Bucer did not make much use of the two other causes cited
by both Aquinas and Calvin (i.e., the material, and the formal), and he made no such usage in 1527.
6.4 Ephesians 1:5–6—Predestination and the Glory of God 171

needs the praise of his elect, but rather that such praise, offered in the presence of
others, may bring them to know the truth of the Gospel (Bucer 1562, 22E). In this,
there is perhaps another echo of Chrysostom’s treatment of this verse, where he
argued that it is not the case that God needs this praise, but that through this praise
the love of believers for God may be increased (Chrysostom 1889, 52; Chrysostom
1539, col. 781/KK verso; Chrysostom 1862, cols. 13–14).73
Bucer reiterated a point he made both in his discussion of this locus and in his
introductory lectures: the surpassing greatness and clarity of Scripture, which
exceeds the teaching of the Fathers. He emphasized again the fundamental central-
ity of Scripture to the formulation of doctrine: in matters of dispute, recourse must
be made to the Word of God, the teaching of the Holy Spirit—not to the teaching of
the Fathers:
Who is there now who may not see from the things spoken thus far, that as much as the
Spirit excels all the Fathers in wisdom, eloquence, love, etc., by so much the teaching of the
Holy Scriptures and of God excels all the teachings and writings of the Fathers? Wherefore
in these heavenly controversies, [disputes] must be settled by us from the Word of God and
the teaching of the Holy Spirit.74 (Bucer 1562, 22F)

Theology must begin and end with the exegesis of Scripture. It is not that Bucer had
slight regard for the Fathers, for he demonstrated elsewhere the value he put upon
their work, and he went on to say, “indeed there are many laudable things in them”
(Bucer 1562, 22F).75 Nevertheless, he cautioned his auditors in their use of the
Fathers, in part because of the admixture of pagan philosophy in their writings:
“here let us beware of Platonic and suchlike philosophy, which has entwined and
carried itself into the Church, as one may observe if one diligently reads the Fathers
from the first to the last” (Bucer 1562, 22F).76 Where the Fathers go against the

73
Calvin offered a brief discussion of the final cause, the praise of God’s grace. In his view, any
teaching that seeks to ascribe any part of salvation to human merit or action is in flat contradiction
to Paul’s teaching here, which is to give all glory to God (Calvin 1965, 127; Calvin 1548, 111/h4
recto).
74
“Quis iam est, qui ex dictis manifeste non videat, quod quantum spiritus omnes patres superat
sapientia, facundia, amore, & caetera, tantum sacrae scripturae, & doctrina Dei praestat omnibus
patrum doctrinis & scriptis? Quapropter nobis ex verbo Dei, & doctrina Spiritus sancti, est statu-
endum in caelestibus istis controversiis.”
75
“Multa quidem sunt in eis laudabilia.” He went on to remark, perhaps ironically, that for all the
value of their learning, “in that which is most excellent in them, no one wants to follow their
authority and example” [sed quod in eis est excellentissimum, in eo, nemo vult eorum authoritatem
& exemplum sequi].
76
“Et caveamus hic a philosophia Platonica, et similibus, quae se immiscuit & ingessit in Ecclesiam,
ut licet animadvertere, si quis diligenter legat Patres, a primo usque ad postremum.” Perhaps Bucer
has in view Chrysostom, who at this point in his exposition of the same verse discussed distinctions
between God’s precedent (or antecedent) will and God’s consequent will (Chrysostom 1889, 52;
Chrysostom 1539, col. 781/KK verso; Chrysostom 1862, col. 13). Chrysostom argues that God
does not want sinners to perish (His precedent or antecedent will); those who do evil should perish
(His consequent will), a fate that follows upon their own will to sin. Chrysostom believed that Paul
refers here to the precedent will of God, and that Paul means to say that God earnestly desires
salvation of the elect from His goodness alone. Aquinas likewise offered a somewhat extended
172 6 Theology in an Exegetical Context: Bucer on Ephesians 1:3–6 and the Doctrine…

clarity of Paul’s teaching in Ephesians, they have failed to recognize the difference
between human and divine choice (Bucer 1562, 22F).77
At this point, Bucer believed that Paul has for the most part concluded his locus
on election, and he summarized the essential points regarding what are its chief
characteristics:
Therefore election is the purpose and sure mercy of God from eternity before the founda-
tion of the world, whereby He separates to eternal life those upon whom He wishes to have
mercy out from the whole race of lost men, entirely out of [His] bountiful mercy, before
anyone could do good or evil. It is certain and immutable, I say, through Jesus Christ the
only begotten Son of God and our Mediator, from eternity the destined Head of the Church
and Reconciler, according to His eternal and unchangeable purpose, that He might adopt us
as sons and heirs, and regenerate us unto a new life: that we might be holy and blameless
before Him, to the glory of His grace: that through the innocence of our life and the
confession of a pure faith, it [His grace] might become better known, and many might
always be entering into the true religion and worship of God.78 (Bucer 1562, 22F–23A)

Before concluding his own discussion of election, Bucer briefly considered the
significance of Romans 9:11–13 (including the texts from Genesis 25:23 and
Malachi 1:2, 3 that are quoted by Paul) and Exodus 33:19 in their relationship to the
doctrine of election (Bucer 1562, 23A–B). He recognized that Paul has in immedi-
ate view Jacob and Esau, but he argued that they have a wider application, to the
descendants of each, and ultimately to the righteous and the unrighteous (repre-
sented, respectively, by Jacob and Esau). The same is true of the passage from
Exodus 33, in which the immediate context is supplied by the people of Israel for
whom Moses was interceding; the statement of the Lord has application to all
people. Regarding the two passages, Bucer stated that they are pertinent to the
understanding of Ephesians 1:3–6 because “each speaks concerning His election,
and teaches that both its strength and our salvation, and its cause depend solely on

discussion of causation in relation to the divine will, which he stated is itself the first cause of
everything (Aquinas 1541, 170 recto/y ii recto; Aquinas 1953, 5). Aquinas emphasized that predes-
tination is not required of God, nor is it due to believers—it is according to the will of God, spring-
ing from His love for them. In this, there is a twofold cause of the blessing of predestination. First,
there is the “simple will of God” [simplex Dei voluntatis], which Aquinas identified as the efficient
cause: “according to the purpose of his will” (Ephesians 1:5b). Second, there is the praise of His
glory (Ephesians 1:6a), which is the final cause. The reference to cause led him to a somewhat
extended and increasingly abstract discussion of causation in relation to the divine will, which he
stated is itself the first cause of everything.
77
This would seem to be a reference to Bucer’s discussion of this issue above at 21B, though he did
not make this explicit.
78
“Est itaque Electio, destinatio & certa Dei miseratio ab aeterno ante mundum constitutum, qua
Deus eos, quorum vult misereri, ex universo perditorum hominum genere, ad vitam aeternam,
secernit, ex plane liberali misericordia, priusquam quicquam possint boni aut mali facere. Certa,
inquam, est & immutabilis, per Iesum Christum unigenitum filium Dei & nostrum mediatorem, ab
aeterno destinatum caput Ecclesiae, ac reconciliatorem, secundum aeternum & immutabile pro-
positum suum, ut nos adoptaret in filios & haeredes, et in novam vitam regeneraret: ut sancti
essemus et irreprehensibiles coram ipso, ad gloriam gratiae suae: ut per vitae nostrae innocentiam,
& purae fidei confessionem, ea magis innotesceret, & plures semper accederent ad veram religio-
nem & cultum Dei.”
6.4 Ephesians 1:5–6—Predestination and the Glory of God 173

the totally free will of God” (Bucer 1562, 23A–B).79 Yet Bucer did not want to be
understood as advocating a kind of determinism, and he stepped back from his
exegesis to make a general theological point regarding human free will: namely, that
it is not abolished. In the case of those whom God has chosen, their will is liberated
by the Spirit from bondage to sin so that they may freely choose to believe. Believers
are not inanimate objects of God’s work, like wood or stone; they have been granted
the ability to follow the promptings of the Spirit (Bucer 1562, 23B).
Bucer briefly returned to the text of Ephesians, and in his comments on 1:5b he
included a consideration of the issue of God’s will in relation to election that avoided
an abstract discussion (Bucer 1562, 23B).80 Bucer emphasized again that God is
absolutely sovereign in election.81 To the claim that this renders humans careless, he
responded:
by no means is it so: on the contrary, he who firmly believes that [election] comes from
nothing but the will, love and mercy of God will be more enthusiastic for works.82 (Bucer
1562, 23B)

Bucer was keen to stress the gracious character of election, that it is a choice of a
loving God. He referred again to Romans 9, then to Augustine, and finally to John
15:16, balancing an appeal to the Fathers with an appeal to Scripture (Bucer 1562,
23B). There is no room for preparatory works on the part of those who have been
chosen.
While he did not deal directly with the question of those whom God has not
chosen, Bucer was not completely silent about it.83 He raised the issue of the justice
of God in a further reference to Romans 9, and stated quite plainly that this passage
clearly reveals that the hardness of Pharaoh’s heart (and thus the hardness of those
like him) is to be attributed to God Himself (Bucer 1562, 23B–C). To those who
object to Bucer’s (or Paul’s) presentation of the doctrine of election—those who
would say that if individuals can do nothing of their own will to prepare for or
concur with the work of God then He is unjust in not giving salvation to all equally—
Bucer was uncompromising in his response. We cannot make a comparison between
the thoughts of God and our own. Likewise, God cannot be judged by the same
standards as we are. Bucer stood with Paul in Romans 9:20 in declaring: “Who are

79
“Huc autem utrunque locum pertinere dixi, quod de eius Electione uterque loquitur, & docet tam
eius vim, quam salutem nostram, et eius causam a sola Dei voluntate liberrima pendere.”
80
For instance, he did not discuss the subject of God’s will in anything like the technical detail that
Chrysostom or Aquinas, as we just noted above.
81
In his comment on the subject, Bucer was in basic agreement with Calvin, Bugenhagen, and
Bullinger: Calvin (1965, 126; Calvin 1548, 110/h3 verso); Bugenhagen (1524, A4 verso); Bullinger
(1539, 406/[L5] verso).
82
“Nequaquam ita est: Imo qui firmiter credit ex mera Dei voluntate, charitate, misericordia hoc
provenire, magis accenditur ad bona opera....” Note the ethical stress in this comment.
83
In fact, none of the commentators we have surveyed (including Calvin) take the occasion of this
passage from Ephesians to discuss the relationship of election or predestination to those who are
not chosen by God. Yet in view of the fact that Bucer was teaching theology as well as expounding
Scripture, whereas the others were only doing the latter, one might have expected Bucer to say
more about this aspect of predestination at this point.
174 6 Theology in an Exegetical Context: Bucer on Ephesians 1:3–6 and the Doctrine…

you, O man, to answer back to God” (Bucer 1562, 23C)? And he pointed to Paul’s
own conclusion of the controversial issue in Romans 11:33–36, where the Apostle
declares that God’s judgments are past finding out and His wisdom is unsearchable.
Yet it is important to note that in what he said, Bucer stopped short of speculative
theology; he did not pursue the issue any further, which one might have expected in
a treatment of doctrine. Bucer believed that Paul urges the recipients of Romans to
acknowledge the frailty of their understanding, “simply believe what Scripture
reveals to us concerning God, and not make ourselves judges of God” (Bucer 1562,
23C).84 Bucer was confident that if believers would follow this counsel, the difficul-
ties and doubts will cease to plague them.85

6.5 Assessment

We have already noted in passing a number of points at which Bucer was in

agreement with the exegetical tradition, and where he diverged from it, but now we
should address the question of his distinctiveness more directly. What must be
acknowledged straightaway is that in terms of basic exegesis, the foregoing exami-
nation has shown that Bucer’s treatment of the text (and, for that matter, that of his
fellow Reformers) was not radically different from what had been done before.86
This points up the broad agreement in approach to biblical interpretation among all
pre-critical interpreters (whether Patristic, medieval, or of the Reformation era),
certainly with respect to the Pauline Epistles. This is not to say that there were no
substantial differences, for in Bucer we can see evidence of his deployment of bibli-
cal humanist principles and methods: for instance, an attention to philological and
lexicographical details, especially Hebraisms (Bucer 1562, 20D, 21C); a heightened
rhetorical awareness, especially in attention to the scopus of the author (Bucer 1562,
20D, 20E), and of the letter itself (Bucer 1562, 20D); the use of Scripture to inter-
pret Scripture87; all methods that we do not see, at least not to quite the same degree,
in either Patristic or medieval interpreters. In this regard Bucer was joined by his

84
“Et capite undecimo eiusdem epistolae hanc disputationem ita concludit, ut nostram imbecillita-
tem agnoscamus, & quod de Deo nobis Scriptura revelat, simpliciter credamus, & non constitua-
mus nos ipsos Dei iudices.”
85
That Bucer’s analysis of Paul’s locus on election had reached an end is clear from his brief
comment on verse 1:6b (Bucer 1562, 24D): “There might follow here a locus concerning justifica-
tion and the conforming of the elect, but because that will be more fully explained below in the
second chapter, we will speak only a little concerning this” [Sequeretur hic locus de Iustificatione
et accommodatione Electionis, sed quia infra capite secundo latius explicabitur, pauca tantum de
ea hic dicemus].
86
He would have striven to avoid the charge of innovation, as would all pre-Modern exegetes,
including his fellow Reformers.
87
See Bucer 1562: 20E (Deuteronomy); 21A–B (2 Corinthians 2:14, Philippians 2:12–13); 21C
(Romans 3:20, Psalm 143:2); 22D (Romans 8:33, Luke 1:5–6, 1 John 2:3); 23A-B (Romans 9:11–
13, Exodus 33:19, John 15:16); 23B–C (Romans 9); 23C (Romans 9:20, Romans 11:33–36).
6.5 Assessment 175

fellow Reformers, Calvin, Bugenhagen and Bullinger, each of whom exhibited in

their work as exegetes the impact of biblical humanism, which goes some way to
demonstrate that Bucer’s practice can be taken as representative of his generation of
Reformers. It is worth noting that in respect of his method of presentation, Bucer’s
lectures were significantly different from those of Aquinas, whose rigorous structur-
ing of his discourse was in no way reflected in Bucer’s own presentation. While one
may find echoes of Bucer’s Dominican education in some of the terminology and
concepts that he employed, we do not see any impact of Aquinas’s general intel-
lectual method (that is, scholastic method) in Bucer’s lectures.88
With respect to his interpretation of the text, many of Bucer’s exegetical conclu-
sions can be seen to resonate with the history of the interpretation of Ephesians.
Bucer agreed with no single interpreter entirely, even in the case of Calvin, and yet
there is not much in the details of his exegesis that was entirely original to him. With
respect to the central focus of the text, like virtually all of the exegetes surveyed
Bucer espoused an Augustinian perspective on the doctrines of election and predes-
tination. God is sovereign in his electing grace; human merit plays no part, not even
by means of God’s foreknowledge of the good works of those whom He would
elect. Yet Bucer did not follow the majority—including Aquinas, Calvin,
Bugenhagen and Bullinger—in giving equal attention to both these doctrines. In
this respect, he appeared to follow Chrysostom and Erasmus in placing a greater
stress on election in this passage and consequently giving less attention to predesti-
nation, although he avoided their synergistic understanding of the salvation of
believers.89 Likewise, there was an agreement between Bucer and these latter two
exegetes in the greater emphasis on the ethical thrust and imperative of the passage,
though this is seen equally in Bullinger and to a somewhat lesser extent in Calvin.
Perhaps Bucer’s most distinctive interpretive contribution came in the context of
his debate with Chrysostom (and Calvin) over the question of Chrysostom’s under-
standing of the relative distinctions between the blessings of the Jews and the bless-
ings of Christians (Bucer 1562, 20D–E). Related to this was his distinctive
understanding of Paul’s reference to blessings in Ephesians 1:3 to mean that spiri-
tual blessings are also enjoyed as earthly blessings, and that the latter are properly
understood as spiritual because they come to believers in Christ (Bucer 1562, 20E).
As we noted above, this underscores Bucer’s convictions about the unity of the
people of God in both the Old and New Testaments. It also reinforces our awareness
of his concern with the significance of Paul’s doctrine and teaching to living out the
Christian life in the here and now. This concern with the practical, present applica-
tion of biblical teaching is seen as well in Bucer’s pronounced stress on the positive
encouragement to be found in the doctrine of election, and in his argument that it
must be proclaimed among all believers (Bucer 1562, 20F–21A). Beyond that, it

88
It should be noted that Cajetan’s commentary likewise was dissimilar in form to that of Aquinas,
despite the fact that he was a Dominican and remained one (unlike Bucer).
89
Whether this means that he was specifically indebted to them on this point is an open question.
It is equally possible that this was a result of his emphasis on the positive aspects of election, about
which more below.
176 6 Theology in an Exegetical Context: Bucer on Ephesians 1:3–6 and the Doctrine…

also resulted in his particular stress on the ethical imperative that arises from
knowledge of election (Bucer 1562, 21C). While a stress on encouragement and
ethical imperative can be seen in others (especially Bullinger and Calvin), Bucer
gave it his own particular stress and stamp.
Yet Bucer’s distinctiveness went beyond his exegesis and interpretive conclu-
sions. It is also seen in the way he has interwoven exegesis of the text with theologi-
cal formulation so that this passage in his commentary is neither strictly exegesis
nor is it strictly theology, but both—in such a way that they cannot be separated
easily. In this respect, his understanding of Ephesians as a compendium of doctrine
shaped his treatment of the text to a degree not seen in others, even in Bugenhagen
or Bullinger, both of whom similarly regarded the letter as a sum of doctrine.
Because of his analysis of the letter as a treatise, made clear in his initial remarks
before undertaking the exegesis of verse 3, where he identified election as the first
locus of doctrine which Paul dealt with, Bucer focused on election to a greater
extent than other exegetes (Bucer 1562, 19C). He returned to this focus on election
as Paul’s principal concern at two other points, which only reinforces the theologi-
cal character of the lectures (Bucer 1562, 20E-F, 22F–23A). This focus on election
in turn shaped Bucer’s exegesis of the text. Because the exegesis of Paul’s teaching
in Ephesians 1:3–6 became the exposition of the doctrine of election, exegesis and
theology were closely bound together. This resulted in Bucer’s not giving equal
treatment to each part of the text, or even to all the doctrines it contained, such as
predestination, which we noted was relatively underdeveloped, or the will of God,
or the glory of God. His exegesis was influenced by his theological concerns or, as
Bucer would no doubt want to emphasize, what he took to be Paul’s principal theo-
logical concern. The influence that his focus on election had on his exegesis can be
seen in such details as his interpretive decision to read the words “in love” [per
charitatem], which fall between verse 4 and verse 5, to apply to the electing grace
of God and not to the kind of life the believer was to live (Bucer 1562, 22D-E).
Bucer clearly kept to what he took to be Paul’s central point, his scopus. Yet in
this, he did not follow the path of Bugenhagen (or Melanchthon) in expounding
only those words or phrases that concerned the exposition of the central doctrine.
Bucer commented on the entire text; exegesis did not give way to theology.
In respect of this last point, when we read Bucer’s treatment of Ephesians 1:3–6 as
a statement of doctrine or a formulation of theology (bearing in mind that it was first
set forth in the context of lectures in theology), what is striking is Bucer’s restraint
in handling the doctrine. He did not engage in extended discussion that went well
beyond the limits of the text itself, attempting to account for all possible ramifica-
tions of the doctrine, even though election (with the related issues of God’s will and
His decrees) could well prompt such a digression.90 To the extent that Bucer did
address matters that were not, strictly speaking, raised in the text of Ephesians, it
was in the context of the brief exegesis of other biblical texts—and these digres-
sions were intended as elucidation of the main text under investigation. What is

90
On the other hand, his lengthy locus on the Church, sketched briefly in Chap. 5 above, had the
character of a digression when compared with other loci in the lectures.
References 177

emphatically the case is that Bucer in no way engaged in anything that could
be regarded as speculative theology; his treatment of election was from a practical
standpoint and emphasized the application of Paul’s teaching to Christian life and
experience. Exegesis led directly to theology (which was itself an exposition of the
text of Scripture), and this in turn led to the Christian life. The biblical humanist
character of his approach to theology and exegesis is very clear.

6.6 Conclusion

With respect to his interpretation of Ephesians 1:3–6, Bucer was consistent with his
stated aims as set forth in his introductory lectures. As we have already noted, his treat-
ment of the letter as a compendium of doctrine or even a treatise is evident in the pas-
sage of his lectures we have examined above, which raised the “first locus of theology
which Paul treats in this epistle,” election (Bucer 1562, 19C).91 Also clear is the manner
in which he followed through on his intention to stress the close relationship between
doctrine and the Christian life, and on the ethical stress in his handling of election.
However, with respect to the argument of the present work, what is most striking
is the emphasis, in practice as well as in theory, on the fundamental centrality of the
exegesis of Scripture as the principal context for theological formulation. In Bucer’s
lectures, theology thus becomes in practice the exposition of Scripture with minimal
explicit reliance on other authorities. True to his pronouncement in the introductory
lectures, he did turn to the Fathers (and implicitly, the exegetical tradition) for aid in
interpreting or more fully explaining the text, yet these other authorities were clearly
subordinate and supplemental to the text of Scripture. He more frequently appealed
to other passages of Scripture to expand on the discussion at hand. Hence, what was
most impressive to his auditors was the extent to which Bucer’s lectures on Ephesians
1:3–6 adhered to the letter and the spirit of the Cambridge Injunctions regarding the
teaching of theology from the Bible alone. Bucer was able to show that Scripture
provided “a full and absolute and sufficient doctrine, to prove all doctrine of salva-
tion, to improve all doctrine of error, sufficiently able to make the man of God
whole and perfect in all good works” (Parker 1551, D v verso; Hubert 1577, 886).

References

Ambrose [Ambrosiaster]. 1527. Divi Ambrosii Mediolanensis Episcopi Commentarii in Epistolam

Beati Pauli ad Ephesios. In Divi Ambrosii Episcopi Mediolanensis Operum Tomus Quartus....
Basel: Johannes Froben.
Ambrosiaster. 1966. Ad Efesios. In Ambrosiastri qui dicitur Commentarius in Epistulas Paulinas;
Pars Tertia, In Epistulas Ad Galatas, Ad Efesios...., ed. H.J. Vogels, 69–126. Vienna:
Holder-Pichler-Tempsky.

91
“Primus locus Theologiae, quem Paulus hac epistola tractat, est de Electione nostri ad haeredita-
tem aeternam.”
178 6 Theology in an Exegetical Context: Bucer on Ephesians 1:3–6 and the Doctrine…

Aquinas, Thomas. 1541. Divi Thomae Aquinatis…in omnes beati Pauli Apostoli epistolas
commentaria.... Paris: A. Girault.
Aquinas, Thomas. 1953. Super Epistolas S. Pauli Lectura, Vol. II, ed. P. Raphael, 37–247. Rome:
Marietti.
Bucer, Martin. 1530. Enarrationes perpetuae, in Sacra Quatuor Evangelia. Strasbourg: Georg
Ulricher.
Bucer, Martin. 1527. Epistola D. Pauli ad Ephesios, qua rationem Christianismi breviter iuxta &
locuplete, ut nulla brevius simul & locupletius explicat, versa paulo liberiu…In eandem
Commentarius. Strasbourg: s.n.
Bucer, Martin. 1536. Metaphrases Enarrationes Perpetuae Epistolarum D. Pauli Apostoli […]
Tomus Primus continens metaphrasim et ennarationem in Epistolam ad Romanos. Strasbourg:
Wendelin Rihel.
Bucer, Martin. 1562. Praelectiones doctiss. in Epistolam D. P. ad Ephesios, eximii doctoris
D. Martini Buceri, habitae Cantabrigiae in Anglia, Anno M D.L. et LI. Basel: Petrus Perna.
Bugenhagen, Johannes. 1524. Annotationes Ioan. Bugenhagii Pomerani in decem Epistolas Pauli,
scilicet ad Ephesios, Philippenses, Colossenses, Thessalonicenses primam et secun. Timotheum
primam & secundam, Titum, Philemonem, Hebraeos. Item Concordia Evangelistarum a
Resurrectione ad Ascensionem domini. Nuremberg: Ioan. Petreium.
Bullinger, Heinrich. 1539. In omnes apostolicas epistolas, divi videlicet Pauli XIIII et VIII canoni-
cas, commentarii. Zurich: Christoph Froschauer.
Cajetan [Thomas de Vio]. 1540. Ad Ephesios. In Epistolae Pauli et aliorum Apostolorum ad
Graecam veritatem castigatae, & per Reverendissimum Dominum Thomam de Vio, Caietanum,
Cardinalem sancti Xisti, iuxta sensum literalem enarratae. Quibus accesserunt Actus
Apostolorum commentariis eiusdem illustrati. Omnia accuratiori cura quam antea excusa.
Paris: Guillard.
Calvin, John. 1548. Ioannis Calvini Commentarii, in quatuor Pauli Epistolas: Ad Galatas,
Ad Ephesios, Ad Philippenses, Ad Colossenes. Geneva: Jean Girard.
Calvin, John. 1965. The Epistle to the Ephesians. In The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the
Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, Trans. T. H. L. Parker, eds. David
W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, 121–224. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company.
Chrysostom, John. 1539. Quartus Tomus Operum Divi Ioannis Chrysostomi…Continet in Omnes
D. Pauli epistolas expositionem, ed. Wolfgang Musculus. Basel: Johannes Herwagen.
Chrysostom, John. 1862. In Epistolam ad Ephesios Commentarius. In Patrologiae Cursus
Completus. Series Graeca, vol. 62, ed. J. P. Migne, cols. 9–176. Paris: J. P. Migne.
Chrysostom, John. 1889. A select library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series,
Vol. 13: Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians,
Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, ed. by Philip Schaff. New York: Christian
Literature Publishing Company.
Denis the Carthusian. 1531. In Epistolam ad Ephesios. In Elucidissima in Divi Pauli Epistolas
commentaria Dionysii, olim Carthusiani.... Paris: J. Petit.
Denis the Carthusian. 1901. Enarratio in Epistolam Beati Pauli ad Ephesios. In Dionysii Carthusiani
Opera Omnia, vol. 13: In Omnes B. Pauli Epistolas...., 295–327. Monstrolii: Typis Cartusiae
S.M. de Pratis.
Erasmus, Desiderius. 1532. Tomus secundus continens paraphrasim D. Erasmi Roterodami in
omneis epistolas apostolicas. Johannes Froben: Basel.
Erasmus, Desiderius. 1535. Novum Testamentum iam quintam accuratissima cura recognitum a
Des. Erasmo Roter. cum Annotationibus eiusdem ita locupletatis, ut propemodum opus novum
videri possit. Basel: Johannes Froben.
Erasmus, Desiderius. 1706. In epistolam Pauli Apostoli ad Ephesios Paraphrasis per Des. Erasmum
Roterodamum. In Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami Opera Omnia, vol. 7, ed. Jean LeClerc,
972–990. Leiden: Peter Vander Aa.
References 179

Froehlich, Karlfried and Margaret T. Gibson, eds. 1992. Biblia Latina cum glossa ordinaria:
Facsimile Reprint of the Editio Princeps, Adolph Rusch of Strasbourg, 1480/81, vol. 4, 368–380.
Turnhout: Brepols Publishers.
Hammann, Gottfried. 1993. La Démarche Théologique de Bucer. In Martin Bucer and Sixteenth
Century Europe: Actes du colloque de Strasbourg (28–31 Août 1991), 2 vols., ed. Christian
Kreiger and Marc Lienhard, 71–81. Leiden: Brill.
Haymo of Halberstadt [Haymo of Auxerre]. 1530. Haymonis episcopi Halberstatensis in divi Pauli
epistolas omneis interpretatio.... Paris: Berthelin.
Haymo of Halberstadt [Haymo of Auxerre]. 1881. In Epistolam ad Ephesios. In Patrologiae
Cursus Completus. Series Latina, vol. 117, ed. J.P. Migne, cols. 699–734. Paris: J. P. Migne.
Hubert, Conrad (ed.). 1577. Martini Buceri Scripta Anglicana fere omnia. Basel: Petrus Perna.
Jerome. 1516. Commentariorum in Epistolam ad Ephesios. In Tomus Nonus Operam Divi
Hieronymi Eusebii Stridonensis Complectens Commentarios in Matthaeum et Marcum, et in
Divi Pauli Epistolas, Vidilicet Ad Galatas, Ephesios, Titum, Philemonem. Necnon commentar-
ios in omnes Pauli Epistolas sed incerto Authore. Basel: Johannes Froben.
Jerome. 1845. Commentariorum in Epistolam ad Ephesios, Libri Tres. In Patrologiae Cursus
Completus. Series Latina, vol. 26, ed. J.P. Migne, cols. 439–554. Paris: J. P. Migne.
Krieger, Christian. 1993. Réflexions sur la place de la doctrine de la prédestination au sein de la
théologie de Martin Bucer. In Martin Bucer and sixteenth century Europe: Actes du colloque
de Strasbourg (28–31 Août 1991), 2 vols., vol. 1, ed. Christian Kreiger and Marc Lienhard,
83–99. Leiden: Brill.
Lang, August. 1900. Der Evangelienkommentar Martin Butzers und die Grundzüge seine
Theologie. Leipzig: Dietrich.
Lugioyo, Brian. 2010. Martin Bucer’s doctrine of justification: Reformation theology and early
modern Irenicism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nicholas of Lyra. 1545. Postilla super epistolam ad Ephesios. In Biblia sacra, cum glossis, interli-
neri & ordinaria, Nicolai Lyrani postilla & moralitatibus, vol. 6, 89 recto-97 verso. Lyons:
Treschel.
Pelagius. 1926. Commentaria in Epistolam ad Ephesios. In Pelagius’s expositions of thirteen epis-
tles of St Paul, vol. 2: Text and apparatus criticus, ed. Alexander Souter, 344–386. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Pseudo-Jerome [i.e., Pelagius]. 1516. Commentaria in Epistolam ad Ephesios. In Tomus Nonus
Operam Divi Hieronymi Eusebii Stridonensis Complectens Commentarios in Matthaeum et
Marcum, et in Divi Pauli Epistolas, Vidilicet Ad Galatas, Ephesios…Necnon commentarios in
omnes Pauli Epistolas sed incerto Authore. Basel: Johannes Froben.
Stephens, W.P. 1970. The holy spirit in the theology of Martin Bucer. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Theophylact. 1540. Ad Ephesios. In Theophylacti Bulgariae Archiepiscopi In Omnes Divi Pauli
Apostoli Epistolas Enarrationes, iam recens ex vetustissimo archetypo Graeco, per D. Ioannem
Lonicerum fidelissime in Latinum conversae.... Basel: Andreas Cratander.
Theophylact. 1864. Epistolae Divi Pauli ad Ephesios Expositio. In Patrologiae Cursus Completus.
Series Graeca, vol. 124, ed. J.P. Migne, cols. 1031–1138. Paris: J. P. Migne.
Torrance, Thomas F. 1956. Kingdom and Church: A study in the theology of the Reformation.
Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.
Wright, David F. 1972. Introduction. In Common places of Martin Bucer, ed. and trans. D. F.
Wright, 17–71. Appleford: The Sutton Courtenay Press.
Chapter 7
Theology in an Exegetical Context: Bucer
on Ephesians 1:13–18 and the Doctrine
of Faith

Bucer’s treatment of Ephesians 1:3–6 and the doctrine of election constituted one of
the two patterns that characterized his use of the loci method of theology in the
Ephesians lectures. In our examination of his treatment of that passage, we observed
that exegesis and theology were closely interrelated. Indeed, text and locus were
expounded in a single exercise. In the present chapter, we will take up Bucer’s treat-
ment of Ephesians 1:13–18, the passage within which he found “the second locus in
this epistle,” one in which he maintains Paul taught of “calling and faith” (Bucer
1562, 20D).1 Bucer’s treatment of this locus is representative of the second pattern
he used. Here, he drew attention in his exegesis to the presence of a locus on faith
in the letter and addressed it to a limited extent in the course of biblical exposition,
following which he furnished a separate, more systematic discussion that was a
further elucidation of the locus.2
In that Bucer felt it necessary to include a separate discussion of faith, our exami-
nation in the present chapter will address the question of how his treatment of the
locus on faith was related to its exegetical context, and how this differed from his
treatment of election. Another significant question concerns Bucer’s discernment of
a locus on faith at this point in the text. Unlike Ephesians 1:3–6 and election,
Ephesians 1:13–18 is not generally regarded as a major biblical source for the doc-
trine of faith. As we shall see in our consideration of the exegetical tradition on this
text, faith is recognized as an element in the passage, but it is by no means regarded
as a prominent feature. Hence we shall ask why and how Bucer came not only to
emphasize faith in his exegesis of the text, but how he justified his argument that

1
“Secundus locus, qui in hac Epistola tractatur, est de Vocatione & fide.” The literature on Bucer’s
teaching on faith is not as extensive as that on election. See: Müller (1965, 22–31); Stephens (1970,
55–70) and, most recently, Lugioyo (2010, 80–100).
2
It is worth repeating that Bucer connected the loci on election and faith by virtue of the fact that
they were two elements in the ordo salutis he discerned in Ephesians 1. Indeed, of the elements he
mentioned in the ordo, election and faith are the only two on which he expounded at any length,
and they effectively constitute a subdivision of his analysis of the letter.

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 181

N.S. Amos, Bucer, Ephesians and Biblical Humanism, Studies in Early Modern
Religious Tradition, Culture and Society 7, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-10238-2_7
182 7 Theology in an Exegetical Context: Bucer on Ephesians 1:13–18 and the Doctrine…

faith was a significant locus in Ephesians at this point. Did Bucer’s intent to expound
the locus on faith influence his interpretation of this passage to the detriment of
good exegesis? Could Bucer be accused of eisegesis? Was theology driving exegesis,
rather than the other way around?
The approach of this chapter will be broadly similar to that of Chap. 6, though
with some variation. As we work through Bucer’s lectures, we will continue to
examine Bucer’s treatment of the text of Ephesians with an awareness of the exegetical
tradition. We will begin with the manner in which Bucer set the stage for his treat-
ment of Ephesians 1:13–18 as a unit, with reference to how others structured their
exegesis of the passage as a whole, and then proceed through Bucer’s lectures. Each
section will focus on a portion of the text in sequence, noting how it was interpreted
by other exegetes, in order to provide a context for our consideration of Bucer’s
exposition of the passage.3 As before, we will seek to observe what about his prac-
tice made him distinctive as an exegete and a theologian, and to observe the manner
in which he developed doctrine in an exegetical context. However, since our
concern is with how and why in the course of his exegesis Bucer focused on faith as
the principal locus in the passage, primary attention will be given to those verses in
which Bucer discussed faith. In other words, verses 13, 15, and 17b–18a will be the
focus of discussion with respect to all exegetes; we will speak much more briefly of
the remaining verses, summarizing Bucer’s treatment with less reference to the
exegetical tradition.
A final section will consider Bucer’s separate statement on faith, and its connec-
tion with his exegesis of the text in which he found the locus. Here we shall ask: what
relationship obtained between the biblical text and the separate discussion that was
drawn from it, and between theology and exegesis within the discussion? Was the
discussion on faith internally reliant upon biblical exegesis, or was it a systematic
statement of doctrine, abstract from an exegetical context?

7.1 Ephesians 1:13–18—The General Pattern of Treatment

The general pattern of Bucer’s treatment of Ephesians 1:13–18 was unremarkable

when compared with the exegetical tradition, as was true with his treatment of
Ephesians 1:3–6. However, because of his recurrent reference to the locus concerning
faith (verses 13, 15, and 18), he treated these verses de facto as a unit of Paul’s argu-
ment, and this was somewhat distinctive.4 Among the Patristic exegetes selected for
this study, Chrysostom’s exposition of Ephesians 1:13–18 was spread over two

3
Thus, the shape of the present chapter will be closer to the pattern seen in the work of David
Steinmetz and his treatment of the history of exegesis than was the case with the previous
chapter.
4
In his translation of Ephesians at the beginning of the 1527 commentary, he divided the passage
into three sections: verses 11–13a, verses 13b–14, and verses 15–18 (Bucer 1527, 9 verso-10
recto/B verso-B2 recto).
7.1 Ephesians 1:13–18—The General Pattern of Treatment 183

homilies, one on verses 11–14, and the other on verses 15–23 (Chrysostom 1889,
55–59 and 59–65; Chrysostom 1539, cols. 783–788 and 788–794/KK2 recto-kk3
recto and KK3 recto-KK4 verso; Chrysostom 1862, cols. 17–22 and cols. 24–30).
Ambrosiaster provided a running commentary, and did not make it a point clearly to
group the verses into larger units, though he did comment on verses 13–18 in para-
graphs dealing in succession with verses in pairs of two (Ambrose 1527, 940/k2
verso; Ambrosiaster 1966, 75–76). Pseudo-Jerome’s comments on these verses
begin in a paragraph that started with verse 4 and which breaks at verse 16, continu-
ing in a new paragraph with verse 17 which runs to the end of the chapter (Pseudo-
Jerome 1516, 174 verso/G2 verso; Pelagius 1926, 348). Jerome commented on
verses 13 and 14 singly, and then verses 15–17 and 18–20 in successive paragraphs
(Jerome 1516, 102 verso-103 verso/[r6] verso-s verso; Jerome 1845, cols.
456A–4601A). Theophylact commented on verses 13–18 individually (Theophylact
1540, 112 recto-113 recto/t4 recto-[t5] recto; Theophylact 1864, cols. 1042B-1047A).
Of the medieval exegetes we have selected, Aquinas’s treatment of Ephesians
1:13–18 was spread over two of his lectures: Lecture 5 is on verses 13 and 14, and
Lecture 6, on verses 15 to 19a (Aquinas 1541, 171 verso-172 verso, 172 verso-173
recto/y iii recto-y iiii verso, y iiii verso-[y v] recto; Aquinas 1953, 11–13 and
13–15). Haymo of Auxerre commented on the text in succeeding paragraphs
(Haymo of Halberstadt 1530, 220 recto-221 recto/E iiii recto-[E v] recto; Haymo of
Halberstadt 1881, cols. 705B–706D). Nicholas of Lyra (1545, 6:90 recto-90 verso/n
6 recto-n6 verso) did not divide the text in any significant way, inasmuch as his work
was a running commentary on verses and/or phrases; this was so for Denis the
Carthusian as well (Denis the Carthusian 1531, 238 verso-240 recto/[G vi] verso-
[G viii] recto; Denis the Carthusian 1901, 13: 301–302); neither was the text divided
into units in the Glossa (Froehlich and Gibson 1992, 4: 370).
Among Bucer’s contemporaries, Erasmus made no significant division of the
text in either the Paraphrases (Erasmus 1532, 209–210/S3 recto-S3 verso; Erasmus
1706, 7: 974D–975C) or in the Annotations (Erasmus 1535, 593–595/Dd3 recto-
Dd4 recto). In the former, he provided a running “commentary,” and in the latter he
took up individual phrases as they merited annotation. Cajetan commented on
verses 13 and 14 in individual paragraphs, and then on verses 15–18 together
(Cajetan 1540, 256 verso-258 recto/[I viii] verso-K ii recto). Bugenhagen only high-
lighted key phrases in his commentary, as was the wont of the “Wittenberg”
approach, although in his annotation on verse 12b, he combined verses 12 and 13 in
his comments (Bugenhagen 1524, A5 verso-A6 verso). Bullinger divided the text
into two sections: he commented on 1:12b–14, and then on 1:15–18 (Bullinger
1539, 410–412/M verso-M2 verso). Finally, Calvin divided the passage we are
examining in much the same fashion as did Aquinas: he commented first on verses
13–14, and then on verses 15–18 (Calvin 1965, 130–133 and 133–135; Calvin 1548,
114–116 and 117–118/h5 verso-[h6] verso and [h7] recto-[h7] verso).
The evidence surveyed thus indicates that there was no consensus in the exegetical
tradition regarding the division of the text, and that no one treated verses 13–18 as
a single pericope. Yet we can see that from Aquinas onwards, many exegetes found
that verse 13 formed the beginning of a unit, and that verse 18 concluded another,
184 7 Theology in an Exegetical Context: Bucer on Ephesians 1:13–18 and the Doctrine…

however varied were the exegetical decisions with respect to the division of the
intervening text.
As we have noted already, the general form of Bucer’s lectures was that of a
running commentary without quotation of the text in blocks.5 After his treatment of
the locus on election, Bucer returned to a straightforward exposition of Ephesians
1:7–12, and he did not dwell on any loci between election and faith (Bucer Bucer
1562, 24E–26F). He did raise the issue of the order of salvation [ordo salutis] of
which election was part (Bucer 1562, 24D),6 and he briefly discussed effectual
calling [vocatio] and regeneration [regeneratio], though not at all to the extent that
he had done in the case of election. However, as he came to verse 13 and the refer-
ence to “the Gospel of your salvation” (Bucer 1562, 26F–27A), he reminded his
auditors in a number of ways that Paul’s letter was a compendium of theology, and
set the stage for the next locus.
First, Bucer observed that Paul paused here in his discourse to recall the blessings
of the Ephesians “in order that they might believe more completely” [ut magis
fiderent], which Bucer argued contributes to the scopus of the letter, “that piety
might increase with the commemoration of these blessings” [ut pietas commemora-
tione beneficiorum crescat] (Bucer 1562, 27A). In so doing, he drew the attention of
his students to the wider organization (as well as the aim) of Paul’s treatise. Second,
and more significantly, the reference to belief led Bucer to the subject of calling and
faith, doctrines which he had previously identified as forming the second locus of
Paul’s letter (Bucer 1562, 27A).7 He indicated that at this point in the letter there is
a treatment [tractatio] of “the middle cause [of salvation], whereby eternal election
is applied to us.” This middle cause works “through the Word of God, without which
we do not know nor perceive salvation through Christ” (Bucer 1562, 27A).8 His
strong emphasis on the centrality of Scripture led to another reference to the scopus
of the letter, which in this instance he indicated is the increase of faith and piety
among believers, both of which arise from a recognition of God’s blessings (Bucer
1562, 27A). In all this, Bucer discerned the work of the Holy Spirit, regenerating
and reviving believers, a work that results in a living faith (Bucer 1562, 27A).
What is striking is that Bucer then drew attention a second time to the ordo
salutis as he believed Paul set it forth in the text.

5
As noted above, in his 1527 Commentary, Bucer divided verses 13–18 into three sections in the
translation he furnished at the beginning, a division reflected in the commentary: Section 6 (verses
11–13a); Section 7 (verses 13b–14); and Section 8 (verses 15–18). In the commentary proper, the
divisions are signaled by the quotation of the beginning verse of each section: Bucer 1527, 9
verso/B verso (the text of Ephesians); 35 verso-39 verso/E3 recto-[E7] verso (Section 6); 39 verso-
40 recto/[E7] verso-[E8] recto (Section 7); 40 verso-42 verso/[E8] verso-F2 verso (Section 8).
6
He also mentioned two minor loci dealing with the mystery of God’s will (Bucer 1562, 25A).
7
As we shall see, Bucer’s primary interest was faith; calling is in effect treated as part of the act of
faith, and does not receive separate attention. That faith is in view does not become fully clear until
27B. In 1527, he did discuss faith, but it was not nearly as prominent a theme in his exposition as
it was in 1550.
8
“Et est tractatio mediae causae, qua nobis applicatur aeterna electio, quae est per verbum Dei, sine
quo nec cognoscimus, nec percipimus salutem per Christum, de qua Matth. ultimo.”
7.2 Ephesians 1:13 and Hearing the Word of Truth that Leads to Faith 185

He describes the order of our salvation [ordinem salutis nostrae]. First of all, there is
election: then an effective and regenerating call through the Gospel. [Then] faith and hope,
to which love is joined at the same time, by the hearing of the truth.9 (Bucer 1562, 27A)

This word of truth is identified by Bucer as the Gospel, revealed by the Spirit (Bucer
1562, 27A).10 The place of calling [vocatio] is linked closely to the proclamation of
the Gospel and the consequent regeneration of the believer, which in turn leads to
the response of faith in the believer. Bucer thus set his discussion of faith in the
wider frame of reference provided by the ordo salutis, which (he indicated) began
with election and ends with an active response in the Christian life. Hence, although
the second locus to which he gave attention was faith (and calling), to a certain
degree what Bucer set forth in his exegesis of Ephesians 1:13–18 was also a state-
ment of the ordo salutis, specifically the work of the Holy Spirit in applying the
work of redemption to the individual believer.

7.2 Ephesians 1:13 and Hearing the Word of Truth

that Leads to Faith

In whom [Christ] you also hope, having heard the word of truth, the Gospel of your salvation:
in whom also after you had believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise.11
(Bucer 1562, 17B)

9
“Ordinem salutis describit. Omnium prima est electio: deinde per Evangelium vocatio efficax, &
regeneratrix. Fides & spes, quibus simul est coniuncta charitas, audito verbo veritatis.” The
phrase, and indeed the concept, are absent in his 1527 commentary. Bullinger (1539, 410/M
verso), however, found an ordo “whereby the saints are justified and absolved” (ordinem quo
iustificantur & absolvuntur sancti), but it was unlike Bucer’s construct: the word of the Gospel
was preached, then the word was believed, then the Spirit added a holy seal, and finally there was
praise for God’s glory.
10
“Vocat Evangelium verbum veritatis, quia est revelatum per spiritum....”
11
“…in quo speratis & vos, audito verbo veritatis, evangelio salutis vestrae: in quo etiam postea-
quam credidistis, obsignati estis spiritu promissionis sancto....” There are two textual issues here.
First, the inclusion of the verb speratis/speramus is uncommon. The Vulgate did not have it, nor
did any of the Fathers or medieval exegetes we have examined—nor, for that matter, Calvin. Of the
exegetes we have considered, the Novum Testamentum of Erasmus, the commentaries of
Bugenhagen and Bullinger, and Bucer’s Ephesians lectures all include the verb, the latter three no
doubt following Erasmus. In his 1527 Ephesians commentary, Bucer’s translation of verse 13
lacked speratis, and read: “in quem & vestram collocatis, postquam sermonem veritatis, Evangelion
salus vestrae, audivistis” (Bucer 1527, 9 verso/B verso). Second, a number of exegetes believed
that the first person “we” [nos] rather than the second person “you” [vos] should be used at the
beginning of verse 13: specifically, Cajetan (1540, 256 verso/[I viii] verso), Bullinger (1539,
410/M verso), and Tremellius, in the text he provided at the beginning of Chap. 1 of Bucer’s
lectures (Bucer 1562, 17B); in the lectures themselves—at 26F—Bucer used the second person.
Erasmus, in his Annotations (1535, 593/Dd3 recto) and Bugenhagen (1524, A6 recto) both com-
mented on the issue as well, though they were dubious of the use of the first person.
186 7 Theology in an Exegetical Context: Bucer on Ephesians 1:13–18 and the Doctrine…

Bucer’s particular emphasis on the faith that follows from the “word of truth, the
Gospel of your salvation,” and, for that matter, his discernment of an ordo salutis,
were prominent features of his exposition. His principal concern in his discussion of
verse 13—with particular reference to “the Gospel of your salvation: in whom also
after you had believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise” (Bucer
1562, 17B)12—was to comment on the nature of the belief of which Paul speaks,
which Bucer characterized as faith. Before he addressed faith directly, Bucer
described the work of the Gospel as that in which
the Spirit offers and communicates Christ to us, reconciles [us] to God, grants [us] certainty
of His unchangeable love, and restores us to his obedience.13 (Bucer 1562, 27A–B)

He then commented on what the end of salvation is: restoration to the image of God,
that believers may be just, holy, honest and disciplined in all life (Bucer 1562, 27B).14
It was after these two points that he discussed the place of faith.15
Therefore the announcement of the Gospel leads the way: then follows faith, as God opens
our hearts by the Holy Spirit, and persuades [us] that everything which is handed on in the
Gospel concerning sin and grace is true and unchanging. When we have received that
persuasion, we love the Gospel, we cling to it, and we hold it as the greatest treasure.16
(Bucer 1562, 27B)

In this we observe again how he adumbrated an order of salvation as he found it in

the text, an order that set the doctrinal context for his discussion of faith.
Bucer was careful to note that “truly Paul speaks not of an image of faith, but of
a true faith:” it is not a purely formal or outward kind of faith (Bucer 1562, 27B).17

12
“Evangelio salutis vestrae in quo speratis & vos, audito verbo veritatis, evangelio salutis vestrae:
in quo etiam posteaquam credidistis, obsignati estis spiritu promissionis sancto....”
13
“Illo, nobis spiritus offert, & communicat Christum, reconciliat Deo, certosque facit de dilec-
tione eius immutabili, & renovat nos ad eius obedientiam.” In his 1527 commentary, Bucer spent
some time discussing what was the nature of the Gospel which Christ and the Apostles preached,
and on the positive relationship between it and the Old Testament Law with respect to love of
neighbor (Bucer 1527, 37 verso-39 verso/E5 verso-[E7] verso).
14
Note the ethical stress on the Christian life.
15
In his 1527 commentary, Bucer immediately, though briefly, addressed faith, by which believers
perceive their election and are made certain of their liberation from all evil (Bucer 1527, 37 recto/
E5 recto).
16
“Praecedit ergo annunciatio Evangelii: sequitur deinde fides, quando Deus aperit Spiritu sancto
nostra corda, & persuadet omnia esse vera & immutabilia, quaecunque in Evangelio de peccato, &
gratia traduntur. Quam persuasionem cum concepimus, amamus Evangelium, ei adhaeremus, &
habemus pro maximo thesauro.” The wording of this ordo is similar to that of Bullinger (1539,
410/M verso), to which we have already made reference: “Primo praedicatur verbum evangelii,
deinde praedicatio creditur. His accedit obsignatio sancti spiritus. Sequitur autem laus gloriae dei
& insignis gratitudo.” See also Lugioyo (2010, 83–90) for a discussion of this subject with refer-
ence to Bucer’s Romans commentary (specifically, Bucer’s definition of terms found in the preface
to the commentary), where Bucer similarly speaks of the progress from announcement of the
Gospel to persuasion to faith and love.
17
“Verum non de imagine fidei, sed de vera fide loquitur Paulus.” In 1527, he stated that true faith
is a living faith, in which believers are persuaded by the Spirit, and which they hear not only with
carnal ears but also the mind illuminated by the Spirit (Bucer 1527, 37 recto/E5 recto). Bullinger
7.2 Ephesians 1:13 and Hearing the Word of Truth that Leads to Faith 187

He noted the characteristics of that faith which is only apparent. It does not produce
the true fruit of faith, but instead those things which appear in people who seek from
the Gospel the liberty of the flesh (Bucer 1562, 27B).18 This kind of faith is more
like credulity. In this description, Bucer referred to James 2:17, which declares that
such a faith is dead: nevertheless, Bucer noted that it is nonetheless a kind of “faith,”
for the word is used by James to describe it (Bucer 1562, 27B–C). He contrasted this
kind of faith with that spoken of in the present instance:
But in this text, and similar ones, the discussion is of true faith, which is a right persuasion
that all the words that God speaks to us in the Holy Scriptures are words of truth and salva-
tion; and those who believe, truly hate sin, trust in the goodness of God, through Christ, and
strive to conform their whole lives to His purposes/teachings with all those forces by which
the Holy Spirit drives and quickens them; and with all care and discipline they subdue the
ever rebellious flesh, and crucify it with great labors and vigils.19 (Bucer 1562, 27C)

Before he finished his first statement regarding faith, Bucer wanted to guard against
the exclusion of young children from salvation because they did not have the sort of
faith of which he had been speaking; he held out the expectation that they would
come to it in time as they are prepared for it by preaching and teaching (Bucer 1562,
27C). At this point, Bucer turned from this first, brief treatment of faith, and pro-
ceeded with the exposition of the text; in this respect, we observe a difference in the
treatment of doctrine from that which we observed in our examination of his treatment
of election. Where before he maintained a focus on election, here he returned to a
more straightforward exegesis.
In contrast to Bucer, few of the other exegetes we have considered put the same
emphasis we observe in the Praelectiones. Chrysostom did discuss the matter of
belief, but he did not explicitly mention faith (Chrysostom 1889, 56; Chrysostom
1539, col. 784/KK2 recto; Chrysostom 1862, col. 18).20 The reference to “the word
of truth” having been spoken meant that the Gospel was no longer veiled in a type
or image, but had now become a reality (Chrysostom 1889, 56; Chrysostom 1539,
col. 784/KK2 recto; Chrysostom 1862, col. 18).21 Among the three features Aquinas

(1539, 410/M verso) similarly commented that it is not enough to have heard the Gospel, if we do
not also believe [credamus] it.
18
In a reference to such faith as a crop that springs up under the sun only to be extinguished, he
alluded to the parable of the sower (Mark 4:1–12/Matthew 13:1–15).
19
“Sed hoc loco, & similibus, sermo est de vera fide, quae est recta persuasio, omnia esse verba
veritatis & salutis, quae Deus nobis loquitur in sacris scripturis, quod qui credunt, vere peccatum
oderunt, fidunt bonitati Dei, per Christum, & omnem vitam suam ad eius placita formare student
totis viribus, quibus illos agit & vivificat Spiritus sanctus, & carnem semper repugnantem, omni
cura & exercitatione subigunt, & crucifigunt magnis laboribus & vigiliis.” There is here yet another
instance of Bucer’s ethical stress on the character of the Christian life. Again, compare with what
Bucer set forth in the Romans commentary as described by Lugioyo (2010, 83–90).
20
This was true as well for Jerome (1516, 102 verso/[r6] verso; Jerome 1845, col. 456A–B);
Pseudo-Jerome (1516, 174 verso/G2 verso; Pelagius 1926, 348); Ambrose (1527, 940/k2 verso;
Ambrosiaster 1966, 75), and Theophylact (1540, 112 recto-112 verso/t4 recto-t4 verso; Theophylact
1864, col. 1042B-C).
21
Jerome believed the Ephesians were to be commended because they heard and received the
“word of truth” rather than merely heard preaching as such: Jerome (1516, 102 verso/[r6] verso;
Jerome 1845, col. 456B).
188 7 Theology in an Exegetical Context: Bucer on Ephesians 1:13–18 and the Doctrine…

found in verse 13 was conversion to faith, the other two being preaching, which
precedes faith, and justification, which follows faith (Aquinas 1541, 171 verso-172
recto/y iii verso-y iiii recto; Aquinas 1953, 11–12).22 He thought the phrase “word
of faith” [verbum fidei] to be used “antonomastically”23 [anthonomastice] here,
referring to the Gospel as the announcement of the highest good (Aquinas 1541,
171 verso/y iii verso; Aquinas 1953, 11).24 In this respect, it is the salvation of those
who hear and believe (Aquinas 1541, 171 verso-172 recto/y iii verso-y iiii recto;
Aquinas 1953, 11–12).25 Erasmus, in his Paraphrases, pointed to belief in Christ—
though he does not use the term faith—as a key feature of this passage, unto which
all are debtors, where before Jews were debtors to circumcision (Erasmus 1532,
209/ S3 recto; Erasmus 1706, 7:974D).26 Calvin noted in verse 13 the manner in
which Paul associates the Ephesians “with himself, and with the rest of those who
were firstfruits” [hic socios sibi et reliquis, qui veluti primitiae], arguing that Paul’s
intent in this is to emphasize the commonality of their faith (Calvin 1965, 130
[reprinted by permission of the publisher]; Calvin 1548, 114/h5 verso).27 He
observed as well that the Ephesians came to the knowledge of salvation through the
preaching of the Gospel (Calvin 1965, 130–131; Calvin 1548, 114/h5 verso).28
Calvin observed the two ways in which the Gospel is described in the passage. First,
the Gospel is certain and cannot deceive—thus it is “κατ’ ἐξoχήv,” a phrase which
he understood to mean that outside of the Gospel there is no truth (Calvin 1965,
131; Calvin 1548, 114/h5 verso). Second, the Gospel is the means or instrument of
salvation, the experience of which has instructed the Ephesians (Calvin 1965, 131;
Calvin 1548, 114–115/h5 verso-[h6] recto). In both ways, the believer finds an
effective means of defense against the assaults of Satan, who is keen to call the
Gospel into doubt or disrepute.
Yet whereas comment on faith is not absent in the above, neither is it pronounced
in the way Bucer highlights it. On the other hand, many of these exegetes gave
greater attention to the role of the Spirit in Paul’s letter in this verse. Chrysostom
noted Paul’s use of the concept of sealing in respect of the work of the Holy Spirit
in verse 13b,29 which he believed was another indication of God’s eternal purpose.

22
Aquinas’s discernment of justification here also embraces the beginning of verse 14.
23
From antonomasia, an appellative, or a descriptive epithet.
24
He cited as well Isaiah 52:7 and 40:9.
25
He also referred to Romans 1:16 and I Corinthians 15:1.
26
“Neque enim circuncisioni debemus, quod ad immortalitatis spem recipimur, sed credulitati....”
27
Erasmus represented Paul as declaring to the Ephesians that they have now been incorporated
with Jewish believers into the fellowship of believers in Christ, no doubt looking back to Paul’s
reference in verse 12 to himself and his fellow Jews as “being the first to hear,” and possibly look-
ing forward to Ephesians 2:11–22 and Paul’s discussion of the relationship of Israel and the Church
(Erasmus 1532, 209/S3 recto; Erasmus 1706, 7:974D). Bugenhagen and Bullinger each made a
similar point, linking Jewish and Gentile Christians (Bugenhagen 1524, A6 recto; Bullinger 1539,
410/M verso).
28
So also Bullinger (1539, 410/M verso); this was one of the elements of the ordo he found in the
passage.
29
The English translation of the homily identifies verse 13b as part of verse 14.
7.2 Ephesians 1:13 and Hearing the Word of Truth that Leads to Faith 189

Subsequent to predestination and election (both of which were settled before time
and hidden in God), believers are sealed in time and their election becomes manifest
(Chrysostom 1889, 56; Chrysostom 1539, col. 785/KK2 verso; Chrysostom 1862,
col. 18).30 He then indicated that the reference to the Spirit of promise (13b) meant
that believers “have received that Spirit according to the promise” (Chrysostom
1889, 56; Chrysostom 1539, col. 785/KK2 verso; Chrysostom 1862, col. 18).31
Behind this, he discerned two promises, “the one by the prophets, the other from the
Son” (Chrysostom 1889, 56; Chrysostom 1539, col. 785/KK2 verso; Chrysostom
1862, col. 18).32 With respect to the former, Chrysostom cited Joel 2:28; with respect
to the latter, he referred to Acts 1:8 and the promise of Jesus that there soon would
be an outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon His followers (Chrysostom 1889, 56;
Chrysostom 1539, col. 785/KK2 verso; Chrysostom 1862, col. 18).33 Aquinas, after
dealing briefly with conversion and justification, focused his attention on the work
of the Spirit in both. The work of Christ in the Ephesians was sealed with the Holy
Spirit (Aquinas 1541, 172 recto/y iiii recto; Aquinas 1953, 12). The reference to
being sealed with the Holy Spirit pointed to justification. Aquinas observed Paul to
say two things about the Spirit: He is a sign, and He is the Spirit of promise (Aquinas
1541, 172 recto/y iiii recto; Aquinas 1953, 12). The Spirit is said to be a sign in that
receiving and being sealed by Him, “love is infused” [infunditur charito] into the
heart of the believer, which thus sets the believer apart from the world (Aquinas
1541, 172 recto/y iiii recto; Aquinas 1953, 12).34 What was particularly noteworthy
for Aquinas is the love that is a key and distinctive outward manifestation of being
sealed with the Spirit, love which the believer shows towards God and neighbor
(Aquinas 1541, 172 recto/y iiii recto; Aquinas 1953, 12).35 The Spirit is termed a

30
Chrysostom also found here a sense of setting apart in the use of the term “sealed.” Jerome (1516,
102 verso/[r6] verso; Jerome 1845, col. 456C-D) linked the sealing with the Holy Spirit to regen-
eration in those who believe the Gospel.
31
Musculus’s 1539 rendering: “Videlicet, quod spiritum iuxta promissionem accepimus.” In the
Patrologia Graeca: “Aut quod ex promissione ipsum acceperimus.” Jerome regarded the gift of the
Spirit as a surety of salvation for those in whom he dwells (Jerome 1516, 102 verso/[r6] verso;
Jerome 1845, cols. 456D-457A).
32
The translation by Musculus: “Duae siquidem sunt promissiones. Una quidem per prophetas,
altera vero a filio....” In the Patrologia Graeca: “Duae enim sunt promissiones, una quidem per
prophetas, altera autem per Filium.”
33
Though Chrysostom did not mention the connection between the two, the narrative of Acts
clearly indicates that the two promises were fulfilled at Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2. Theophylact
cited the same texts, and made the same point as Chrysostom (Theophylact 1540, 112 verso/t4
verso; Theophylact 1864, col. 1042D).
34
“Signum quidem est inquantum per eum infunditur charitas in cordibus nostris, qua distinguimur
ab his qui non sunt filii Dei.” Nicholas of Lyra (1545, 6:90 recto/n6 recto) interprets the sealing to
mean that by the light of grace the defaced image of God in man is restored. Denis the Carthusian
(1531, 238 verso/[G vi] verso; Denis the Carthusian 1901, 13:301) interprets the sealing to mean
being counted among the elect, being set apart from the non-elect by divine predestination.
35
“Quia autem Spiritus Sanctus amor est, ergo tunc Spiritus Sanctus datur alicui, quando efficitur
amator Dei et proximi. […] Signum ergo distinctionis est charitas, quae est a Spiritu Sancto.”
Bucer’s own thinking resonated with this.
190 7 Theology in an Exegetical Context: Bucer on Ephesians 1:13–18 and the Doctrine…

promise for three reasons, two of which are found in verse 13. First, He is promised
to those who believe. Second, He is granted to believers with a promise that they
have become children of God and one with Christ, and will receive the promised
eternal inheritance (Aquinas 1541, 172 recto/y iiii recto; Aquinas 1953, 12).36
Turning to Bucer’s contemporaries, Erasmus held that true believers are distin-
guished by an inward mark upon the soul (Erasmus 1532, 209/S3 recto; Erasmus
1706, 7:974D).37 What is more, this mark is not confined to one nation (as was cir-
cumcision), but now encompasses people of any nation who receive the Gospel, and
believe its promises (Erasmus 1532, 209/S3 recto; Erasmus 1706, 7:974D–E).38
And to the question of what constitutes this mark, the answer is the Holy Spirit,
Who enables believers to trust the promises of the Gospel with all their heart,
promises that are yet to be fulfilled. (Erasmus 1532, 209/S3 recto; Erasmus 1706,
7:974E).39 Calvin also drew attention to the sealing with the Holy Spirit, Who grants
to believers the certainty of the salvation of which He is the Author (Calvin 1965,
131; Calvin 1548, 115/[h6] recto).40 Calvin found the image of a seal especially
appropriate, “for seals give authenticity both to charters and to wills” [Sigillum enim
authentica redduntur tam diplomata quam testamenta], and they identify the origi-
nator of the document (Calvin 1965, 131 [reprinted by permission of the publisher];
Calvin 1548, 115/[h6] recto). The believer can be certain of the veracity of the
Gospel only when the indwelling Holy Spirit, like a seal on a document, makes it
so. No amount of philosophical argument can establish the certainty of salvation or
of the Word of God. Preaching is the instrument of salvation, but it is the Holy Spirit
Who makes it effective (Calvin 1965, 131; Calvin 1548, 115/[h6] recto).41 Having

36
Haymo of Auxerre (Haymo of Halberstadt 1530, 220 recto/E iiii recto; Haymo of Halberstadt
1881, col. 705C) identified the promised Holy Spirit with the promise of Jesus to the Apostles
(fulfilled at Pentecost), through Whom believers have the promise of eternal life in baptism; He
restores in believers the image of God that was lost in the Fall. Nicholas of Lyra (1545, 6:90 recto/
n6 recto) commented that the reference to the promised Holy Spirit is included because He dwells
in believers and promises them a blessed life. Denis the Carthusian (1531, 239 recto/[G vii] verso;
Denis the Carthusian 1901, 13:301) offered two interpretations—the reference to the Spirit means
by the power and operation of the Spirit promised to the elect; or, the Spirit is said to be the Spirit
of Promise because He promises eternal life.
37
Cajetan (1540, 257 recto/K recto) also emphasized that the seal was internal, impressed on the
soul of the believer by the Holy Spirit.
38
“Hoc ex aequo obsignantur omnes, cuius cuius nationis fuerint, qui doctrinam euangelicam
amplectentes credunt illius promissis.”
39
“Rogabit quispiam, quod nam hoc signaculum, quod Christianos discernat ab impiis? Nimirum
Spiritus Sanctus…qui hoc agit in nobis, ut toto pectore fidamus Euangelii promissis, etiamsi hic
nondum appareant.” In his Annotations (Erasmus 1535, 594/Dd3 verso), he read signati for obsig-
nati, and commented that the former signifies signed and sealed as in a pact, after which there
follows a pledge which makes the pact clear and certain. Cajetan (1540, 257 recto/K recto) made
a similar observation.
40
Note that Bullinger (1539, 410/M verso), explicitly following Erasmus’s paraphrase (identified as
Paraphrastes), noted the contrast of the physical sign for the Jews (circumcision), and the spiritual
sign given to Christians.
41
The work of the Spirit in sealing the word preached is the third stage of the ordo that Bullinger
found in the text (Bullinger 1539, 410/M verso).
7.2 Ephesians 1:13 and Hearing the Word of Truth that Leads to Faith 191

said all that, Calvin wanted to guard against making the act of faith prior to the work
of the Spirit. He argued that the Spirit has two roles in the coming of the believer to
faith. The Spirit illumines and confirms mind and soul, each of which corresponds
to the parts of faith—knowledge and conviction (Calvin 1965, 132; Calvin 1548,
115/[h6] recto). Further, because the Spirit acts to assure believers that the promise
of salvation is certain, He is called the Spirit of Promise (Calvin 1965, 132; Calvin
1548, 115/[h6] recto).
While Bucer did not give as much attention to the Holy Spirit as to the faith
wrought by the Spirit in believers (perhaps surprisingly in light of the general
recognition of the place of the Spirit in his theology more generally), he did discuss
in turn the references to the Spirit and to the promise of the Spirit as each are men-
tioned in the remainder of verse 13 (Bucer 1562, 27C and 28D, respectively).42
Beyond that, the principal point he intended to make in his exposition of verse 13 is
that the Holy Spirit is central to the effectual calling of believers and to the process
of their sanctification.
This Spirit prevails in the saints over the flesh, and He kills its impulse and power, and
extinguishes it, and curbs passions, to such a degree that not only [does] He cleanse us from
sins, but indeed He conforms our body to the glorious Body of Christ.43 (Bucer 1562, 28D)

Further, the Holy Spirit is the seal or token or pledge of a redemption that will one
day be fully known, but which has already begun to be experienced: “Nevertheless,
because he has not yet obtained us entirely, therefore it is said that it is σφραγίς, that
is, a token and pledge of the full redemption, which has begun here” (Bucer 1562,
28D).44 It is the possession of the Spirit that distinguishes believers from the reprobate
(Bucer 1562, 28D).45
Bucer then took up verse 14 and the references to the inheritance of believers
(where again he pointed to the Holy Spirit as central to that inheritance), and to the
subject of redemption (Bucer 1562, 28E-29A).46 In addition to the work of the Spirit
in perfecting the redemption of believers, Bucer also described the role of the
Church in this process, for it is “through the preaching of the Gospel and the use of
the sacraments that [the Church] renews, restores and perfects this redemption”

42
He commented briefly on this in 1527: Bucer (1527, 39 verso, and 40 recto-40 verso/[E7] verso,
and [E8]recto-[E8] verso).
43
“Hic spiritus, in sanctis praevalet carni, et eius conatus, ac vim mortificat, et restinguit, ac refrae-
nat cupiditates, adeo ut non solum repurget nos a peccatis, verumetiam conformet corpus nostrum,
ad corpus Christi gloriosum.”
44
“Attamen quia nos nondum totos obtinet, propterea dicitur σφραγίς, id est, arrabo et pignus
plenae redemptionis, quae hic inchoatur.” His comment here touches on the beginning of verse 14,
and on how there is a similitude to business practice, though without reference to the manner in
which the exegetical tradition handled the issue, in particular Jerome’s contrast between a guarantee
[arrhabo] and pledge [pignus], to which many exegetes referred (Jerome 1516, 102 verso/[r6]
verso; Jerome 1845, col. 457B–C).
45
“…nosque eo spiritu ab impiis reprobis distinctos iam esse apparet....”
46
At 28E, he commented on arrabo, though without reference to the exegetical tradition.
192 7 Theology in an Exegetical Context: Bucer on Ephesians 1:13–18 and the Doctrine…

(Bucer 1562, 28E).47 There followed another statement of the order in which salva-
tion comes to believers:
Therefore the order holds thus: God sends the Gospel, which is all heavenly doctrine, the
whole sacred Scripture, which although it contains the Law, moreover embraces many
histories, it has nevertheless the Gospel intermingled […]. Then [God] gives the Spirit, so
that we might believe, and that we may receive it [the Gospel] as the Word of God […].
Then he brings it about that we may offer ourselves to God and our neighbor, and in every-
thing we may burn for the accomplishing of the will of God. For this is its end, that we may
worship God, and may glorify Him from our whole heart and with all our effort.48 (Bucer
1562, 28E–F)

It is worth noting that in describing the Gospel as the sum of heavenly doctrine, and
indeed the whole of Scripture, he included the Law and the historical books of the
Old Testament—indeed, he found the Gospel in the prologue to the Decalogue
(Bucer 1562, 28F).49
Bucer included references to 2 Corinthians 1:22 and 5:5, as well as Ephesians
4:30, all with reference to the sealing of the redemption of believers with the Spirit,
and then picked up on Paul’s exhortation in the last of these texts that believers not
grieve the Spirit (Bucer 1562, 28F).50 This led Bucer to stress that believers are
encouraged to conform themselves to the teaching of Scripture, and that they
should pray for the more effective preaching of the Gospel which results in faith
(Bucer 1562, 29A).51 There followed three additional points that he drew from the
texts and his general discussion: faith is granted by God alone, and thus cannot fail;
without the Spirit of God believers can only be enemies of God; and, having been
freed from sin, believers must live to serve God and not grieve the Spirit, another
reference to Ephesians 4:30 (Bucer 1562, 29A).52 Yet as we survey the manner in
which his exposition proceeded, it is clear that although he believed faith to be a
principal subject of this portion of the letter, it was not the only one. He did not

47
“Sed in praesenti vita, Ecclesia, per praedicationem Evangelii, et sacramentorum usum innovat,
instaurat, et perficit hanc redemptionem.”
48
“Itaque ordo sic habet: Mittit Deus Evangelium, quae est tota doctrina caelestis, universa
Scriptura sacra, quae quanvis legem contineat, multas praeterea historias comprehendat, habet
tamen intermistum Evangelium. […] Dat deinde spiritum, ut credamus, et illud excipiamus tan-
quam Dei verbum: […] Facit deinde ut nos exponamus Deo & proximo, totique inardescamus ad
perficiendam voluntatem Dei. Hic enim est finis eius, ut Deum colamus, et glorificemus ex toto
corde & conatu nostro.” This roughly corresponds with the ordo Bullinger set out (Bullinger 1539,
410/M verso): first the word of the Gospel was preached, then the word was believed, then the
Spirit added a holy seal, and finally there was praise for the glory of God.
49
“Et in ipso decalogo: Ego sum Dominus Deus tuus, est Evangelium.”
50
It is worth noting that Calvin also referred to 2 Corinthians 1 and 5, which suggests that Bucer
had consulted the former’s commentary (Calvin 1965, 132; Calvin 1548, 115–116/[h6] recto-[h6]
verso).
51
He argues again that the Gospel is found in the canonical Scriptures alone, and these must be the
standard by which all teaching is measured (including prophecies born of the Spirit).
52
These last three points are set off by tertio, quarto, and quinto, respectively, though what the
preceding two items are is unclear. This may be an instance of the kind of disorder (or brevity) that
David Wright (1972, 107) has noted characterizes the lectures in general.
7.2 Ephesians 1:13 and Hearing the Word of Truth that Leads to Faith 193

neglect other themes in the text, nor did he develop the locus on faith in the same
fashion as that on election.
Before we turn to the next section, it is interesting to note that while Bucer was
keen to defend the Jews from Chrysostom in the locus on election, he did not take
up the matter in the present instance, despite the fact that Chrysostom (and to an
extent, some of the others) had further remarks that exhibited a similar anti-Jewish
bias. When, as noted earlier, Chrysostom maintained that the Gospel was no longer
veiled in a type or image, but had now become a reality (Chrysostom 1889, 56;
Chrysostom 1539, col. 785/KK2 verso; Chrysostom 1862, col. 18),53 he had in mind
here a contrast with the revelation of God to the Israelites, as is clear by his com-
ment (on verse 13a) that the Gospel of salvation was in distinction from and in
contrast to the Law (Chrysostom 1889, 56; Chrysostom 1539, col. 784/KK2 recto;
Chrysostom 1862, col. 18).54 In respect of the sealing work of the Spirit, Chrysostom
drew yet another distinction between the Israelites and Christians by noting that the
former were sealed and set apart by circumcision, whereas the latter are sealed with
the Spirit (Chrysostom 1889, 56; Chrysostom 1539, col. 785/KK2 vesro; Chrysostom
1862, col. 18).55 Aquinas likened this sealing with the Spirit to the branding of live-
stock, and also mentioned in the same context the mark of circumcision as setting
the people of Israel apart as God’s people. Whereas the people of God in the Old
Testament were “fed in physical pastures, namely in physical teachings and earthly
goods” [in pascius corporalibus pascebatur, scilicet in doctrina corporali et in
bonis temporalibus], the flock of the New Testament is fed with spiritual teachings
and goods (Aquinas 1541, 172 recto/y iiii recto; Aquinas 1953, 12).56 Erasmus’s
paraphrase of verse 13 raised again the distinction between Jew and Gentile that we
observed in his treatment of verse 3, and the reliance of the former upon the Law for
salvation (Erasmus 1532, 209/S3 recto; Erasmus 1706, 7:974D). The one principal
exegete who did not make such comparisons was Calvin, in contrast to what we
observed in the Chap. 6 above, and in like fashion Bucer had nothing to say in

53
Jerome believed the Ephesians were to be commended because they heard and received the
“word of truth” rather than merely heard preaching as such (Jerome 1516, 102 verso/[r6] verso;
Jerome 1845, col. 456B).
54
This contrast is not found in Jerome, Pseudo-Jerome, or Ambrosiaster, but it is found in
Theophylact (1540, 112 verso/t4 verso; Theophylact 1864, col. 1042C). Jerome also commented
on the repeated use of the phrase in quo, which he noted might be regarded as superfluous. He
attributed it to Paul’s great love for Christ, and he regarded it a usage characteristic of Paul’s letters
(Jerome 1516, 102 verso/[r6] verso; Jerome 1845, col. 456A-B).
55
He included a further (regrettable) contrast: in circumcision, the Israelites were sealed “like
the brutes and reasonless creatures,” whereas Christians were sealed as sons [Obsignati sunt &
Israëlitae, sed circuncisione, quemadmodum pecudes & si qua sunt ratione carentia. Obsignati
sumus & nos, sed spiritu, utpote filii (Musculus); Signati fuerunt etiam Israelitae, sed circumci-
sione, sicut pecora et bruta: nos quoque simus signati, sed sicut filii, Spiritu (Patrologia
Graeca)]. Theophylact clearly followed Chrysostom in this (Theophylact 1540, 112 verso/t4
verso; Theophylact 1864, col. 1042C–D).
56
Aquinas’s interpretation has affinities with the distinctions between Israel and the Church that
Chrysostom made not just in the present context, but also in his discussion of blessing in respect
of Ephesians 1:3.
194 7 Theology in an Exegetical Context: Bucer on Ephesians 1:13–18 and the Doctrine…

response to these remarks concerning the Jews. What this suggests is that, as argued
in Chap. 6, Bucer’s critical comments regarding Chrysostom and the standing of the
people of the Old Testament were prompted by Calvin’s approving remarks in his
1548 Ephesians commentary.

7.3 Ephesians 1:15 and Faith in the Lord Jesus

Therefore when I heard [of] the faith in the Lord Jesus which is in you, and [your] love for
all the saints....57 (Bucer 1562, 17B)

Bucer returned to the subject of faith only when he took up the exposition of
verse 15. He again signaled the importance of the scopus Epistolae—the “growth of
piety in all the saints, and in the Ephesians first” (Bucer 1562, 29B).58 Bucer believed
that as Paul now repeats the blessings of God—of which election was the first, and
among which faith is also included—the argument of the letter moves to another
stage. He believed that Paul’s immediate purpose in mentioning the blessings is to
include them in his prayers and thus to underscore their significance for the
Ephesians, but he argued that Paul thus prepares the Ephesians for what was to
follow in the letter: “then he might prepare them by his kindness for that which is
about to be said” [Deinde eos sua benevolentia praepararet ad ea quae dicturus
est], that is, a discussion of faith, although he also believed Paul’s intent was to
encourage the Ephesians to similar prayers (Bucer 1562, 29B). However, the focus
of Bucer’s comments on this verse was what he took to be Paul’s teaching on faith,
and in this emphasis his treatment of the verse was distinctive.
As we have noted above, the topic that became the focus of immediate attention
in Bucer’s treatment of verse 15 is faith. In his comment on “faith in the Lord Jesus”
[fidem in domino Iesu], Bucer provided a restatement of what faith is, first in a
generic sense and then with specific reference to Christian faith. Generically, it is
an assent to the words spoken by one who has authority (Bucer 1562, 29B).59
For Christians specifically:
Concerning faith, let us unfailingly hold that it is a gift of God, and the inspiration of
the Spirit of God, by which we know Christ, and in Him the goodness of the Father,
whereby He regenerates man and reforms him to obedience to the whole will of God.60
(Bucer 1562, 29B)

57
“Quapropter & ego cum audissem eam quae in vobis est fidem, in domino Iesu, & charitatem in
omnes sanctos....”
58
“Sequitur scopus Epistolae, qui est incrementum pietatis in omnibus sanctis, & in primis in
Ephesiis.”
59
“Fides est qua verbis alicuius assentimur propter dicentis authoritatem.”
60
“Illud de fide perpetuo teneamus, quod est donum Dei, et afflatus spiritus Dei, quo agnoscimus
Christum, et in ipso bonitatem patris, qua hominem regenerat, & reformat ad obedientiam omnis
voluntatis Dei.”
7.3 Ephesians 1:15 and Faith in the Lord Jesus 195

The faith spoken of is in the Lord Jesus, but Bucer pointed out that to believe in one
Person of the Trinity is to believe in all (Bucer 1562, 29B).61 The assent in faith is
thus to the Triune God. Bucer noted that one can make a distinction between believing
God and believing in God, but in this particular context, they signify the same thing.
It is necessary to believe that God has revealed Himself (to believe God) in order to
believe in Him in the sense of trusting Him, and if one believes in God, one must
necessarily believe He exists (Bucer 1562, 29B).62 At the same time, Bucer acknow-
ledged that a bare belief concerning God is insufficient: devils believe God, but
without assenting to the work of Christ or to the authority of God (Bucer 1562,
29C).63 There must a believing response as well.
When Bucer took up the next phrase in the verse and the reference to love for
the saints, he made it a point to stress that love follows directly from faith, and
“is the perpetual companion of true faith” (Bucer 1562, 29C).64 Here we encounter
the ethical stress in his theology, and the characteristic emphasis in his teaching
on the relationship between true doctrine and the Christian life.65 It is not enough
to have faith, to be able to know the truth; faith must be accompanied by an active
response in one’s life, which means a life of love and service for others.
For the benefits/gifts of God having been acknowledged with the zeal of gratitude, [love]
desires to deserve well of the neighbor, with all its means and powers, because God is not
in need of human benevolence; therefore all this zeal among the saints on earth is consistent
with His will.66 (Bucer 1562, 29C)

Bucer picked up again on the reference to “all the saints” in order to drive home
his point about the close connection between faith and proper living, especially
within the Body of Christ. While it is true that believers ought to love their enemies,
and that the Law plainly requires love for all with whom believers have some form

61
“Deo & homine, mediatore. Capite fratres, quamquam tota Scriptura est Trinitatis, atque ideo
quae est in Christo fides, est etiam in Patre, & Spiritu sancto.”
62
“Porro credere Deo, & credere in Deum, in Scriptura sunt phrases idem significantes. Nam
necesse est credere Deo revelanti se nobis, ut coniiciamus nostram fiduciam in Deum: atque ideo
cum uno modo dicimus, perinde est ac si alio modo dicamus, Credere Deo, & in Deum.” He illus-
trated his point further with a reference to Hebrew idiom.
63
“Quod vero diaboli dicuntur credere deo id verum est, sed imperfecte: nam reconciliationem per
Christum, non credunt: neque credunt propter dicentis autoritatem, sed quia experiuntur.”
64
“Haec sequitur, & est perpetua comes verae fidei.” He also drew a close connection between faith
and love in his 1527 commentary (Bucer 1527, 41 recto/F recto).
65
This linkage, seen in both 1527 and 1550, has obvious resonance with what we see in Chrysostom
(1889, 59; Chrysostom 1539, col. 789/KK3 verso; Chrysostom 1862, col. 23) and Theophylact
(1540, 112 verso/t4 verso; Theophylact 1864, cols. 1043D-1046A). Aquinas (1541, 172 recto-
verso/y iiii recto-y iiii verso; Aquinas 1953, 13), Bugenhagen (1524, A6 verso), Bullinger (1539,
411/M2 recto), and Calvin (Calvin 1965, 133; Calvin 1548, 117/[h7] recto) also link faith and love
closely together.
66
“Nam agnitis Dei beneficiis studio gratitudinis, benemereri studet omnibus facultatibus, &
viribus suis de proximo, quia Deus non indiget beneficentia humana, propterea totum hoc
studium in sanctos qui sunt in terra confert propter mandatum eius.”
196 7 Theology in an Exegetical Context: Bucer on Ephesians 1:13–18 and the Doctrine…

of communion (in terms of possessions, duties, citizenship, or blood), those who are
of the Church should be the special object of love in action.
But since there is no more outstanding and closer fellowship and communion, than [that] of
the saints who are our flesh and members, therefore our feelings ought to glow rather
towards the faithful, and the household of faith.67 (Bucer 1562, 29C)

Such a love should seek the best for one’s neighbor, to do all one can so that he
might enjoy that good (Bucer 1562, 30D).68 In this way the gifts of God are distrib-
uted among the faithful. Faith of necessity works through love.
Through this love faith, knowing the benevolence of God, necessarily works, [and] ignites
a blaze in our hearts, by which we seek not the things which are ours but those which are of
God, and of our neighbors.69 (Bucer 1562, 30D)

The ethical stress of this passage is obvious, and resonates with the emphases of
biblical humanism, as well as Bucer’s wider corpus of writing.
As with verse 13, so too here, the degree to which Bucer focused on faith is
distinct to him, perhaps even more so in the case of verse 15. Paul’s own reference
to faith in the verse naturally meant that the exegetical tradition on the verse would
include reflection on it, but in fact faith was dealt with only briefly by the exegetes
we have surveyed. In his third homily on Ephesians, Chrysostom began at verse 15.
He noted with approval the affection of Paul for the Ephesians as reflected in his
earnest prayers for them in the midst of all his other cares and concerns. He inter-
preted the opening phrase of the verse, διὰ τoυ̑τo, as referring to what follows (that
is, “the good things that are laid up in store for them who rightly believe and live”),
which—in addition to the faith of the Ephesians—leads Paul to give thanks to God
(Chrysostom 188989, 59; Chrysostom 1539, col. 788/KK3 recto; Chrysostom 1862,
col. 23).70 Having mentioned faith, Chrysostom immediately observed how Paul
always links faith and love together in his letters (Chrysostom 1889, 59; Chrysostom
1539, col. 789/KK3 verso; Chrysostom 1862, col. 23).71 However, Chrysostom said

67
“Sed quoniam nulla est praestantior, et arctior societas, & communio, quam sanctorum, qui sunt
caro & membra nostra, propterea ardere debent nostri affectus magis erga fideles, et domesticos
fidei.” Bucer’s statement here is quite close to what Calvin wrote (Calvin 1965, 133; Calvin 1548,
117/[h7] recto), as noted above.
68
He referred to Aristotle’s Rhetoric, First Book, regarding love and the service of others.
69
“Per hanc dilectionem, necessario fides operatur, quae agnita Dei benevolentia, flammam cordi-
bus nostris iniicit, qua quaerimns [should read, quaerimus], non quae nostra sunt, sed quae sunt
Dei, et proximi.”
70
Musculus’s 1539 translation: “Quapropter, inquit, hoc est, propter futurum respositaqui recte
credentibus & viventibus bona.” Patrologia Graeca: “Propterea, inquit; hoc est, propter futurum,
et bona reposita iis qui recte credunt et vivunt.” Theophylact (1540, 112 verso/t4 verso; 1864, col.
1043C) interpreted the phrase to refer not only to the faith of the Ephesians, but also their sealing
with the Spirit unto their future inheritance.
71
Ambrosiaster commented that Paul gives thanks for the conversion of the Ephesians, and espe-
cially for the love that they show towards all the saints as their Lord has commanded (Ambrose
1527, 940/k2 verso; Ambrosiaster 1966, 75). With respect to love for all the saints, Pseudo-Jerome
drew attention to the link between faith and works, and argued that love should be shown to all
without exception for person or position (Pseudo-Jerome 1516, 174 verso/G2 verso; Pelagius
7.3 Ephesians 1:15 and Faith in the Lord Jesus 197

nothing more of faith, and in fact none of the other Patristic exegetes consulted for
this study said very much regarding faith.72
Aquinas was relatively reticent about faith in his exposition of verse 15 (as were
other medieval exegetes). At the beginning of Lecture 6, he recalled the enumera-
tion of the blessings of the Ephesians in verses 13 and 14, and then took up Paul’s
expression of affection for them in verses 15 to 19a (Aquinas 1541, 172 recto/y iiii
recto; Aquinas 1953, 13).73 Central to what Paul has heard of the Ephesians is their
faith (verse 15), which is expressed in two ways: their faith in and love for God, and
their love for their neighbors (Aquinas 1541, 172 recto-verso/y iiii recto-y iiii verso;
Aquinas 1953, 13). Faith “makes God dwell in man” [facit habitare Deum in
homine], it “purifies hearts” [corda purificat], and it “justifies without the Law”
[sine lege iustificat] (Aquinas 1541, 172 recto-verso/y iiii recto-y iiii verso; Aquinas
1953, 13).74 With respect to love of neighbor, faith is an expression of obedience to
the New Commandment of Christ in John 13:34–35, and such love is a sign of dis-
cipleship in Christ (Aquinas 1541, 172 verso/y iiii verso; Aquinas 1953, 13).
Of Bucer’s contemporaries, Erasmus’s paraphrase of verse 15 is also quite
brief: Paul’s thanksgiving (verse 15) is due to the “manifest tokens of evangelical
salvation” [manifesta indicia salutis Euangelicae]: the faith of the Ephesians in
Jesus Christ, and their show of love towards other believers (Erasmus 1532, 210/
S3 verso; Erasmus 1706, 7: 975A).75 Cajetan’s only reference to faith was to note
that Paul “had heard of the persevering faith of the Ephesians” [audivit fidem
Ephesiorum perseverantem] (Cajetan 1540, 257 verso/K verso). Calvin’s com-
ments on verse 15 point to the thanksgiving Paul offered for the Ephesians, which
he regarded as testimony not only of Paul’s love for them, but also of the assess-
ment he has made of them (Calvin 1965, 133; Calvin 1548, 117/[h7] recto).

1926, 348). Theophylact also noted Paul’s thanks for the love the Ephesians show towards others,
and draws the same connection between faith and love as does Chrysostom (Theophylact 1540,
112 verso/t4 verso; Theophylact 1864, cols. 1043D–1046A).
72
In fact, Jerome found the syntax of 1:15–17 somewhat confused, and he attempted to sort out the
passage with a re-phrasing of it. He also suggested that the phrase, illuminatos oculos cordis vestri
from verse 18 be read in the context of his reconstruction of verse 15 (Jerome 1516, 103 recto/s
recto; Jerome 1845, 458A-B).
73
He divided Ephesians 1:15–19a into three: Paul’s report on the good things he has heard about
the Ephesians (verse 15); Paul’s thanks for the blessings that have been bestowed on them (verse
16a); and Paul’s prayer for their blessings to come (verses 16b–19a).
74
With respect to the relationship of faith and the Law, Aquinas echoed the interlinear Gloss, which
reads: “qua in Christum credidistis sine admixtione legis” (Froehlich and Gibson 1992, 4:370, col.
I). Haymo of Auxerre (Haymo of Halberstadt 1530, 220 verso/E iiii verso; Haymo of Halberstadt
1881, col. 706B) and Nicholas of Lyra (1545, 90 recto/n6 recto) made no comment about faith.
Denis the Carthusian (1531, 239 verso/[G vii] verso; Denis the Carthusian 1901, 13: 302) sug-
gested that Paul either heard a report about the Ephesians, or he was informed by an internal
prompting of the Holy Spirit. He characterized the faith of which Paul heard as the “pure, holy,
Christian and Catholic” [puram, sanctam, christianam, atque catholicam], and that the love
spoken of is that towards those who are truly Christian.
75
His only comment in the Annotations (Erasmus 1535, 594/Dd3 verso) was to note that the reference
to “Audiens fidem” should be read as “Audita fide vestra.”
198 7 Theology in an Exegetical Context: Bucer on Ephesians 1:13–18 and the Doctrine…

Calvin’s only reference to faith was with respect to the manner in which Christian
perfection is summed up under faith and love: faith has its proper object in Christ;
love has its proper object in all people, but especially other believers, for the
closer any person is to God the more that person should be esteemed (Calvin
1965, 133; Calvin 1548, 117/[h7] recto).76
Bucer clearly gave more attention to the subject of faith in his exegesis of the
passage than one observes among the representatives of the exegetical tradition
whom we have considered. Yet once again Bucer refrained from developing the
discussion of faith any further, and after stating that knowledge of the benevolence
of God (knowledge which comes through faith) should lead to active love for neighbor,
he brought the treatment of faith in verse 15 to a close with an indication that a fuller
discussion would follow later (Bucer 1562, 30D). Instead of developing the locus on
faith any further, Bucer continued with biblical exposition plain and simple, and
commented on Paul’s prayer of thanksgiving in verse 16 and the importance of
prayer for believers. In fact, he did digress to provide a relatively substantial discus-
sion of the nature of prayer (though without terming the subject of prayer a locus),
and recalled a point he had made earlier—that one of the reasons why Paul mentions
his own prayers for the Ephesians is that they might be motivated to the act of prayer
themselves (Bucer 1562, 30D-31B). It is worth observing that in his discussion of
prayer, Bucer was careful to emphasize the need of believers to pray for their neigh-
bors (Bucer 1562, 30E).77 In his comments on verse 17a, he discussed the question
of the relationship between God the Father and Jesus Christ in the light of the opening
phrase “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ,” and he also offered a very brief comment
on the phrase, “Father of glory” (Bucer 1562, 31B). Yet, as was the case with his
treatment of verse 13, Bucer refrained from making Paul’s reference to faith in verse
15 the occasion for a more developed discussion of the doctrine.

7.4 Ephesians 1:17b–18a and the Increase of Faith

That he may give to you a spirit of wisdom and revelation, through the knowledge of Him,
illuminating the eyes of your mind, so that you may know what is the hope to which He has
called you....78 (Bucer 1562, 17B)

76
Bugenhagen (1524, A6 verso) likewise noted at this point the proper objects of faith and love:
faith has to do with God, love to do with neighbor. So, too, did Bullinger (1539, 411/M2 recto),
who noted that the duties of Christians are faith in God and love for all the saints. It is interesting
to find that Bullinger favorably quoted Bucer’s 1527 translation of verse 15, having found Bucer to
have clarified the obscurity of Paul’s expression.
77
He listed (30E–31A) the four parts of prayer: adoration, confession, thanksgiving, and supplica-
tion for neighbors.
78
“…[D]et vobis spiritum sapientiae & revelationis, per agnitionem sui, illuminatos oculos mentis
vestrae: ut sciatis quae sit spes, ad quam ille vocavit....” The Vulgate, and all exegetes who used it,
give the opening of verse 18 as, “cordis vestri.” This includes as well the Latin translations of
Chrysostom and Theophylact, and Calvin’s 1548 and 1551 editions of his commentary on
7.4 Ephesians 1:17b–18a and the Increase of Faith 199

Bucer’s final remarks on faith, prior to the separate discussion of the locus, are
found in his comments on verse 18a, though he set the stage in his comments on
verse 17b. As with verse 15, so too here his stress on faith is distinctive in the light
of the exegetical tradition as we see it represented by the exegetes whom we have
selected to compare with Bucer.
Chrysostom’s comments on these verses are found at two points in his third
homily. He noted that Paul is said to require of the Ephesians that they understand
“to what blessings they are called, and how they have been released from their for-
mer state” (Chrysostom 1889, 60; Chrysostom 1539, col. 789/KK3 verso;
Chrysostom 1862, col. 23).79 In reference to verse 17, Chrysostom observed that
“there is a need for spiritual wisdom,” in order to perceive the things that are hidden
(Chrysostom 1889, 60; Chrysostom 1539, col. 789/KK3 verso; Chrysostom 1862,
col. 24).80 He linked “the eyes of your heart” to the previous phrase, “in the knowl-
edge of him,” commented on the fact that Paul refers here to the assurance the
believer will have in the promises of God, rooted in those things that have already
come to pass (Chrysostom 1889, 60; Chrysostom 1539, col. 789/KK3 verso;
Chrysostom 1862, col. 24). In all that he says about knowledge, however, Chrysostom
does not relate it to faith (Chrysostom 1889, 60; Chrysostom 1539, col. 789/KK3
verso; Chrysostom 1862, col. 24).81
Aquinas noted the two future blessings for which Paul prays on behalf of the
Ephesians as mentioned in verse 17b: a spirit of wisdom, and one of revelation, both
of which Aquinas regarded as special (Aquinas 1541, 172 verso/y iiii verso; Aquinas
1953, 14).82 The former relates to a deeper and more profound knowledge of God,

Ephesians. On the other hand, Bucer’s 1527 translation, Calvin’s 1556 and 1557/1563 editions,
Erasmus’s text and thus the text given by Bullinger and Bucer (in the Praelectiones) all give the
phrase, “mentis vestrae.” Interestingly, in his Annotations, Erasmus (1535, 595/Dd4 recto), quotes
the phrase “cordis vestri,” but then notes that it should be read “mentis vestrae.” A consultation of
the Greek text in Nestle-Aland (1979, 505) finds that the Greek phrase is “καρδίας [ὑμῶv],” thus
literally supporting the Vulgate reading.
79
Musculus: “Duo precatur, ut cognoscant quemadmodum cognoscere oportet, unum, ad quae
vocati, alterum quomodo a prioribus liberati sunt.” Patrologia Graeca: “Vult eos duo discere, ut
discere oportet, et propter quae vocati sunt, et quomodo liberati sunt a prioribus.”
80
Musculus: “Spiritali itaque sapientia opus est, ut spiritalia intelligamus, ut abscondita videamus.”
Patrologia Graeca: “Opus est ergo spirituali sapientia, ut spiritualia intelligamus, ut videamus
quae sunt occulta.”
81
Jerome 1516 (103 recto/s recto; Jerome 1845, 459A) stated that through the spirit of wisdom and
revelation, believers are enlightened to understand; the “eyes of your heart” indicates that faith sees
what the physical eyes cannot. Pseudo-Jerome (1516, 174 verso/G2 verso; Pelagius 1926, 348)
argued that promises of spiritual things are not perceived except by spiritual eyes. Ambrose (1527,
940/k2 verso; Ambrosiaster 1966, 76) believed that Paul prays that the Ephesians will become
more zealous in their worship when they come to know what the true fruit of believing is—that the
hope of their faith is in their heavenly reward.
82
Gifts such as faith, hope and love are given to all the saints, and are necessary for salvation,
whereas a spirit of wisdom and revelation are exceptional. Nicholas of Lyra (1545, 90 verso/n6
verso) only commented on the spirit of wisdom, which he interpreted to mean an increase in the
knowledge of divine things, and those relating to. Denis the Carthusian (1531, 239 verso-240
recto/[G vii] verso-[G viii] recto; Denis the Carthusian 1901, 13:302) interpreted the reference to
200 7 Theology in an Exegetical Context: Bucer on Ephesians 1:13–18 and the Doctrine…

a knowledge the sense of which is conveyed by the reference in verse 18 to the

enlightening of the eyes of the heart, and which far exceeds knowledge of the things
of this world (Aquinas 1541, 172 verso/y iiii verso; Aquinas 1953, 14).83 The latter
gift (the spirit of revelation) is also termed the gift of understanding [intellectus],
which has three aspects. First, there is that aspect which concerns the present standing
[statum praesentem] of the believer: the hope of a future life that is set before the
believer, which Aquinas regards as “supremely important” (Aquinas 1541, 172
verso/y iiii verso; Aquinas 1953, 14).84 The reference to the future life then leads to
the two other aspects of the gift of understanding, both of which concern the future.
The second aspect consists of the gifts of the inheritance that awaits believers, which
have four characteristics: they are abundant, glorious, permanent, and “most profound”
[intima] (Aquinas 1541, 172 verso/y iiii verso; Aquinas 1953, 14). The third
aspect is the knowledge of the greatness of God’s power towards (remarkably) the
Apostles in particular rather than towards believers in general: “As if he [Paul] says:
Although he abundantly distributes the riches of his glory to all the saints, yet he
distributes them pre-eminently to the Apostles” (Aquinas 1541, 172 verso/y iiii
verso; Aquinas 1953, 15).85
Erasmus noted in his paraphrase that Paul, in his prayer of thanksgiving, asks of
God that He would give the Ephesians more of His Spirit that they might increase
in the wisdom and knowledge of the great mystery of salvation in verse 17 (Erasmus

spirit here to mean either a gift of wisdom (rather than to the Holy Spirit), and thus one of the seven
gifts of the Holy Spirit—or to the Holy Spirit Himself.
83
Denis the Carthusian (1531, 240 recto/[G viii] recto; Denis the Carthusian 1901, 13: 302) inter-
preted “illuminating the eyes of your heart” to mean that believers possess speculative understand-
ing and practical divinity.
84
“Quae quidem et maxima est, quia de maximus.” Haymo of Auxerre (Haymo of Halberstadt
1530, 220 verso/E iiii verso; Haymo of Haymo of Halberstadt 1881, col. 706C) suggested “mani-
festationis” as an alternative to “revelationis.” Denis the Carthusian (1531, 239 verso-240 recto/[G
vii] verso-[G viii] recto; Denis the Carthusian 1901, 13:302) linked “revelationis” with illumina-
tion, and argues that it is a habit or condition of wisdom arising from a movement of the Holy
Spirit.
85
“Quasi dicat: Licet omnibus sanctis abundanter divitias gloriae tribuat, supereminentius tamen
tribuit Apostolis.” The ultimate point Aquinas had in view in this interpretation is found at the close
of the lecture: “Therefore, those among you through whom others are taught and called to faith, as
doctors [of theology], will be rewarded most pre-eminently; because, as it is said in the Glossa,
‘great doctors will possess a certain increase in glory beyond that which will generally be pos-
sessed by all.’ Indeed, in Daniel 12[:3], the instructed are compared to the splendor of the firma-
ment, but doctors are compared to the stars: ‘Those who were instructed will shine as the splendor
of the firmament, and those who teach many unto righteousness, [will shine] as stars unto never
ending eternity.’” [Ideo illi inter vos per quos alii instructi sunt et vocati ad fidem, sicut doctores,
praeeminentius praemiabuntur; quia, ut dicitur in Glossa … “quodam incrementum gloriae habe-
bunt summi doctores ultra illud quod communiter omnes habebunt” propter quod Dan. xii, 3 docti
assimilantur splendori firmamenti, sed doctores assimilantur stellis: “Qui autem docti fuerint,
fulgebunt quasi splendor firmamenti, et qui ad iustitiam erudiunt multos, quasi stellae in perpetuas
aeternitates.”]
7.4 Ephesians 1:17b–18a and the Increase of Faith 201

1532, 210/S3 verso; Erasmus 1706, 7:975A–B).86 Further, Paul prays in verse 18
that the Ephesians may know God and behold Him not with the physical eye but
rather with the eye of “heart and mind” [cordis et mentis], seeing by the light of faith
through which believers perceive things beyond natural vision—specifically, the
blessedness and excellence of the inheritance that awaits them (Erasmus 1532, 210/
S3 verso; Erasmus 1706, 7:975B–C).87
Calvin, like Aquinas, gave a fuller interpretation of the verses. It is in the light of
the believer’s need for spiritual progress that he interpreted Paul’s wish in verses 17
and 18 that the Ephesians would receive a spirit of wisdom and their hearts would be
illumined (Calvin 1965, 134; Calvin 1548, 117/[h7] recto).88 The Ephesians had both
already, but they needed a continual increase of each (Calvin 1965, 134; Calvin 1548,
117/[h7] recto). Calvin then examined in more detail these points in a closer analysis
of the verses. The substance of Paul’s wish for the Ephesians (17b) is that they receive
the spirit of wisdom and revelation, a phrase which Calvin regards as a metonymy
“for the grace which the Lord bestows upon us by his Spirit” [pro ipsa gratia capitur,
quam Dominus per spiritum suum nobis confert] (Calvin 1965, 134 [reprinted by
permission of the publisher]; Calvin 1548, 118/[h7] verso). Calvin was careful to
emphasize that these gifts are not something believers possess by nature: until the
work of the Lord within them, their eyes are blind and their minds are darkened in
ignorance. Believers cannot apprehend the knowledge of their calling until the Spirit
reveals it to them (Calvin 1965, 134; Calvin 1548, 118/[h7] verso).89 Calvin regarded
the reference in verse 18 to the “eyes of your heart” [oculos cordis vestri] to mean
“the rational part of the soul” [pro mente], although he noted that in other respects the
heart characteristically “signifies the will or appetitive part of the soul” [voluntatem
significat, vel partem animae appetitivam] (Calvin 1965, 134 [reprinted by permis-
sion of the publisher]; Calvin 1548, 118/[h7] verso). For the rest of verse 18, Calvin
commented that Paul magnifies [magnificat] the grace of God towards the Ephesians
(Calvin 1965, 135; Calvin 1548, 118/[h7] verso).90

86
Cajetan (1540, 258 recto/K ii recto) commented that Paul’s meaning is that such knowledge
comes only through the Holy Spirit, and is not acquired through human study; further, it is not just
wisdom for which he asks, but the Spirit of wisdom, the Spirit of divine knowledge.
87
Although he gave the Vulgate text, which read “oculos cordis vestri,” Cajetan (1540, 258 recto/K
ii recto) interpreted the phrase to mean the eyes of the mind. So too did Erasmus in his Annotations
(Erasmus 1535, 595/Dd4 recto).
88
Thus in 1548; as we have noted above, he adopted a different reading of the phrase in 1556.
89
The final phrase of verse 17 Calvin translated as “in the knowledge of him,” though he admitted
that it can be translated “in the knowledge of himself.” He suggested that either is appropriate, “for
the one who knows the Son knows also the Father” [nam qui novit filium, novit & patrem].
Reprinted by permission of the publisher.
90
Bugenhagen had no comments on verses 17 or 18; Bullinger commented only briefly on these
verses, and did not mention faith in this context. It is interesting to observe that in the 1556 edition
of his commentary, Calvin added that faith is so great a work that it cannot be praised enough, and
that Paul does not use such language indiscriminately. When Paul speaks of faith in these terms, he
sets forth its great power: note that these comments are translated in Calvin (1965, 135) because
the translator, T. H. L. Parker, used the 1556 edition as the basis for his translation.
202 7 Theology in an Exegetical Context: Bucer on Ephesians 1:13–18 and the Doctrine…

When Bucer turned to verse 17b and Paul’s prayer that God—Whom Bucer
identified as the Author of faith and the One Who gives increase of it (Bucer 1562,
31C)91—might give to the Ephesians a spirit of wisdom and revelation by which
they might come to know God and His ways more fully, he set the stage for his final
comments on faith in the context of the exegesis of the passage (Bucer 1562, 31C).92
Bucer believed this revelation is given so that the Ephesians (and all believers) may
know God and Christ truly, and might be transformed into the image of Christ
(Bucer 1562, 31C).93
With verse 18a, Bucer immediately noted that in Paul’s letter there is yet another a
definition of faith, according to its genus and according to its properties (Bucer 1562,
32D).94 In its genus, it is free inspiration (Bucer 1562, 32D).95 Its properties are, first,
that the eyes of believers may be enlightened in order to know the highest divine and
eternal things. The second is that they may be prudent and live according to this
knowledge (Bucer 1562, 32D).96 Hence Bucer argued, in light of what Paul wrote, that
faith is “the free inspiration of God, which gives birth to the understanding of divine
and human things unto eternal salvation” (Bucer 1562, 32D)97 This faith “indeed is
knowledge, although it is not from evidence, and a firm and certain knowing, much
more certain than that which is by evidence, and produced by causes, it is a knowledge
much more firm and certain” (Bucer 1562, 32D).98 Bucer characterized the knowledge
of faith as scientia as well as cognitio, and argued that the knowledge of faith is char-
acterized throughout Scripture in this way, just as believers are called “knowing ones”
[et credentes, scientes dicuntur] (Bucer 1562, 32D).99 The power of this faith is such
that it is certain, a point Bucer repeated several times in this portion of the lectures.
The certitude of faith is due to the fact that it is from God and grounded in His Word—
in fact, it has no other source and foundation (Bucer 1562, 32D–E).100

91
“Qui autor est fidei, & dat eius incrementum....”
92
“…a quo est sapientia & prudentia caelestis, quibus incomprehensibilia rationi mysteria, cognos-
cimus, & ea cognitione ita totam vitam instituimus, ut glorificemus Deum, & consequamur bona,
quae nobis in caelis certo reposita sunt.” In his 1527 commentary, he had no comments regarding
faith in this passage (Bucer 1527, 42 recto-42 verso/F2 recto-F2 verso).
93
“Quae revelatio in eo consistit, ut Deum & Christum vere cognoscamus, & ad id ipsum nos
transformemus.”
94
“Iterum proponitur definitio fidei per genus, & propria.”
95
“Genus est afflatus gratuitus.”
96
“Primum proprium, ut oculos nostros illuminet: Secundum proprium, ad cognoscendas summas
diuinas, & aeternas res: & prudentes simus, id est secundum cognita vivamus.”
97
“Sic itaque definit eam: Est afflatus Dei gratuitus, qui intellectum parit rerum diuinarum et
humanarum, ad salutem aeternam.”
98
“Haec, etsi ab euidentia non sit, tamen est scientia, et firma ac certa cognitio, multo certior, quam
quae euidentia, & per causas contingit.”
99
“Unde passim scientia appellatur in Dei verbo, & credentes, scientes dicuntur.” He then quoted
from Romans 14:14, 1 Corinthians 2:12, 1 Thessalonians 1:4, and 1 John 2:20, 3:14, and 5:13. He
termed the passages from 1 John as “three remarkable texts concerning this certitude” [vide tres ibi
praeclaros locos de hac certitudine].
100
Regarding the place of the Word of God in granting this certitude, he quoted from John 20:31.
7.5 Bucer’s Separate Locus on Faith and its Relationship to Ephesians 1:13–18 203

Bucer recognized that not all can be persuaded of the certitude of their faith, and
he therefore urged upon his auditors the need to pray for it and to struggle against
the work of the flesh, which is opposed to this certitude (Bucer 1562, 32E). Bucer
concluded his treatment of faith with reference to the hope that is the fruit of faith.
In the balance of his comments on verse 18, he pointed to the promise of the inheri-
tance which believers have in prospect (Bucer 1562, 32E-33A). The focus of the
hope of which Paul speaks is the eternal inheritance that awaits those who believe.
Bucer stressed that the hope is in something that is certain, and it thus strengthens
the faith of the believer. The riches of inheritance (which he identifies as a Hebraism)
are all the things that believers have in God who is Himself their great reward (Bucer
1562, 32E).

7.5 Bucer’s Separate Locus on Faith and its Relationship

to Ephesians 1:13–18

As we look back over Bucer’s exposition in this section of the lectures and his treat-
ment of the locus that he believes Paul addressed in the text of Ephesians, we can
see that he employed a different approach to that which he used in his discussion of
election. Whereas in the case of election he developed his teaching on the doctrine
in the course of his exposition in such a way that it was never far from the center of
attention in his exegesis, in the case of faith it was more a matter of interweaving his
treatment of the doctrine with other issues raised by Paul in the course of the letter.
Bucer did not make clear why this should have been the case; we can suppose that
it was due to the fact that he believed the doctrine was not quite as dominant in these
verses as election had been in Ephesians 1:3–6. In any case, Bucer chose to provide
a separate and supplementary discussion concerning faith, a discussion he had
earlier indicated would follow in his lectures (Bucer 1562, 30D).
The placement of this discussion is somewhat disconnected from the verses that
led to it, in part no doubt due to the problems alluded to in our earlier discussion of
the shape of the lectures themselves.101 Yet, as we shall see, it is linked in a number
of ways with his exposition of Ephesians 1:17b-18a and verses following, as well as
to his exposition of verses 13 and 15. After his treatment of the rest of verse 18,
Bucer took up verse 19 and the power of God in Christ’s resurrection which is now
at work in the faith of believers, securing their hope. He then briefly discussed verse
21 (assuming, it would seem, verse 20 without directly commenting on it). With
respect to verse 21, he commented on the exaltation of Christ (Bucer 1562, 33A),102
and he then paused to say something about principalities and powers (Bucer 1562,
33B). What follows in the printed lectures are two sets of biblical texts (but with no
discussion or comment), dealing respectively with good and evil angelic beings

101
See above, Sect. 3.3.
102
He cited Colossians 1, 1 Corinthians 15, Ephesians 3, Colossians 2, Ephesians 2 and 6, Daniel
10 and 12, Hebrews 1, and Matthew 19 (in every case without any quotation).
204 7 Theology in an Exegetical Context: Bucer on Ephesians 1:13–18 and the Doctrine…

(Bucer 1562, 33B-C). The insertion of this information, while prompted by the
mention of “principalities and powers” in the discussion of verse 21, is nonetheless
somewhat disjointed, made the more so by the separate discussion on faith that
follows immediately thereafter.
The discussion of faith therefore has the appearance of beginning rather abruptly,
without any obvious connection to the earlier discussion of faith in the lectures.
However, the pattern Bucer followed within it reflected something of the order in
which he had dealt with the references to faith in the course of his exegesis of verses
13, 15 and 17b-18a. As in the case of his treatment of these verses, Bucer first
provided a definition of what he meant by faith, which in effect gathered together
many of the things he had said previously.
Faith is the free gift of God, and the inspiration of divine wisdom and revelation, by which
He illuminates the eyes of His elect, that they may know the Father in Christ, and hold the
hope of eternal life to be most certain, to which they have been chosen—which is an incom-
prehensible felicity—and that they may become aware that they are kept by God, by the
power which raised Christ from the dead, so that He may lead His own unto that felicity,
that He may fill them with all gifts and spiritual good things, because He has subjected
everything to Himself.103 (Bucer 1562, 33C)

Because of the references to inspiration, wisdom, revelation and the illumination of

the eyes, it is fairly clear that his definition is thus linked to his exposition of
Ephesians 1:17b–18a, and indeed embraces as well verses 19–21 and their declaration
of the power of God in raising Christ from the dead.
Bucer then followed this with a list of seven properties or characteristics of faith,
most of which also repeat points he made in his exposition of the text above. First,
it is illumination of those who were blind (Bucer 1562, 33C).104 Second, it is a work
of the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, through the Scriptures—thus, a work of God
alone through His Word alone (Bucer 1562, 33C).105 Third, it is given that the elect
may know Christ as Savior, and through Him, the Father (Bucer 1562, 34D).106
Fourth, faith gives the elect a firm and certain hope of their inheritance of eternal life
(Bucer 1562, 34D).107 Fifth, faith is characterized by a happiness that is beyond

103
“Fides gratuitum donum Dei est, & afflatus divinae sapientiae et revelationis, quo Electis suis
illuminat oculos, ut cognoscant in Christo patrem, & teneant certissimam esse spem vitae aeternae,
ad quam electi sunt, quae est felicitas incomprehensibilis: & cognoscant se servari a Deo, ea
virtute, qua Christus excitatus est a mortuis, ut suos ad illam felicitatem introducat, & omnib.
impleat donis, & spiritualibus bonis, quia sibi subiecta habet omnia.”
104
“Primum proprium, est illuminare oculos: ergo ante fidem caeci sumus.” The reference to the
illumination of the eyes is clearly to Ephesians 1:18a.
105
“Secundum proprium, spiritum sapientiae & revelationis id facere. Ergo Dei solius est revelare,
per sacras nimirum literas.” Here we see an allusion to Ephesians 1:17; compare as well with his
discussion of Ephesians 1:13 (Bucer 1562, 27B). Note also the emphasis on the Word of God.
106
“Tertium, ut cognoscamus Christum servatorem, & in eo patrem: hoc est, credamus certo, quod
per eum habemus Deum propitium.”
107
“Quartum, quod firmam ac certam reddit spem nostram de haereditate vitae aeternae.” This is
another allusion to Ephesians 1:18. See also his discussion of the certainty of faith in the context
of 1:15 (Bucer 1562, 29A).
7.5 Bucer’s Separate Locus on Faith and its Relationship to Ephesians 1:13–18 205

understanding (Bucer 1562, 34D).108 Sixth, faith is characterized by its complete

dependence upon the power of God, and not (by implication) on anything within
the elect. In this way the hope of the elect is rendered firm and certain, and the elect
are able to choose whatever is encompassed in eternal life (Bucer 1562, 34D).109
Finally, it is by faith that the elect are protected by Christ against the power of Satan,
sin and the world—nothing is able to hinder the plan of God for the salvation of His
elect (Bucer 1562, 34D).110 Bucer recognized that not all believers will be able to
live free from doubt or from the temptations of the world (a point he had made ear-
lier), and he exhorted them against granting to the world anything in either respect.
They must cling to God through their faith in Christ and hold the world in contempt
(Bucer 1562, 34D).111
At this point, Bucer’s concern with the relationship between faith and its application
in the lives of believers emerged. He referred to Paul’s teaching in Ephesians 4 regard-
ing the marks (τεκμήρια) by which believers are known, though without enumerating
them (Bucer 1562, 34D).112 He pointed out that these marks must be displayed in the
Church. This is needful in particular for the benefit of those within the Church who are
sluggish or dull in their understanding—because they lack the witness of the Spirit and
thus the persuasion of the Word of God—or those who are guilty of presumption. Both
are in need of reprimand. If these had the Spirit of Christ within, they would be grieved
at such failings (Bucer 1562, 34D). Bucer was keen to stress again the distinction
between true faith and that which only has the outward appearance of faith:
As great as is the difference between the spirit and the flesh, so great is the difference
between true faith, which is the most outstanding gift of God, and the credulity of the flesh,
which has nothing in common with true faith, which name is falsely attributed to it.’113
(Bucer 1562, 34D)

Again, we see a resonance with his earlier discussion of true and false faith in refer-
ence to 1:13.114
Bucer was careful to note that of itself, faith is often weak, even among those
regarded as the saints:
Truly, faith—although indeed it may actually be infirm among the saints, and on that
account (alas!) they may even commit many sins, as here and there the Old and New

108
“Quintum, de ineffabili, et incomprehensibili felicitate nostra.”
109
“Sextum, quod nititur sola Dei potentia & virtute eius. His docemur fidei esse, ut firmam &
indubitatam reddat spem, & vita aeterna contineri quicquid optare possumus.”
110
“Septimum, nos a Christo, ita contra Sathanam, peccatum, et mundum servari, ut nihil possit
impedire propositum Dei de salute nostra, quin eo nos perducat, ut fruamur aeterna, & plena
felicitate.”
111
“[N]e mundo quicquam potentiae tribuamus, & illum diligamus, sed toto corde uni Deo per
Christum adhaereamus, reliquis omnibus contemptis, neque ab eo latum unguem deflectamus.”
112
He referred to 1 John as well.
113
“Quantum interest inter spiritum & carnem, tantum interest inter veram fidem, quae praestantis-
simum donum Dei est, et carnis credulitatem, quae cum vera fide nihil commune habet, quam
nomen falso ei attributum.”
114
See Bucer (1562, 27B), and our discussion of this passage above at Sect. 7.2.
206 7 Theology in an Exegetical Context: Bucer on Ephesians 1:13–18 and the Doctrine…

Scriptures bear witness, and in every place examples beyond measure show with distinctness,
as with Peter, David, etc.—nevertheless, [faith] does not allow the one who is provided with
it entirely to succumb.115 (Bucer 1562, 34E)

It is the intention of the Lord to test the faith of his elect by means of afflictions so
that they will not be presumptuous; thus they will learn the imperfection of their
faith and of their continual need for their Lord (Bucer 1562, 34E). Christ has pre-
vailed over death and sin, He died and rose again for His people, and sits at the right
hand of the Father interceding for them.116 Bucer urged that each believer should
repeat these truths, and say “He rose again for me” (Bucer 1562, 34F).117 Faith is in
Him, not in ourselves. Because faith is in Christ, He will not abandon His own—
indeed, He will strengthen them (Bucer 1562, 34F).
And therefore whatever is pled as an excuse, is taught, is handed on concerning the incerti-
tude of faith, is plainly impious and blasphemous, [is] against the power, fulness, and maj-
esty, and the love and dispensation [saving work] of Christ, and overturns all faith and the
authority of His Word, which Paul presses hard in Romans 8 and elsewhere.118 (Bucer
1562, 34F)

The strength of his language here recalls his vehemence concerning those who
would suppress teaching on the doctrine of election.119
In a manner quite similar to his treatment of election in 1:3–6, Bucer turned to a
number of other passages in Scripture to provide a broader basis for his teaching on
faith before concluding his discussion, thus reinforcing a broader connection
between theology and exegesis. He began with a brief consideration of Christ’s
prayer of intercession as found in John 17, in which Bucer found teaching that
should be added “to the nature of faith and its qualities” [fidei natura, et eius propri-
etates] as he had already expounded them (Bucer 1562, 34F).120 Here we are taught
that faith is the gift of God. (Bucer 1562, 35A).121 Furthermore, faith is something
that is characteristic of the elect of God, but not of all people indiscriminately

115
“Fides vero, & si infirma quidem sit etiam in sanctis, ac propterea etiam multa (proh dolor) com-
mittant peccata, ut passim vetus ac nova Scriptura testatur & ubique exempla nimis evidentia
docent, ut in Petro, Davide, &c. tamen eum qui praeditus ea est, non sinit prorsus succumbere.”
Compare with Bucer (1562, 29A), discussed above at Sect. 7.2.
116
Another allusion to Ephesians 1:19–21.
117
“…quisque electus ad se haec referat, & dicat pro me resurrexit, &c.”
118
“Atque ideo quicquid de incertitudine fidei excusatur, praecipitur, traditur, impium est plane, &
blasphemum, contra potentiam, amplitudinem, & maiestatem, atque charitatem, ac dispensatio-
nem Christi, & evertit omnem fidem & authoritatem verbi eius, quod urget Paulus Rom.8 &
passim.”
119
See our discussion of this in Sect. 6.3 above.
120
“Conferenda etiam est fidei natura, et eius proprietates, quae ab ipso Christo traduntur in eo
oratione, quam habuit apud Patrem. Ioan.17.”
121
He quoted John 17:8
7.5 Bucer’s Separate Locus on Faith and its Relationship to Ephesians 1:13–18 207

(Bucer 1562, 35A).122 Finally, through faith believers know God (the Author of all
good and of salvation) in Christ and through the Word (Bucer 1562, 35A).123
Bucer dealt at greater length with Romans 4, wherein he found another Pauline
locus on faith that must be considered (Bucer 1562, 35A).124 He argued that here, as
in John 17, it is clear that faith is a gift from God through Christ (Bucer 1562,
35A).125 The pattern of Bucer’s summation of the teaching of Romans 4 generally
followed that which we have seen both in his treatment in the course of his exegesis
of Ephesians 1:13–18 and the separate discussion of faith. God reveals His gospel
to believers so that they may believe and know with certainty that everything is of
Christ, and that they are His; this faith is the source of a constant hope, and inflames
believers with a love for God in Christ and a love for their neighbors. Faith is imper-
fect due to the failings of human nature, and is perfected by the power of God;
believers must constantly pray for the realization of this work of God in their lives,
and must always rest upon the promise of God to do it (Bucer 1562, 35A).
Bucer argued that by means of setting forth what things are characteristic of
those who believe, Paul “deduces a definition of faith” [fidei colligit definitionem]
(Bucer 1562, 35A).126 He (Paul) sets forth the person of Abraham as representative,
in that he was the father of the faithful.
He brings forward Abraham as the father of faith, “because he did not consider the womb
of Sarah dead, or his own body (itself a hundred years [old]) dead,” [and Paul] deduces
therefore it is contrary to faith to doubt, and to inquire concerning the promise.127 (Bucer
1562, 35A–B)

Bucer then referred briefly to Philippians 1 and Colossians 1 for further illustrations
of aspects of his earlier treatment of faith, and concluded with the declaration that
the death of Christ and His resurrection strengthen the faith of believers most
strongly, and that together they drive believers to look to God alone and away from
the world (Bucer 1562, 35B). In closing, he referred to a number of additional texts
to further buttress this last point: Romans 4 and 8, 1 Peter 1, 1 Corinthians 15.

122
He quoted John 17:6.
123
He quoted John 17:7.
124
“Considerandus praeterea locus ad Romanos 4. de fidei definitione.” Here the term locus prob-
ably means “text,” and is not used in the sense that Bucer employed it with reference to election,
faith, etc., in the Ephesians lectures.
125
“Ex eo quoque constat eam esse donum dei per Christum.”
126
Bucer here likened what Paul has done in this passage from Romans 4 with the practice of
Aristotle: “In illo quarto capite ad Romanos Paulus, ut & Aristoteles consuevit facere, investigando
quid insit illis, quos dicimus fideles, fidei colligit definitionem.”
127
“Profert Abraham fidei patrem, quod non consideravit mortuum uterum Sarae, suum corpus
emortuum se centenarium, colligit: ergo contrarium fidei est dubitare, & inquirere de
promissione.”
208 7 Theology in an Exegetical Context: Bucer on Ephesians 1:13–18 and the Doctrine…

7.6 Assessment

As before, Bucer’s treatment of the text was not dissimilar to that which had been
done by previous exegetes, again pointing to the broad agreement in approach
among all pre-critical interpreters with respect to the interpretation of Paul’s
epistles. As we noted in the previous chapter, we do see evidence of Bucer’s use of
biblical humanist method and principles, a usage seen also in Calvin, Bugenhagen,
and Bullinger. As with his treatment of Ephesians 1:3–6, so too with Ephesians
1:13–18 we have observed: his attention to philological and exegetical details, and
to idiom (Bucer 1562, 28D, 29B, 32E [the latter two, Hebraic idiom]); his aware-
ness of rhetorical issues (27A, 29B [the latter Paul’s scopus); and his use of Scripture
to interpret Scripture.128 There was not much in either the practice or the details of
his exegesis that was entirely original with Bucer. Yet our examination of Bucer’s
exegesis of Ephesians 1:13–18 has indicated that while there were many points of
agreement between his treatment of the text and that seen in the representatives of
the broader exegetical tradition, Bucer was distinctive in the emphasis he placed
upon the theme of faith in verses 13, 15, and 17b-18a. While we have seen that most
of the exegetes we have considered concluded that Paul spoke of faith in these
verses, none placed anything like the emphasis upon it that Bucer did.
Why did Bucer devote so much attention to faith in his exposition? It is true that
he never did give an explicit justification for his decision, yet our examination has
given some indication of the answer to this question, which also points us to the
interrelationship of exegesis and theology in these lectures and Bucer’s belief that
the letter was a compendium of fundamental theology. It would seem fairly clear
that his discernment of an underlying ordo salutis in the passage—in which Bucer
found election, effectual calling, regeneration, and then faith and hope, joined to
love—is a large part of the reason for his stress on faith (Bucer 1562, 27A). Bucer
clearly believed that Paul’s argument in Ephesians 1 linked these various elements
together, and that the most important of them were election and faith, as seen in the
emphasis he placed upon them rather than effectual calling and regeneration.
Furthermore, faith was a key element in the scopus of the letter, which he had
declared to include the increase of faith and piety among believers (Bucer 1562, 27A).129
Hence, while it could be said that in his stress on faith in these verses Bucer came
close to eisegesis, he would no doubt reply with a restatement of what he declared

128
Among numerous examples, see Bucer (1562): 27B–C (James 2:17); 28F (2 Corinthians 1:22
and 5:5, and Ephesians 4:30); 32D (Romans 14:14, 1 Corinthians 2:12, 1 Thessalonians 1:4, 1 John
2:20, 3:14, and 5:13); 34D (Ephesians 4, 1 John); 34F (John 17); 35A (John 17: 6, 7, 8; Romans
4); 35B (Romans 4 and 8, 1 Peter 1, 1 Corinthians 15).
129
“Cum totius Epistolae scopus sit incrementum fidei, & pietatis in omnibus.” Compare this with
what he stated at the outset of the lectures proper at 20D: “The aim in this epistle is the increase of
piety, not only in knowledge but also in practice by which a faith more emboldened may extend
more widely for every good work.” [Est autem in hac Epistola scopus, incrementum pietatis, non
solum in cognitione, sed etiam in praxi…quo fides magis confirmata, latius se ad omnia opera
bona explicet.]
7.6 Assessment 209

at the outset of his exposition of Ephesians 1:3–6—“the aim of the writer must
always be held before our eyes” (Bucer 1562, 20D).130 Given what he determined to
be Paul’s scopus and the importance of faith to that scopus, he might argue that the
decision to place such a strong emphasis on faith is justified, despite the fact that
the exegetical result differs from that of other exegetes.
In the light of this, we see how Bucer related the locus on faith that he dis-
cerned in the text to the wider exegetical context, for faith was regarded by him as
a constituent element of Paul’s argument. As with most exegetes, Bucer recog-
nized that faith was a theme in these verses. In that he believed it to be a major
locus of Paul’s letter, he gave it significantly closer attention than others. Yet at the
same time, he did so without ignoring or even minimizing the exposition of the
rest of the text, in the course of which he dealt with most of the same issues as did
exegetes before him. It is nonetheless clear that Bucer did not fully develop his
treatment of the locus within an exclusive exegetical context in the manner that he
did with election and Ephesians 1:3–6. Again, he gave no reason why this should
have been the case, but it would seem likely that he was sensitive enough to the
exegetical context not to press discussion of the locus beyond what he believed
the verses would support.131
In a fundamental sense, Bucer’s treatment of faith was not wholly dissimilar to
his earlier treatment of election in the context of Ephesians 1:3–6. In both cases,
Bucer identified a doctrinal focus in Paul’s letter, rooted in Paul’s argument and
contributory to the scopus of the text. Yet with faith, Bucer clearly found that the
locus was less prominent in the text and his exegesis of it, and he felt it necessary to
provide a separate discussion to strengthen the main points of what he found in his
exegetical treatment. In view of Bucer’s decision to do this, we are led to ask how
was this additional treatment related to his earlier exposition of Ephesians 1:13–18?
Was he able to remain true to his commitment to the biblical humanist program of
doing theology in an exegetical context?
The answers to these questions are suggested by what we have already dis-
cussed above. Despite the fact that this separate treatment of faith was distinct
from Bucer’s exegesis and was, in a sense, more systematic—unlike his treat-
ment of election, which was wholly within an exegetical context—Bucer was
able to tie it to his exegesis of Ephesians 1:13–18, and thus to an exegetical
context. As we have noted above, Bucer related what he set forth in this discus-
sion to his earlier comments in the course of expounding Ephesians 1:13, 15, and
most immediately 17b-18a (as well as 19–21), in ways that were sometimes
explicit, and sometimes more subtle.132 He drew together the various elements of
faith of which he had spoken and added to them the witness of other passages of
Scripture. Although in many instances, he simply supplied citations of biblical

130
“Atque semper est scopus habendus prae oculis.”
131
Whereas in his treatment of election in the context of Ephesians 1:3–6, he clearly believed that
the doctrine could be fully explained in the exegetical context without recourse to a separate dis-
cussion, in large part because it was the dominant theme in the passage.
132
See the discussion of this point in Sect. 7.5 above.
210 7 Theology in an Exegetical Context: Bucer on Ephesians 1:13–18 and the Doctrine…

texts, he did include limited exegesis of John 17 and Romans 4, which served to
strengthen the relationship between exegesis of Scripture and statement of doc-
trine. Indeed, we can conclude that Bucer’s discussion of faith was less a system-
atic statement, and more a summary of what he had set out before in his exposition
of Ephesians. As such, he was faithful to the biblical humanist program of doing
theology within an exegetical context.

7.7 Conclusion

As we have seen in this chapter and the previous one, the distinctive feature of
Bucer’s approach to the teaching of theology in his lectures as Regius Professor
of Divinity was that theology was “done” specifically in the exegetical context of
Ephesians. It was his attention to, and particularly treatment of, theological loci as
they are found in the course of Paul’s argument, as well as Bucer’s argument that
the letter was a compendium of theology, that made his lectures both exegesis and
theology. We have now examined more closely his treatment of two pericopes in
which Bucer found a locus that called for elucidation. This closer examination has
demonstrated the different manner in which Bucer employed two patterns in
expounding theology in an exegetical context, and yet their common end. As in
the case of his treatment of Ephesians 1:3–6 and election, Bucer’s treatment of
Ephesians 1:13–18 and faith was faithful to his declared intention to teach theol-
ogy from Scripture alone.133 Although the manner in which he treated faith was
different from the manner in which he treated election, he nevertheless maintained
a close connection between exegesis and theology. This was true even when he
devoted a section to a summary discussion of the locus on faith; though separate
from the foregoing biblical exposition, there is nonetheless a close relationship
between them, and the discussion is meant to be read in the context of and with
reference to the wider biblical exposition.
Bucer was thus able, in at least these two instances, to expound the text of
Ephesians and teach theology while maintaining the integrity of both tasks. The
ethical stress in his handling of faith, and indeed the way in which he emphasized
the close relationship between doctrine and the Christian life, are equally clear in
this portion of his lectures. In both respects, he clearly demonstrated himself to be a
theologian in the manner of biblical humanism: for him, the theologian was first and
foremost an exegete of the Word of God, one who sought above all to apply the
doctrines of Scripture to the Christian life.

133
Indeed, in the case of faith, he had no explicit recourse to the Fathers, and thus based himself
solely upon Scripture.
References 211

References

Ambrose [Ambrosiaster]. 1527. Divi Ambrosii Mediolanensis Episcopi Commentarii in Epistolam

Beati Pauli ad Ephesios. In Divi Ambrosii Episcopi Mediolanensis Operum Tomus Quartus....
Basel: Johannes Froben.
Ambrosiaster. 1966. Ad Efesios. In Ambrosiastri qui dicitur Commentarius in Epistulas Paulinas;
Pars Tertia, In Epistulas Ad Galatas, Ad Efesios...., ed. H.J. Vogels, 69–126. Vienna:
Holder-Pichler-Tempsky.
Aquinas, Thomas. 1541. Divi Thomae Aquinatis…in omnes beati Pauli Apostoli epistolas com-
mentaria.... Paris: A. Girault.
Aquinas, Thomas. 1953. Super Epistolas S. Pauli Lectura, vol. II, ed. P. Raphael, 37–247. Rome:
Marietti.
Bucer, Martin. 1527. Epistola D. Pauli ad Ephesios, qua rationem Christianismi breviter iuxta &
locuplete, ut nulla brevius simul & locupletius explicat, versa paulo liberiu…In eandem
Commentarius. Strasbourg: s.n.
Bucer, Martin. 1562. Praelectiones doctiss. in Epistolam D. P. ad Ephesios, eximii doctoris
D. Martini Buceri, habitae Cantabrigiae in Anglia, Anno M D.L. et LI. Basel: Petrus Perna.
Bugenhagen, Johannes. 1524. Annotationes Ioan. Bugenhagii Pomerani in decem Epistolas Pauli,
scilicet ad Ephesios, Philippenses, Colossenses, Thessalonicenses primam et secun. Timotheum
primam & secundam, Titum, Philemonem, Hebraeos. Item Concordia Evangelistarum a
Resurrectione ad Ascensionem domini. Nuremberg: Ioan. Petreium.
Bullinger, Heinrich. 1539. In omnes apostolicas epistolas, divi videlicet Pauli XIIII et VIII canoni-
cas, commentarii. Zurich: Christoph Froschauer.
Cajetan [Thomas de Vio]. 1540. Ad Ephesios. In Epistolae Pauli et aliorum Apostolorum ad
Graecam veritatem castigatae, & per Reverendissimum Dominum Thomam de Vio, Caietanum,
Cardinalem sancti Xisti, iuxta sensum literalem enarratae. Quibus accesserunt Actus
Apostolorum commentariis eiusdem illustrati. Omnia accuratiori cura quam antea excusa.
Paris: Guillard.
Calvin, John. 1548. Ioannis Calvini Commentarii, in quatuor Pauli Epistolas: Ad Galatas, Ad
Ephesios, Ad Philippenses, Ad Colossenes. Geneva: Jean Girard.
Calvin, John. 1965. The epistle to the Ephesians. In The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the
Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, Trans. T.H.L. Parker, ed. David W. Torrance
and Thomas F. Torrance, 121–224. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Chrysostom, John. 1539. Quartus Tomus Operum Divi Ioannis Chrysostomi…Continet in Omnes
D. Pauli epistolas expositionem, ed. Wolfgang Musculus. Basel: Johannes Herwagen.
Chrysostom, John. 1862. In Epistolam ad Ephesios Commentarius. In Patrologiae Cursus
Completus. Series Graeca, vol. 62, ed. J.P. Migne, cols. 9–176. Paris: J. P. Migne.
Chrysostom, John. 1889. A select library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, vol.
13: Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians,
Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, ed. Philip Schaff. New York: Christian Literature
Publishing Company.
Denis the Carthusian. 1531. In Epistolam ad Ephesios. In Elucidissima in Divi Pauli Epistolas
commentaria Dionysii, olim Carthusiani…. Paris: J. Petit.
Denis the Carthusian. 1901. Enarratio in Epistolam Beati Pauli ad Ephesios. In Dionysii Carthusiani
Opera Omnia, vol. 13: In Omnes B. Pauli Epistolas...., 295–327. Monstrolii: Typis Cartusiae
S.M. de Pratis.
Erasmus, Desiderius. 1532. Tomus secundus continens paraphrasim D. Erasmi Roterodami in
omneis epistolas apostolicas. Basel: Johannes Froben.
Erasmus, Desiderius. 1535. Novum Testamentum iam quintam accuratissima cura recognitum a
Des. Erasmo Roter. cum Annotationibus eiusdem ita locupletatis, ut propemodum opus novum
videri possit. Basel: Johannes Froben.
212 7 Theology in an Exegetical Context: Bucer on Ephesians 1:13–18 and the Doctrine…

Erasmus, Desiderius. 1706. In epistolam Pauli Apostoli ad Ephesios Paraphrasis per Des.
Erasmum Roterodamum. In Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami Opera Omnia, vol. 7, ed. Jean
LeClerc, 972–990. Leiden: Peter Vander Aa.
Froehlich, Karlfried, and Margaret T. Gibson (eds.). 1992. Biblia Latina cum glossa ordinaria:
Facsimile Reprint of the Editio Princeps, Adolph Rusch of Strasbourg, 1480/81, vol. 4, 368–
380. Turnhout: Brepols Publishers.
Haymo of Halberstadt [Haymo of Auxerre]. 1530. Haymonis episcopi Halberstatensis in divi Pauli
epistolas omneis interpretatio.... Paris: Berthelin.
Haymo of Halberstadt [Haymo of Auxerre]. 1881. In Epistolam ad Ephesios. In Patrologiae
Cursus Completus. Series Latina, vol. 117, ed. J.P. Migne, cols. 699–734. Paris: J. P. Migne.
Jerome. 1516. Commentariorum in Epistolam ad Ephesios. In Tomus Nonus Operam Divi
Hieronymi Eusebii Stridonensis Complectens Commentarios in Matthaeum et Marcum, et in
Divi Pauli Epistolas, Vidilicet Ad Galatas, Ephesios, Titum, Philemonem. Necnon commentar-
ios in omnes Pauli Epistolas sed incerto Authore. Basel: Johannes Froben.
Jerome. 1845. Commentariorum in Epistolam ad Ephesios, Libri Tres. In Patrologiae Cursus
Completus. Series Latina, vol. 26, ed. J.P. Migne, cols. 439–554. Paris: J. P. Migne.
Lugioyo, Brian. 2010. Martin Bucer’s doctrine of justification: Reformation theology and early
modern irenicism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Müller, Johannes. 1965. Martin Bucers Hermeneutik. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus G. Mohn.
Nestle, Eberhard, Erwin Nestle, Kurt Aland, et al. (eds.). 1979. Novum Testamentum Graece.
Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.
Nicholas of Lyra. 1545. Postilla super epistolam ad Ephesios. In Biblia sacra, cum glossis, interli-
neri & ordinaria, Nicolai Lyrani postilla & moralitatibus, vol. 6, 89 recto-97 verso. Lyons:
Treschel.
Pelagius. 1926. Commentaria in Epistolam ad Ephesios. In Pelagius’s expositions of thirteen epis-
tles of St Paul, vol. 2: Text and apparatus criticus, ed. Alexander Souter, 344–386. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Pseudo-Jerome [Pelagius]. 1516. Commentaria in Epistolam ad Ephesios. In Tomus Nonus Operam
Divi Hieronymi Eusebii Stridonensis Complectens Commentarios in Matthaeum et Marcum, et
in Divi Pauli Epistolas, Vidilicet Ad Galatas, Ephesios, Titum, Philemonem. Necnon commen-
tarios in omnes Pauli Epistolas sed incerto Authore. Basel: Johannes Froben.
Stephens, W.P. 1970. The holy spirit in the theology of Martin Bucer. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Theophylact. 1540. Ad Ephesios. In Theophylacti Bulgariae Archiepiscopi In Omnes Divi Pauli
Apostoli Epistolas Enarrationes, iam recens ex vetustissimo archetypo Graeco, per D. Ioannem
Lonicerum fidelissime in Latinum conversae.... Basel: Andreas Cratander.
Theophylact. 1864. Epistolae Divi Pauli ad Ephesios Expositio. In Patrologiae Cursus Completus.
Series Graeca, vol. 124, ed. J.P. Migne, cols. 1031–1138. Paris: J. P. Migne.
Wright, David F. 1972. Common places of Martin Bucer, ed. and trans. D.F. Wright. Appleford:
The Sutton Courtenay Press.
Chapter 8
Conclusion

If ever Bucer was Bucer, certeynly in my judgement he was

Bucer in Cambridge: that is pithy in learnyng, & evident in
order.
(Parker 1551, D vi recto; Hubert 1577, 886)

We began this study by noting that when Bucer was made a Doctor of Theology in
December 1549 just prior to taking up his position as Regius Professor of Divinity
at the University of Cambridge, there was a measure of ambivalence on the part of
both Bucer and his hosts with respect to the award and his formal creation as a
“theologian.” This ambivalence raised for us the principal questions for our investi-
gation. First, in what sense was Bucer a theologian as that term had been understood
in the centuries leading up to that day in December 1549? Second, in light of the fact
that his divinity lectures (Bucer 1562) were an exposition of a biblical book and not,
strictly speaking, theology, whether systematic or otherwise ordered in a pattern
determined by custom (that is, by Lombard’s Sentences) what do these lectures tell
us about Bucer’s approach to and assumptions regarding the practice of theology?
In seeking answers to these questions, what have we learned? We have seen that
in these lectures Bucer was a theologian in the sense that biblical humanism under-
stood that term. His introductory remarks gave clear indication of his commitment
to the exegetical methods of biblical humanism (which he set forth in some detail),
notably those associated with Erasmus as expressed in the latter’s Ratio Verae
Theologiae (Erasmus 1519, 1964), but also seen in the approach of the Rhenish
“school” proposed by Professors Roussel and Hobbs (1989). In this connection, our
brief survey of the pattern of his previous career has indicated that what Bucer did
in 1550–1551 was not a new departure for him. However, there was more to the
method than exegesis, and viewing it through the lens of Bucer’s employment of it,
we can see that biblical humanism was equally significant for fundamental assump-
tions regarding the task and practice of theology. The orientation of this theological
method was fundamentally exegetical and practical; it was decidedly not systematic

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 213

N.S. Amos, Bucer, Ephesians and Biblical Humanism, Studies in Early Modern
Religious Tradition, Culture and Society 7, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-10238-2_8
214 8 Conclusion

and speculative, and thus unlike much of late Medieval theology.1 In fact, biblical
humanist method constituted as much a critique of scholastic method as it did an
alternative model for theology and, in respect of its critique as we find it in the
humanist-scholastic debate of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries,2 it must certainly
have influenced the practice and attitudes of the first generation of Reformers,
including the Rhenish reformers, Bucer among them. In addition to furnishing the
necessary background for understanding Bucer’s lectures, our examination of the
theological curriculum at Cambridge in the first half of the sixteenth century has
also served as a case study of the tensions between humanism and scholasticism,
and of the efforts to reform the theological curriculum and the practice of theology
in an academic setting in the light of biblical humanism. It has also served to sug-
gest why Bucer and his hosts at Cambridge might have felt somewhat ambivalent
about his creation as a Doctor of Theology, since he stood on one side of the ques-
tion and a number of them on the other when it came to the matter of what consti-
tuted a theologian.3
Looking beyond his prefatory lectures, our examination of the shape of
Bucer’s actual practice in his treatment of Ephesians further underscores that his
method was that of biblical humanism. We saw that the lectures were more than
biblical exposition; they were an exposition of theology as well.4 We found that
Bucer’s teaching of theology was firmly rooted in Scripture, and it was in large

1
Again, this is not meant to deny that the Bible held an important place in scholastic practice (a
point made above, in Sect. 2.1). The Bible was one of the two key texts of theology throughout the
Medieval centuries; yet it is highly suggestive of a shift in priorities that among the leading theo-
logians between the mid-thirteenth and late fifteenth centuries, few if any were known as biblical
scholars, and (as noted in Sect. 2.1.3) it can be argued that there was a decline in exegetical scholar-
ship prior to the Reformation (Verger 1984, 225–226).
2
See especially Rummel (1994) and Nauert (1998).
3
With reference to Bucer in Cambridge, the present investigation has also added to our understand-
ing of Bucer’s sojourn in England, and in particular his tenure as Regius Professor of Divinity at
the University of Cambridge.
4
That said, this book has also contributed to our understanding of the practice of biblical interpre-
tation in the era of the Reformation, particularly in the light of the history of biblical interpretation.
Whereas in the matter of the practice of theology our examination has pointed to the tensions and
discontinuities between the Reformation and the three preceding centuries, in respect of the prac-
tice of biblical interpretation we have seen a substantial measure of continuity. We have seen that
in terms of exegetical details, Bucer’s exposition of Ephesians was not remarkably different from
that of Patristic or Medieval commentators, and indeed even many of his conclusions did not dis-
play any substantial disagreements with those of his predecessors. Our brief consideration of the
work of his contemporaries, including his fellow Reformers, Bugenhagen, Bullinger and Calvin,
has served to reinforce the argument made elsewhere that the point of substantial discontinuity in
the history of biblical interpretation falls after the era of the Reformation, and that the Reformers
stand in the tradition of pre-critical interpretation (Steinmetz 1997). This is not to contradict my
argument about the influence of biblical humanist exegetical methodology in the work of Bucer
and others; yet the fact remains that their practice and general conclusions were not remarkably
different using these methods. Where substantial differences between the Reformation and
the later Middle Ages do appear, they have more to do with theological developments and, in the
case of Bucer and other evangelical biblical humanists, theological method rather than with
developments in exegetical method.
8 Conclusion 215

measure consistently tied to the exposition of what he took to be Paul’s scopus.

His identification of Ephesians as a compendium of fundamental theology (and
his implicit assumption that Paul was a theologian) was particularly important to
his intention to teach theology in the lectures, for in this way the letter provided
Bucer with the basic pattern for how theology should be “done”.5 In what he
taught, Bucer always sought a practical end as the purpose of theology, in such a
way that further supports the argument that he approached the task of theology
as a biblical humanist. There was little in what we have examined that suggests
a tendency towards speculative theology. For example, in his exposition of elec-
tion Bucer did not deal with questions like the providence of God, or the decrees
of God, or the will of God. We have also seen that his combination of exegesis
and theology had distinctive results for both. It is true that his exegesis is pressed
at times to the threshold of eisegesis, yet there was no essential compromise of
his practice of exegesis. Indeed, his teaching of theology was restricted in its
range. Again, there was no speculation; the practical thrust of his theology was
paramount. This was due largely to the fact that (in addition to his biblical
humanist method) he was controlled in his theological formulation by the exege-
sis of the text of Scripture, from which he took his cues.
We have found that Bucer’s use of the loci communes method, an important
inheritance of humanist method more generally, was key to his practice, both exe-
getical and theological. Attention to the loci of the letter, which he argued were the
principal themes of Paul’s argument, provided Bucer not only the occasion to
develop the theology of the letter in an exegetical context, but also served his exege-
sis in illuminating and reinforcing Paul’s scopus. Our examination of Bucer’s treat-
ment of two pericopes, Ephesians 1:3–6 and Ephesians 1:13–18, and his treatment
in each of the loci on election and faith respectively, has served to confirm our
general findings. Specifically, his work in these two passages underscores the close
link of exegesis and theology in Bucer’s lectures, as well as the link between doc-
trine and the Christian life. This was true even when his treatment of a locus was
separate from his exegesis of the text within which it was contained, as in the case
of faith and Ephesians 1:13–18. The loci method thus served both exegesis and
theology, and as Bucer practiced this method, the two sacred tasks are not easily
separated.6 It is certainly true that Bucer could be inconsistent in his practice.
The example of his locus on the Church is certainly problematic, for we have seen
that the connection between the text of Ephesians 1:22–23 and the lengthy discus-
sion of the Church is minimal. The biblical text comes very close to being a peg

5
It is curious—and unfortunate—that Bucer, who produced what is generally regarded as the most
exhaustive (and exhausting) commentary on Romans in the first half of the sixteenth century, was
not the subject of a chapter in the recent, valuable collection of essays on Paul in the sixteenth
century (Holder 2009).
6
While it is true that in many instances of the use of this method by others (especially after mid-
century) loci were identified with the intent of collecting them for treatment in a more systematic
format (as in the case of Wolfgang Musculus, for example), such was not Bucer’s practice, nor is
there any evidence he intended to do so. The loci he identified were to remain embedded within
their exegetical context.
216 8 Conclusion

upon which Bucer could hang a discussion only vaguely related to it. Yet the
inconsistencies should not detract from Bucer’s real achievement in tying together
exegesis and theology.
Because these lectures were given at the end of his life, what we have found is
conclusive only with respect to this final phase of his career; yet Matthew Parker’s
comment (quoted at the beginning of this chapter) gives occasion for the suggestion
that what we have considered has application to the whole of his career, and our
brief consideration of Bucer’s intellectual formation and career as a teacher in the
Strasbourg schools supports this.7 Seen in this way, these lectures would thus con-
stitute Bucer’s valedictory statement of his life’s calling. The fact that in the end it
would appear his was a method that was now passing into obsolescence, the fact that
the rising generation of theologians opted instead for a continued division of the
tasks of exegesis on the one hand and theological formulation on the other (though
it should be noted that in the aftermath of the Reformation the latter was more firmly
rooted in the former than had been the case in late Medieval scholastic practice),
should not detract from the interest we should have in what Bucer and evangelical
biblical humanists like him sought to set forth as another model of doing theology.
And how did Bucer understand the calling and task of the theologian? The true
theologian in Bucer’s view is fundamentally an exegete of the Word of God, and the
theology the true theologian “does” should have as its goal the shaping of the Christian
life. We have found that Bucer was convinced that the practice of theology arose from
a direct engagement with the text of Scripture, and that the tasks of biblical interpreta-
tion and theological formulation should not be practiced separately, much less in
isolation from one another. Theology for Bucer is not a commentary on either a text-
book or treatise of another theologian, no matter how esteemed—be that theologian
Augustine of Hippo, Peter Lombard, Thomas Aquinas, or even Philip Melanchthon
or John Calvin.8 Neither is it an occasion for endless refinement and abstraction of
doctrine as an end in itself. Theology is an exposition of the Bible, it takes shape in
the context of exegesis, and it is for the Christian life.

References

Bucer, Martin. 1562. Praelectiones doctiss. in Epistolam D. P. ad Ephesios, eximii doctoris

D. Martini Buceri, habitae Cantabrigiae in Anglia, Anno M D.L. et LI. Basel: Petrus Perna.

7
Though it should be noted, with all due respect to Matthew Parker, that “pithy” is not the first
word that comes to mind when encountering the torrent of Bucer’s prose.
8
In a very real sense, though, Bucer’s Cambridge lectures were in fact a commentary on the treatise
of a theologian—the treatise being the Letter to the Ephesians, and the theologian being Paul of
Tarsus. Paul is regarded by Bucer as a theologian—not just one who speaks of God, not just one
used by the Holy Spirit to teach the doctrines of God, but one who is a theologian in the sense that
Bucer himself is a theologian. A very useful study could be done on how Bucer and others of his
age came to see Paul as a theologian in this sense. The book edited by Holder, noted above,
achieves some of this in respect of other theologians than Bucer (Holder 2009).
References 217

Erasmus, Desiderius. 1519. Novum Testamentum omne, multo quam antehac diligentius ab Erasmo
Roterodamo recognitu, emedatum ac translatum … : una cum annotationibus recognitis, ac
magna accessione locupletatis. Basel: Johannes Froben.
Erasmus, Desiderius. 1964. In Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus: Ausgewählte Werke, ed. Hajo
Holborn and Annemarie Holborn. München: C.H. Beck.
Holder, R. Ward (ed.). 2009. A companion to Paul in the Reformation. Leiden: Brill.
Hubert, Conrad (ed.). 1577. Martini Buceri Scripta Anglicana fere omnia. Basel: Petrus Perna.
Nauert, Charles. 1998. Humanism as method: Roots of conflict with the scholastics. Sixteenth
Century Journal XXIX/2: 427–438.
Parker, Matthew. 1551. Howe we ought to take the death of the Godly, a sermon made in Cambridge
at the buriall of the noble clerck, D. M. Bucer. London: R. Iugge.
Roussel, Bernard, and R.G. Hobbs. 1989. Strasbourg et l’École Rhénane d’exégèse (1525–1540).
Bulletin de la Société de l’Histoire du Protestantisme Français 135: 36–53.
Rummel, Erika. 1994. The humanist-scholastic debate in the Renaissance and Reformation.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Steinmetz, David C. 1997. Divided by a common past: The reshaping of the Christian exegetical
tradition in the sixteenth century. Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 27/2(Spring):
245–264.
Verger, Jacques. 1984. L’Exégèse de l’université. In Bible de tous les Temps 4: Le Moyen Age et la
Bible, ed. Pierre Riché and Guy Lobrichon, 199–232. Paris: Beauchesne.
Index

A method, 5, 8, 44, 45, 61, 91, 108, 115, 117,

Adoption, 161, 168–170
Agricola, R., 133–135
Alesius, A., 41, 42, 45, 61, 62
Alsace, 82
Ambrosiaster, 13, 14, 153, 167, 183
Apostle Paul, 3, 91–92
Aquinas, T., 12, 14, 15, 39, 82, 83, 86,
108, 116, 123, 124, 153, 154, 160,
168, 169, 175, 183, 187, 189, 193,
197, 199–201, 216
Aristotle/Aristotelian, 31, 34, 83, 122, 170
Augustine/Augustinian, 31, 36, 102, 122, 123,
151, 164, 173, 175, 216
B 183, 197
Banck, J., 63, 66–71, 131
Baptism, 131
Bible, 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 12, 26–34, 36, 38, 41, 43,
50, 83–85, 87–90, 97–99, 101–104,
115, 143, 177, 216
Biblical exegesis, 84, 140, 182
Biblical exposition/interpretation, 4, 10, 26,
27, 29, 90, 91, 124, 126, 127, 130, 133,
136, 138, 139, 144, 151, 174, 181, 198,
210, 214, 216. See also Exegesis
Biblical humanism, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 25, 30,
36–38, 43, 52, 62, 72, 80–82, 84–86,
89–91, 95, 96, 106, 109, 115, 123, 137,
144, 175, 196, 210, 213, 214
Biblical humanist(s), 8, 9, 12, 15, 40, 44, 45,
80, 86, 87, 89, 90, 108, 116, 123, 125,
130, 144, 145, 155, 174, 177, 209, 210,
215, 216
123, 144, 145, 208, 214, 215
Blessing(s)
earthly, 157, 175
of God, 157, 159, 161, 162, 194
spiritual, 157, 160, 175
Book of Common Prayer, 49, 57
Brenz, J., 53, 60, 85
Bugenhagen, J., 15, 124, 154, 156, 167, 170,
175, 176, 183, 208
Bullinger, H., 15, 124, 154, 167, 168, 170,
175, 176, 183, 208
C
Cajetan, 15, 83, 154, 158, 160, 162, 170,
Calling, 161
Calvin, J., 12, 15, 50, 60, 89, 108, 116, 124,
135, 136, 138, 139, 154, 158–160,
162, 166–168, 170, 175, 176, 183,
188, 190, 191, 193, 194, 197, 198,
201, 202, 208, 216
Cambridge Injunctions, 4, 5, 8–10, 25, 26,
28–30, 32, 39, 41, 42, 44, 61, 72, 80,
90, 91, 115, 123, 145, 177
Capito, W., 85, 88, 89
Carr, N., 54, 61
Cellarius, I., 61
Cheke, J., 45, 56, 57
Christ, 53, 56, 59, 60, 81, 86, 92–94, 100,
104, 105, 107, 125, 128, 129, 133,
141, 144, 155–160, 163, 164, 166–170,
172, 175, 184–191, 194, 195, 197,
198, 202–207

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 219

N.S. Amos, Bucer, Ephesians and Biblical Humanism, Studies in Early Modern
Religious Tradition, Culture and Society 7, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-10238-2
220
Christian life, 7, 31, 93, 94, 101, 123, 128,
133, 143, 144, 161, 167, 175, 177, 185,
195, 210, 215, 216
Chrysostom, J., 12, 13, 15, 116, 122, 153,
157–160, 163, 164, 168, 169, 171, 175,
182, 187–189, 193, 194, 196, 199
Church, 55, 68, 93, 97, 101, 103–105, 115,
126, 130, 131, 133, 139–144, 191, 196,
205, 215
discipline, 107
Fathers (see Patristic)
Covenant, 128, 143
Cranmer, T., 15, 49–52, 56, 57, 147
Cromwell, T., 39, 41–43
D 184, 186–190, 192–207, 215
Denis the Carthusian, 15, 153, 183
Dialectic, 28, 29, 31, 32, 35, 134
Discipline, 115, 131
Disputations, 2, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 42–44, 53,
55, 56, 61, 70, 132, 138
Doctor of Theology, 2, 4, 8, 52, 213, 214
Doctrine of election, 151
Dominican, 5, 14, 15, 81, 82, 85, 87, 88,
170, 175
order, 82
E Haymo of Auxerre, 14, 153, 183
Edwardian Statutes, 43, 59, 80
Edward VI, 42, 45, 57
Effectual calling, 191
Election, 93, 115, 124–126, 130, 132, 133,
139, 151, 152, 154–156, 159,
161–168, 170, 172, 173, 175–177,
181, 184, 185, 187, 189, 193, 194,
203, 206, 208–210, 215
Erasmus, D., 5–7, 12–15, 31, 36–41, 70, 72,
80–82, 84–87, 90, 91, 95, 98, 100,
106, 108, 117, 118, 120, 134, 135,
153, 160, 170, 175, 183, 188, 190,
193, 197, 200, 213
Exegesis
Biblical humanist method, 6
grammatical-historical, 89
practice of, 6, 38, 123, 215
of scripture, 30
and theology, 4, 7, 9, 11, 15, 90, 108, 136,
140–142, 144, 146, 147, 151, 176, 177,
181, 182, 206, 210, 215, 216
Index
F
Fagius, P., 50–52, 54, 89
Faith, 93, 94, 102, 105, 107, 108, 115,
125–127, 130, 133, 139, 156, 161–163,
168, 181, 182, 184–188, 191–199,
201–210, 215
Fathers. See Patristic
Fisher, J., 35, 36, 38, 39
Free will, 173
G
Gardiner, S., 43, 45
Glossa, 15, 153, 183
God, 53, 60, 92–95, 97–100, 102, 105–107,
115, 118, 124, 125, 129, 151, 153–177,
Good works, 93, 127, 128, 133, 169, 175, 177
Grace, 93, 94, 115, 125, 155, 156, 159, 161,
164, 165, 167, 168, 170, 172, 175, 176,
186, 201
Grammar, 29, 35, 117, 119, 144
Greek, 36, 37, 39, 42, 43, 45, 82, 85, 89, 101,
118, 119
Grindal, E., 56
H
Haddon, W., 13, 57
Hebrew/Hebraic/Hebraism, 42, 43, 51, 89,
101, 118, 119, 137, 156, 165, 174,
203, 208
Hedio, C., 89
Heidelberg, 84, 87
disputation, 86
Henry VIII, 39, 44
History of Biblical interpretation, 10–12, 152
methods of, 11–12
Holy Spirit, 90, 92, 95–100, 102, 104, 106,
107, 121, 122, 164, 166, 171, 184–191
Hooper, J., 57
Hubert, C., 62, 63, 66–70, 131
Humanism, 5, 9, 30, 32, 36, 38, 81, 82, 90,
133, 214
Humanist(s), 5, 7, 30–32, 35–38, 40, 45, 82,
84, 85, 95, 118, 133, 134, 215
critique of scholastic method, 8
grammar, 35
Humanistic, 83
Humanist-scholastic debate, 30, 38, 85, 214
Index 221

I Pelagius. See Pseudo-Jerome

Interpretation of the Bible, 96 People of God, 94, 97, 143, 160, 175, 193
Israel, 94, 128, 159–161, 172, 193 New Testament, 94
Old Testament, 94
Perne, A., 53, 55
J Peter Lombard, 25–29, 33, 37–40, 83, 109,
Jerome, 13, 36, 37, 123, 153, 183 213, 216
Jews, 143, 157–160, 164, 188, 193 Sentences, 4, 87
Justification, 55, 93, 115, 127, 128, 133, 137, Petrarch, 30, 31
188, 189 Piety, 7, 80, 100, 102, 106, 108, 125, 126, 155,
163, 184, 194, 208
Predestination, 137, 151, 162, 167–170, 175,
L 176, 189
Lasco, John à, 56, 69 Pseudo-Jerome, 13, 153, 183
Law, 94, 115, 119, 127, 128, 133, 140, 141,
143, 144, 146, 159, 160, 192, 193,
195, 197 Q
Loci Communes/Loci Communes Method/Loci Question literature, 26
Method, 9, 89, 116, 133–139, 141, Questions, 2, 7, 27–29, 31, 80, 108
144–146, 181, 215
Lord’s Supper, 56, 59, 69, 129, 131, 142
Luther, M., 5, 82, 86, 87, 166 R
Ratio Verae Theologiae, 15, 38, 80, 134, 213
Redemption, 191
M Redman, J., 42, 58
Melanchthon, P., 50, 87, 109, 116, 120, 124, Regeneration, 125, 184, 185, 208
134–136, 138, 139, 156, 176, 216 Regius Professor of Divinity, 2, 4, 12, 49, 51,
Ministry, 59, 62, 63, 66, 67, 70–72, 94, 52, 54, 58, 70, 80, 95, 109, 115, 144,
128–131, 133, 140, 141, 144 151, 210, 213
Moses, 158, 172 Rhenanus, B., 82, 85, 86
Musculus, W., 13 Rhenish “school,” 6, 80, 88, 90, 91, 95, 108,
117, 136, 213
Rhetoric/rhetorical, 32, 35, 117, 119, 120, 123,
N 134, 144, 174, 208
Nicholas of Lyra, 15, 153, 183 Ridley, N., 57
Righteousness, 157, 165, 166, 169, 170

O
Origen, 36
P 125, 133, 144, 145, 154, 159, 164–166,
Parker Library, 13–15
Parker, M., 13, 53, 58, 59, 61, 68, 115, 118,
122, 216
Patristic, 6, 11–13, 33, 37, 122, 137, 162, 167,
169, 174, 182, 197
Paul, 12, 49, 69, 92–95, 106, 109, 119–124,
127–129, 131, 133, 136, 137, 139–141,
143, 144, 146, 151, 152, 154–157,
159–168, 172–177, 182, 184, 186, 188,
189, 192, 194, 196–203, 205–210, 215
S
Sacraments, 53, 69, 115, 191
Salvation, 91, 93, 95, 98–102, 104, 105, 124,
168, 169, 172, 173, 175, 177, 184–188,
190–193, 197, 200, 205
ordo salutis, 125–127, 133, 184–186, 208
Sanctification, 125, 133, 155, 170, 191
Scholastic, 8, 27, 31, 82
Scholasticism, 38
Scholastic method, 8, 14, 26, 28–31, 35, 39,
41, 44, 81, 83, 85, 86, 175, 214
humanist critique of, 25
significance of, 7–8
222 Index

Scholastics, 7, 31, 40, 82 practice of, 25, 26, 29, 115, 123, 133, 134,
Scholastic theologians, 25, 31 213, 214, 216
Scopus, 102, 106, 117, 121, 123, 125, purpose of, 6, 31, 32, 38, 215
126, 144, 174, 176, 184, 194, 208, speculative, 7, 152, 174, 177, 215
209, 215 study of, 26, 35
Scotus, J.D., 25, 26, 29, 39, 40 teaching of, 1, 4, 6, 9, 10, 25–27, 33, 35,
Scripture(s). See also Bible 37, 39, 72, 80, 87–91, 93, 133, 151,
clarity of, 95–98, 103, 171 177, 210, 215
sufficiency of, 55 true, 5, 7, 12, 38, 60
unity of, 122 Theophylact, 13, 14, 153, 183
Sedgwick, T., 55, 56, 61 Throckmorton, N., 69
Sélestat, 82–85 Tremellius, I., 62–71, 117, 118, 129, 131, 132
Sentences, 4, 25–28, 33, 34, 37, 39, 40, 83, Trinity, 99, 195
109, 213 Trinity College, 43, 44, 54, 55, 58, 60, 63
Sin, 93, 98, 127, 128, 133, 157, 173, 186, 187,
192, 205, 206
Smith, T., 45 U
Spirit, 98–100, 164, 171, 173, 185, 186, University of Cambridge, 2, 7, 8, 32, 38,
188, 189, 191–194, 200–202, 204, 205 49, 213
Stafford, G., 37 University of Heidelberg, 82, 83
Strasbourg, 1, 2, 13, 50, 52, 53, 64, 80, 87–90,
136, 216
Strasbourg Gymnasium, 1, 89 V
Valla, L., 30, 133, 134
Vermigli, P.M., 45, 55–57, 62, 89, 116,
T 136–139
Testament(s), 160, 175 Vulgate, 37, 39
New, 25, 36, 37, 40, 82, 88, 89, 121, 128,
143, 157, 159, 160, 193
Old, 25, 53, 88, 89, 102, 121, 143, 157, W
159–161, 192–194 Word/Word of God, 12, 40, 97, 101, 103,
Theologian, 1, 4, 6, 12, 80, 88, 152, 210, 105–108, 115, 126, 139, 171, 184, 190,
213, 215 192, 202, 204–207, 210, 216
calling of, 7, 216 Works, 55, 115
true, 5, 7, 216
Theological formulation, 139
Theology Y
doctor of, 2, 4, 8, 52, 213, 214 Young, J., 54–56, 61, 132
and exegesis, 30
lectures in, 3, 4, 8, 34, 40, 53, 89, 90,
109, 176 Z
method of, 32 Zürich, 15, 54, 59