Abstract
Bucer’s prefatory lectures that preceded the exposition of Ephesians proper were a presentation of his exegetical and theological method. 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. It is necessary to read Bucer’s methodological statement in 1550 within the context of his earlier career, including a brief consideration of his intellectual formation. What we find in this survey is the fact that there was continuity over the years in how he approached the task of teaching and practicing theology. From his earliest days, it was clear he was powerfully influenced by humanism, specifically biblical humanism, and was much under the influence of Erasmus (by his own admission). Upon his arrival in Strasbourg, Bucer was one of the leading practitioners of a Rhenish “school” of exegesis and theology which shaped the theological curriculum in the Gymnasium. Hence, what we find in the prefatory lectures in Cambridge was in keeping with his earlier career. One might characterize his statement as a “Ratio seu methodus Martini Buceri”.
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).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 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 respiratory 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.
- 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.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
- 9.
“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.
- 10.
“…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 commentis scholasticis, quae corruptione illo seculo obtinuerant, scripta sanctorum Patrum, inprimis autem Divinas literas summo studio legerunt, & pertractarent.”
- 11.
“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 eam pertinerent, cognovi, ita confitieri ea, et dato docendi publicae loco, docere ac profiteri palam mihi necesse fuit.”
- 12.
- 13.
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.
- 14.
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.
- 15.
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.
- 16.
This will become more evident in light of the further argument of this chapter below, and of the book as a whole.
- 17.
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 characterization, 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).
- 18.
This characteristic of Bucer could also be attributed to his garrulousness, which was well-known and attested to by his contemporaries.
- 19.
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 continued 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.
- 20.
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 pattern 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 commentary, 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).
- 21.
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.
- 22.
- 23.
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).
- 24.
The critical edition of his correspondence testifies to this (Bucer 1979:1).
- 25.
See letters 3–7, 11, 12, 31, and 34.
- 26.
- 27.
- 28.
See, for instance, the brief discussion of this point in Augustijn (1991, 132–33).
- 29.
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.
- 30.
On this point, see especially Wengert (1998).
- 31.
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).
- 32.
For the basic details of Bucer’s early career in Strasbourg, see Greschat (2004, 47–85).
- 33.
- 34.
On Erasmus and the Rhenish Reformers, see Kohls (1969).
- 35.
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).
- 36.
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.
- 37.
- 38.
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).
- 39.
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).
- 40.
See also Hobbs (2009, 46–49), who provides a concise discussion.
- 41.
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.
- 42.
See also Strohl (1937).
- 43.
“Die sollen, uber das in gemeinen articlen von dem ampt publicorum professorum, versehen dass täglich im alten und neuen Testament werde treulich gelesen....”
- 44.
“…sollen sie vor allem den buchstaben fleissing erclären....”
- 45.
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.
- 46.
In fact, Bucer does fulfil the customary obligation in this section of the preface, contrary to what he states at the outset.
- 47.
In what follows, the intent is not to offer a full discussion of Bucer’s principles of biblical interpretation, 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).
- 48.
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.
- 49.
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 & honestorum morum locos tractat, quorum explicationem…ad nos pertinere praevidit.]
- 50.
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).
- 51.
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.
- 52.
- 53.
“…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.
- 54.
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).
- 55.
Though other commentators took note of the fact that Paul was a prisoner, only Bucer saw substantial significance in this with respect to the nature of the letter. Bullinger comes close to saying something similar, though without Bucer’s particular emphasis seen here (Bullinger 1539, 404/L4 verso).
- 56.
“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 ambiguitate & 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).
- 57.
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 presence 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, dividing 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.
- 58.
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).
- 59.
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).
- 60.
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).
- 61.
“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.”
- 62.
On this feature of Bucer’s thought, see Müller (1965, 142ff).
- 63.
“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.
- 64.
- 65.
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.
- 66.
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).
- 67.
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 fellow 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 interpretation: “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).
- 68.
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).
- 69.
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 witnessed by CCCC MS 418: a common-place book of Bucer, now known as Florilegium Patristicum, 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).
- 70.
- 71.
“…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.”
- 72.
“…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).
- 73.
Note again the affinity of this sentiment with that of Erasmus in the passage of the Paraclesis just mentioned above.
- 74.
“…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.”
- 75.
An allusion to 1 Corinthians 2: 14–15. He returned to this point at 10E.
- 76.
“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.”
- 77.
“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....”
- 78.
“…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).
- 79.
- 80.
“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.”
- 81.
- 82.
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.
- 83.
“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.”
- 84.
“…hac dignum scientia, scientia inquam salutis & vitae aeternae.”
- 85.
A point made by Erasmus (1519, 59/[Ee6] recto; Erasmus 1964, 294).
- 86.
- 87.
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).
- 88.
- 89.
“…revelat quam clarissime & solidissime…necessaria sacrarum scripturarum dogmata, & prima scientiae salutis principia.”
- 90.
- 91.
- 92.
“…venis doctrinae salutis tam divitibus & redundantibus, ut exhaurire nos illas nullo nostro studio possemus.”
- 93.
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 interpretandi 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.
- 94.
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).
- 95.
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).
- 96.
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 implication, they were not to be accorded the authority held by Scripture): see Erasmus (1964, 205).
- 97.
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).
- 98.
“His quia primaria sunt divinarum scripturarum dogmata, & ut primis scientiae Scripturarum axiomatis, iis tamquam regulis in omni Scripturarum interpretatione religiose utimur.”
- 99.
“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.”
- 100.
This conviction resonates with the “Paraclesis” of Erasmus (1519, 8/Aa4 verso; Erasmus 1964, 142).
- 101.
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.
- 102.
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 beginning 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).
- 103.
“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.”
- 104.
“…atque ex his solis fidem nobis et cognitionem primorum dogmatum, et locorum communium religionis nostrae catechismum confirmemus.”
- 105.
“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 discenda est, probe animadvertant. Et tamen quod hoc pacto didicisse videbuntur, iterum ac iterum adiunctis precibus, cum primariis religionis nostrae dogmatis, scopo sacrarum scripturarum et linguae 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).
- 106.
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.
- 107.
“Hanc equidem unicam agnosco rationem divinas scripturas & discendi, & docendi salutarem.”
- 108.
“Nam & probabila in Theologia, dum non possunt necessario, debent tamen probabiliter, ad primum Theologiae principium referri, quod est: Deus dixit.”
- 109.
Matthew Parker noted Bucer’s constant exhortations in this respect: “you know how he powdered 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 frequent sermons, that we should repent, give up all depraved customs of hypocritical religion, correct 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.
- 110.
“…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 transported, 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.]
- 111.
“Proinde haudquaquam nobis satis esse debet intellexisse, quid in scriptis suis docet Spiritus sanctus, ita ut possimus praeclare de eo disserere, & alios docere.”
- 112.
The best study of this aspect of Bucer’s thought is found in Burnett (1994).
- 113.
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 sapienter enarrare divinas litteras, de fide, non de frivolis quaestionibus rationem reddere, de pietate graviter atque efficaciter disserere, lachrymas excutere ad coelestia inflammare animos.”
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 commentaria. 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.]
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 françaises 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.
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 oberrheinischen 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.
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 historiques publiés sous le patronage de l’Université de Louvain à l’occasion du cinquième centenaire 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 theologian. 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.
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 exegetical 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 reassessment in the light of his Psalm paraphrases, 183–215. Leiden: Brill.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Amos, N.S. (2015). “Ratio seu methodus Martini Buceri”: Bucer’s Prefatory Lectures on Ephesians and His Use of Biblical Humanist Theological Method. In: Bucer, Ephesians and Biblical Humanism. Studies in Early Modern Religious Tradition, Culture and Society, vol 7. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10238-2_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10238-2_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-10237-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-10238-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)