brought up among Christians not to hear the doctrine of his Christ and live in accordance with it...“” Thus whereas the authorities are given the task of protecting Christians even to the extent of church govern- ment, in the closing chapter, ‘On obedience to Christ’,15* with a refer- ence to the Roman emperors Constantine, Valentinian and Theodosius, they are also told that they must be obedient to Christ in his servants.
The authorities are also bound by the instruction for church and state which the servants of the word communicate from scripture in their teaching. Here again a subordination of secular to spiritual government is envisaged, which, arising out of biblicist motives, would have had immediately divisive consequences for church politics. We have to as- sent to Koc~‘s’~~ judgment that Bucer did not arrive at any clear de- marcation of both forms of government.
The same basic attitude in theology and church politics can also be
seen in the writings on the reformation of the community from the last
years in Strasbourg (1546-1549), which recently have become widely
available again thanks to the progress of the critical edition of Bucer’s
works.153a In these Memoranda to the Council, which Bucer intended
to be normative,153b the main thought is that a ‘second Reformation’ is
needed in which the fruits of the renewal of the community must be
made visible in doctrine and the renewal of life in mutual love and
penitence. Church discipline understood in this sense153‘ is to be
achieved (since the institution of the ‘churchwardens’ was not effective
enough) in two ways: first of all by gathering together all those who
seriously want to be Christians and subject themselves to an appropriate
test of their faith and way of life, to form an inner core within the
churches (the ‘Christian fellowship’), and secondly by the intervention
of the authorities, who are to see to the shaping of public life in a
Christian way, e.g. by the institution of monthly and even weekly days
of prayer and specific police measures, through the imposition of the
observance of the ten commandments.153d The pastors, too, are to cen-
sure public misdemeanours from the pulpit.‘53” Bucer could not achieve
much more in Strasbourg in the direction which he desired. Above all
the general political situation in Germany after the Augsburg Interim
claimed the energies of all those involved in another direction.153f How-
ever, towards the end of his life he was once again to have the oppor-
tunity to make his ideas known abroad: that happened during his stay
in England154 in 1549-1551. 155 The result of these efforts is the great work
De regno Christi(1550),156 according to Anrich ‘the most mature and
complete summary of his views on the Christian state, which works in
the closest collaboration with the church in realizing the rule of Christ
on earth.’ The idea of the regnum Christi, which already forms the
starting point for Bucer’s pastoral writing, is here developed into a
84 Preparatory Developments
wider-ranging general picture. In it Bucer’s basic theological ideas are once again expressed in their most divergent consequences. People have often been amazed at Bucer for his immediate sensitivity towards conditions in England and his insight into the political and economic situation of the country, which was arrived at in the briefest possible time.15* Beyond question, in important issues like the role of the absol- ute monarch and the episcopal constitution of the state church, and above all in external matters like the retaining of ornamenfs,159 with his practical instinct Bucer adapted to the English tradition.160 However, his real intentions do not lie here but in the implementation of the Reformation in this country in accordance with the principles which had already guided him in his earlier church-political activity.“jl
The concept of the regnum Christi is developed to its greatest extent in the work of Bucer’s old age. However, as Koch above all has shown 16* this extension is already there in Bucer’s basic approach. In the last resort, this Spiritualist approach which has grace coming to men directly through the Spirit that arouses faith (albeit also on the basis of scripture) in the last resort makes the church dispensible as a mediator of salvation, or rather sees that it merges into the civitas Christiana. The division of the two regimes as carried out by Luther, who sees their dialectical juxtaposition realized in the existence of every Christian, is transcended in Bucer’s monistic thought by the notion of the one regnum Christi; in the respublica Christiana we simply have the two sides of this rule in which Christ reigns in church and society through his Spirit and his law. Here again Spiritualism and legalism go together. Precisely because Bucer maintains that as the church of the elect - and this is none other than the regnum Christi - the true church is a heavenly invisible entity, he not only stresses the need for the kingdom of Chist to be incarnate in a visible church but also requires that the whole of the life of society be shaped in accordance with his will.163 The task of seeing to this devolves above all on the authorities, and therefore in England on the sovereign: Bucer begins the final chap- ter of his work with the admonition: ut aeterno et solo salutari Dei verbo doceremur, Serenissima Maiestas Tua, Christianique reges, principesque re- rumque publicarum moderatores et possint et debeant beatum filii Dei et unici sospicatoris nostri regnum populis suis solide restituere, hoc est, cum religionis, turn reliquae reipublicae uniuersae administrationem ex Christi seruatoris nostri et regis summi sententia reuocure, instaurure et confirmare. The authorities are equally responsible for both realms: the life of the church and that of politics and society; Bucer’s ideal is the harmonious collaboration of the two regimes. He deals at length in one particular chapter’& with what the two realms have in common and what is peculiar to each of them. Common to both of them is above all their aim: Commune habet regnorum mundi et Chrisfi administrafio, ut et reges mundi eo omnia instituere
Martin Bucer 85
et referre debeant, quo ciues suos efficiant pios et iustos, qui Deum suum rite agnoscant et colant, sintque proximis suis in cunctis actionibus suis uere salu- tares.166 Concern for worship and love of neighbour, the two tablets of the Decalogue, are also transferred to the earthly authorities. The degree to which the concepts have a strong ethical colouring is striking, as is also the way in which the task of both the church and the authorities is understood in terms of education and government. The difference between the regnum Christi (or the regnum Dei) and the regna mundi lies above all in the fact that this kingdom of Christ has its own goods in a fuller and more perfect form than the kingdom of this world.167 The other common tasks - punishment and the excommunication of the wicked, and care for bodily needs (ne quis omnino inter suos his ege&*) - make it clear just how fluid the boundaries are. Finally Bucer stresses the mutual subjugation of the two kingdoms in order to emphasize their close collaboration.169 The subjugation of the church to the state is limited to the obligation of even the clergy to pay taxes and levies (with a reference to Rom.l3), in accordance with mediaeval tradition.17’
More important is the subordination of the authorities to the kingdom of Christ; the basis of this is baptism: as all the inhabitants of England including the king are baptized, they are all incorporated into the king- dom and obliged to hear the teaching proclaimed by its servants and to subject themselves to its discipline.171 The latter is illustrated by the penance of the emperor Theodosius after the massacre of Saloniki.‘”
Using baptism as a basis makes it possible to understand the church
as a people’s church and to identify it de facto with the state, although
this really produces an irresolvable conflict with the idea of predestin-
ation and the invisible church of the elect which follows from it. How-
ever, from the fact that everyone is baptized is also derived the right
and indeed the duty to preach Christ’s teaching to all.173 Thus the
Reformation in England is to be carried out above all by sending preach-
ers into all areas.174 Everyone is to be obliged to hear the sermons, even
though state pressure is needed to compel them to.‘75 The system of
the state church in Bucer’s programme, in which Bucer, too, accepts the
situation prevailing in England since the Law of Supremacy of 1534, is
evident not only in the fact that the king has the task of restoring the
regnum Christi (since this cannot be expected from the bishops),17‘j but
also in the way in which the half-yearly synods are to be composed half
of laity called by the king and that if possible they are occasionally to
be led by the king himself.ln With their task that uitia corrigantur et
pietas omnium instauretur, they participate in the church’s penitential
discipline, which is the task of the church alongside doctrines and
sacraments as the third nota ecclesiae.178~17v The royal officials also have
the same task; they are entrusted with the education of the whole
people ut eius scilicet populi et ciues a puero per prudentem et fidelem edu-
86
cationem
,optimas leges..
.instituantur, adsuefiant atque impellantur ad uerum Dei cultum, ad omnimodam uitae sanctimoniam, ad omnem charitatem, hu- manitatem et beneficentiam..
. ‘180As we see from the themes which are discussed individually, the whole of public and private life is subject to a fixed system of institutional control which again in practice transcends the readiness presupposed at the beginning in the fulfilment of the lex charitatis.
In his description of the regnum Christi, Bucerlgl bases himself on two models: the Platonic idea of the state’** and the Bible, or more precisely the Old Testament. In the establishment of the kingdom of Christ in England Bucer again calls to life the ordinance of the covenant which was the model at the time of the Old Testament. Therefore the rulers of England are reminded of the Old Testament kings David, Solomon, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Josiah and so on in the solemn invitation to carry out the Reformation in their country.*83 Consequently the ten command- ments of the Decalogue are mentioned as the basis not only of church ordinances but also of civil law. lg4 It is characteristic that this is im- mediately explained on the principles of Plato and Cicero;185 in conclu- sion it can be said of them that Haec iuris sunt naturae, non tantum Euangeln. ‘Y”*~ For Bucer the Old Testament is the model and norm for the shaping of all circumstances; however, the criterion for the paral- lelism is largely humanistic ethical thought drawn from ancient sources.187 It is striking how often Bucer can refer, for example, to Deuteronomy. ‘** He often reverts to the commandment to keep holy the seventh day,.lg9 here the Old Testament regulations for the sabbath, transferred to the Christian Sunday, are declared to be binding in the strict sense.190 However, the Old Testament regulations are also nor- mative for secular law; this happens, for example, in the case of those guilty of conduct incurring the death penalty, which includes blas- phemers, sabbath breakers, children who rebel against their parents, adulterers and those who bear false witness, with reference to the relevant Old Testament regulations.“’ A closely knit system of authority for guarding over the life-style of all citizens is to be set up, the model for which is the appointment of judges by King Jehoshaphat of Judah according to II Chron.19.4ff.1v2; this is an inappropriate model, like the citation of the appointment of judges according to Ex.18 and Deut.16.18ff.1v3 for an institution which in reality imitates the Platonic phylakes.194 However, Bucer does not have in mind a mechanical adop- tion of Old Testament institutions and customs, but follows here the principles which are mentioned above:lv5 Fateor, Mosi legibus ciuilibus sicut et caeremonialibus datis ueteri populo nos libertate Christi donatos non teneri, quod quidem ad externas attinet circumstantias et mundi elementa, tamen, cum multae possint leges magis esse honestae, iustae ac salutates, quam auas Deus ipse &lit, aeterna sapientia et bonitas, eo modo ex Dei sententia
Martin Bucer 87
nostris rebus atque actionibus applicentur, non uideo, cur Christiani in rebus,
quae ad ipsorum quoque usum pertinent, non debeant magis Dei, quam ullorum
hominum leges sequi. 196 It is interesting that in his later extended com-
ments about marital questions Bucer to a large extent applies Roman
law;197 after the Old Testament period, he sees his ideas about the
formation of the kingdom of Christ already prefigured in the Constan-
tinian period.198
P A R T I I
The Crisis over the Authority of the Bible
in England
1
The Age of the Puritans
Bucer’s ideas about the ideal form of the English state as expressed in his work De regno Christi, dedicated to Edward VI, already bring us right to the heart of the problems connected with religious and cultural trends involved in the English Reformation and further internal and external developments in the Church of England in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In the history of theology this period is indis- solubly linked with the name of the ‘Puritans’.
(a) Problems for research
1. Those who use the term ‘Puritans’ immediately find themselves confronted with a mass of questions and a vast amount of research which in many respects seems to lead nowhere. Even the term ‘Puritan’
itself is hotly disputed and at first sight seems to need some definition unless, like the Georges,’ who use it only in parentheses, one dismisses it as irrelevant.* Behind this rejection is the notion that the distinction between ‘Anglicans’ and ‘Puritans’ as two theologically opposed parties in the English church from as early as the time of Elizabeth I,3 long taken for granted, is unfounded and that rather the whole of earlier English Protestantism displays a basic Calvinistic approach.4 In fact in the sphere of doctrine the common ground between the Conformists and the Nonconformists is considerable even as late as the time of Laud;
despite the special characteristics of the English Reformation,5 the state
church under Elizabeth and the first Smarts is a Reformation church.6
Nevertheless, the Georges’ verdict must be rejected as being too sweep-
ing and too one-sided, and Puritanism must be allowed an existence as
an independent entity. But this means that its character must be sought
in other areas than that of basic doctrines which it holds in common
with its opponents in church politics. Its activity seems above all to
appear in the various public actions, declarations and manifestos which
its representatives presented at different times between 1550 and 1604
92 The Crisis over the Authority of the Bible in England
- the dates which mark out the first main period of the development.
It was therefore natural that quite a number of historians should have dealt with Puritanism by depicting the outward course of events. It was the impressive consistency and decisiveness of Puritan action which first succeeded in attracting the interest of modern observers.7 W.Haller took things a step further with his work The Rise of Puritanism,’ by referring to the widespread preaching activity of the Puritans as the real centre of their action and the deeper cause of the fact that despite all opposition, in the longer term they gained the upper hand in the church. However, this again brings us back to the question of the central content of this preaching and of how it differed from the message of the conformist church. One important point on the way to an answer seems to be that for the Puritans the implementation of preaching in general and in all places was a basic requirement which they also sought to fulfil with a particular method of organization.’ With its argument that a clergy ‘such as can read the scriptures and homilies well unto the people‘lo is quite enough, and the ordinance that the number of preach- ers for each county should be limited to three or four,l’ the queen’s reaction to these concerns’* shows not just the effect of domestic poli&
tical considerations but above all a fundamentally different view of the church.
2. However, before we can concern ourselves with this theme we must consider a basic problem of research connected above all with the fact that in the last decades as well as historians, or rather, often within their ranks, social and economic historians in particular have been preoccupied with the Puritans. No one can deny that as a result we have gained many valuable insights into the economic and social situ- ation of England in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and into the connections between social developments and the situation in the church politics of the time. l3 The nature of this research was a necessary reaction to the one-sided orientation of nineteenth-century history writ- ing on the history of ideas. l4 The question is, however, whether at this level it is possible to see the nucleus of the phenomenon of Puritanism as a movement directed from the depths by the impulse of faith.15 By contrast, modern secularized thought-patterns often lead to complete incomprehension of the deeper motives of the thought and action of a period in which faith and the world were still closely connected and theology could assert its central position unassailed.16
In its origins, the treatment of Puritanism in terms of the sociology of religion, the history of culture and later secular economic history is closely associated with the name of Max Weber.17 From him derives the well-known and extremely influential theory that the ethics of ‘ascetical Protestantism”* played a decisive role in the rise of the spirit of capi- talism as a result of its ‘inner-worldly asceticism’.19 This was because
The Age of the Puritans 93
by virtue of its doctrine of predestination Calvinism called for the ‘need to prove faith in one’s worldly profession’,20 ‘thus providing a psycho- logical starting point for a systematic and rational ethical formation for the whole of life’*l and by attaching greater value to work and the profit motive ‘directly influenced the development of the capitalist lifestyle’.**
At about the same time23 this approach was pursued further by E.Troeltsch in the large-scale phenomenological treatment of his Social Doctrines of the Christian Churches24 and also extended to the various subsidiary trends of Protestantism, to which Weber himself had already directed his attention in his article on the sects.25 Since then he has influenced a large number of historians, church historians and economic historians, including scholars who, like R.H.Tawnef6 and M.Walzer,27 are inclined to take a diametrically opposed view to that of Troeltsch, namely that Puritanism represented a repressive ideology which (at least in its original form) had first to be overcome before the liberal spirit of capitalism could develop. However, we have to ask how far the development of this whole trend of research2* is not the history of a misunderstanding, at least in terms of Max Weber’s own intentions.
The misunderstanding had already arisen during his lifetime among his first critics29 and was expressly rejected by Weber himself in his counters to these criticisms: Weber was in no way concerned to derive capitalism in a straight line from ‘ascetical Protestantism’;30 he was merely con- cerned to demonstrate a way of life which had a religious determination and which, along with other components, produced the prior conditions for ‘the development of humanity’31 which was later to prove to be the supporting element of the capitalist system.32 People were virtually standing his intentions on their head when they ignored the particular state of the discussion to which Weber wanted to make a contribution.
He sought to put forward an alternative theory directed in particular against the Marxist interpretation of capitalism: not just the economic factors but also the personality structure of the people involved seemed important to him, and in his article he wanted above all to draw atten- tion to the significance of the religious elements for the development of the psychological frame of mind which made it possible for man to play his role in the growth of capitalism.
Had people taken Weber at his word, they would have had to recog- nize that although his first article was conceived with inadequate meth- odology and partially erroneous presuppositions,33 it represented a bold attempt to demonstrate the significance of a theological factor for the development of modern intellectual attitudes. He himself shows that questions from the sphere of theology were of fundamental importance to him in a small note to his first reply to H.K.Fischer: ‘I would expect such criticism (in contrast to Fischer’s, rejected as being inappropriately
‘psychological’) which many people would perhaps find to be extremely
Dalam dokumen
The Authority of the Bible and the Rise of the Modern World
(Halaman 44-50)