Abstract
A survey of the lectures as a whole demonstrates that the entire series was an exercise in the teaching of theology that constituted an expression of the biblical humanist program. This is clear in Bucer’s attention to text-critical matters; philological issues; matters of grammar and rhetoric; attention to the author in context; his use of Scripture to interpret Scripture; and the manner in which he used non-Scriptural authorities. In looking at the lectures as a whole, we also find that he treated of redemption accomplished in the first three chapters, and then redemption applied in the remaining chapters that he completed in Cambridge (through Chapter 5 in his notes, partly through Chap. 4 in his actual lectures). Attention must also be given to his use of the loci communes method as a tool in his exposition, an interpretive method derived from Renaissance humanism but now broadened to include not only interpretation of the text, but also doing theology in an exegetical context.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
The discussion will not aim at presenting all aspects of Bucer’s method of biblical interpretation, but only those aspects that are prominent in the Cambridge lectures. Note as well that because the primary concern in this chapter is with the lectures as a whole as an exercise in the practice of theology and not with how Bucer interpreted Ephesians per se, there will be minimal reference to the other exegetes with whom we have chosen to compare Bucer. Comparisons with respect to interpretive matters will be reserved for Chaps. 6 and 7 below, where we take up Bucer’s treatment of specific passages.
- 2.
- 3.
From early in his career, his stated goal in commentaries was to expound the words of the text in their “natural meaning” [germano sensu]; for instance, see the introduction to his 1527 Gospels commentary (Bucer 1527a, [A 10] recto). In his 1529 Psalms commentary, he affirmed the importance of a correct interpretation in reference to the historical context [iuxta historicum] (Bucer 1529, a6 verso).
- 4.
We will return to this issue in the next two chapters when the pattern of Bucer’s exegesis is examined more closely.
- 5.
Compare what follows in this section with Hobbs (2009, 59–69), where he surveys Vermigli’s application of the methods of the Rhenish “school” in a number of his commentaries.
- 6.
In the survey of Bucer’s lectures that follows, the specific instances cited are only meant to be representative examples.
- 7.
- 8.
In his earlier commentaries he either provided a fresh translation of his own from the original language (as in the case of the 1527 Ephesians commentary), or—more often than not—used the text of Erasmus (Hobbs 1991, 31). We might note here that for the Old Testament, he used the Rabbinic Bible of Daniel Bomberg, printed in Venice (Hobbs 1991, 27).
- 9.
“Filii irae.) Hebraismus est, ut filii mortis: & significat addictos gehennae, damnatos, haeredes irae Dei, sine ulla exceptione ne electorum quidem.”
- 10.
“A testamentis promissionum.) Hebraica vox
placitum sive pactum significat. Et quia testamentum est species placitorum & pollicitationum, ideo nova Scriptura testamentum est appellata.... Verum διαθήκη 
significat idem quod foedus quale principes ineunt cum subditis, quibus ex fide obedientibus promittit vicissim princeps pacem & commodam vitam.” - 11.
“Ac primum διαθήκη idem significat quod
Hebraeis, quod Hieronymus rectius vertit pactum, minus autem recte quidam verterunt, testamentum.” - 12.
See, for instance, Bucer (1562, 55B and 78E), quoted above.
- 13.
To name one example, in reference to Ephesians 2:2: “Nunc agens in filiis contumacibus.) Graece
[sic], substantivo pro adiectivo more Hebraico.” (Bucer 1562, 53C–54D). - 14.
“Complectitur autem haec epistola tria genera, nempe, admonitorium, doctrinale & exhortatorium.”
- 15.
As noted in Chap. 4, Bucer did not take a favorable view of figurative meaning as handled by allegorical exegesis; see especially his short work on biblical interpretation in connection with preaching (Bucer 1946, especially 54–56). On the other hand, as we noted above in Chap. 4, he did affirm typological interpretation, as seen in an excursus following his treatment of Ephesians 5:22–23 as found in his 1527 Ephesians commentary (Bucer 1527b, 101 recto-103 recto/N5 recto-[N7] recto), and at greater length in his John commentary of 1528 in a locus following the interpretation of John 3:14 (Bucer 1528, 79 recto-87 verso/[K7] recto-[L7] verso).
- 16.
- 17.
“Spiritus est afflatus Dei in nobis, energia, & vis divina, quae in nobis salutem perficit nostram. Vocatur Spiritus, metaphora sumpta a vento spirante vehementissime, propter eius in nobis efficaciam.”
- 18.
“In dilecto adiecit, quia scilicet in eo nihil habuit quod odio prosequeretur pater. Et est hic antonomasia, qua declaratur Christus unice dilectus a patre, per quem oporteat diligi, & in gratiam recipi omnes, quos Deus in gratiam recipit.”
- 19.
“Vos, inquit, quondam gentes in carne vocabimini praeputium: Id est, eratis immundi, abominandi, alieni a salute, nascebamini alieni a populo Dei. Praeputium, id est, incircuncisi, est Metonymia.”
- 20.
“Substantia ergo est eadem, sed conditiones sunt variatae. Ratio est nova, quia gentes in foedere sunt comprehensae, & revelatio plenior facta est. Locus igitur Ieremiae non simpliciter, sed secundum quid est intelligendus, quae figura frequenter in sacris litteris occurrit. Sic & Christus loquitur: Doctrina mea non est mea, quatenus homo sum, qualem vos me tantum consideratis. Vides hyperbolicum illum sermonem fuisse & restringendum deinde esse. Sic foedus quod Ieremias vocat novum, secundum quid est novum, nempe quatenus non iam amplius Iudaeorum tantum Deus, quemadmodum olim notus tantum in Iudea erat, sed etiam Gentium. Iudaeorum quidem reliquias servat, at Gentes quoque assumptas illis in eodem foedere coniunxit.”
- 21.
This last is a lengthy discussion of the words spoken at the Last Supper as the bread and wine were distributed by Christ, along with analogies to the use of synedoche in connection with the rite of circumcision at the establishment of the Abrahamic covenant. It is worth noting that these were among the last words Bucer spoke from the professorial lectern.
- 22.
“Accedet hinc quoque lucis nonnihil ad intelligendum scripturae sensum, si perpendamus non modo quid dicatur, verumetiam a quo dicatur, cui dicatur, quibus verbis dicatur, quo tempore, qua occasione, quid praecedat, quid consequatur.”
- 23.
- 24.
These totals are based on the number of times Bucer furnished a citation (generally of a book and chapter), the simplest way of counting references. The totals would no doubt be greater if allusions and partial quotations (without citation) were taken into account.
- 25.
For instance, in connection with his discussion of justification: “Loci autem, qui potissimum considerandi sunt pro significatione & vi huius vocis sunt, Isa. 50, Roman. 8.5.6. Act. 13” (Bucer 1562, 61A).
- 26.
For instance, in his discussion of the abrogation of the Law: “Christus ait, Non veni, ut solverem, sed ut implerem Legem. & Paul. ad Romanos 3. dicit, se stabilire Legem. In 2. autem Corinth.3. abrogatum dicit ministerium Mosis. Et Roman.7. dicit, Nos esse liberos a Lege: & multis aliis in locis apud Paulum huiusmodi de stabilitione legis, & eius abrogatione leguntur” (Bucer 1562, 80F).
- 27.
For instance, in his discussion of the abrogation of the Law he very briefly exegetes I Corinthians 10 (Bucer 1562, 77A).
- 28.
We will examine his use of this principle in some detail in the following two chapters.
- 29.
Of the 168 explicit citations of the New Testament, 119 were of passages from Paul’s epistles (58 of them from Romans).
- 30.
He also cited Irenaeus (c. 115-c. 202), Tertullian (fl. 200), Origen (c. 185-c. 251), Cyprian (c.200–258), Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260-c. 339), Hilary of Poitiers (c. 315-c. 367), Basil of Caesarea (330–379), Ambrose (c. 339–397, although some of these citations were from Ambrosiaster), Jerome, and Gennadius I of Constantinople (d. 471).
- 31.
These remarks are only intended to point to the place of the Fathers in the Praelectiones. The brief summary does not say anything about the actual use he made of these authorities, which is a different and more involved matter.
- 32.
See the discussion of this in Chap. 4 above.
- 33.
See below in Chap. 6, where there is a brief discussion of the structure of Aquinas’s analysis of Ephesians 1; this will illustrate the rigorous character of his approach.
- 34.
- 35.
The comments of Bugenhagen (1524) were oriented more towards key doctrines with minimal attention to the text (a pattern seen in Melanchthon, about which more in the next section of this chapter). Calvin (1548, 1965) was concerned with exposition of the text and referred readers to his Institutes for more extensive doctrinal considerations. Bullinger (1539), too, was more intent on commentary than doctrinal discussion, though in this regard his work was closer to Bucer’s. In respect of all of these commentators (save Melanchthon), this point will become clear in the following two chapters.
- 36.
The context for this phrase (taken from Bucer 1562, 93B) will be discussed below; it serves as Bucer’s own summation of what Paul sets forth in the first half of the Letter.
- 37.
Whether this heading reflects Bucer’s notes, or was an editorial decision of Tremellius, cannot be determined.
- 38.
“Primus locus Theologiae, quem Paulus hac epistola tractat, est de Electione nostri ad haereditatem aeternam. Revocat enim hac Epistola Ephesiis in memoriam beneficia, quae Deus illis contulerat: Ergo ab omnium primo, & maximo incipit, nimirum ab Electione & complexu aeterno, quo ipsos & omnes suos, ante omne tempus, ad vitam & salutem aeternam complexus est. Huius causam efficientem dicit esse meram gratiam Dei, & meritum Christi. […] Causae finales sunt, vitae sanctificatio, & gloria Dei.” It is interesting to observe the use of the Aristotelian language of causality in this passage. This locus will receive extended consideration in Chap. 6 below.
- 39.
“Est autem in hac Epistola scopus, incrementum pietatis, non solum in cognitione, sed etiam in praxi, tam in ipsis Ephesiis, quam in nobis....”
- 40.
“Totum salutis nostrae ordinem explicat & declarat, quomodo oporteat nos participes fieri aeternae electionis.” It should be noted that he briefly touches on two other minor loci in connection with verse 9, both dealing with the mystery of God’s will (Bucer 1562, 25A).
- 41.
Curiously, Bucer did not mention the phrase ordo salutis in his introductory lectures.
- 42.
It should be noted that while the concept of an order of salvation was established by Bucer’s time, the exact phrase, ordo salutis, was not. It has been thought that the first usage of the exact phrase was in 1554, by Heinrich Bullinger, and that the first extensive development of the phrase in a dogmatic context was in 1723 by J. F. Buddeus and J. Carpov (Steiger 1990:25/3–4, 372). Bucer’s use of the term here clearly predates that of Bullinger. For a recent treatment of the origins of the ordo, see Muller (2012, 161–201).
- 43.
The terms he used were much the same as earlier: “that they might believe to a greater extent, and might be grateful throughout their whole life” [ut magis fiderent, & grati essent tota vita]. He mentioned the scopus at 29B as well, in much the same manner. Clearly, the linking of knowledge and life were of major importance to Bucer: this exhibits strong affinities with biblical humanism and Erasmus.
- 44.
“Ordinem salutis nostrae describit. Omnium prima est electio: deinde per Evangelium vocatio efficax, & regeneratrix. Fides & spes, quibus simul est coniuncta charitas, audito verbo veritatis.”
- 45.
The locus on faith—in the context of the exegesis of 1:3–18, and in the separate discussion that follows 1:21—will be examined in greater detail in Chap. 7 below.
- 46.
He notes in passing two minor loci, both concerning angelic beings (good and evil), for which he provides a list of texts where the reader or listener should seek fuller information.
- 47.
Thus the opening sentence of this treatment begins: “Here the entire matter of the body must be considered....” [Hic tota ratio corporis consideranda…]: Bucer (1562, 36D).
- 48.
This treatment of the Church will be returned to later in this chapter in a discussion of Bucer’s locus method. His teaching on this doctrinal point was undoubtedly what prompted Young, Sedgwick and Perne to seek a disputation in June 1550: see above, Sect. 3.1.2.
- 49.
As it appears in the printed text:
In secundo capite tractantur quinque loci pernecessarii, ut probe cognoscantur.
Primus, de noxa peccati, in quo nati sumus omnes, […] quam late pateat, quanta damna adferat: usque ad haec verba: Sed Deus cum dives est &c.
Alter locus de restitutione nostri, & iustificationis mysterio.
Tertius de bonis operibus, eorum necessitate, & veris eorum causis. Deinde est amplificatio vitii naturae nostrae, & exaggerat perniciem peccati, atque ita est regressio ad primum locum.
Quartus locus de unione nostri cum veteri populo Dei, cum quo unum templum Dei sumus.
Quintus de abrogatione ceremoniarum legis Mosaicae.
- 50.
In later Reformed dogmatics, justification followed faith in the ordo salutis, and was in turn followed by sanctification (some mention of which could have been made by Bucer with reference to sin and good works). Further, when Bucer took up the discussion of the mortification of the old man and the putting on of the new (that is, sanctification) in Ephesians 4 (Bucer 1562, 108D and 162D–170B), there was no reference to the ordo.
- 51.
For instance, at the beginning of the second locus, Bucer said: “The second locus concerns justification; it is brief, to be sure, but in words very forceful and very clear....” [Alter locus est de Iustificatione, brevis quidem, sed verbis vehementissimus & expressissimus....] At the end of the third locus and the beginning of the fourth, Bucer stated: “Thus far the third locus. The fourth locus concerns our wonderful union with the people of old, on account of which the ceremonial Law was abolished, which separated us from them: but concerning ceremonies, [this subject] will be discussed in the last locus.” [Hucusque de tertio loco. Quartus locus, est de admirabili coniunctione nostri cum veteri populo, propter quam sublata est lex ceremonialis, quae nos ab illis discernebat: sed de ceremoniis postremo loco agetur.] See Bucer (1562, 58 E and 70F, respectively).
- 52.
See Sect. 5.3.2 below for more on this locus.
- 53.
At the same time, it is possible that Bucer’s own illness had a role to play in his abbreviated treatment of Ephesians 3. After a good start at the beginning of 1550, Bucer fell seriously ill by March and had to curtail his lectures: this circumstance may well have contributed to the relative paucity of material for his treatment of the chapter. See the discussion in Chap. 3 above concerning the interruption of Bucer’s teaching by illness in his first months in England.
- 54.
“In tertio capite continentur, Amplificatio admirabilis & ardentissimi pectoris, qua munus ac beneficium divinum amplificat, in eo quod ad gentes propagatum sit Evangelium tanta face, ut nec maiori nec pari unquam antea. Atque inter amplificandum commendat suum ministerium, de dispensatione Evangelii sibi commissa ad ampliorem in Ephesiis fidem erga Evangelium Christi. Naturam praeterea fidei & fiduciae in Dominum paucis, sed clare & perspicue commemorat. Postremo subiungit orationem, qua orat, ut detur illis posse percipere quam plenissime Dei erga eos dilectionem, ac simul docet necessarium esse orare, & quid orandum.”
- 55.
“Per mysterium Christi intelligit totam doctrinam de Deo, & nostra salute. Et certe duobus prioribus capitibus omnia creditu ad salutem necessaria docentur.”
- 56.
De vi et usu sacri ministerii takes up 108F–157A, and the Exomologesis, 157A–162D. See the discussion in Sect. 3.3.2 above of the evidence for this portion of the lectures, where it is argued that the latter text was not likely part of Bucer’s lectures.
- 57.
Here he looks ahead as well to the link between this locus and that part of Ephesians 5 where Paul dealt with the duties of married persons: “Quam exhortationem producit ad bonam usque quinti capitis partem, usque ad eum locum, ubi de officio coniugum disserit.”
- 58.
“Studentes observare unitatem spiritus &c.) In quibus verbis continetur summa primi loci.” It was this verse that Bucer expounded at length in the Explicatio found in Hubert (1577, 504–538). It is interesting to note the order in which Bucer proceeds through the text: he moves from verse 1 to verse 3, and then goes back to verse 2, after which he takes up verse 4 (Bucer 1562, 102E–104E); the locus continues to 105A.
- 59.
The text reads: “Now—suitably, after the prior locus concerning our unity among ourselves—he [Paul] crosses over to the locus concerning the sacred ministry of the Church.” [Iam commode a priore loco de unitate nostri inter nos, transit ad locum de sancto Ecclesiae ministerio….]
- 60.
“Superest nunc tertius locus, ad quid sit institutum ecclesiasticum ministerium de quo sequitur.”
- 61.
See the discussion regarding the text-critical issues concerning this portion of the lectures in Sect. 3.3.1 above. To very briefly recapitulate, it is suggested that De vi et usu sacri ministerii was not in its original form part of the lectures per se, but instead a partially completed treatise Bucer had brought with him to England and thus had to hand. It should be noted, however, that it conformed to his original intentions as seen in the prefatory outline.
- 62.
“Nunc, postquam locum ad Corinthios cum loco quem prae manibus habemus, contulimus, et pauca quae notanda esse videbantur, notavimus, de vi & usu sacri Ministerii, prolixior nobis tractatio instituenda videtur.”
- 63.
- 64.
Compare with Hubert (1577, 556–578). Banck does not have notes on this section of the lectures.
- 65.
Compare with Hubert (1577, 578–594). Banck (1551) divides this section into two: the first has the title, “Hactenus summatim de ministerio” (fols. 7–21); the second is entitled “De vi, et usu sacri ministerii” (fols. 21–33). Hubert (1577, 586), adds another heading that does not appear in Tremellius’s text: “DE VI ET EFFICACIA, VEROQUE USU MINISTERIORUM OMNIUM IN GENERE.” This corresponds to the second section noted here in Banck’s manuscript.
- 66.
- 67.
- 68.
- 69.
This is what subsequently became Exomologesis sive Confessio de S. Eucharistia aphoristice Scripta. As we have seen already (Sect. 3.3.2), there are grounds for questioning the inclusion of this material as part of the lectures themselves. Neither Hubert nor Banck suggest that Bucer taught the material as presented in these aphorisms.
- 70.
“Posteaquam de sacro ministerio Paulus…disseruit, ad tertium locum descendit, qui est de vetere homine exeundo cum omnibus suis concupiscentiis, estque perpetua illa exhortatio quam producit usque ad locum quinti capitis de officio coniugum.”
- 71.
The final verse he dealt with in this chapter was Ephesians 4:31: “Et maledicentia tollatur a vobis cum omni malitia.” Nevertheless, the outline of the chapter was in harmony with Bucer’s sketch in the introduction (Bucer 1562, 6F–7A).
- 72.
So too Bucer’s earlier outline (Bucer 1562, 7A).
- 73.
- 74.
It has been argued recently that Erasmus employed loci for the purposes of historical-exegetical study rather than theology. They were taken over by early Reformers and used for dogmatic, proto-systematic ends, but this was not, it is further argued, Erasmus’s aim (Christ-von Wedel 2013, 86 and 90).
- 75.
- 76.
- 77.
As he wrote in the dedicatory letter to the 1521 edition of the Loci communes: “[T]he book is to function more as an index than a commentary. I am therefore merely stating a list of the topics to which a person roaming through Scripture should be directed. Further, I am setting forth in only a few words the elements on which the main points of Christian doctrine are based. I do this not to call students away from the Scriptures to obscure and complicated arguments but, rather, to summon them to the Scriptures if I can” (Melanchthon 1969, 19 [reprinted by permission of the publisher]).
- 78.
- 79.
For this characterization of Melanchthon’s commentaries, see Wengert (1987, 212).
- 80.
An authoritative treatment of Calvin’s method is Muller (2000), especially chapters 2, 4, 6, and 8. Muller also treats Calvin briefly in a broader discussion of the loci method in Muller (2003, 2, 74–76). Still very useful is Parker (1993), especially chapters 3 and 4. Also important is McKee (1991).
- 81.
He also mentioned Bullinger as another esteemed commentator on Romans, but passed over him when it came to his comments on method, and focused his critique on Melanchthon and Bucer.
- 82.
See Parker (1993, 85–90) for a discussion of Calvin’s comments on Melanchthon and Bucer.
- 83.
- 84.
This is the third edition, to which references below are made. I have consulted the first and second editions (Vermigli 1558 and 1560). I have consulted as well the 1568 English translation of Sir Henry Billingsley, Most Learned and Fruitfull Commentaries upon the Epistle of S. Paul to the Romanes (Vermigli 1568b). It should be noted, again, that Vermigli also lectured on I Corinthians while at Oxford, but the focus here will be on his Romans lectures.
- 85.
- 86.
See also Billingsley’s translation in Verimgli (1568b, 287 [not 285] recto-312 verso [predestination], 367 verso-410 verso [justification]). On the lectures on Romans and these loci on predestination and justification, see the introductory discussion by Frank James in Vermigli (2003, xv–xliv), who also furnishes a presentation of these loci (Vermigli 2003, 87–230). On Martyr’s sojourn more generally, see McNair (1980); Loach (1986); and MacCulloch (2002).
- 87.
See also Vermigli (1568b, Bii recto-Bii verso). However, it is worth noting that he began each chapter in the body of the commentary with brief attention to the methodus of Paul in what follows.
- 88.
- 89.
It has been argued that this more scholastic form is an implicit departure from biblical exegesis as the primary context for theology (Donnelly 1976, 64). To this, Frank James—correctly, I think—responds that what Vermigli does is not a move beyond the text, but instead an effort to summarize and thus clarify the argument put forth by the biblical writer (James 2003, xxii, fn. 39 [where he also cites Donnelly’s contention]). See also McLelland (2007, 9–10), and Muller (2003, 2, 72–73); Muller notes how in Vermigli one observes the trajectory from exegesis to identification of loci to subsequent organization of loci in a more systematic fashion—though in the case of Vermigli, this last step was not one he undertook himself.
- 90.
Note, in reference to the shape of the loci, Frank James maintains that the ordered structure of the loci does not of itself make him a scholastic (Vermigli 2003, xxii, fn. 39).
- 91.
This may, incidentally, shed light on Bucer’s own disjunctive loci, though I think there are other factors that came into play in his case. And to turn the analogy around, it could be that Vermigli, like Bucer, did expound on these loci in the course of his lectures, but was using material he had to hand which he had previously composed for another use, but which seemed especially pertinent to the moment. It is also worth noting that in the case of both men, the extended discussion has something of the appearance of an arbitrary placement in the course of the wider exposition. As sometimes the case with Bucer, it is not entirely clear why Vermigli chose to treat the two loci where he did—it could be argued that predestination might have been as logically dealt with in the context of Romans 8, and justification in the context of Romans 3 or 4, rather than (respectively) Romans 9, and Romans 11.
- 92.
The disjunctive character of the locus on sacred ministry could be attributed in part to the possibility that it was an independent work pressed into service for the lectures; see the discussion of this in Chap. 3 above.
- 93.
- 94.
The present study does not include the discussion on the sacred ministry, primarily because it was likely a treatise originally written to serve another end, and was not intentionally composed for these lectures.
- 95.
“Hic tota ratio corporis consideranda, quae nos maximarum rerum admonent in coniunctione Christi nobiscum.” Wright (1972, 228n1) suggests “admonent” be read as “admonet” or “admoneat.”
- 96.
For instance, Bucer (1562, 39B–C) refers to Ephesians 4:2.
- 97.
This is not to suggest that the discussion is abstract or speculative; it was, rather, intensely practical in its thrust.
- 98.
It is worth commenting that although the discussion that follows is in the form of refutation of a number of Catholic positions, it does not have the rigorous character of the disputatio that one finds in scholastic treatises or, for that matter, in Vermigli.
- 99.
Like the treatment of the Church it is both systematic and practical. Good biblical humanist that he is, Bucer has little time for speculative discussions in theology.
- 100.
See, for example, the battery of texts to which he refers (with brief exegesis) in connection with his discussion of the abrogation of the Law (Bucer 1562, 80E–85A).
- 101.
Again, a development that took place with the work of Vermilgi, though only after his death.
- 102.
This was so in all editions. The list of loci was relatively short in the earlier editions, but noticeably longer in the 1536 edition.
- 103.
The topics are included in the exposition without a separate heading, apart from a marginal note indicating the discussion. For instance, “De Abrogatione Legis” in Bucer (1536b, 118–127/[k5] verso-l4 recto). Here, the discussion is in context of Mt 5:19, “quisquis soluerit.”
- 104.
It also is apparent that unlike the other commentaries we have considered (including the Praelectiones) the Romans commentary was not based on lectures, or at least was not the immediate product of lectures. He labored on it between 1534 and 1536 when he had time amidst his many other duties (Eells 1931, 196).
- 105.
Indeed, he goes so far to say in the title: “in which as the Apostle treated the principal topics of the whole of theology most accurately and completely as possible, so in this volume the greater part of the entirety not so much of Pauline, but of the whole of sacred philosophy is explained” [in qua ut Apostolus praecipuos totius Theolgiae locos tractavit quam exactissime et plenissime, ita est hoc Tomo maxima pars totius non tam Paulinae, quam universae S. Philosophiae explicata]: Bucer (1536a, t.p.).
- 106.
These are: on the meaning of iustificari and iustificatio (Bucer 1536a, 11–14/[a vi] recto-b recto); the meaning of fidei and credere (Bucer 1536a, 14–23/b recto-[b vi] recto); the meaning of lex and opera Legis (Bucer 1536a, 23–28/[b vi] recto-c ii verso); on whether philosophy and Paul’s teaching agree (Bucer 1536a, 28–39/c ii verso-[d iiii] recto); and whether Paul abides by the ars dicendi (Bucer 1536a, 39–40/[d iiii] vecto-verso).
- 107.
Parker (1986, 40–61) provides an excellent overview of this commentary, which I have used in combination with a consultation of the commentary itself. The fact that Parker’s outline is itself 21 pages long should give one a sense of the mammoth size of the book.
placitum sive pactum significat. Et quia testamentum est species placitorum & pollicitationum, ideo nova Scriptura testamentum est appellata.... Verum διαθήκη 
significat idem quod foedus quale principes ineunt cum subditis, quibus ex fide obedientibus promittit vicissim princeps pacem & commodam vitam.”
Hebraeis, quod Hieronymus rectius vertit pactum, minus autem recte quidam verterunt, testamentum.”
[sic], substantivo pro adiectivo more Hebraico.” (Bucer References
Amos, N. Scott. 2009. Exegesis and theological method. In A companion to Peter Martyr Vermigli, ed. Torrance Kirby, Emidio Campi, and Frank James III, 175–194. Leiden: Brill.
Backus, Irena. 1988. Introduction to Enarratio in Evangelion Iohannis (1528, 1530, 1536), by Martin Bucer, ed. Irena Backus. Leiden: Brill.
Banck, John. 1551. De privato ministerio, quod clericale vulgo appellatur.... MS Coll. Gonv. et Caius 423.
Breen, Quirinus. 1968. The Terms “Loci communes” and “Loci” in Melanchthon. In Christianity and humanism: Studies in the history of ideas, ed. Quirinus Breen, 93–97. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Bucer, Martin. 1527a. Enarrationum in Evangelia Matthaei, Marci, & Lucae, Libri duo. Strasbourg: Johannes Herwagen.
Bucer, Martin. 1527b. Epistola D. Pauli ad Ephesios, qua rationem Christianismi breviter iuxta & locuplete, ut nulla brevius simul & locupletius explicat, versa paulo liberiu…In eandem Commentarius. Strasbourg: s.n.
Bucer, Martin. 1528. Enarratio in Evangelion Iohannis. Strasbourg: Johannes Herwagen.
Bucer, Martin. 1529. S. Psalmorum libri quinque ad Ebraiecam veritatem versi, et familiari explanatione elucidati. Strasbourg: G. Ulricher.
Bucer, Martin. 1536a. Metaphrases Enarrationes Perpetuae Epistolarum D. Pauli Apostoli […] Tomus Primus continens metaphrasim et ennarationem in Epistolam ad Romanos. Strasbourg: Wendelin Rihel.
Bucer, Martin. 1536b. In Sacra Quatuor Evangelia, Enarrationes perpetuae, secundum et postremum recognitae. Quibus inspersi sunt syncerioris Theologiae Loci communes, ad Scripturarum fidem simpliciter et nullius cum insectatione tractati: adiectis etiam aliquot locorum tractationibus, et Indice copiosissimo. Strasbourg: Wendelin Rihel.
Bucer, Martin. 1562. Praelectiones doctiss. in Epistolam D. P. ad Ephesios, eximii doctoris D. Martini Buceri, habitae Cantabrigiae in Anglia, Anno M D.L. et LI. Basel: Petrus Perna.
Bucer, Martin. 1946. Quomodo S. Litterae pro Concionibus tractandae sint Instructio. Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 26:32–75.
Bugenhagen, Johannes. 1524. Annotationes Ioan. Bugenhagii Pomerani in decem Epistolas Pauli, scilicet ad Ephesios, Philippenses, Colossenses, Thessalonicenses primam et secun. Timotheum primam & secundam, Titum, Philemonem, Hebraeos. Item Concordia Evangelistarum a Resurrectione ad Ascensionem domini. Nuremberg: Ioan. Petreium.
Bullinger, Heinrich. 1539. In omnes apostolicas epistolas, divi videlicet Pauli XIIII et VIII canonicas, commentarii. Zurich: Christoph Froschauer.
Calvin, John. 1548. Ioannis Calvini Commentarii, in quatuor Pauli Epistolas: Ad Galatas, Ad Ephesios, Ad Philippenses, Ad Colossenes. Geneva: Jean Girard.
Calvin, John. 1960a. John Calvin to Simon Grynaeus. In The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, Trans. Ross MacKenzie, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, 1–4. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Calvin, John. 1960b. John Calvin to the Reader. In Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, 3–5. Trans. Ford Lewis Battles. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
Calvin, John. 1965. The Epistle to the Ephesians. In The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, Trans. T.H.L. Parker, eds. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, 121–224. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Christ-von Wedel, Christine. 2013. Erasmus of Rotterdam: Advocate of a new Christianity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Donnelly, John Patrick. 1976. Calvinism and scholasticism in Vermigli’s doctrine of man and grace. Leiden: Brill.
Eells, Hastings. 1931. Martin Bucer. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Erasmus, Desiderius. 1519. Novum Testamentum omne, multo quam antehac diligentius ab Erasmo Roterodamo recognitu, emedatum ac translatum …: una cum annotationibus recognitis, ac magna accessione locupletatis. Basel: Johannes Froben.
Erasmus, Desiderius. 1535. Novum Testamentum iam quintam accuratissima cura recognitum a Des. Erasmo Roter. cum Annotationibus eiusdem ita locupletatis, ut propemodum opus novum videri possit. Basel: Johannes Froben.
Erasmus Desiderius. 1964. Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus: Ausgewählte Werke, ed. Hajo Holborn and Annemarie Holborn. München: C.H. Beck.
Gilbert, Neal. 1960. Renaissance concepts of method. New York: Columbia University Press.
Green, Lowell C. 1999. Melanchthon’s relation to scholasticism. In Protestant scholasticism: Essays in reassessment, ed. Carl R. Trueman and R. Scott Clark, 273–288. Carlisle: Paternoster Press.
Hobbs, R. Gerald. 1984. How firm a foundation: Martin Bucer’s historical exegesis of the Psalms. Church History 53: 477–491.
Hobbs, R. Gerald. 1991. Martin Bucer et la Bible/Martin Bucer und die Bibel. In Martin Bucer: Strasbourg et l’Europe. Exposition à l’occasion du 500 e anniversaire du réformateur Strasbourgeois Martin Bucer, 25–32. Strasbourg: Consistoire de St-Thomas.
Hobbs, R. Gerald. 2009. Strasbourg: Vermigli and the Senior School. In A companion to Peter Martyr Vermigli, ed. Torrance Kirby, Emidio Campi, and Frank A. James, III, 35–69. Leiden: Brill.
Hubert, Conrad (ed.). 1577. Martini Buceri Scripta Anglicana fere omnia. Basel: Petrus Perna.
James, F.A. III. 1998. Vermigli, Peter Martyr (1499–1562). In Handbook of major biblical interpreters, ed. Donald K. McKim, 239–245. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press.
James, Frank A. III. 2003. Translator’s introduction to Predestination and justification: Two theological loci by Peter Martyr Vermigli. Trans. and ed. Frank A. James III. Kirksville: Truman State University Press.
Joachimsen, P. 1926. Loci Communes: Eine Untersuchung zur Geistesgeschichte des Humanismus und der Reformation. Luther-Jahrbuch 8: 27–97.
Kolb, Robert. 1987. Teaching the text: The commonplace method in sixteenth century Lutheran biblical commentary. Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 49: 571–585.
Lechner, Joan Marie. 1962. Renaissance concepts of the commonplaces. New York: Pageant Press.
Loach, Jennifer. 1986. Reformation controversies. In The history of the University of Oxford, The Collegiate University, vol. III, ed. James McConica, 363–396. Oxford: Clarendon.
MacCulloch, Diarmaid. 2002. Peter Martyr and Thomas Cranmer. In Peter Martyr Vermigli: Humanism, republicanism, reformation/Petrus Martyr Vermigli: Humanismus, Republikanismus, Reformation, ed. Emidio Campi, with Frank A. James III and Peter Opitz, 173–201. Genève: Droz.
Mack, P. 1993. Renaissance argument: Valla and Agricola in the traditions of rhetoric and dialectic. Leiden: Brill.
Maurer, Wilhelm. 1960. Melanchthons Loci communes von 1521 als wissenschaftliche Programmschrift: Ein Beitrag zur Hermeneutik der Reformationszeit. Luther-Jahrbuch 27: 1–50.
McKee, Elsie Anne. 1991. Some reflections on relating Calvin’s exegesis and theology. In Biblical hermeneutics in historical perspective: Studies in honor of Karlfried Froehlich on his sixtieth birthday, ed. Mark S. Burrows and Paul Rorem, 215–226. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
McLelland, Joseph C. 2007. Peter Martyr’s Loci Communes: A Literary History, ed. Torrance Kirby with a bibliography compiled by Jason Zuidema. Montreal: McGill University Press.
McNair, Philip M.J. 1980. Peter Martyr in England. In Peter Martyr Vermigli and Italian reform, ed. Joseph C. McLelland, 85–105. Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier University Press.
Melanchthon, Philip. 1969. Loci communes theologici. In Melanchthon and Bucer, ed. Wilhelm Pauck, 18–152. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
Muller, Richard A. 2000. The unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the foundation of a theological tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Muller, Richard A. 2003. Post-reformation reformed dogmatics: The rise and development of reformed orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, 2nd edn. Volume 2: Holy scripture: The cognitive foundation of theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Muller, Richard A. 2012. Calvin and the reformed tradition: On the work of Christ and the order of salvation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Parker, Matthew. 1551. Howe we ought to take the death of the Godly, a sermon made in Cambridge at the buriall of the noble clerck, D. M. Bucer. London: R. Iugge.
Parker, T.H.L. 1986. Commentaries on the epistle to the Romans, 1532–1542. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
Parker, T.H.L. 1993. Calvin’s New Testament commentaries. Louisville: Wesminster/John Knox Press.
Roussel, Bernard. 1993. Bucer Exégète. In Martin Bucer and sixteenth century Europe: Actes du colloque de Strasbourg (28–31 Août 1991), 2 vols., vol, 2, ed. Christian Kreiger and Marc Lienhard, 39–54. Leiden: Brill.
Schneider, J.R. 1990. Philip Melanchthon’s rhetorical construal of biblical authority: Oratio Sacra. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press.
Schneider, J.R. 1997. The hermeneutics of commentary: Origins of Melanchthon’s integration of dialectic into rhetoric. In Philip Melanchthon (1497–1560) and the commentary, ed. Timothy J. Wengert and M. Patrick Graham, 29–30. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Steiger, Johann Anselm. 1990. Ordo Salutis. Theologische Realenzyklopädie 25(3–4): 371–376.
Strohm, Christoph. 2002. Petrus Martyr Vermiglis Loci Communes und Calvins Institutio Christianae Religionis. In Peter Martyr Vermigli: Humanism, republicanism, reformation/Petrus Martyr Vermigli: Humanismus, Republikanismus, Reformation, ed. Emidio Campi, with Frank A. James III and Peter Opitz, 77–104. Genève: Droz.
Thompson, John L. 1996. Allegorical argumentation in Peter Martyr Vermigli’s Old Testament exegesis. In Biblical interpretation in the era of the reformation: Essays presented to David C. Steinmetz in honor of his sixtieth birthday, ed. Richard A. Muller and John L. Thompson, 255–271. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Vasoli, Cesare. 1980. Loci Communes and the rhetorical and dialectical traditions. In Peter Martyr Vermigli and Italian reform, ed. Joseph C. McLelland, 17–28. Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier University Press.
Vermigli, Peter Martyr. 1558. In Epistolam S. Pauli Apostoli ad Romanos commentarii doctissimi. Basel: Petrus Perna.
Vermigli, Peter Martyr. 1560. In Epistolam S. Pauli Apostoli Ad Rom. Basel: Petrus Perna.
Vermigli, Peter Martyr. 1568a. In epistolam S. Pauli apostoli ad Romanos. Basel: Petrus Perna.
Vermigli, Peter Martyr. 1568b. Most learned and fruitfull commentaries upon the Epistle of S. Paul to the Romanes. Trans. Sir Henry Billingsley. London: John Daye.
Vermigli, Peter Martyr. 2003. Predestination and justification: Two theological loci. Trans. and ed. by Frank A. James III. Kirksville: Truman State University Press.
Wengert, Timothy. 1987. Philip Melanchthon’s Annotationes in Johannem in relation to its predecessors and contemporaries. Geneva: Droz.
Wengert, Timothy. 1996. Philip Melanchthon’s 1522 annotations on Romans and the Lutheran origins of rhetorical criticism. In Biblical interpretation in the era of the reformation: Essays presented to David C. Steinmetz in honor of his sixtieth birthday, ed. Richard A. Muller and John L. Thompson, 118–140. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Wengert, Timothy. 1998. Human freedom, Christian righteousness: Philip Melanchthon’s exegetical dispute with Erasmus of Rotterdam. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wengert, Timothy. 2009. The rhetorical Paul: Philip Melanchthon’s interpretation of the Pauline Epistles. In A companion to Paul in the Reformation, ed. R. Ward Holder, 129–164. Leiden: Brill.
Widenhofer, Siegfried. 1976. Formalstrukturen humanistischer und reformatorischer Theologie bei Philipp Melanchthon, 2 vols. Frankfurt: Herbert Lang.
Wright, David F. 1972. Introduction. In Common places of Martin Bucer, ed. and trans. D. F. Wright, 17–71. Appleford: The Sutton Courtenay Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Appendix: Loci in Earlier Commentaries of Bucer
Appendix: Loci in Earlier Commentaries of Bucer
In most of his commentaries, Bucer made clear in the title and introduction that he intended to offer the reader not only an exposition of the text of the chosen book, but also discussion of the important loci communes included in the biblical book. The role of these theological discussions is clearly prominent in his Synoptics commentary, where he provided a list of them with page references at the beginning of the commentary, just prior to the exegesis (Bucer 1536b, [*8] recto-verso).Footnote 101 In every instance, his discussion of specific theological topics was in the context of the exegesis of the text, and thus tied to the flow of the biblical argument/presentation. As we noted, the topics are identified by means of the table positioned immediately prior to the text of the commentary, and attention is drawn to them by marginal flags in the course of the commentary.Footnote 102 The commonplaces varied considerably in length, from the very short to the quite lengthy. It appears that these theological discussions were intended to be read in the context of the commentary. There is no indication that Bucer ever intended these discussions to be read independently, or that he had any intention that they should be published separately.
In the commentary on John (Bucer 1528), Bucer provided a list of loci on the verso of the title page (“Praecipui ex locis comminibus in hac narratione tractates”), and there is also an index which includes references to the theological discussions included therein; hence, theological discussion is very much a part of the commentary (Bucer 1528, [A verso] and [276] verso-280 recto/Mm4 verso-[Mm8] recto, respectively). In the commentary itself he included a section of observationes following his annotationes (as his commentary is called in this work), in which he expounded (often at length) on doctrinal topics in addition to making moral exhortations. In a fashion similar to his Synoptics commentary, Bucer combined exegesis with theology, though in this particular instance the theological discussion is clearly separated out from the exposition of the text, while still related to and prompted by it.
Another variation of the pattern is seen in Bucer’s Psalms commentary (Bucer 1529). Following the Argumentum (a brief statement of the argument of the psalm), a Latin version of the Psalm (ad verbum, which he has divided into verses), and the Explanatio (or, Familiaris Explanatio) which is his commentary proper, one verse at a time, Bucer included a further discussion of the teaching of each Psalm, which in this commentary is the pattern of theological discussion. There is no separate section of loci communes. For instance, in the case of Psalm 1, the principal focus of what he writes is on the issue of “Law”, but while exegesis and theology are discrete, the distinction between the two is not sharp (Bucer 1529, 1 recto-18 recto/A recto-E2 recto).
The final commentary of Bucer’s that we shall consider is that on Romans (Bucer 1536a). Though composed after a hiatus of several years, Bucer’s commentary on Romans displayed his continued commitment to keep the work of the exegete and the theologian closely together. In fact, it was intended to be the first of a series of commentaries on all of the Pauline epistles, though in the end it was the only volume on them to appear apart from the two commentaries on Ephesians, each of which was independent of this massive project.Footnote 103 Unlike the commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, there is not an extensive list of loci communes at the beginning of the text—nor, for that matter, is there an index as in the John commentary—yet it is clear from the title that Bucer intended in his commentary to draw attention to all the principal theological points that are found in Paul’s letter (Bucer 1536a, 11–40/[a vi] recto-[d iiii] verso).Footnote 104 In addition, he began the commentary with a series of prefaces which dealt with a number of preliminary issues among which are some of an explicitly theological character.Footnote 105
The organization of the commentary was relatively straightforward.Footnote 106 Bucer divided the text into three books, each of which was subdivided according to chapters. At set points, he included a paraphrase or metaphrasis of the text of the epistle. In the prefatory letter, addressed to Thomas Cranmer, he declared that the discussion of the commentary would divided into sections, each of which he began with the expositio (Bucer 1536a, iiii verso-[v] recto), where he was concerned to set forth the overall argument of each of the sections. After this, there is the interpretatio (Bucer 1536a, [v] recto), in which he commented on the individual sentences and words of the section. Finally, there are observationes (Bucer 1536a, [v] recto), where he discussed the chief themes of each section for the benefit of “the less learned” [minus instructi] (Bucer 1536a, [v] recto). Despite this last phrase, it is here (in the observationes) that Bucer included his theological discussion. On occasion, he also included a quaestio in which he raised specific questions, as well as a section entitled conciliatio, in which he sought to reconcile apparently conflicting passages of Scripture. In all of this, it was Bucer’s intention to combine exegesis and theology in such a way that neither can be properly separated from the other.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Amos, N.S. (2015). “An Exposition of the Whole Doctrine of Salvation:” Bucer’s Deployment of Biblical Humanist Method and the 1550 Ephesians Lectures as a Whole. 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_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10238-2_5
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)