puts at the beginning: Sanam doctrinam vocut Paulus earn, quae reddit homines sanos. It is not surprising that Castellio, like Erasmus before him, could retreat to an orthodox confession when pressed;245 dogmatic questions did not bother him; his concern was ethics. That is also true of his understanding of scripture: ‘Morality as the essence of Christ- ianity becomes the hermeneutical principle for the content of scriptu- re. ‘246 The distinction between spirit and letter within scripture is only in apparent contradiction to this247 along with the stress on the ‘Spirit’
as the superior principle in which both the ‘content’ of scripture is expressed and also the one true authority over it is grounded.248 In regarding the possession of the spirit bestowed by God as a precondi- tion for understanding the spirit of scripture,249 Castellio is apparently very close to the Spiritualism of Denck and Sebastian Franck. But in Denck and Franck, too, the ‘Spirit’ was a moral category: its possession is at the same time an autonomous criterion of moral action and a criterion over against all aspects which run contrary to the sole domi- nance of ethics: over against both cultic forms and dogmatic teaching which claims to be binding. So if moralism is Castellio’s basic attitude, this shows that he belongs clearly to the Spiritualist, Humanist trend.
The understanding of Christ as the exemplar bringing the new law of love and the physician healing the moral frailties of men also belongs in this sphere, as does a similar evaluation of the apostle Paul.250
Castellio’s special contribution to the development of ideas lies in the fact that he now also clearly brings out in theory the Stoic background to the moral attitude which had been alive since the Renaissance in humanistic and religious attitudes and thus introduces a rationalism which prepares for the deistic period. That comes about on the one hand through the concept of justitia as a generally binding norm to which even the will of God is subjecP’, the binding character of which lies in the fact that it is natural and therefore clear to all.%* The idea of an autonomous morality runs through the whole movement, as a pre- supposition which is usually unexpressed, though at certain high points it is also formulated clearly, after Castellio and Lord Herbert of Cherbury also, at a later stage, by Shaftesbury and finally by Kamz3 Secondly, a double definition of ratio is developed in a passage of the posthumous writing of Castellio De arte dubitandi,= in a eulogy of reason: on the one hand it is a natural human capacity to be able to distinguish between truth and falsehood by senses and understanding even in theological questions (what is contra sensus is wrong - the empiricist approach should be noted);255 on the other hand reason is identical with the
‘word’. (sermo”) of God, which not only speaks from outside but is also
given to men as an ‘inner word’.=’ The originally mystical doctrine of
the verbum internurn or inner light is thus identified=* with a kind of
72 Preparatory Developments
common sense,.259 it is this which, together with morality, can serve as a criterion for judging the statements of scripture. Both principles are self-evident as such, and as such are prior to scripture; H.Liebing rightly stresses that this is a decisive step in the direction of the criticism of the authority of scripture.26o The direction that this criticism will take can be seen not only in general by the combination of the two principles of morality and reason; it is even said directly in the ‘praise of reason’:
ratio is ante literas et ceremonias omnes, it is turn literis turn ceremoniis et antiquior et certior: letters and ceremonies are the embodiment of a lower stage of religion which is to be transcended by reason. There are also references to the Jews who plus quam rationis tribuebant. Here we can detect the well known tones of Erasmus and his followers.261 We shall consider later how they were handed on further by moralistic-spiritu- alistic religious humanism, leading to Deism; beyond question Castellio is one of the essential figures in this development.262
4
Martin Bucer
We cannot understand either the key role of the Old Testament for church life and political life in England or the polemic unleashed by the Deists against the Bible because of this central position without the decisive influence of the Strasbourg reformer Martin Bucer (or Butzer).
Scholars are only very gradually beginning to realize the significance of this theologian and church politician who has been virtually forgotten over this long period; even the pioneering investigation into his theo- logy by A.Lang’ did not lead to any immediate sustained further study.
Yet this is the man of whom H.Bornkamm says, ‘after the Wittenberg friends Luther and Melanchthon he can claim the next most important position within the German Reformation.‘2,3 Even more striking is his influence on the whole of Europe; directly or indirectly the basic ap- proach of his thought has put its stamp above all on the churches of Western Europe.4 Thus in recent years interest in Bucer has deservedly grown considerably;5 not least, this has been helped on by the critical new editions of his works, published and unpublished, which have appeared in the meantime6 and which are beginning to supply a la- mentable need.7
With Bucer we meet for the first time a supporter of the Reformation
in the mainstream church; the decisive impulse which made him join
the Reformation derived from his personal meeting with Luther in
Heidelberg in 1518,’ and his unwearying efforts to bring about an
agreement between the various branches of the Reformation movement,
between Luther, Zwingli and the Upper Germans,’ are evidence of the
cause to which he felt himself allied.” The fact that nevertheless the
basic approach of his theology is characteristically different from that of
Luther”” and that a series of features emerge in it which connect Bucer
with the Humanist and Spiritualist tradition indicate how fluid the
transitions are and how powerfully the external influences made their
impact even in the heart of the Reformation. The complexity of this
movement and the ‘ongoing effect of spiritual ideas’ in it” is evident,
74
for example, paramountly in a figure like Bucer, whom we must de- scribe, insofar as we see him as a successor to Luther, as a ‘disciple of Luther with a distinctive stamp’,** a typical man of the second genera- tion for whom originality is less characteristic than the recurrence of many traditional ways of thinking.13
So far there is no comprehensive account of Bucer’s theology: such an account will become possible only when his extensive work is com- pletely accessible. I4 However, the investigations of partial aspects of his work which have been produced so far show the basic features of his attitude clearly enough. H.E.Weber has coined the evocative description
‘christocentric ethical spirit mysticism’15 for Bucer’s theology and in so doing has given a series of key words to describe a general attitude the features of which we encounter to a considerable degree - and this is no coincidence - in the religious Humanism and the humanistic Spirit- ualism of the time. Our observations so far also make it easy for us to understand what needs to be done if we are to understand Bucer, which is to comprehend the unity of themes in his theological thought which are at first sight opposed. It is no coincidence that Bucer research has only seen the oppositions, either one-sidedly stressing one element at the cost of the others16 or attributing his many-sidedness to his adapt- able, mediating character. l7 We often also find a reference to the incom- pleteness of his theological views.” In reality, however, they belong together and are typical of the Humanistic religious feelings of the time, the characteristic representatives of which we have already encountered.
From the beginning Bucer’s career was moulded by Humanism. The Schlettstadt Humanist school,19 his intensive preoccupation in the mon- astery with the works of Erasmus,” his lively dealings with the Hu- manists in his immediate surroundings and further afield,*’ had basically inclined him towards an Erasmian and humanistic attitude which he never gave upp even after his decisive meeting with Luther.23 In contrast to Erasmus, however, Bucer took up central ideas of the Reformation: above all the principle of justification sola fide, the rejection of the liberum arbitrium, the totality of sin, and redemption solely through the cross of Christ.” However, these themes appear in his writings with a characteristic colouring: already in his very first writing we have the beginnings of a twofold justification. Here, in contrast to Luther, for whom the event of justification is concentrated solely on the Christ event as grasped in faith, and any human collaboration is ex- cluded, the process of justification is seen as a progress from faith understood intellectualistically as persuasio and assensus25 to sanctifica- tion which fulfils justification and the good works which emerge from it.26 After the Commentary on the Gospels of 1527, Bucer developed a regular doctrine of an ordo iusfificationis which in the Commentary on
75 Ephesians (Bibliographia Buceriuna, ed. Stupperich, 1952, no.17) is built up into a fourfold pattern which progresses from election, through the spirit-given knowledge of God and good works to the glorification of God.27 The decisive modifications over against Luther lie in the effective version, and the focus on ethics in which human action again assumes its determinative place. ** Thus the trend towards ethics has already long been recognized as the characteristic feature of Bucer’s theology.*’
Here once again we can see the close proximity of Bucer to Erasmus, in whom similarly we can find the doctrine of a twofold justification and the same stress on good works,30 though there is also the possibility of a regression to Thomistic scholasticism in which the notion of the con- cursus of causa prima and causae mediae is already presem3* Closely connected with this is Bucer’s attitude towards the Lutheran formula
‘Law and Gospel’: it has already been asserted in a variety of ways3*
that Bucer rejects this distinction as sophistical inventiveness contrary to scripture, 33 because for him the whole of scripture is lex.34 Now Muller makes it clear that this is in no way introducing a legalistic feature into ethics;35 rather, by deriving the concept on philological and exegetical grounds from the Hebrew word torah3’j Bucer is identifying
‘law’ with ‘teaching’; it is docfrina et vitae instifufio which teaches people pie atque salubriter vivendum,37 a doctrina pietatis.38 The twofold effect of the law in accordance with the Pauline scheme is preserved; but although in this context some of Paul’s statements from Rom.3 emerge, that the law does not justify39 but brings down God’s wrath (Rom.4) and contributes to the knowledge and increase of sin,40 these notions quickly end up in the use of the law as a goad, to hasten people into the arms of Christ the physician.41 Now the real office of the law is, as in Erasmus, the lex spiritualis, which is written in the hearts of those who are chosen by Christ. K.Koch observes: ‘Bucer’s concern is not so much to distinguish law and gospel as to see them together. The expres- sion which combines the two as it were as a common denominator is that of doctrina. For him the whole of scripture is teaching, both law and gospel.‘42 However, J.Muller’s view that in all this Bucer did not give up the evangelical position43 and did not leave the biblical line& is a questionable one. Christ plays a central role for his understanding of the law, but when we note how he considers Christ 1. as a teacher of the law; 2. as a model; 3. as giver of the Spirit to his followers so that they can live in accordance with the law, we see the line of the Reform- ers overshadowed by that of Erasmus which culminates in the notion of the nova lex Christi.
Another feature which is characteristic of Bucer is his Spiritualism,
which also occurs at various places. Scholars have already noted quite
emphatically the central role of pneumatology for Bucer’s theology.46
J.Muller has pointed out how Bucer’s conception of the role of the
76 Preparatory Developments Martin Bucer 77 spirit is closely connected with the intellectualizing of his concept of
faith in which fides is rendered by persuasio, faith as being convinced of the goodness of God, the mission of Christ and the validity of the promises. 47 It is the Spirit which gives this persuasio. Complete bless- edness is achieved where there is complete knowledge of God and Christ.& It is evident that for Bucer ‘the Spirit works mainly on the level of the intellect’, though the fact that the Holy Spirit cannot be controlled guarantees that Gods approach is completely grace.4v This understand- ing of the Spirit also had a decisive influence on Bucer’s hermeneutics.
Luther’s indissoluble identification of word and spirit is expressly re- jected by Bucer,a50 by themselves the outward scripture (the ‘letter’) and the proclaimed word are useless, unless inner illumination through the Spirit given by God discloses their true understanding.51 In this division between Spirit and letter we can clearly see the legacy of dualism in Bucer.52 On the other hand, in contrast to the extreme Spiritualists Bucer did not give up scripture but explicitly related the knowledge given by the Spirit to the understanding of scripture. This again leads to a two-stage pattern: the first thing needed is illumination by the Holy Spirit; understanding of the word of scripture then follows from this.53 In Bucer’s life-work holding fast to scripture occupies so exalted a place that he has been rightly described as a scriptural theologian or biblicist.54 Without question, in his emphatic return to scripture we have an expres- sion of the conviction of the humanistic call ad fontes; the normative character which Bucer ascribes to scripture corresponds with the similar aim of Erasmus.55 In his biblicism Bucer goes far beyond the Wittenberg Reformers; however, he also gives a material definition of the content of the norm of the Gospel. 56 This is also matched by his doctrine of inspiration: Muller has stressed that in Bucer there is ‘some degree of objectification of the notion of inspiration’, to the degree that in Holy Scripture the divine revelation is at our disposal in an objective way.57 Therefore normative instructions for all the spheres of human life can also be derived quite directly from scripture and conversely, doctrinal precepts which are not in accord with scripture can be shown to be false.58 However, his dualism between spirit and letter prevented Bucer from putting forward a doctrine of verbal inspiration.5v The lack of clarity in his standpoint between the heritage of spiritualism and hu- manistic enthusiasm for the sources is evident from the fact that on the other hand he energetically put forward the demand for a historical exegesis of scripture, fought against allegory and in particular attempted to regain the original significance of biblical concepts.”
Over everything stands the principle Nam et sacra doctrina proprie moralis estv61 As Miiller has shown,62 tropological exegesis, i.e. the essentially timeless application of any biblical statement to practical piety on the grounds that it is said propter nos, is the most striking
feature of Bucer’s whole exegesis. Hence his considerable proximity to Erasmus, especially in the idea of imitatio. The ethical background to his thought also provoked his particular views about natural revelation, which have been closely marked. The quotation I have just given comes from a section of the introduction to the Commentary on Romans63 in which Bucer presents his view at length, culminating in the fact that everything needful for salvation has already been revealed to the heathen.
64Bucer argues that the truth to be found among the pagan philosophers65 was communicated to them not by natural illumination,66 but through a divine revelation granted to all the elect from the begin- ning of the world. The reason he gives is that the corruption of human nature by original sin means that man cannot find his way to the image of God and the supreme virtue of loving his neighbour unless this is brought about by God in the spirit.67 Here Bucer in a bold piece of spiritual speculation can take up John 1.9 and find in this verse a statement about the Logos as the inner light which has always illumi- nated the elect.‘j* Thus Bucer strictly maintains the view that human beings are directed towards God’s gracious action? at the same time, however, he develops an overall spiritualistic conception which now allows him to find the same truth in ancient philosophy as in the Bible, only not so completely and so clearly. ” Omnia condita esse a Deo, certaque eius prudentia regi..
.eius vero restitutionem atque felicitatem omnem in eo consistere, uf naturae, hoc est Dei, de se voluntati, consentanee et congruenter
vivat.
. .sic vivens, ut sit omnibus bono, nemini malo..
.Deum sibi esse placa- tum...71 Thus here elements of Stoic popular philosophyn are incorpor- ated almost without a break into a Christian system conceived in Spiritualist terms.73 By a stress on the idea of revelation conceived of in christological and pneumatological terms74 these statements are appar- ently assimilated for the moment; however, subsequent developments will show how quickly they can become independent and could turn into the real content of the.Deistic system. Kruger has made it clear”
that Bucer finds the focal point of this universal divine revelation less in the epistemological sphere than in that of ethics: tam multa praeclara, quaque eximium ad probam uitae institutionem, momentum habent.
We should also see Bucer’s understanding of the Bible, and above all
his evaluation of the Old Testament, against this background.n In Bucer
there is a far-reaching identification of the two Testaments: both are
idem in substantia,78 for both are testimony to the one eternal divine
covena@ with the one people of GodsO and contain the one law. We
also find in Bucer the traditional line of the typological exegesis of the
Old Testament and the christological pattern of promise and fulfil-
merit.” The Old Testament people of God and its destiny are a type for
the conditions of Christianity in the present day;** furthermore - in a
very traditional way - the return from the Babylonian exile is a type
78 Preparatory Developments
and shadow of the liberation brought about by Christ.@ Nor did Bucer despise the usual prediction typology in the exegesis of particular pas- sages of the Old Testament, though he also extended the fulfilment beyond the unique Christ event down to the present day in the church.84 However, the special characteristic of Bucer’s view lies in the Logos christology which is also applied to the Old Testament saving event in a way quite analogous to the universalism of revelation demonstrated in the question of ancient philosophy: Christ was already active in person in the time of the fathers: Sunt enim ipsi per Christum servati,85 indeed,‘he was identical with Yahweh!86 Thus in essentials the whole Bible is seen along the same lines and both Testaments are accorded the same binding quality; there is an essential difference here between Bucer’s attitude and the Spiritualist tradition which is embodied in Erasmus.
On the other hand his judgment is on quite a different level from that of the typical Spiritualist: we can see this from the important place which the antithetical scheme externalspiritualia occupies in his thought.87 The division between outward and inward which already emerges in his early understanding of baptism** and which also per- meates the rest of his theology” is applied above all in exegesis, where it is used as a fixed hermeneutical rule” in order to arrive at the tro- pological application of a passage of the Bible from its historical mean- ing. Here it is a matter not only of dimming the individual fortuitous historical circumstances: ut est locus, tempus, persona, numerus..
.,ad quod turn reliquum fuerit fidei et caritatis..
. utproprie Dei praeceptum et ad nos pertinens, pronu mente cuncta amplectendum est;‘l here, an evaluation of the content is also undertaken: Turn etiam uidere dabitur, quid sibi uoluerit in lege sua Deus, non certe externa illa, et infirma atque egena elementa mundi, ceremonias scilicet illas, ritusque de rebus corporalibus..
.‘*Instead of this we have to work out the nucleus verae pietatisv3 in which the real abiding significance of the law (the Old Testament commandments) lies. Ea (lex) in tribus situ est, ut Deo fidamus, ipsum ex animo timeamus et amemus, deinde ut proximum perinde atque nos ipsos diligamus, tertium ex utroque gignitur, ut continenter ijs, quae corporis necessitas requirit, et cum decor0 utamur.94 Here already we find almost the same characteristics of a rational and ethical religion from the ancient Stoic heritage as will later become common currency in the Enlightenment. So we find the same deval- uation of everything cultic, which is peculiar to the whole of the Spirit- ualist tradition, albeit with the important nuance that Bucer retains the ceremonial commandments as the sign of an inward attitude which is intended by them. 95 Elements of this view which are to be criticized are not only the fact that it has a tendency to devalue the historica19’j but also that it stems from a dualistic understanding of the world which
79
Dalam dokumen
The Authority of the Bible and the Rise of the Modern World
(Halaman 38-42)