Covenant, Causality, and Law: A Study in the Theology of Wolfgang Musculus (Refo500 Academic Studies) 9783525550366, 9783647550367, 3525550367

Citation preview

V

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Refo500 Academic Studies Edited by Herman J. Selderhuis In co-operation with Marianne Carbonnier, Günter Frank, Bruce Gordon, Ute Lotz-Heumann, Mathijs Lamberigts, Barbara MahlmannBauer, Tarald Rasmussen, Johannes Schilling, Günther Wassilowsky, Siegrid Westphal Volume 3

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Jordan J. Ballor

Covenant, Casuality, and Law A Study in the Theology of Wolfgang Musculus

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

This work has been accepted as a dissertation by the Faculty of Theology at the University of Zurich at the request of Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Emidio Campi in 2011.

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: http://dnb.d-nb.de. ISBN 978-3-525-55036-6 ISBN 978-3-647-55036-7 (E-Book) © 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen/ Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht LLC, Bristol, CT, U.S.A. www.v-r.de All rights reserved. No part of his work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Typesetting by: SchwabScantechnik, Göttingen Printed and bound in Germany by e Hubert & Co, Göttingen Printed on non-aging paper.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Laus eius permanet in sempiternum

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Acknowledgements

Any significant exposure to the massive labors of the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century reformers quickly disabuses the modern scholar of anything approaching superiority. And so in getting to know Wolfgang Musculus, I realized two things in short order. First, I had found an important and overlooked figure in the church’s history. Second, I would never be able to do justice to the breadth and depth of his numerous accomplishments. I take some comfort in evaluating my own work not on the basis of its own merits and my own insights, however, but rather in the extent to which it points to Musculus himself. Whatever shortcomings are apparent in my own work (and surely they are legion), this study will have performed its service to the extent that it helps put Wolfgang Musculus back into the broader historiographical conversation. It is a truism to say that, in the words of John Donne, “no man is an island.” But it is a saying applicable especially in the case of a man writing a dissertation. These acknowledgments are merely a token signifying the debt of gratitude that I owe to so many, and serve only as a small down payment on my responsibility to, as Paul puts it, “let no debt remain outstanding” (Rom 13:8). I thank Herman Selderhuis for his ongoing interest in this project on Musculus and his willingness to commend it for publication in this series. He has helped me to think through Musculus’ complex ideas and provided me with significant opportunities to develop my work in various settings. In this regard I also thank Günther Frank, director of the Europäische Melanchthon-Akademie, for a chance to share some of my work on Musculus in the context of a colloquium held in Bretten. Christopher Burchill was kind enough to share some correspondence relating to Musculus with me after this colloquium concluded. The Sixteenth Century Society and Conference has also proved to be an important forum for vetting some of my research in public and receiving very helpful feedback, including discussions with Scott Manetsch and Craig Farmer. Some other friends, namely Chad Gunnoe, Matthew Gaetano, Richard Oosterhoff, and Jason Zuidema, have assisted by providing some insights into their own research. Their generosity, insightfulness, and bibliographic knowledge have helped me immensely. Torrance Kirby provided some timely words of encouragement and was very forgiving when I impinged on his schedule after being late to a meeting with my supervisor. For those in the midst of doctoral

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

8

Acknowledgements

studies, there are many dark nights, both literally and spiritually. John Armstrong, Hunter Baker, Victor Claar, and Kyle Smith are among those who have provided wisdom and guidance to this oft-troubled soul. There are a number of institutions and individuals that have either directly or indirectly provided me with support to pursue this research project. Mel Flikkema at Kuyper College in Grand Rapids has shown an interest in my development and proven to be a voice of comfort and encouragement. I thank the library at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia for providing access to their copy of Musculus’ commentary on Genesis some years back. The Acton Institute for the Study of Religion & Liberty has been an institutional and intellectual home for my work for a number of years now. I especially thank colleagues in the research department, particularly Sam Gregg, Anthony Bradley, and Kevin Schmiesing, for their expertise and support on this and a variety of other projects. My colleagues and friends, Dave Cooper, John Couretas, Ray Nothstine, Jonathan Spalink, and Marc Vander Maas also took an interest in the development of my work on a (heretofore!) obscure reformer. Sometimes they even remembered his name properly! In addition to the research assistance provided by Charlie Capps and Joel Crevier, I have also lately been blessed by the work of a very capable colleague, Dylan Pahman, whose research abilities and diligence continue to impress. My mentor and friend Stephen Grabill has been an indispensible help for many years, in this as well as many other endeavors. His wisdom and encouragement have been a most significant blessing. The H. Henry Meeter Center for Calvin Studies at Calvin College and Calvin Theological Seminary has provided me with generous access to sources and space, and for this I thank Karin Maag, Lugene Schemper, Paul Fields, and Ryan Knoppen, as well as the rest of the staff at Hekman Library. In one way or another, in the midst of pursuing one degree or another, Calvin Theological Seminary has been an institutional haven for me for over a decade. In that time I have come to know a number of outstanding Christian scholars, and am blessed to count many as my friends. I have learned a great deal through engagement with the active historical theology circles at the seminary, both more formally in the context of colloquia, as well as more informally in meetings at our now defunct extension campus. My friends Dariusz Bryćko, Albert Gootjes, Nathan Jacobs, James Joiner, Todd Rester, David Systma, Ted Van Raalte, have provided hours of stimulating conversation, helped me avoid numerous methodological, linguistic, and factual errors, and been generous with their time and patience. Other graduates of the Calvin doctoral program have been graciously supportive as well, in both word and deed, including Randy Blacketer, Brian Lee, Tom McCall, and Keith Stanglin.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Acknowledgements

9

The faculty and staff of the seminary also deserve my hearty thanks. Ina DeMoor has been a godsend to all those who embark on the long and treacherous journey of doctoral studies, myself included. Barb Blackmore always has a bright smile and kind words that lighten a student’s burdens. I have learned a great deal from Ronald Feenstra and the rest of the seminary faculty, and I thank the entire faculty for support in my rather winding career path. Lyle Bierma was generous enough to recommend me as my application to study at the University of Zurich, and his efforts are greatly appreciated. No single individual has done more to shape my academic development than Richard Muller (as perhaps witnessed in the footnotes in the present volume). He has always been most generous with his time and unsurpassed expertise. I am honored and humbled to be counted among those who have benefitted from his most excellent labors. I owe much to the Institut für Schweizerische Reformationsgeschichte and the Faculty of Theology at the University of Zurich. Luca Baschera, Reinhard Bodenmann, Rebecca Giselbrecht, Christian Moser, and Peter Opitz have been most kind with their hospitality, encouragement, and support. Esther Schweizer’s continual intercessions on my behalf made my study at Zurich possible. I am forever in her debt. I had the privilege of being accepted into the doctoral program at the University of Zurich in the final semester before the retirement of my Doktorvater, Emidio Campi. It speaks to his liberality of spirit that he was willing to take on an American doctoral student at that time, whose project would end up taking perhaps longer than expected and would require many meetings and consultations across the continents. His supervision and guidance have helped me both to avoid many errors as well as to end up with a much more developed work than I could have ever hoped to produce with-out him. My wife Amy is the one person whose sacrifice clearly outpaced my own in this undertaking. I took on this project, which in retrospect seems much more ambitious than prudent, in the hope of bringing back to our attention a voice from the past that has been lost. But doing so meant that I had to be absent to my loved ones for significant periods of time, sometimes physically half a world away, sometimes mentally half a millennium away. I hope she finds my work worthy of her sacrifice.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Order and Structure of the Present Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Covenant, Causality, and Law in Late-Medieval and Reformation Thought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1 Covenant in Late-Medieval and Reformation Thought . . . . 1.2.2 Causality in Late-Medieval and Reformation Thought . . . . . 1.2.3 Law in Late-Medieval and Reformation Thought . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Survey of Musculus’ Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.1 Editions of Ancient and Patristic Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.2 Commentaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.3 Loci communes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15 17 23 25 26 30 32 32 34 38

2. Covenant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 2.1 Loci communes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 2.1.1 De fœdere ac testamento Dei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 2.1.2 De discrimine veteris & novi Testamenti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 2.1.3 De gratia Dei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 2.1.4 De electione ac reprobatione . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 2.2 In Mosis Genesim plenissimi Commentarii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 2.2.1 Genesis 9:8–18 (The Noahic Covenant) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 2.2.1.1 Lectio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 2.2.1.2 Explanatio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 2.2.1.3 Quæstio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 2.2.1.4 Observatio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 2.2.2 Genesis 17:1–8 (The Abrahamic Covenant) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 2.2.2.1 Lectio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 2.2.2.2 Explanatio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 2.2.2.3 Quæstio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 2.2.2.4 Observatio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 2.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 3. Causality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 3.1 Loci communes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

12

Contents

3.1.1 De voluntate Dei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 3.1.2 De iusticia Dei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 3.1.3 De libero arbitrio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 3.1.4 De votis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 3.2 In sacrosanctum Davidis Psalterium Commentarii . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 3.2.1 Psalm 15 (Christian Righteousness) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 3.2.1.1 The Appendix on Oaths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 3.2.1.2 The Appendix on Usury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 3.2.2 Psalm 19:7–11 (The Sweetness of the Law) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 3.2.2.1 Lectio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 3.2.2.2 Explanatio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 3.2.2.3 Observatio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 3.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 4. Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 4.1 Loci communes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 4.1.1 De legibus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 4.1.2 De præceptis Decalogi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 4.1.3 De abrogatione legis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 4.1.4 De magistratibus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 4.2 In Epistolam D. Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos Commentarii . . . . . . . 195 4.2.1 Romans 2:14–16 (Natural Law) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 4.2.1.1 De lege naturæ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 4.2.1.2 Sedes doctrinae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 4.2.2 Romans 13:1–8 (Civil Magistrate) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 4.2.2.1 Quid magistratui debeatur a subditis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 4.2.2.2 Rhetorica forma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 4.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 5. Wolfgang Musculus and the Development of Reformed Theology . . . 213 5.1 Federal Theology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 5.2 Contingency, Choice, and Causality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 5.3 Doctrine and Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 5.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 Musculus’ Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 Ancient and Patristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 Exegetical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Contents

13

Systematic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 Occasional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 Primary Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 Ancient and Patristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 Medieval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 Reformation and Post-Reformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 Secondary Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

1. Introduction

The theologian and reformer Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563) was an influential figure in the sixteenth century, working predominantly in the prominent Reformation cities of Strasbourg, Augsburg, and Bern. His writings across a variety of genres enjoyed large-scale publication. In addition to the appreciation he received during his own time, Musculus was recognized as a significant figure as late as the beginning of the eighteenth century, when Pierre Bayle called him “one of the most celebrated Divines of the sixteenth century.”1 But only recently have historians of the early modern period begun to rediscover Musculus’ importance for the second generation of the Reformation and beyond.2 In his magisterial theological system of 1560, the Loci communes, Musculus is perhaps the first Reformed theologian to give the doctrine of covenant its own locus, set between his treatments of law and redemptive grace. In taking our point of departure with the doctrine of covenant in this study of Musculus’ theology, two things become immediately apparent. First, this doctrine cannot be understood properly except within the context of his treatment of corollary and related topics in the Loci communes. Second, these Loci communes cannot be understood adequately without examining their exegetical background. Musculus’ theological exposition of the covenantal loci leads us thematically to consideration of questions of metaphysics and causality, including the divine will and omnipotence and creaturely freedom and responsibility. These themes of covenant and causality are foundational for his broader doctrinal and ethical enterprise and find full concrete expression in Musculus’ conception of law. Musculus himself states rather cryptically that the law is a component of God’s covenant.3 The law thus functions as the determinative factor in what Musculus 1 Pierre Bayle, Dictionnaire historique et critique, vol. 10, new edn (Paris: Desoer, 1820), s.v. “Musculus (Wolfgang),” 584; ET: A General Dictionary, Historical and Critical, vol. 7 (London: James Bettenbam, 1738), s.v. “Musculus, Wolfgang,” 698. 2 See especially Richard A. Muller, “Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563),” in Encyclopedia of the Reformed Faith, ed. Donald K. McKim (Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992), 248; and Hartmut Lohmann, Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexicon, vol. 6 (Herzberg: Bautz, 1993), s.v. “MUSCULUS, (Müslin, Mäuslin), Wolfgang (Dusanus),” 381ff. 3 Wolfgang Musculus, Loci communes in usus sacrae Theologiae candidatorum parati (Basel: Johann Herwagen, 1564 [1560]), loc. 14, p. 141. On the Loci see Herman J. Selderhuis, “Die Loci Communes des Wolfgang Musculus: Reformierte Dogmatik anno 1560,” in Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563) und die

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

16

Introduction

identifies as covenant rooted in God’s omnipotent will. This study traces a flow of thought present in Musculus’ theology by moving from covenant, to issues of causality, and ultimately to law. Our entrance to study in the theology of Wolfgang Musculus is thus made with the doctrine that has been the most recognized in secondary scholarship, Musculus’ doctrine of the covenant. But even though Musculus is often cited in the history of scholarship on the covenant, his overall contribution to Reformed theology has been radically underappreciated, on this as well as other points. In his study of the history of the exegetical roots of federal theology, for instance, Brian J. Lee rightly acknowledges the critical innovation that the invention of a separate locus on the covenant represents. He writes, “The concept of covenant itself was not new in the sixteenth century; rather, the novel aspect was the development of a new, distinct locus ‘de foedere’ in the system, and over time, the further use of covenant as an ordering principle for the system itself.”4 But even though Lee and others have recognized the importance of this separate locus and have sought “the cause of the elevation of a traditional exegetical discussion to independent status,” Musculus, who is by all accounts the first Reformed theologian to give the locus de fœdere a separate and distinct place in a collection of commonplaces, has largely been ignored.5 But even in such cases where Musculus’ doctrines have received scholarly attention, the treatment is typically quite short and wholly dependent on the explication of his Loci. We see this particularly in the discussions of Musculus on the general covenant.6 Musculus’ locus on covenant is connected to its surrounding topics and begins a series of loci focused on soteriology that moves oberdeutsche Reformation, ed. Rudolf Dellsperger  /  Rudolf Freudenberger  /  Wolfgang Weber (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1997), 311–30; and Richard A. Muller, Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins (Durham, NC: Labyrinth Press, 1986), 46–55. 4 Brian J. Lee, Johannes Cocceius and the Exegetical Roots of Federal Theology: Reformation Developments in the Interpretation of Hebrews 7–10 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), 17. See also the response by Richard A. Muller to Derk Visser, “Discourse and Doctrine: The Covenant Concept and Christian Iconography in the Middle Ages,” in Calvin and the State: Papers and Responses presented at the Seventh and Eighth Colloquia on Calvin and Calvin Studies, ed. Peter De Klerk (Grand Rapids: Calvin Studies Society, 1993), 15–19. 5 Lee, Johannes Cocceius and the Exegetical Roots of Federal Theology, 17. Lee treats Bullinger’s influential treatise De testamento, but this separate treatise does not exemplify the elevation of the covenantal discussion to the level of separate locus as is the case in Musculus’ later Loci communes. 6 An example is the two sentence long treatment of the general covenant in Ives, “The Theology of Wolfgang Musculus,” 157. The brevity of this treatment may be due to the fact that Ives perceives that “covenant in Musculus is not a structure,” but is rather “an idea discussed and dispensed with,” 154. Letham consults Musculus’ Genesis commentary, but does not address Musculus’ distinction between general and special covenants. See Robert Letham, “The Foedus Operum: Some Factors Accounting for Its Development,” Sixteenth Century Journal 14, no. 4 (Winter 1983): 462f.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Order and Structure of the Present Study



17

inductively toward the locus on predestination. And so in order to properly orient Musculus’ locus on covenant, and to overcome the methodological lacuna of focusing solely on his locus de fœdere, reference must be made to other thematically-related loci. Another basic methodological assumption intended to address the problem of reading the Loci as the sole or most important source for Musculus’ theology is the contention that Musculus’ doctrinal theology ought to be read in the context of his exegetical works, which were themselves major sources for later generations of theologians. Indeed, the construction of Musculus’ Loci is closely related to his exegetical work, as the Loci were written over a ten year period during which Musculus wrote the bulk of his commentaries, including the commentaries of particular concern in this study: Genesis (1554), Psalms (1551), and Romans (1555). Thus, for example, to come to a comprehensive understanding of Musculus’ concept of the general covenant, reference must be made to his exegetical work, particularly in Genesis on the creation and fall of humankind and to the establishment of the Noahic covenant.7 It is fair to say that Musculus’ Loci represent a summary of Musculus’ theology. But it is only a summary, and not an exhaustive one at that. This summary nature of much of the topical treatments in Musculus’ Loci necessitates appeal to his exegesis in order to provide a full and comprehensive picture of his theological work. Some distinctions that Musculus finds to be of relevance in his exegesis do not appear in his Loci, for instance, in part because in the latter work more care was taken to present doctrine in a summary and accessible fashion. Where the commentaries tend to wax verbose, the Loci tend to wane toward relative brevity.

1.1 Order and Structure of the Present Study The complex relationship between covenant, causality, and law in Musculus’ thought is worthy of special attention, and this study begins by introducing pivotal questions related to these themes in the thought of the late-medieval and Reformation eras as a background to the more expansive study of these themes in Musculus’ own work. We proceed in three major parts, examining In this sense, this study shares a purpose with Lee’s work in seeking “the cause of the elevation of a traditional exegetical discussion to independent status, and its further development and use particularly among the Reformed.” See Lee, Johannes Cocceius and the Exegetical Roots of Federal Theology, 17f. Even so, this present study is limited in scope primarily to Musculus’ work as an early and formative expression within this longer Reformed history of movement from exegesis to systematic articulation of doctrine. 7

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

18

Introduction

the terminology and usage of the concepts of covenant, commandment, and law respectively. Each part consists of a study of four related loci and two sections of exegetical source material. Given the vast amount of exegetical material contained in Musculus’ literary corpus, this study uses the composition of the Loci communes as a methodological starting point, beginning with relevant loci (e.g. “covenant”) and noting the usage and prominence of Scriptural citations. Such a treatment of the Loci provides a basis for determining which scriptural passages figure most prominently in Musculus’ thinking, thereby allowing concentrated and focused forays into Musculus’ exegetical work.8 These exegetical explorations might be seen as comparable to the practice of creating test shafts in archaeological excavation to determine the nature of artifacts at the various strata. In this case, since comprehensive survey of Musculus’ vast corpus is not possible, the test shafts are aimed at the parts of the exegetical corpus judged most likely to yield relevant and significant material. The importance of the relevant intellectual contexts, both chronologically proximate and remote, is addressed by the placement of Musculus’ exegetical and doctrinal work in dialogue with a host of his contemporaries and predecessors. Except where explicitly noted, these dialogues are not attempts to trace out specific or concrete influences on Musculus’ thought, but rather they are attempts to more accurately place him within the broader historical, theological, and intellectual contexts.9 The analogous procedure, despite differences in exegetical method, between the construction of Musculus’ Loci and Calvin’s Institutes legitimates a similar judgment regarding the explicit citations present in Musculus’ Loci. See Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 142: “…Calvin’s very selective procedure of identifying certain texts and not others can, arguably, be attributed to his intention to alert readers not merely to particular texts, and not only to the texts that were particularly germane to his argument, but also to texts on which he and his contemporaries had commented on fairly extensively as the grounds or ‘seats’ of theological argumentation.” See also Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vol. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 1:87. Hereinafter PRRD. 9 Especially with respect to the commentaries, it is my intention to follow the example of Farmer, who writes of his work, “It is not my concern to establish whether or not Musculus actually used each of the commentaries brought to bear on this study. The question of direct influence, however, is not completely ignored. When I can establish Musculus’s reliance on another commentator, I do so; but I never assume that the similarity of an idea can serve alone as an adequate criterion for proving dependence.” See Farmer, The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century, 9. The hope here is that where similarities and differences are found, whether they influence Musculus directly, indirectly, or not (evidently) at all, in any case “reading old commentaries will also evoke the strangeness of the past, even the Christian past…. We should hope to find writers in the past who argue with us, and with all our contemporaries.” See John L. Thompson, Reading the Bible with the Dead: What You Can Learn from the History of Exegesis that You Can’t Learn Alone (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 222. On the broader importance of the history of exegesis, see Steinmetz, Luther in Context, 46: “The history of biblical interpretation is not incidental to European cultural history but central to it.” See also Richard A. Muller  /  John L. 8

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Order and Structure of the Present Study

19

For the section of the loci on covenant (2.1.1–4), Musculus’ thought is explored in conjunction with that of Calvin and Bullinger. This is justified given their respective importance, and often purported differences, on the doctrines of covenant and predestination. For the section on causality and related topics (3.1.1–4), the medieval collations of Lombard’s Sentences and Gratian’s Decretum come to the fore, given their prominence in the development of Musculus’ own doctrinal argumentation.10 And in the section on law (4.1.1–4), Augustine of Hippo and Basil the Great serve as touchstones.11 For each set of exegetical comments, Musculus’ work is placed in dialogue with a representative from each of the preceding and contemporaneous major epochs in church history (patristic, medieval, and early modern).12 These various interlocutors have been selected for their relevance to Musculus’ work, often determined through direct citation, as well as for their ability to function as significant representative examples of their respective eras. In the discussion of Musculus’ Genesis commentary (2.2.1–2), Ambrose of Milan, Nicholas of Lyra, and Conrad Pellicanus have been selected. Ambrose was chosen for his historical and theological influence on Augustine, as well as for the aptness of his works to compare and contrast with Musculus’ exegesis sui generis.13 Moreover, it has been recently noted that Ambrose shares with Musculus an Thompson, “The Significance of Precritical Exegesis: Retrospect and Prospect,” 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  /  John L. Thompson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 334–45; and David C. Steinmetz, “The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis,” Theology Today (1980): 27–38. 10 See Peter Lombard, Sententiarum Quatuor Libri, 4 vol., in S. Bonaventurae opera omnia, ed. Collegii S. Bonaventura (Florence: Quaracchi, 1882–1889); ET: The Sentences, trans. Giulio Silano, 4 vol. (Toronto: Pontifical Institute for Mediaeval Studies, 2007–2010); and Gratian, Decretum Magistri Gratiani, in Corpus Iuris Canonici, vol. 1 (Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1959). 11 For Musculus’ work on Basil the Great, see Musculus, Opera D. Basilii Magni Caesariae Cappadociae Episcopi Omnia (Basel: Johann Herwagen, 1540). 12 For a recent study on the importance of the history of exegesis that makes extended use of Musculus’ work, see John L. Thompson, Reading the Bible with the Dead. For a study that makes use of Musculus’ commentaries as well as his Loci communes in placing Calvin’s exegesis in proper perspective, see Elsie Anne McKee, Elders and the Plural Ministry: The Role of Exegetical History in Illuminating John Calvin’s Theology (Geneva: Droz, 1988). For works taking notice of Musculus’ Genesis commentary, see Don Cameron Allen, The Legend of Noah: Renaissance Rationalism in Art, Science, and Letters (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1949), 77; and Arnold Williams, The Common Expositor: An Account of the Commentaries on Genesis, 1527–1633 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1948). On the general shift from the medieval to Reformation era, see Richard A. Muller, “Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation: The View from the Middle Ages,” in Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation, 3–22. 13 It is difficult to find patristic commentaries on portions of the Genesis text other than those on the Hexaemeron, especially from well-known or especially noteworthy figures. Ambrose’s work meets both criteria. See Ambrose of Milan, De Noe et Arca, in Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, ed. Carolus Schenkl, vol. 32, pt. 1 (Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1897), 411–497; and De Abraham,

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

20

Introduction

appreciation for the use of Eastern Fathers, and that “Ambrose clearly helped to bring elements from the Eastern tradition into the West, both in a Christianized reading of Philo and in his use of Origen, Basil, and others.”14 Nicholas of Lyra was perhaps the preeminent exegete of the medieval era, and thus serves as an important representative figure of his period.15 And Pellicanus is an early Reformation figure who represents the Zurich school, and one who has also been severely understudied and underappreciated, and indeed whose influence has been hypothesized on the development of Reformed covenantal and political thought.16 Musculus’ Psalms commentary has been put into dialogue with the work of Augustine of Hippo, certainly the most explicitly cited church father throughout the corpus of Musculus’ work.17 Denis the Carthusian is another medieval exegete, renowned in the sixteenth century, who serves as an important representative example of the fullness of medieval exegesis.18 And John Calvin’s Psalms commentary shows perhaps the greatest methodological contrast with Musculus’ own effusive exegetical method.19 The choice of interlocutors for Musculus’ Romans exegesis is based in part on Musculus’ own citation. In addition to being an important figure in Musin in Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, ed. Carolus Schenkl, vol. 32, pt. 1 (Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1897), 499–638. On Ambrose’s exegetical works, see Boniface Ramsey, Ambrose (New York: Routledge, 1997), 56–60. 14 M. Heintz, “Ambrose of Milan,” in Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters, ed. Donald K. McKim (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007), 121. 15 See Nicholas of Lyra, Postilla super Genesim (Nuremberg: Anton Koburger, 1498). See also C. Carvalho, “Nicholas of Lyra, (c. 1270–1349),” in Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters, 770–776. On Lyra’s commentary on Genesis, see Corrine Patton, “Creation, Fall and Salvation: Lyra’s Commentary on Genesis 1–3,” in Nicholas of Lyra: The Senses of Scripture, ed. Philip D.W. Krey  /  Lesley Smith (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 19–44. 16 Ryan M. Reeves, “‘Ye Gods’: The Magistrate and Political Obedience in Humanism, Zürich and English Protestantism, c. 1525–1540” (paper, Sixteenth Century Society and Conference, Geneva, Switzerland, May 30, 2009). See Conrad Pellicanus, Commentaria Bibliorum, tomus primus (Zurich: C. Froschauer, 1536). On Pellicanus, see Christoph Zürcher, Konrad Pellikans Wirken in Zurich, 1526–1556 (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1975). See also G. Bray, “Conrad Pellikan (1478–1556),” in Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters, 812ff. 17 See Augustine of Hippo, Ennarationes in Psalmos 1–32, ed. Clemens �������������������������������� Weidmann (Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenshaften, 2003). 18 See Denis the Carthusian, In Psalmos omnes Davidicos (Cologne: Petrum Quentell, 1531). See also L. A. Schoemaker, “Denys the Carthusian (1402  /  3–1471),” in Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters, 362ff. Johan Huizinga notes the popularity of Denis in the sixteenth century in the phrase coined at the time, “Whoever reads Denis leaves nothing unread” (Qui Dionysium legit nihil non legit). See Johan Huizinga, The Autumn of the Middle Ages, trans. Rodney J. Payton  /  Ulrich Mammitzsch (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), 218. 19 See John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. 1, trans. James Anderson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949).

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Order and Structure of the Present Study

21

culus’ own theological thought and development, John Chrysostom is cited explicitly and approvingly by Musculus both in regard to his conception of natural law and the role of the civil magistrate.20 Musculus also notes Thomas Aquinas, who becomes important for the question of supposed medieval antecedents in Musculus’ theology.21 And finally Peter Martyr Vermigli is another major contemporary of Musculus whose position seems to have been developed independently and yet who nevertheless shows great accord with the views of Musculus on natural law and the civil magistrate.22 The summary titles of each major section in this study, “Covenant,” “Causality,” and “Law,” are meant to be placeholders and significations of a variety of interrelated concepts rather than rigidly ordered classifications. There is a certain artificiality to the structure of this present study, and concerns about the so-called “mythology of coherence” that such a structure might imply should not be overlooked.23 Even so, this thematic organization is justified for at least two reasons. First, this study does not claim to be comprehensive, either with respect to the teachings in Musculus’ Loci communes or his exegetical work as a whole, and certainly not for the entirety of his thought. This study is a limited 20 Musculus also produced a Latin edition of Chrysostom’s commentaries on the Pauline epistles. See Musculus, Ioannis Chrysostomi Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani in Omnes D. Pauli epistolas commentarij (Basel: Johann Herwagen, 1536). See also John Chrysostom, Hermeneia eis pasas tas tou hagiou Paulou epistolas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1849). 21 See Thomas Aquinas, Super Epistolam ad Romanos Lectura, in Super Epistolas S. Pauli Lectura, vol. 1, ed. Raphael Cai (Turin: Marietti, 1953), 5–230. 22 See Peter Martyr Vermigli, In Epistolam S. Pauli Apostoli ad Romanos (Basel: Petrum Pernam, 1558). See also Torrance Kirby, “Political Theology: The Godly Prince,” in A Companion to Peter Martyr Vermigli, ed. Torrance Kirby  /  Emidio Campi  /  Frank A. James III (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 401–421, who points to the extensiveness of Vermigli’s political writings: “If one is to seriously address Vermigli’s thought as a whole, one simply cannot neglect his extensive writings on such topics as the authority of princes and magistrates, civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, exile and banishment, treason, sedition, tyranny, rebellion, and war,” 421; and Frank A. James III, “Vermigli, Peter Martyr (1499–1562),” in Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters, 1010, who notes that Vermigli was, along with Musculus, part of “a coterie of theologians who tended to be associated with Swiss reform” that “gave shape not only to Reformed theology, but also to the Reformed interpretation of the Bible.” On the unifying features of Musculus and Vermigli’s work amidst diversity of geographical experience and theological background, see Rudolf Dellsperger  /  Marc van Wijnkoop Lüthi, “Peter Martyr Vermigli und Wolfgang Musculus,” in Peter Martyr Vermigli: Humanism, Republicanism, Reformation, ed. Emidio Campi (Geneva: Droz, 2002), 111ff. 23 See Quentin Skinner, “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas,” in Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and His Critics, ed. J. Tully (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), 29–67. On questions of historical interpretation related particularly to economic historiography, see Ross B. Emmett, “Exegesis, Hermeneutics, and Interpretation,” in A Companion to the History of Economic Thought, ed. Warren J. Samuels  /  Jeff E. Biddle  /  John B. Davis (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003), 523–37. Emmett (528) points in particular to Skinner’s striking concern that the “myth of coherence” results in “histories ‘not of ideas at all, but of abstractions: a history of thoughts which no one ever actually succeeded in thinking, at a level of coherence which no one ever actually attained.’”

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

22

Introduction

foray into the much broader life and work of a significant Reformation figure with all the strengths and limitations thereof. Second, while there is an element of artificiality or interpretation that is unavoidable in this kind of approach, concerns about abstraction are mitigated to a certain extent by the clear textual and thematic links between the sections under study here. Language about God being “most free,” for instance, is important both for Musculus’ understating of issues related to covenant as well as to God’s omnipotence, and connections between covenant and law are explicit in Musculus’ own formulations. With these caveats in mind, under the rubric of “Covenant” this study treats a series of loci beginning with de fœdere and concluding with de electione, followed by selections from Musculus’ commentary on Genesis. Taken alone, this section might lead to the conclusion that Musculus embraces a particularly Scotist, or at least more generally Franciscan, theological program. This conclusion underscores the need for a broader exploration of Musculus’ work, undertaken in the latter two major sections, “Causality” and “Law.” Moving inductively this study proceeds under the category of “Causality” to examine a series of loci related to divine causality, power, and will, as well as to human contingency, freedom, and responsibility, particularly as represented in the loci de voluntate Dei, de iusticia Dei, de libero arbitrio, and de votis. The exegetical background for these doctrinal discussions is provided by selections from Musculus’ Psalms commentary. The tendency from reading these sections in isolation from the others might lead one to favor a nominalistic, or again more broadly Franciscan, interpretation of Musculus’ theology. The final major section is comprised of themes treated under the title “Law,” and focuses on Musculus’ loci de legibus, de præceptis Decalogi, de abrogatione legis, and de magistratibus. Portions of Musculus’ commentary on Romans provides background material especially with regard to Musculus’ view of natural law and the office of the magistrate. Having received a generally Franciscan reading of Musculus’ late medieval antecedents from the sections of “Covenant” and “Causality,” we find in this third section a reading of Musculus that, if taken independently of the others, could favor a Thomistic reading of Musculus’ theology, particularly with regard to the doctrine of natural law.24 Muller provides an important caution regarding such characterizations. See Muller, After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 39: “Thus, we need to ask whether the Protestant reappropriation of elements of ‘Thomism’ ought to be taken as a direct reading of Thomas, or as a reading of Thomas as understood by Johannes Capreolus or Cajetan – or, indeed, as not precisely Thomist but, rather, as an appropriation of elements of the medieval via antiqua by way of thinkers such as Giles of Rome and Thomas of Strasbourg (whose works were read and cited by Protestant scholastics). So, too, when we identify ‘Scotist’ or ‘Ockhamist’ ele24

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Late-Medieval and Reformation Thought

23

1.2 Covenant, Causality, and Law in Late-Medieval and Reformation Thought Over the last few decades a picture of the Reformation has been formed that stands in marked contrast to the received wisdom of the early twentieth century. A history of Christian doctrine that largely emphasizes the importance of the Reformation’s leading men, especially Martin Luther and John Calvin (and to a lesser extent Philip Melanchthon and Huldrych Zwingli), has been measured and found wanting.25 In its place an approach that emphasizes texts and contexts rather than archetypal paradigms has provided a more sensitive and nuanced perspective on the transition from the late medieval to the early modern period. A figure such as Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563) highlights the importance of this approach since, as shall become apparent, he does not fit neatly into two groups headed respectively by the nominalist Luther and the via antiqua of Zwingli.26 Thus in recent decades it has become a commonplace of Reformation historiography to acknowledge both the continuities as well as the discontinuities between the late medieval era and the sixteenth century. Nowhere is this encouraging trend more evident than in historical theology and concerns related to the history of doctrine. As Richard A. Muller depicts the transition to the early modern era, “It is worth recognizing from the outset that the Reformation altered comparatively few of the major loci of theology: the doctrines of ments in Protestant thought, we ought perhaps to pause and ask whether these are the result of direct reading of Scotus and Ockham or of encounters with the numerous Franciscan theologies of the late fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.” 25 Musculus is one important contributor among many to the development of Reformed orthodoxy. See Muller, After Calvin, 8: “Calvin was not the sole arbiter of Reformed confessional identity in his own lifetime – and he ought not to be arbitrarily selected as the arbiter of what was Reformed in the generations following his death.” See also Emidio Campi, “Calvin, the Swiss Reformed Churches, and the European Reformation,” in Calvin and His Influence, 1509–2009 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 133: “Considering the current orientation of the historical literature, in which an increasing amount of attention is given to lesser known founding fathers of the Reformed churches, one must continue to ask: how much of what has been peddled under the label ‘Calvinism’ should really be attributed to the thought of Bucer, Zwingli, Oekolampadius, Farel, Viret, Musculus, à Lasco, or Vermigli?” Some of this contextualizing narrative is rehearsed in my contribution, “The Loci Communes of Wolfgang Musculus and Reformed Thought on Free Choice,” in Die Philosophie der Reformierten, ed. Günther Frank  /  Herman J. Selderhuis (Stuttgart-Bad Canstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 2012). 26 This is a paradigm still apparent to some extent in the work of Oberman, especially with his interest in tracing the thought of traditionally-appreciated major reformers (e.g. Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin). See, for instance, Heiko A. Oberman, The Reformation: Roots & Ramifications, trans. Andrew Colin Gow (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 197ff. Compare the higly critical assessment of this kind of paradigm made by Daniel Bolliger, Infiniti Contemplatio: Grundzüge der Scotus-und Scotismusrezeption im Werk Huldrych Zwinglis (Brill: Leiden, 2003), 45–59.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

24

Introduction

justification, the sacraments, and the church received the greatest emphasis, while the doctrines of God, the trinity, creation, providence, predestination, and the last things were taken over by the magisterial Reformation virtually without alteration.”27 In this way the work of lesser-known figures has begun to emerge from the shadows cast on the historical landscape by theologians like Luther and Calvin. This is as true for our understanding of controversial doctrines like the Lord’s Supper and justification as it is for the influence of the Reformation on political, economic, and ethical thought. These “minor” characters of the Reformation have been found to have made major, and heretofore largely unappreciated, contributions to the developments of the Protestant Reformation and postReformation eras. Wolfgang Musculus, the sometime reformer of Augsburg and Bern, is one such overlooked figure. In his time he was a greatly influential exegete, pastor, and theologian, producing works in various genres that enjoyed editions published in many languages with numerous printings. But in the intervening centuries, Musculus’ contributions to sixteenth-century theology and to the Reformation have been overshadowed by attention to more prominent figures like Luther and Calvin. In the Anglo-American world in particular the work of this second-generation reformer has suffered indefensible neglect. A handful of unpublished dissertations, along with only two published monographs, comprise the Englishlanguage literature focused on Musculus in the last century.28 The bibliographic situation on the continent is rather better, however, and the publication of an anthology commemorating the five hundredth anniversary of Musculus’ birth stands as a major recent contribution to Musculus research.29 Richard A. Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 39. 28 Among the former are James T. Ford, “Wolfgang Musculus and the Struggle for Confessional Hegemony in Reformation Augsburg, 1531–1548” (Ph.D. diss.: University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2000); and Robert B. Ives, “The Theology of Wolfgang Musculus, 1497–1563” (Ph.D. diss.: University of Manchester, 1965). The latter are Craig S. Farmer, The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century: The Johannine Exegesis of Wolfgang Musculus (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997); and Paul Josiah Schwab, The Attitude of Wolfgang Musculus toward Religious Tolerance (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1933). 29 Rudolf Dellsperger  /  Rudolf Freudenberger  /  Wolfgang Weber, ed., Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563) und die oberdeutsche Reformation (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1997). In addition, see Beat Hofmann, Abendmahl und Kirchenzucht im Spannungsfeld zwischen Bern und Genf: Ein kirchengeschichtlicher und dogmatischer Vergleich zwischen Wolfgang Musculus und Johannes Calvin (Akzessarbeit: Universität Bern, 1989); and Paul Gerhard Langenbruch, Schriftvergleich und Schriftauslegung bei Wolfgang Musculus (Magisterarbeitet: Universität Göttingen, 1969). 27

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Late-Medieval and Reformation Thought



25

1.2.1 Covenant in Late-Medieval and Reformation Thought While not often found worthy of independent study, there is one area in particular in which the work of Wolfgang Musculus has been noticed by the secondary scholarship, and it lies in the complicated history of what has become known as “covenant” or “federal” theology. In his Loci communes, initially published in 1560, Wolfgang Musculus was perhaps the first reformer to grant the topic of covenant a separate treatment within the context of a major systematic contribution to sixteenth-century Reformed theology.30 When nineteenth-century writers proposed covenant as a seventeenth-century alternative to the perceived central dogma of predestinarian Calvinistic theology, a discussion arose regarding the predecessors to the developments in covenant thought from Zacharius Ursinus (1534–1583) to Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669). These discussions have taken some note of Musculus’ importance in the formation of covenantal thinking in Reformed theology. A characteristic feature of Musculus’ treatment of covenant in the Loci is his distinction between “general” and “special” covenants. Musculus’ attempts to articulate a doctrine of the general and special covenants evince concern both to show the stability of the divinely created world-order as well as the reliability and assurance of salvation accomplished in the work of Christ. On the one hand, this general  /  special distinction shows significant continuity between the two basic understandings of covenant communicated from the late-medieval period to the early-modern era, which William J. Courtenay summarizes well: According to the first covenant, God commits himself to uphold his created universe and the laws that govern it, in spite of their contingent nature or the sinfulness of man. This is the area of natural causality. According to the second covenant, God commits himself to a process of salvation which, in spite of its contingent nature or the basic unacceptability of man, he will uphold. This is the area of theological causality. Therefore, both the order of nature and the order of salvation are covenants which apply to different situations and persons. All mankind stands under the covenant of creation; only those in the Church, that is, in a state of grace, stand under the covenant of salvation. These covenants, by their very nature, affirm that God’s will, and consequently God’s action, are bound by nothing except his own decision to act in particular ways. They also affirm, however, that

See the topic “De foedere ac testamento Dei,” in Wolfgang Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 14, 141–46. On Musculus’ Loci, see especially Herman J. Selderhuis, “Die Loci Communes des Wolfgang Musculus: Reformierte Dogmatik anno 1560,” 311–330. 30

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

26

Introduction

the very nature of God as revealed to man, a nature consistent and dependable, commits God, in fact, restricts God, to act in limited, defined ways.31

On the other hand, the significance of Musculus’ doctrinal formulation of a foedus generale, and whether or not it is a forerunner of the so-called “covenant of works” in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, has been a subject of some controversy in the secondary literature.32 In addition to the treatments of Musculus’ thought on topics relating to the genesis of federal theology, the Bernese reformer’s work bears great promise for the development of our understanding of other doctrines of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Indeed, within the context of his own theology, his doctrines of covenant and election are rooted in corresponding views on divine causality and creaturely contingency.

1.2.2 Causality in Late-Medieval and Reformation Thought A major philosophical background for questions related to causality and contingency as well as covenant are doctrines articulating the divine attributes, particularly divine power. A good deal of attention has been paid to the development of the so-called “dialectic of divine power” by eminent scholars includ31 William J. Courtenay, “Covenant and Causality in Pierre d’Ailly,” in Covenant and Causality in Medieval Thought: Studies in Philosophy, Theology, and Economic Practice (London: Variorum, 1984), 117. 32 Heinrich Heppe, Geschichte des Pietismus und der Mystik in der reformirten Kirche, namentlich der Niederlande (Leiden: Brill, 1879), 208; Geerhardus Vos, “The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology,” in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, ed. Richard B. Gaffin Jr. (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1980), 259; Gottlob Schrenk, Gottesreich und Bund im alteren Protestantismus, vornehmlich bei Johannes Coccejus. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Pietismus und der heilsgeschichtlichen Theologie (Gutersloh: Bertelsmann, 1923), 50; Karl Barth, Die Kirchliche Dogmatik, IV  /  1 (Zurich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1953), 57; ET: Church Dogmatics, Volume IV: The Doctrine of God, Part 1 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2004), 55; Holmes Rolston III, John Calvin versus the Westminster Confession (Richmond: John Knox, 1972), 12; William K. B. Stoever, ‘A Faire and Easie Way to Heaven’: Covenant Theology and Antinomianism in Early Massachusetts (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1978), 215, n. 4; R. T. Kendall, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979), 39, n. 2; J. Wayne Baker, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1980), 201; Robert Letham, “The Foedus Operum: Some Factors Accounting for Its Development,” 462f; Stephen Strehle, Calvinism, Federalism, and Scholasticism: A Study of the Reformed Doctrine of Covenant (New York: Peter Lang, 1988), 157; David A. Weir, The Origins of Federal Theology in Sixteenth-Century Reformation Thought (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 12; Charles S. McCoy  /  J. Wayne Baker, Fountainhead of Federalism: Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenantal Tradition (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991), 140f, n. 20; and Lyle D. Bierma, German Calvinism in the Confessional Age: The Covenant Theology of Caspar Olevianus, rev. edn (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2005), 62.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Late-Medieval and Reformation Thought

27

ing William J. Courtenay, Francis Oakley, and Heiko A. Oberman.33 Oberman and others have studied the reception of this distinction in the early modern period, but again the focus has remained largely on the “great” figures of the Reformation, particularly Luther and Calvin.34 And as Musculus’ theology in general has suffered from a lack of attention, his doctrines of divine will and justice, as well as free choice, which plays so critical a role in linking covenantal responsibilities to concrete legal arrangements, for example, are no exceptions. An examination of Musculus’ thought on divine omnipotence not only provides a necessary background for more fully understanding other doctrines, including free choice, covenant, and predestination, but also allows us to see how all of these doctrines interrelate, forming a composite picture of Musculus’ theology.35 This composite picture provides us with a more nuanced and sensitive understanding of Musculus’ thought, such that examination of only one or another of these various doctrines could easily lead to a skewed and unbalanced portrait. In the realm of creaturely causality, the most famous sixteenth-century dispute on the topic of free choice is undoubtedly that of Luther and Erasmus, a quarrel that served as a flashpoint and drew other figures into the field, whether directly, as in the case of Melanchthon, or more distantly, as in the case of Calvin and his exchanges with Pighius.36 Of course other major reformers expressed 33 William J. Courtenay, Capacity and Volition: A History of the Distinction of Absolute and Ordained Power (Bergamo: Pierluigi Lubrina, 1990); idem, Covenant and Causality in Medieval Thought; Francis Oakley, “Omnipotence and Promise: The Legacy of the Scholastic Distinction of Powers,” Etienne Gilson Series 23 (2002): 1–28; idem, “The Absolute and Ordained Power of God in Sixteenth– and Seventeenth–Century Theology,” Journal of the History of Ideas 59, no. 3 (1998): 437–61; idem, Omnipotence, Covenant, & Order: An Excursion in the History of Ideas from Abelard to Leibniz (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1984); Heiko A. Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000); idem, The Impact of the Reformation: Essays by Heiko A. Oberman (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994); and idem, The Dawn of the Reformation: Essays in Late Medieval and Early Reformation Thought (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992). 34 David C. Steinmetz, Luther in Context, 2d edn (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002); idem, Calvin in Context (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995). 35 Lombard’s own work, which is so foundational for Musculus’ Loci, connects the soteriological issues surrounding operating and cooperating grace with questions of free choice. See Peter Lombard, Sententiarum Quatuor Libri, bk. 2, d. 26–27, pp. 627–52; ET: The Sentences, 2:123–38. 36 For Luther and Erasmus, see E. Gordon Rupp  /  Philip S. Watson, ed., Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969). For Calvin’s work contra Pighius, see John Calvin, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will: A Defense of the Orthodox Doctrine of Human Choice against Pighius, ed. A. N. S. Lane, trans. G. I. Davies (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1996); and idem, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, 2 vol. (Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960). A great deal of scholarly attention has been paid to these disputes. Some highlights include: Charles E. Hambrick-Stowe, “Where is the Middle Way: A Study of the Luther-Erasmus Free Choice Debate,” Lutheran Quarterly 29 (Fall 1977): 42–57; Wilfried Joest, “Die Freiheit in Luthers Verständnis des Menschen,” Kerygma und Dogma 29, no. 2

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

28

Introduction

their own thoughts on the topic of free choice, including Martin Bucer, Peter Martyr Vermigli, and Heinrich Bullinger. Wolfgang Musculus too wrote a separate locus on liberum arbitrium in his magisterial Loci.37

(April  /  June 1983): 127–138; and Vincent Brümmer, “Calvin, Bernard and the Freedom of the Will,” Religious Studies 30 (December 1994): 437–455. Melanchthon also played a prominent role in the early discussions on the topic of free choice in the sixteenth century, opening his initial Loci communes of 1521 with the topic De libero arbitrio. Foremost among recent scholarship on Melanchthon’s role in the debates is the work of Timothy J. Wengert, “Philip Melanchthon’s Contribution to Luther’s Debate with Erasmus over the Bondage of the Will,” in By Faith Alone, ed. Joseph A. Burgess  /  Marc Kolden (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 110–124; idem, Human Freedom, Christian Righteousness: Philip Melanchthon’s Exegetical Dispute with Erasmus of Rotterdam (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998); and idem, Law and Gospel: Philip Melanchthon’s Debate with John Agricola of Eisleben over Poenitentia (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1997), 85. See also Robert Kolb, Bound Choice, Election, and Wittenberg Theological Method: From Martin Luther to the Formula of Concord (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005); idem, “Nikolaus Gallus’ Critique of Philip Melanchthon’s Teaching on the Freedom of the Will,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 91 (2000): 87–110; Barbara Pitkin, “The Protestant Zeno: Calvin and the Development of Melanchthon’s Anthropology,” Journal of Religion 84, no. 3 (July 2004): 345–78; Oswald Bayer, “Freiheit: das Verständnis des Menschen bei Luther und Melanchthon im Vergleich,” Lutherjahrbuch 66 (1999): 135–50, which appears translated by Christine Helmer as “Freedom? The Anthropological Concepts in Luther and Melanchthon Compared,” Harvard Theological Review 91 (October 1998): 373–87; and Wilhelm Maurer, “Melanchthons Anteil am Streit zwischen Luther und Erasmus,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 49, no. 1–2 (1958): 89–115. 37 For Bucer, see the translation of his excursus on liberum arbitrium from his commentary on Romans, following the section on 9:14–21, in Common Places of Martin Bucer, ed. and trans. D. F. Wright (Abingdon, UK: Sutton Courtenay Press, 1972), 145–57. Vermigli’s loci on free choice are also collected from his Romans commentary, placed at chapter 7, and 1 Corinthians 2, in The Common Places of the most famous and renowned Divine Doctor Peter Martyr, trans. Anthonie Marten (London: Henry Denham / Henry Middleton, 1583), 252–80. For Bullinger, see The Decades of Henry Bullinger, ed. Thomas Harding, 2 vol. (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2004), III.ix, 300–57; and Bullinger, Oratio de moderatione servanda in negotio providentiae, praedestinationis, gratiae et liberi arbitrii (1536), in Johann H. Hottinger, Historiae Ecclesiasticae Novi Testamenti, vol. 8 (Zurich: Johann Heinrich Hamberger, 1667), 763–827. See also Cornelis P. Venema, Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination: Author of ‘the Other Reformed Tradition’?,” (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 36–41. For Musculus’ relationship with various other contemporaries, see Horst Weigelt, “Wolfgang Musculus und die radikale Reformation – die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Musculus und Kaspar Schwenckfeld,” in Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563) und die oberdeutsche Reformation, 159–172; Heinz Scheible, “Wolfgang Musculus und Philipp Melanchthon,” in Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563) und die oberdeutsche Reformation, 188–200; Rudolf Dellsperger, “Bucer und Musculus,” in Martin Bucer and Sixteenth Century Europe: Actes du colloque de Strasbourg (28–31 août 1991), ed. Christian Krieger / Marc Lienhard, vol. 1 (New York: Brill, 1993), 419–27; and Friedrich Roth, “Zur Kirchengüterfrage in der Zeit von 1538 bis 1540. Die Gutachten Martin Bucers und der Augsburger Prädikanten Wolfgang Musculus und Bonifacius Wolfart über die Verwendung der Kirchengüter,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 1, no. 4 (1903–1904): 299–336. The Anabaptists and other “radical” reformers played an important role in the sixteenth-century controversies as well. See, for instance, David C. Steinmetz, Luther in Context, 59–71; and Thor Hall, “Possibilities of Erasmian Influence on Denck and Hubmaier in their Views on the Freedom of the Will,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 35, no. 2 (April 1961): 149–70. For Balthasar Hubmaier, see his “On Free Will,” in Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers, ed. George H. Williams / Angel M. Mergal, 114–35 (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1957).

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Late-Medieval and Reformation Thought



29

That the question of liberum arbitrium was an important one for the theology of the Reformation is beyond doubt. Aside from the influential controversies mentioned above, many confessional documents of the period saw fit to include separate articles on the issue of free choice.38 The Regensburg Colloquy of 1541, which Musculus attended, also touched on the issue of liberum arbitrium, albeit without great controversy given the focus of the Protestant / Roman Catholic attention on the Eucharist.39 And by the end of 1547, the Council of Trent had declared that if anyone claimed “that, since Adam’s sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished; or that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan; let him be anathema.”40 A nineteenth-century survey by Heinrich Heppe on the doctrine of free choice makes no mention of Musculus.41 But there are more recent studies that have begun to examine the development of the doctrine of free choice in Reformed theology in dialogue with a broader range of sources. Particularly noteworthy is the work of a group of scholars associated with the University of Leiden that picks up the story with the Reformed orthodox theologian Girolamo Zanchi (1516–1590) and traces a line of Reformed thought on free choice up

A summary listing of documents from Germany, Switzerland, and Britain from the period before 1560 suffices: Confessio Augustana (1530), art. XVIII; Confessio Helvetica prior (1536), art. IX; and the Forty-Two Articles (1553), art. IX. In addition, Calvin’s Consensus Genevensis (1552) extended the controversy with Pighius. See H. A. Niemeyer, ed., Collectio Confessionum in Ecclesiis Reformatis Publicatarum (Leipzig: Julius Klinkhardt, 1840), 218–310. 39 See Ives, “Theology of Wolfgang Musculus,” 55; and Phillip E. Pederson, “The Religious Colloquy of Regensburg (Ratisbon), 1541” (Ph.D. diss.: University of Chicago, 1978), 163ff. On Musculus’ involvement at Regensburg, see James Thomas Ford, “Wolfgang Musculus and the Struggle for Confessional Hegemony in Reformation Augsburg, 1531–1548,” 249–53. See also Friedrich Roth, “Zur Geschichte des Reichstages zu Regensburg im Jahre 1541. Die Korrespondenz der Augsburger Gesandten Wolfgang Rehlinger, Simprecht Hoser und Dr. Konrad Helmit dem Rathe, den Geheimen und dem Bürgermeister Georg Herwart nebst Briefen von Dr. Gereon Sailer und Wolfgang Musculus an den letzteren,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 2, no. 3 (1904–1905): 250–307; and Wilhelm H. Neuser, ed., Die Verbreitung der Religionsgespräche von Worms und Regensburg 1540 / 41 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974). 40 Council of Trent, The Canons and Decrees of the Sacred and Œcumenical Council of Trent Celebrated under the Sovereign Pontiffs, Paul III, Julius III, and Pius IV, trans. J. Waterworth (London: Dolman, 1848), Session VI, Chapter XVI, Canon V, p. 45. The key phrases in this passage are, “liberum arbitrium,” and, “non amissum et extinctum.” Compare Calvin, Institutes, II.ii.7, p. 264; and especially Luther, De Servo Arbitrio Martini Lutheri ad D. Erasmum Roterodamum (Wittenberg: Johannem Lufft, 1526). On the ongoing debate, see Eef Dekker, “An Ecumenical Debate between Reformation and CounterReformation? Bellarmine and Ames on liberum arbitrium,” in Reformation and Scholasticism: An Ecumenical Enterprise, ed. Willem J. van Asselt / Eef Dekker (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 141–54. 41 Heinrich Heppe, Dogmatik des deutschen Protestantismus im sechzehnten Jahrhundert, vol. 1 (Gotha: F. A. Perthes, 1857), 426–59. 38

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

30

Introduction

through the time of Bernardinus de Moor (1709–1780).42 Others have paid special attention to the critically-important second-generation reformers, including a study by Luca Baschera on the thought of Peter Martyr Vermigli.43 And yet thus far the thought of Wolfgang Musculus, a major second-generation codifier of Reformed theology, has not yet been adequately examined with regard to his articulation of the doctrine of free choice.

1.2.3 Law in Late-Medieval and Reformation Thought One other set of issues in which the scholarship has paid some attention to the work and influence of Musculus is in the areas related to law and the role of the civil magistrate, and this makes sense given the close connection in Musculus’ theology to his doctrine of covenant. With regard to natural law, John T. McNeill stated forthrightly in 1946, “There is no real discontinuity between the teaching of the Reformers and that of their predecessors with respect to natural law.”44 This is important to note because of the general neglect of natural law and related doctrines in the twentieth-century, due in part to historiography that viewed natural revelation, natural theology, and natural law as primary points of discontinuity rather than continuity between the medieval and early modern eras. Picking up on the complex story of natural law in the Reformed tradition since the sixteenth century, Stephen J. Grabill writes, While the already weakened state of natural theology in the Reformed tradition was exacerbated by Barth’s assault on Protestant orthodoxy, it makes sense that during the period of Barthian hegemony (1934–1990) interest in related doctrines such as natural revelation and natural law would likewise atrophy given the logical thread connecting them to natural theology.45

As Protestant theology recently emerged from what Grabill calls “the period of Barthian hegemony,” theologians and historians have begun to take a fresh look 42 Willem J. van Asselt / J. Martin Bac / Roelf T. te Velde, ed., Reformed Thought on Freedom: The Concept of Free Choice in Early Modern Reformed Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010). 43 Luca Baschera, “Peter Martyr Vermigli on Free Will: The Aristotelian Heritage of Reformed Theology,” Calvin Theological Journal 42, no. 2 (November 2007): 325–40. 44 John T. McNeill, “Natural Law in the Teaching of the Reformers,” Journal of Religion 26, no. 3 (July 1946): 168. 45 Stephen J. Grabill, Rediscovering the Natural Law in Reformed Theological Ethics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 21.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Late-Medieval and Reformation Thought

31

at the treatments of natural law in the early generations of the Reformation. And in general the findings have supported the claims previously made by McNeill regarding largely continuous reception of the doctrine in the sixteenth century. A number of works have looked at the natural-law thinking of major figures like Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, and Zwingli.46 But other studies have begun to fill out the picture with attention to figures more often overlooked. Grabill’s study treats Calvin, Vermigli, Zanchi, Althusius, and Turretin, tracing a stream of thought through the sixteenth to the seventeenth centuries. J. Daryl Charles pays attention to the contribution of Bullinger as well as to that of Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli.47 Most importantly for our study, in 1959 Richard Bäumlin wrote an article that takes up the question of Musculus’ doctrine of natural law, particularly in connection with Musculus’ view of the role of the civil magistrate.48 It is in this latter regard that Musculus’ name has been most recognized, outside of discussions related to covenant theology, and linked with the name of Thomas Erastus. With regard to politics, James T. Ford has called Musculus “one of the early theorists” on the subject of the duties of the Christian magistrate, connecting him conceptually with Erastus.49 Musculus is thus an important figure in the early modern debates about the scope and authority of the State vis-à-vis the Church. In addition, Musculus’ position as reformer had implications for the implementation of religious freedom and practice in

46 For instance, see McNeill, “Natural Law in the Teaching of the Reformers,” which treats these four. See also Guenther H. Haas, The Concept of Equity in Calvin’s Ethics (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1997), 39–46; Bernd Wannenwetsch, “Luther’s Moral Theology,” in The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther, ed. Donald K. McKim (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 120–35; Antti Raunio, “Divine and Natural Law in Luther and Melanchthon,” in Lutheran Reformation and the Law, ed. Virpi Mäkinen (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 21–61; Irena Backus, “Calvin’s Concept of Natural and Roman Law,” Calvin Theological Journal 38, no. 1 (April 2003): 7–26. In general, see John Witte Jr., Law and Protestantism: The Legal Teachings of the Lutheran Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002); and Harold J. Berman, Law and Revolution, II: The Impact of the Protestant Reformations on the Western Legal Traditions (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006). More recently, see David VanDrunen, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms: A Study in the Development of Reformed Social Thought (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010) and Robert C. Baker / Roland Cap Ehlke, ed., Natural Law: A Lutheran Reappraisal (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2011). 47 J. Daryl Charles, Retrieving the Natural Law: A Return to Moral First Things (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 114–25. 48 Richard Bäumlin, “Naturrecht und obrigkeitliches Kirchenregiment bei Wolfgang Musculus,” in Für Kirche und Recht: Festschrift für Johannes Heckel zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Siegfried Grundmann (Cologne: Böhlau, 1959), 120–43. 49 See James T. Ford, “Wolfgang Musculus on the Office of the Christian Magistrate,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 91 (2000): 149–67.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

32

Introduction

the sixteenth century, particularly with regard to the treatment of Anabaptists in Reformed cities.50

1.3 Survey of Musculus’ Works In addition to various tracts, sermons, catechisms, and treatises published occasionally throughout his career, such as a polemical dispute regarding the Mass with the Roman Catholic theologian Johannes Cochläus, Musculus produced three major sets of works: 1) editions and translations of patristic and ancient texts; 2) biblical commentaries; and 3) his Loci communes.51

1.3.1 Editions of Ancient and Patristic Authors Heiko A. Oberman has done a great service to the history of doctrine by providing a lucid and informative survey of competing views regarding “tradition” that endured into the sixteenth century.52 To note that the Reformers took great interest in relating their theological arguments to the ancient faith ought to be non-controversial. Unfortunately, the emphasis the Reformers placed on “catholicity,” by which they meant adherence to the true Christian faith articulated especially if not definitively in the patristic period, is still an oftoverlooked aspect of the Reformation. One need only look at the character of the various disputes, whether that between John Calvin and Cardinal Sadoleto, or indeed as expressed in Calvin’s prologue to his Institutes, to see that appeals

One reviewer has judged of Musculus that “the historian writing in English must include him,” and that “the tolerance of this hitherto rather obscure cosmopolitan…should be magnified and emulated.” See Gaius J. Slosser, review of Paul Josiah Schwab, The Attitude of Wolfgang Musculus toward Religious Tolerance (Scottdale, PA: Mennonite Press, 1933) in Church History 4, no. 1 (March 1935): 83. 51 His response to an attack by Cochläus was published in Latin, Adversus libellum Iohannis Cochlaei de Sacerdotio ac Sacrifico novae legis aeditum (Augsburg: Philipp Ulhardt, 1544); and later in German, Auff das Büchlin Johannes Cochlei welches er zur verthädigung Bäpstlichs Priesterthumbs vnnd Meβopffers im Jar 1544 (Augsburg: Philipp Ulhardt, 1545). For ���������������������������������������������������� more on Musculus and Cochläus, see Heribert Smolinsky, “Wolfgang Musculus und die Römisch Kirche: der Streit mit Johannes Cochläus,” in Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563) und die oberdeutsche Reformation, 173–87. A bibliography of various editions and translations of Musculus’ works is available in Marc van Wijnkoop Lüthi, “Druckwerkeverzeichnis des Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563),” in Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563) und die oberdeutsche Reformation, 351–414. 52 Articulated especially in Heiko A. Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 361–422. 50

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Survey of Musculus’ Works

33

to the church fathers generally meant a great deal to the magisterial Reformers and their arguments.53 In his concern for understanding the views of the church fathers, and placing them in support of his theological efforts, Musculus is no exception to this general rule. His Loci communes include a pair of loci on new doctrine (de nova doctrina) and human tradition (de traditionibus humanis) at a critical juncture in the overall structure of his massive system. Musculus is exceptional, however, in that he devoted his first systematic theological efforts towards the production of new editions of a number of patristic, particularly Eastern, sources. During a twenty-year period, from 1536 to 1556, Musculus produced or contributed to editions of John Chrysostom, Basil of Caesarea, Cyril of Alexandria, ecclesiastical histories (including that of Eusebius of Caesarea), Gregory of Nazianzus, and Athanasius.54 Musculus’ position as a disseminator of patristic sources is unsurpassed among the first- and second-generation Reformers, and this period of labor forms a critical foundation for both his later exegetical and doctrinal work.

53 See John Calvin, “Calvin’s Reply to Sadoleto,” in A Reformation Debate, ed. John C. Olin (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000), 86: “For although we hold that the Word of God alone lies beyond the sphere of our judgment, and that Fathers and Councils are of authority only in so far as they accord with the rule of the Word, we still give to Councils and Fathers such rank and honor as it is meet for them to hold, under Christ,” and idem, “Prefatory Address to King Francis I of France,” in Institutes of the Christian Religion, §4, “Misleading Claim that the Church Fathers Oppose the Reformation Teaching,” 18–23. Especially on the place of the ecumenical councils and the ‘consensus patrum,’ see Girolamo (Jerome) Zanchi, De religione christiana fides – Confession of Christian Religion, ed. Luca Baschera / Christian Moser, 2 vol. (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 1:22, 62–75. 54 Ioannis Chrysostomi Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani in Omnes D. Pauli epistolas commentarij (Basel: Johann Herwagen, 1536); Opera D. Basilii Magni Caesariae Cappadociae Episcopi Omnia (Basel: Johann Herwagen, 1540); Operum Divi Cyrilli Alexandrini Episcopi Tomi Quator (Basel: Johann Herwagen, 1546); Ecclesiasticae Historiae Autores (Basel: Hieronymus Froben / Nikolaus Episcopius, 1549); Divi Gregorii Theologi, Episcopi Nazianzeni Opera (Basel: Johann Herwagen, 1550); and Athanasii Magni Alexandrini Episcopi, Graviss. Scriptoris, et Sanctiss. Martyris, Opera (Basel: Hieronymus Froben / Nikolaus Episcopius, 1556). For evaluations of Musculus’ contributions, see Irena Backus, Lectures Humanistes de Basile de Césarée: Traductions Latines (1439–1618) (Paris: Institute d’Études Augustiennes, 1990), 35–42; Hughes Oliphant Old, The Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1975), 139f; and Ives, “The Theology of Wolfgang Musculus,” 307–10. For “Musculus on the Authority of the Church Fathers,” see also Farmer, The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century, 33–38; and on Augustine in particular, compare Ives, “The Theology of Wolfgang Musculus,” 115–124. More broadly see also Irena Backus, ed., The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: From the Carolingians to the Maurists, 2 vol. (Leiden: Brill, 1997); and David C. Steinmetz, Die Patristik in der Bibelexegese des 16. Jahrhunderts (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1999).

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

34

Introduction

1.3.2 Commentaries Musculus’ second major set of works are his biblical commentaries. Musculus begins his exegetical work after his initial labors on patristic texts, with a good deal of overlap between the two endeavors. Musculus begins writing commentaries during his Augsburg period with the publication of his commentary on Matthew in 1544. Following the publication of his commentary on John in two parts (in 1545 and 1548), Musculus produces a commentary on the Psalms in 1551, his largest, running in excess of 1,500 pages in the various editions.55 For the remainder of his life Musculus would continue to work on biblical exegesis, publishing on the Decalogue (1553), Genesis (1554), Romans (1555), Isaiah (1557), 1 and 2 Corinthians (1559), Galatians and Ephesians (1561), and Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and 1 Timothy (published posthumously in 1565). A major group of references in the secondary literature note Musculus’ importance in the history of biblical exegesis. Pierre Bayle called Musculus “one of the most celebrated Divines of the sixteenth century,” but also opined that “if his works were of great advantage to the Protestant party, as no doubt they were,” that by Bayle’s own time “they were no longer so, for people have for a long time left off reading them.”56 Despite Bayle’s judgment, however, there is some evidence of Musculus’ ongoing influence, not only through his Loci communes but also through his numerous and massive biblical commentaries. A modern commentator has observed that Musculus “in many ways set the sixteenth-century standard for thorough exegesis,” and this judgment is borne out by the appropriation of his work in following generations.57 Musculus is cited Musculus’ commentary on the Gospel of John was published partially as Commentariorum in Evangelistam Ioannem, Heptas prima (Basel: Bartholomaeus Westheimer, 1545); and in full as Commentariorum in Evangelistam Ioannem, Heptas altera, item tertia et postrema in eundem (Basel: Johann Herwagen, 1548). While in Augsburg Musculus worked on his Psalms commentary, which was published after he came to Bern as In Sacrosanctum Dauidis Psalterium Comentarij (Basel: Johann Herwagen, 1551). 56 Pierre Bayle, Dictionaire historique et critique, vol. 10, s.v. “Musculus (Wolfgang),” p. 584; 588, n. F; ET: idem, A General Dictionary, Historical and Critical, vol. 7, p. 698; 700, n. F. For biographical information Bayle largely relies on Melchior Adam, Vitae Germanorum Theologorum (Heidelberg: Geydes, 1620). 57 Mickey L. Mattox, Defender of the Most Holy Matriarchs: Martin Luther’s Interpretation of the Women of Genesis in the Ennarationes in Genesin, 1535–1545 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 278. Farmer judges that Musculus “belongs among the elite group of the premiere biblical scholars of the sixteenth century.” See Craig S. Farmer, “Musculus, Wolfgang (1497–1563),” in Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters, 768. In the sixteenth century, see, for instance, Augustin Marlorat, Genesis cum catholica expositione ecclesiastica (Geneva: Henri Estienne, 1562), 19; and Jacobus Kimedonicus, De Redemtione Generis Humani Libri tres (Heidelberg: Abrahamus Smesmannus, 1592), 84. See also Dellsperger and van Wijnkoop Lüthi, “Peter Martyr Vermigli und Wolfgang Musculus,” 113. 55

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Survey of Musculus’ Works

35

directly by writers as diverse as Jacob Arminius, Johann Wilhelm Baier, Daniel Brenius, Peter Bulkeley, Edmund Calamy (the elder), Edward Fisher, Johann Gerhard, Hugo Grotius, Michael Hawke, Richard Simon, William Whitaker, and Herman Witsius in the seventeenth century, as well as Petrus Brouwer, John Gill, and Hermann Venema in the eighteenth.58 Musculus’ facility with the biblical languages, foundational for his exegetical work, was achieved relatively late in life.59 During his time spent as a Benedictine in the Lixheim cloister in the area west of Strasbourg, Musculus became known as “the Lutheran monk” for his advocacy of Protestant doctrine.60 It was after his departure from the monastery in 1527 that Musculus came to Strasbourg, eventually working as a clerk for Martin Bucer. Here Musculus undertook study 58 Jacob Arminius, Dissertation on the True and Genuine Sense of the Seventh Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, in The Works of James Arminius, trans. James Nichols, vol 2., London edn (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 531, 574, 590, 627ff; Johann Wilhelm Baier, Dissertatio historico-theologica de impanatione et consubstantiatione (Jena: Johannis Wertheri, 1677), 13; Daniel Brenius, Opera theologica (Amsterdam: Irenicus Philalethius, 1666), who in his notes on the Old Testament is said “borrows largely from Wolfgang Musculus” by Robert Wallace, Antitrinitarian Biography: or Sketches of the Lives and Writings of Distinguished Antitrinitarians, vol. 3 (London: E. T. Whitfield, 1850), 82; Peter Bulkeley, The GospelCovenant; or The Covenant of Grace Opened (London: Benjamin Allen, 1646), 18; Edmund Calamy, The Godly Mans Ark, or, City of Refuge in the day of his distresse (London: Jo. Hancock, 1657), Sermon I, Psalm 119:92, p. 4f; Edward Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity: Touching both the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace (London: G. Calvert, 1645), 6f, 15, 16f, 67, 121, 123; Johann Gerhard, Loci theologici, vol. 3 (Berlin: Gust. Schlawitz, 1865), 138, 205, 322; Hugo Grotius, Ordinum Hollandia ac Westfrisiae Pietas (1613), ed. and trans. Edwin Rabbi (Leiden: Brill, 1995), §133, p. 199; idem, De imperio summarum potestatum circa sacra, trans. and ed. Harm-Jan van Dam, vol. 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), ch. 1.8, p. 169; 10.27, p. 511; Michael Hawke, Killing is Murder, and No Murder (London: Mich. Hawke, 1657), 28; Richard Simon, Histoire critique du Vieux Testament (Rotterdam: Reinier Leers, 1685), 438f; William Whitaker, Disputatio de sacra scriptura contra huius Papistas (Herborn: Christopheri Corvinus, 1600), 337; Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, trans. William Crookshank (London: R. Baynes, 1822), vol. 1, bk. 1, ch. 6, sec. 7, p. 109; vol. 2, bk. 4, ch. 7, sec. 5, p. 234; sec. 24, p. 242; Petrus Brouwer, De XXVste Psalm, in eene Doorgaande Verklaaring (Dordrecht: Pieter van Braam, 1769); 7, n. A; 77, n. A; John Gill, Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, 2 vol. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), vol. 2, bk. 5, p. 637; and Hermann Venema, Commentarius ad Psalmos CXI–CL, vol. 6 (Leeuwarden: H. A. de Chalmot, 1767), 278, 517. 59 The most thorough modern treatment of Musculus’ life is the portrait by Rudolf Dellsperger, “Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563) Leben und Werk,” in Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563) und die oberdeutsche Reformation, 23–36. See also the sketch in Farmer, The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century, 6ff; and the treatment in Ives, “The Theology of Wolfgang Musculus,” 3–106. See also Reinhard Bodenmann, Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563), Destin d’un Autodidacte Lorrain au Siècle des Réformes (Geneva: Droz, 2000), which includes a critical edition and French translation of the major biographical document on Musculus from the sixteenth century, the Vita Wolfgangi Musculi written by his son Abraham Musculus. Older sources include Ludwig Grote, Wolfgang Musculus, ein biographischer Versuch (Hamburg: Rauhes Haus, 1855); and Wilhelm Theodor Streuber, “Wolfgang Musculus oder Müslin. Ein Lebensbild aus der Reformationszeit,” Berner Taschenbuch 9 (1860): 1–79. 60 See René Bornert, “Wolfgang Musculus und das Benediktinische Mönchtum des ausgehenden Mittelalters und der Reformationszeit im südwestdeutschen Raum,” in Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563) und die oberdeutsche Reformation, 42–67.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

36

Introduction

of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek while attending theological lectures given by Bucer and Wolfgang Capito.61 After a period as a preacher in neighboring towns, Musculus was sent to the imperial city of Augsburg in 1531. He would be a leading pastor in Augsburg for the next two decades, promoting the cause of the Reformed faction in contest with the Lutheran and Roman Catholic parties.62 In 1548, at the imposition of the Augsburg Interim, Musculus and his family fled the city, eventually finding temporary refuge in Zurich. Musculus opted to remain in Zurich until he was offered a position in Bern, but Craig S. Farmer relates that during this period after his flight from Augsburg, “Largely on the basis of his reputation as a skilled commentator, Musculus received numerous offers to assume teaching posts throughout Europe.”63 Musculus took up the professorship in theology at the school in Bern in 1549, a position he held until his death in 1563. There are at least two procedural models for pursing the task of biblical interpretation that would have been readily available for Musculus to follow at the onset of his ongoing exegetical endeavors. The first is exemplified in Melanchthon’s Brevis discendae theologiae ratio of 1530, which recommended beginning with Romans, proceeding through the other epistles and the Gospels, followed by a series through the Old Testament.64 Musculus’ early mentor Martin Bucer also described a pattern for engaging the scriptures in an epistolary treatise

See also Bodenmann, Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563), 369–77. For a survey of Musculus’ participation in the Wittenberg Concord in 1536, see Henning Reinhardt, “Das Itinerar des Wolfgang Musculus (1536),” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 97 (2006): 28–82. 63 Farmer, The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century, 4. See also, Bodenmann, Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563), 393–403; and Marc van Wijnkoop Lüthi, “Wolfgang Musculus in Bern (1549–1563),” in Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563) und die oberdeutsche Reformation, 281–98. More generally see Eduard Bähler, “Bern und die Augsburger Interimsflüchtlinge,” Neues Berner Taschenbuch 26 (1921): 67–124; and Karl Bernhard Hundeshagen, Die Conflikte des Zwinglianismus, Lutherthums und Calvinismus in der Bernischen Landeskirche von 1532–1558 (Bern: C.A. Jenni, 1842). On the political development of Bern through the medieval and early Reformation periods, see Barbara Studer Immenhauser, Verwaltung zwischen Innovation und Tradition: Die Stadt Bern und ihr Untertanengebiet 1250–1550 (Ostfildern: Jan Thorbecke, 2006); and Roland Gerber, Gott ist Burger zu Bern: Eine spätmittelalterliche Stadtgesellschaft zwischen Herrschaftsbildung und sozialem Ausgleich (Weimar: Böhlau, 2001). See also Kurt Guggisberg, Bernische Kirchengeschichte (Bern: Paul Haupt, 1958), 172ff, who understands Musculus to be representative of Bernese theologians at this time, as “der Vermittlung zwischen der Richtung Zwinglis und Calvins.” Henri Vuilleumier, Histoire de l’Église Réformée du Pays de Vaud sous le Régime Bernois, 4 vol. (Lausanne: Éditions La Concorde, 1927–33), judges Musculus to be Bern’s “premier grand théologien” and occupying “peut-être le premier rang aprés Calvin,” 1:266. 64 Philip Melanchthon, Brevis discendae theologiae ratio, in Philippi Melanchthonis Opera quae supersunt omnia, ed. C. G. Bretschneider, vol. 2 (Halle: Schwetschke, 1833), cols. 455–462. See also Muller, PRRD, 1:100f. 61 62

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Survey of Musculus’ Works

37

from 1531, Quomodo S. Literae pro Concionibus tractandae sint Instructio.65 Bucer recommends first engaging the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke), followed by John. After treatment of the Gospels Bucer suggests in the New Testament treating the other Pauline letters. Moving from the New Testament to the Old, Bucer commends in order the Psalms, Deuteronomy, Genesis, and Isaiah.”66 Bucer’s purpose in this advice is to distinguish his approach from those that would instead begin with the book of Romans and other Pauline epistles rather than the Gospels. While Bucer is primarily concerned with preaching (evangelica oratio), in Musculus’ commentaries we find some evidence of the complex interrelationship between preaching and biblical exegesis in the work of the reformers.67 Although Musculus does not slavishly follow Bucer’s recommendations, preferring instead to move back and forth from the New to the Old Testament, in pursuing his exegetical work he does essentially follow the order of books as prescribed by Bucer within each Testament. Thus, Musculus’ exegesis of New Testament books taken together closely mirrors the Bucerian model (Matthew [1544], John [1545 / 48], Romans [1555], 1 and 2 Corinthians [1559], Galatians and Ephesians [1561], Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and 1 Timothy [1565]). If the commentary on Matthew might be seen as representative of Bucer’s commendation of the Synoptics, followed by the commentary on John, then aside from the break to the Old Testament in 1551, the only variations from Bucer’s model are the treatments of 1 and 2 Corinthians prior to the exegesis of Galatians and the omission of a separate commentary on Acts. The order of Musculus’ Old Testament exegesis yields an even more striking 65 Martin Bucer, Quomodo S. Literae pro Concionibus tractandae sint Instructio (1531) in Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 26 (1946): 32–75. See also Muller, PRRD, 2:69f. On the original context of Bucer’s treatise, see Daniel Timmerman, “Bucers Verständnis von Schrift und Schriftauslegung. Ein Vergleich mit Heinrich Bullinger,” in Martin Bucer zwischen den Reichstagen von Augsburg (1530) und Regensburg (1532), ed. Wolfgang Simon (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 83–97. Timmerman also explores the original context of the treatise as advice contained in correspondence between Bucer and a pastor in Bevaix in the Vaud named Fortunatus Andronicus. See Bucer an Fortunatus Andronicus (1531 erste Hälfte des Jahres ?), in Briefwechsel / Correspondance: Band V (September 1530-Mai 1531), ed. Matthieu Arnold / Christian Krieger / Hans Georg Rott (Leiden: Brill, 2004), no. 369, p. 146–158. 66 See Muller, PRRD, 2:70. 67 On the homiletical background of Bucer’s advice, see Hughes Oliphant Old, Worship: Reformed According to Scripture (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 73–74. For the place of preaching at the vanguard of the Reformation, as well as the relationship between exegesis and homiletics, see Timothy George, Reading Scripture with the Reformers (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011), 228–253. For the relationship between Musculus’ preaching in Augsburg and his commentaries on Matthew, John, and the Psalms, see Abraham Musculus, “Historia vitae et obitus clarissimi Theologi D. Wolfgangi Musculi Dusani,” in Wolfgang Musculus, ΣΥΝΟΨΙΣ festalium concionum (Basel: Conrad Waldkirch, 1595), 31.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

38

Introduction

result (Psalms [1551], Decalogue [1553], Genesis [1554], Isaiah [1557]). If we take Musculus’ exegesis of the Decalogue in 1553 as filling the place of a full commentary on Deuteronomy, then the order of Old Testament commentaries by Musculus matches precisely the order recommended by Bucer. While there are certainly departures from Bucer’s recommended order as it appears in the letter to Andronicus, there seem to be more than coincidental similarities to Bucer’s recommended order and Musculus’ actual order of commentary. Again, it is noteworthy that once Musculus takes up the task of interpreting Scripture, it is an exercise not given up through the course of the rest of his life. Farmer notes that the multiple printings of each of these commentaries give “evidence of a wide readership that continued long after his death.” Indeed, in following generations of theologians a great number refer not primarily to his systematic collection of loci first published in 1560 but rather to his exegetical works. “Through his commentaries,” writes Farmer, “Musculus won fame and honor throughout Europe.” 68

1.3.3 Loci communes The third major category of Musculus’ work is his massive Loci communes, first published in 1560. As with the relationship between his patristic and exegetical work, there is overlap here between Musculus’ doctrinal formulations and the production of his scriptural commentaries. Musculus spent about a decade producing his Loci communes while he was in the midst of his prime exegetical work. In fact, Musculus undertook the task of writing the Loci at the behest of the authorities in Bern, who determined the need for a manual or handbook for the theological students.69 From its very inception, then, the Loci is a pastorallyfocused system. As Herman Selderhuis observes, this guiding purpose prevents Farmer, The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century, 3. On the school in Bern, see Beat Immenhauser, “‘Hohe Schule’ oder Universität? Zur Pfarrerausbildung in Bern im 16. Jahrhundert,” in Politics and Reformations: Communities, Polities, Nations, and Empires, ed. Christopher Ocker / Michael Printy / Peter Starenko /  Peter Wallace (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 143–78; and Ulrich Im Hof, “Die reformierte Hohe Schule zu Bern. Vom Gründungsjahr 1528 bis in die zweite Hälfte des 16. Jahrhunderts,” in 450 Jahre Berner Reformation: Beiträge zur Geschichte der Berner Reformation und zu Niklaus Manuel (Bern: Historischer Verein des Kantons Bern, 1980), 194–224. On Ramist trends in reform of educational curricula in Germany, see Howard Hotson, Commonplace Learning: Ramism and its German Ramifications, 1543–1630 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). For Strasbourg, see Ernst-Wilhelm Kohls, Die Schule bei Martin Bucer: in ihrem Verhältnis zu Kirche und Obrigkeit (Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1963). See also Karin Maag, Seminary or University? The Genevan Academy and Reformed Higher Education, 1560–1620 (Aldershot: Scholar Press, 1995); and Reinhard Golz / Wolfgang Mayrhofer, ed., Luther and Melanchthon in the Educational Thought 68 69

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Survey of Musculus’ Works

39

Musculus from treating each topic in exhaustively detailed form.70 Musculus’ Loci is most certainly a scholastic manual in the sense that it expresses a theology fit for the school, or academic, environment. But it is one that is pastorallydriven and aimed at providing a basic instruction in doctrine so that either those training for the ministry or those already in ministry could enter into the study of the Scriptures with some fundamental doctrinal formation. Once the students have this basic course of Christian doctrine in hand, they are better equipped to engage Scripture. And Musculus’ biblical commentaries are full and detailed expositions that such an equipped student will be able to use to good effect. As Muller writes, Musculus’ Loci “were a gathering of precisely this kind of postexegetical doctrinal discussions out of a lifetime of exegetical labor into a single theological summation.”71 But as a summation, often the Loci do not include the level of detail or expansiveness that is present in the commentaries. In this way the Loci communes are drawn out of Musculus’ exegetical labors in order to ground students properly and move them back into the source of Christian doctrine, Holy Scripture. There has been a good deal of speculation about the structure and ordering of the topics in Musculus’ Loci. In part this has been driven by attempts to find a single unifying doctrine or architectonic theme by which the particular parts might be judged. The closest we come to this sort of a formal interpretive rubric is the understanding of the Loci as the result of a sort of soteriological, anti-speculative, and pastoral scholastic method. But as Muller has so cogently observed, the scholastic method (in its many variations) does not in itself determine content: “Understood as a method, scholasticism evidences an institutionalization of Protestant thought in its academies and universities, not the rise of a specific doctrinal perspective.”72 In terms of the overall structure and internal relations between the various loci, a number of theories have been put forth. Robert B. Ives writes that the “most convincing working scheme seems to be a trinitarian one.”73 But Ives admits too that “at first glance a theological form seems to be beyond reach; 69 disparate loci, with unclear transitions from one section to the next.”74 Without in Central and Eastern Europe (Münster: Lit, 1998). More recently see Emidio Campi / Simone De Angelis / Anja-Silvia Goeing / Anthony T. Grafton, ed., Scholarly Knowledge: Textbooks in Early Modern Europe (Geneva: Droz, 2008). 70 Selderhuis, “The Loci Communes of Wolfgang Musculus,” 314. 71 Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 112. 72 Muller, After Calvin, 4. 73 Ives, “The Theology of Wolfgang Musculus,” 130f. 74 Ives, “The Theology of Wolfgang Musculus,” 130.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

40

Introduction

providing much more in terms of specific guidance, Ives also points to Lombard’s Sentences and Melanchthon’s Loci as texts to which Musculus’ Loci “is similar.”75 More recently, Armin Siedlecki has argued for Melanchthon’s work as a possible guide to the construction of Musculus’ Loci, although Siedlecki points rather curiously and without much substantiation to Melanchthon’s Der ordinanden examen (1552) and Examen eorum (1554).76 Musculus would have already begun writing the content for the Loci by the time Melanchthon’s Examen appeared, and in any case such a judgment overlooks the much more compelling argument for Melanchthon’s Loci of the third aetas as a structural antecedent.77 Indeed, Selderhuis rightly notes the organization of Melanchthon’s Loci beginning in 1543 as bearing some important resemblance to Musculus’ ordering. It is certainly true that Melanchthon’s model of the locus method of constructing a systematic doctrinal work was of great influence on all the secondgeneration efforts at theological codification, those by Musculus included.78 But if we examine the order of topics in Melanchthon’s 1543 Loci and Musculus’ 1560 Loci, we find that there is broad agreement on order between the major topical sections, at least through the first sections of Musculus’ work and the first ten loci of Melanchthon’s. Musculus’ text has separate loci for many more topics than Melanchthon’s. But broadly speaking, despite Musculus’ more detailed sub-categories, we can see that Melancthon’s third aetas is a structural model for the first portion of Musculus’ Loci. Musculus himself gives some guidance when he claims that he will handle the topics as their internal relations require and as the theological and polemical context of the times necessitate. He avows that he is committed to tracing out his own methodus through the topics and that he is not slavishly following any systematic predecessor.79 And despite the general similarities between Musculus’ and Melanchthon’s Loci, this judgment is borne out by what we find in the second half of Musculus’ work. For it is at this point that we encounter the problematic elements of the Loci Ives, “The Theology of Wolfgang Musculus,” 132, n. 1. Armin Siedlecki, “Protestant Theological Education at German Universities in the Sixteenth Century,” ATLA Proceedings 62 (2008): 257f. Compare Philip Melanchthon, Der ordinanden examen (Wittenberg: Hans Lufft, 1552); and idem, Examen eorum, qui audiuntur ante ritum publicae ordinationis, qua commendatur eis ministerium evangelii (Wittenberg: Johannis Richter, 1554). For more on Melanchthon’s works, see Christopher M. Croghan, “Melanchthon’s ‘Der Ordinanden Examen’ and ‘Examen Eorum’: A Case Study in Pedagogical Method” (Ph.D. diss.: Luther Seminary, 2007). 77 Selderhuis, “The Loci Communes of Wolfgang Musculus,” 315. 78 For Melanchthon’s influence in this regard, see Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 105–110. See also Quirinus Breen, “The Terms ‘Loci Communes’ and ‘Loci’ in Melanchthon,” Church History 16, no. 4 (December 1947): 197–209. 79 Musculus, Loci communes, “Præfatio ad Lectorem,” fol. 5r–5v. 75

76

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Survey of Musculus’ Works



41

that have baffled so many commentators. Beginning with locus 41, de nomine Dei, Musculus introduces a new and seemingly unrelated set of loci that culminate with locus 69, de magistratibus. J. Bohatec had accounted for the two major parts of Musculus’ Loci by pointing to differing purposes: synthetic and apologetic, respectively.80 Selderhuis hypothesizes that this latter part may have been intended for separate publication.81 A plausible explanation for this is that contained in the second half of Musculus’ Loci are primarily topics that deal for the most part with particular attributes of God that do not easily fit into a Melanchthonian ordering of topics as originally modeled on the book of Romans.82 Melanchthon’s particular emphasis on the relationship between law and gospel, for instance, does not find a structural corollary in Musculus’ work.83 For Musculus the opposition or distinction between law and gospel is to be understood within a basic covenantal and soteriological context. In a manner analogous to his treatment of the difference between the Old and New Testament under the rubric of the special covenant examined in more detail below, Musculus writes in his locus de Evangelio Iesu Christi that the law “warns, urges, and curses,” while the Gospel “preaches grace and remission of sins to those who believe.”84 Indeed, rather than distinct synthetic and apologetic purposes, Musculus’ two sections might represent different attempts to resolve the potential disparities

See J. Bohatec, “Die Methode der reformierten Dogmatik,” Theologische Studien und Kritiken 81 (1908): 276. With respect to the latter purpose, Bohatec also points to Benedict Aretius, Problemata theologica continenta praecipuos Christianae religionis locos (Lausanne: Le Preux, 1573). Schneckenburger opines that the synthetic method is absent in both Musculus and Aretius. ����������������������� See Matthias Schneckenburger, “Die neueren Verhandlungen, betreffend das Prinzip des reformirten Lehrbegriffs,” Theologische Jahrbucher 7 (1848): 77. 81 See Selderhuis, “The Loci Communes of Wolfgang Musculus,” 317. 82 As Breen notes, for Melanchthon the paired categories of law and gospel, sin and grace were inspired by “Luther’s predilection for St. Paul, particularly for the letter to the Romans. The main topics of it were to be law and gospel, sin and grace.” He concludes, “For all Melanchthon’s later interest in the other loci (Unity of God, Trinity, etc.), these four are considered throughout his life as the basic ones.” See Breen, “The Terms ‘Loci Communes’ and ‘Loci’ in Melanchthon,” 208, n. 234. See also Rob Pauls, “The World as Sin and Grace: The Theology of Melanchthon’s Loci communes of 1521,” in Christian Humanism: Essays in Honour of Arjo Vanderjagt, ed. Alasdair A. MacDonald / Zweder R.W.M von Martels / Jan R. Veenstra (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 469–478. 83 On the development of a particular treatment of law in the succeeding editions of Melanchthon’s Loci, see Paul W. Robinson, “‘The Most Learned Discourses of the Philosophers and Lawyers’: Roman Law, Natural Law, and Property in Melanchthon’s Loci Communes,” Concordia Journal 28, no. 1 (January 2002): 41–53. 84 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 20, p. 168: “Lex præcipit, urget, & maledicit : Evangelium gratiam & remissionem peccatorum prædicat iis qui credunt.” 80

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

42

Introduction

between the “synthetic” and “analytic” theological methods.85 Musculus may not have wanted to insert the discussions in the latter half of the Loci, which in his view had tended in traditional scholastic theology to speculation, in the first part of the Loci out of concern that they might derail the work, or that they would be better suited for digestion by the students once a first set of topics had been treated.

85 The entirety of Musculus’ Loci should be seen as having an apologetic cast, as he notes explicitly that the topics are selected with an eye toward issues of particular contemporary dispute. On the distinction between the synthetic and analytic methods, see Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 129; and Muller, PRRD, 1:62.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

2. Covenant

A characteristic feature of Wolfgang Musculus’ treatment of covenant is his distinction between “general” and “special” covenants, and while this aspect of his theology has received a measure of scholarly attention, the relationship between the two kinds of covenant has not always been carefully considered. Musculus’ doctrine of the general covenant has in fact been the subject of some controversy. Heinrich Heppe says that Musculus’ doctrine was a predecessor to Ursinus’ covenant thought and taught “the general covenant of God with the whole creation, which had its head [Krone] in Adam.”1 This opinion of basic continuity, if not identity, between Musculus’ general covenant and the covenant of works, is followed to a greater or lesser extent by Otto Ritschl, Paul Althaus, N. Diemer, Karl Barth, William K. B. Stoever, and Holmes Rolston III.2 Gottlob Schrenk, on the other hand, notes with more careful nuance that the division between the general and special covenant in Musculus’ theology is not entirely identical with the later distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace.3 Others following Schrenk, such as David A. Weir, Stephen Strehle, Robert Letham, and R. T. Kendall, agree that Musculus’ division is not indentical to the covenant of works / covenant of grace scheme but still Heinrich Heppe, Geschichte des Pietismus und der Mystik in der reformirten Kirche, namentlich der Niederlande (Leiden: Brill, 1879), 208: “… dem foedus generale Gottes mit der gesammten Schöpfung, die in Adam ihre Krone hatte.” An excellent bibliography of treatments of federal aspects of Musculus’ theology is provided in Craig Farmer, The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century: The Johannine Exegesis of Wolfgang Musculus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 185, n. 16. 2 See William K. B. Stoever, ‘A Faire and Easie Way to Heaven’: Covenant Theology and Antinomianism in Early Massachusetts (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1978), 215, n. 4; and Holmes Rolston III, John Calvin versus the Westminster Confession (Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1972), 12. Also in agreement on the general continuity are Karl Barth, Die Kirchliche Dogmatik, IV / 1 (Zurich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1953), 57–70; ET: Church Dogmatics, Volume IV: The Doctrine of God, Part 1 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2004), 54–66; N. Diemer, Het Scheppingsverbond met Adam bij de Theologen der 16e, 17e, en 18e Eeuw in Zwitserland, Duitschland, Nederland en Engeland (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1935), 24f; Paul Althaus, Die Prinzipien der deutschen reformierten Dogmatik im Zeitalterder aristotelischen Scholastik (Leipzig: Deicher, 1914), 160f; and Otto Ritschl, Dogmengeschichte des Protestantismus, 4 vol. (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1908–1912), 3:415f. 3 Gottlob Schrenk, Gottesreich und Bund im alteren Protestantismus, vornehmlich bei Johannes Coccejus. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Pietismus und der heilsgeschichtlichen Theologie (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1923), 50: “Es ergibt sich ein zweifacher Bund, der aber noch nicht ganz mit dem Werkbund und Gnadenbund der späteren Dogmatik übereinkommt.” 1

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

44

Covenant

argue that Musculus’ division paves the way for the later distinction.4 Richard A. Muller likewise notes affinities between Musculus’s division and that of later figures like Szegedinus, Ursinus, and Olevianus.5 A final group, including Charles S. McCoy, J. Wayne Baker, Michael McGiffert, and Robert B. Ives, denies continuity between Musculus’ covenantal division and that of later figures.6 Lyle D. Bierma specifically addresses the possible connection between Musculus and Ursinus, and concludes that “what Musculus had called God’s ‘general covenant,’ His promise to Noah never to suspend the laws of nature and never again to eradicate the human race, bears no resemblance to Ursinus’s ‘natural covenant.’”7 Even in such cases as these where Musculus’ doctrine of the general covenant has been discussed, however, the treatment is typically quite short and almost exclusively dependent on the explication of covenant doctrine in his Loci.8 These include David A. Weir, The Origins of Federal Theology in Sixteenth-Century Reformation Thought (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 12; Stephen Strehle, Calvinism, Federalism, and Scholasticism: A Study of the Reformed Doctrine of Covenant (New York: Peter Lang, 1988), 157; Robert Letham, “The Foedus Operum: Some Factors Accounting for Its Development,” Sixteenth Century Journal 14, no. 4 (Winter 1983): 462f; and R. T. Kendall, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979), 39, n. 2. 5 Richard A. Muller, “Divine Covenants, Absolute and Conditional: John Cameron and the Early Orthodox Development of Reformed Covenant Theology,” Mid-America Journal of Theology 17 (2006): 18ff. 6 See Charles S. McCoy / J. Wayne Baker, Fountainhead of Federalism: Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenantal Tradition (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991), 140f, n. 20; J. Wayne Baker, “Heinrich Bullinger, the Covenant, and the Reformed Tradition in Retrospect,” Sixteenth Century Journal 29, no. 2 (Summer 1998): 359–76; idem, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1980), 200ff; Michael McGiffert, “From Moses to Adam: The Making of the Covenant of Works,” Sixteenth Century Journal 19, no. 2 (Summer 1988): 133; and Robert B. Ives, “The Theology of Wolfgang Musculus, 1497–1563,” (Ph.D. diss.: University of Manchester, 1965), 154. Many other either ignore Musculus or treat him only in passing as a representative of the early thought of the first- and second-generation reformers. For example, see Leonard J. Trinterud, “The Origins of Puritanism,” Church History 20 (1951): 41f. For recent studies in covenant theology that omit Musculus, see also Peter A. Lillback, “The Early Reformed Covenant Paradigm: Vermigli in the Context of Bullinger, Luther and Calvin,” in Peter Martyr Vermigli and the European Reformations, ed. Frank A. James III (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 70–96; Brian J. Lee on covenantal terminology in Bullinger and Calvin in his Johannes Cocceius and the Exegetical Roots of Federal Theology: Reformation Developments in the Interpretation of Hebrews 7–10 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), 31–37, 41ff; and with special attention to Calvin and Bullinger and the approaches they represent, Glenn A. Moots, Politics Reformed: The Anglo-American Legacy of Covenant Theology (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2010), 33–81. 7 Lyle D. Bierma, German Calvinism in the Confessional Age: The Covenant Theology of Caspar Olevianus, rev. edn (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2005), 62. 8 Wolfgang Musculus, Loci communes in usus sacrae Theologiae candidatorum parati (Basel: Johann Herwagen, 1564 [1560]); ET: Common places of Christian religion, trans. ����������������������� John Man (London: Reginalde Wolfe, 1563). On Musculus’ Loci, see Herman J. Selderhuis,“Die Loci Communes des Wolfgang Musculus: Reformierte Dogmatik anno 1560,” in Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563) und die oberdeutsche 4

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Covenant

45

But given Musculus’ exegetical and doctrinal method, to fully understand Musculus’ conception of the general covenant reference must be made to his exegetical work on Genesis, particularly to the establishment of the Noahic and Abrahamic covenants. This first part of the current study, classified broadly under the rubric of “Covenant,” begins by focusing on a series of interrelated loci: de fœdere ac testamento Dei, de discrimine veteris & novi Testamenti, de gratia Dei, and de electione ac reprobatione. While the locus on election and reprobation does not follow the preceding three loci in sequence, the complex relationship in the Reformation period between the concepts of covenant and predestination and the resulting confusion in the secondary scholarship require handling predestination in this context.9 The explication of these loci will proceed in comparative dialogue with the corresponding doctrinal presentations in the work of John Calvin (1509–1564)10 and Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575).11 Reformation, ed. Rudolf Dellsperger / Rudolf Freudenberger / Wolfgang Weber (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1997), 311–30. On John Man, the translator of Musculus’ Loci into English, see Gary M. Bell, “John Man: The Last Elizabethan Resident Ambassador in Spain.” Sixteenth Century Journal 7, no. 2 (October 1976): 75–93. In addition to the translation by Man of the Loci communes into English, the Loci were also translated into French within a decade of his death. See Musculus, Lieux Communs de la saincte escriture, trans. Antonine du Pinet (Lyon: Charles Pesnot, 1570). 9 See Richard A. Muller, Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins (Durham, NC: Labyrinth Press, 1986); Gottfried Adam, Der Streit um die Prädestination im ausgehenden 16. Jahrhundert; eine Untersuchung zu den Entwurfen von Samuel Huber und Aegidius Hunnius (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970); and Brian G. Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy: Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism in Seventeenth–Century France (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969). For background on the Swiss context on the doctrine in the decade during Musculus’ work on the Loci, see Michael W. Bruening, Calvinism’s First Battleground: Conflict and Reform in the Pays de Vaud (Dordrecht: Springer, 2005); and compare Philip C. Holtrop, The Bolsec Controversy on Predestination: The Statements of Jerome Bolsec, and the Responses of John Calvin, Theodore Beza, and Other Reformed Theologians, 2 vol. (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1993). See also the connection between covenant and election in the work of Huldrych Zwingli, specifically in his In Catabaptistarum strophas elenchus Huldrychi Zuingli, contained in his Opera d. Huldrychi Zuingli, vol. 2 (Zurich: C. Froschauer, 1545), 5v–30r; ET: Selected Works, ed. Samuel Macauley Jackson, trans. Lawrence A. McLouth / Henry Preble / George W. Gilmore (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972), 123–258, especially 219–247. 10 John Calvin, Ioannis Calvini Opera, ed. G. Baum / E. Cunitz / E. Reuss, 59 vol. (Braunschweig: C. A. Schwetschke, 1863–1900); ET: Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, 2 vol. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1960); and Genesis, trans. John King (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 2000). On Calvin see David Steinmetz, Calvin in Context (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995). 11 Heinrich Bullinger, De testamento seu foedere Dei unico et aeterno (Zurich: C. Froschauer, 1534); ET: A Brief Exposition of the One and Eternal Testament or Covenant of God, trans. Charles S. McCoy / J. Wayne Baker, in McCoy / Baker, Fountainhead of Federalism, 99–138; idem, Der alt gloub (Zurich: C. Froschauer, 1539); ET: The olde fayth, trans. Miles Coverdale (Antwerp: M. Crom, 1541), reprinted as The old faith, in Writings and Translations of Myles Coverdale (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1844), 1–83; idem, Summa christenlicher Religion (Zurich: C. Froschauer, 1556), and the Latin edition, Compendium Christianae religionis (Zurich: C. Froschauer, 1556); ET: Common places

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

46

Covenant

Two exegetical sections follow the analysis of the loci. The first looks at the key pericope in Genesis 9 where Musculus describes the nature of the covenant with Noah in greater detail than in his Loci. The second exegetical section engages Musculus’ commentary on Genesis 17 and the covenant with Abraham. Musculus’ exegesis of these passages is compared with that of Ambrose of Milan (c. 339–397), the eminent medieval commentator Nicholas of Lyra (c. 1270– 1349), and the biblical theologian Conrad Pellicanus of Zurich (1478–1556).12

2.1 Loci communes The first three of the loci under examination here follow in sequence: de fœdere ac testamento Dei, de discrimine veteris & novi Testamenti, and de gratia Dei. They are preceded in Musculus’ work by presentations of the loci on the Law, the Decalogue, and the abrogation of the Law, and are followed by treatments of the redemption of humankind, the incarnation of the Word, and the dispensation of God’s grace and the call of humanity. The locus on predestination, de electione ac reprobatione, comes later in the series of loci on soteriolgoical topics (sometimes called the ordo salutis) and is preceded by the locus de fide and followed by the locus de pœnitentia.

2.1.1 De fœdere ac testamento Dei Wolfgang Musculus is a contributor to the development of the doctrine of the covenant in Reformed theology. In addition to being one of the earliest, if not of the Christian Religion, trans. John Stockwood (London: George Byshop, 1572); idem, Sermonum decades quinque (London: Henricus Midletonus, 1587); ET: The Decades of Henry Bullinger, ed. Thomas Harding, 2 vol. (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2004); idem, Confessio et exposito simplex orthodoxae fidei, in Bekenntnisschriften und Kirchenordnung der nach Gottes Wort reformierten Kirche, ed. Wilhelm Niesel (Zurich: Zollikon, 1938), 219–76; ET: The Second Helvetic Confession, in The Book of Confessions (New York: Presbyterian Church [U.S.A.], 2002), 51–116. On Bullinger’s Decades, see Peter Opitz, Heinrich Bullinger als Theologe: Eine Studie zu den «Dekaden» (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2004). On Bullinger’s doctrine of predestination, see Cornelis P. Venema, Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination: Author of “the Other Reformed Tradition”? (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002). 12 Ambrose of Milan, De Noe et Arca, in Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, ed. Carolus Schenkl, vol. 32, pt. 1 (Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1897), 411–497; idem, De Abraham, in Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, ed. Carolus Schenkl, vol. 32, pt. 1 (Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1897) 499–638; Nicholas of Lyra, Postilla super Genesim (Nuremberg: Anton Koburger, 1498); and Conrad Pellicanus, Commentaria Bibliorum, tomus primus (Zurich: C. Froschauer, 1536).

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Loci communes



47

first, Reformed theologian to give covenant its own locus, Bierma correctly notes that Musculus “no longer identified the biblical terms ‘covenant’ and ‘testament.’”13 In his careful work on covenantal terminology, Lee has identified two basic terminological approaches to interpreting the Hebrew and Greek terms into Latin. The first approach “tended to flatten the relation between foedus, pactum, and testamentum, and gave a certain prominence to testamentum due to contemporary usage.”14 Lee calls this method the “medieval synthesis” and understands Bullinger’s terminological discussion to fit broadly within its framework.15 Musculus, by contrast, is a good representative of the second approach, in which commentators “could read diatheke as a less than ideal translation, and understand testamentum in the New Testament as an imprecise translation of berith.”16 Musculus begins his locus de fœdere ac testamento Dei with a discussion of covenantal terminology in which he notes that there are three main Latin terms found in Scripture: fœdus, pactum, and testamentum. These are used “indiscriminately” by the Latin translators.17 He continues by noting the original terms berith and diatheke in the Hebrew and Greek, respectively. Musculus observes here that the Hebrew word means fœdus and pactum, while the Greek signifies constitutio and pactum, perhaps indicating a more explicitly legal denotation. Where the Vulgate did not adequately distinguish between the various Latin terms, the main distinctions for Musculus between fœdus and pactum on the one hand and testamentum on the other are that the former two do not require the death of the testator for confirmation (confirmatio) while the latter does. Covenants are in fact voided by death while testaments are enacted with the death of the testator, and covenants require oaths to be sworn (iureiurandum) for confirmation, “which is in no sense required of a testament.”18 In clearly distinguishing between the appropriate use of fœdus / pactum and testamen-

Bierma, German Calvinism in the Confessional Age, 49f. Lee, Johannes Cocceius and the Exegetical Roots of Federal Theology, 30. 15 See Bullinger, De testamento, 2v–4v. 16 Lee, Johannes Cocceius and the Exegetical Roots of Federal Theology, 31. Lillback does not take into account the nuance of covenantal terminology exemplified in this second approach, and Lee’s observations provide a helpful corrective. Compare Lillback, “The Early Reformed Covenant Paradigm,” 81: “His [Peter Martyr Vermigli’s] vocabulary is consistent with the early Reformed discussion of the covenant: pactum, testamentum and foedus are used interchangeably.” 17 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 14, p. 141. 18 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 14, p. 141: “Fœdus & pactum non requirit ad confirmationem sui mortem estatoris: requirit vero testamentum. Imo fœdera & pacta inter homines morte dissiliunt, & irrita redduntur, cum testametna non nisi morte confirmentur. Et præterea fœdera & pacta iureiurando confirmantur, quod nemo sensatus in testamento requirit.” 13 14

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

48

Covenant

tum, Musculus’ brief terminological discussion places him in accord with the humanistic impulse to unravel the “medieval synthesis” of the three terms. Following his terminological discussion, Musculus makes his second main point, a brief one regarding the gracious nature of covenants and pacts. Musculus calls it entirely astounding that God, in his infinite majesty, whose will and power are freest of all, considers it worthy to bind and obligate himself to the rule of pacts, out of neither necessity to act, nor hope for any other advantage.19 Here Musculus is content to simply refer to these metaphysical contexts as pressing the question why God deigns to bind himself in this way. “So that through these two immovable things,” answers Musculus, “promise and oath, because it is impossible for God to lie, we might have a most strong refuge to which we might flee in all temptations, and we might continuously seek to strengthen the keeping of our hope to the end.”20 It is thus purely for our benefit that God graciously makes clear his firm purposes in covenantal relationships. Covenantal obligations make it clear to creatures that the almighty and mostfree deity will not act arbitrarily or capriciously. Musculus’ third point introduces a further development identified in earlier scholarship, the distinction between “a foedus generale and a foedus speciale in Scripture.”21 As the previous survey indicates, this distinction has been the cause of much debate and confusion in the secondary literature. The deliberation has largely been about whether or not Musculus’ twofold distinction between a general and a special covenant is a forerunner of later distinctions. Generally speaking, the significance of the general / special distinction for Musculus’ theology has been misunderstood and underappreciated. For Musculus, the general covenant (fœdus generale) is that which God “fixed with the entire fabric of the world, and all those who inhabit it, so beasts as well as men, also with day and night, winter and summer, cold and heat, planting and harvest, etc.”22 Musculus refers specifically to Genesis 8:21–22, Genesis 9:9–11, and Jeremiah 33:20–21 as scriptural foundations for this doctrine of the general

19 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 14, p. 142: “Stupendum plane est, quod infinita illa maiestas, cuius voluntatem & potestatem convenit esse omnium liberrimam, ad normas sese pactorum obligare & obstringere dignatur, cum nulla hoc necessitate adacta, nec spe commodi alicuius illecta faciat. 20 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 14, p. 142: “… �������������������������������������������������� promissione ac iusiurandum, quandoquidem impossibile est mentiri Deum, solatium habeamus omnium forstissimum, ad quod in omnibus tentationibus confugiaus, speique nostræ ad finem usque retinendæ corroborationem quæramus.” 21 Bierma, German Calvinism in the Confessional Age, 50. 22 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 14, p. 142: “… pepigit cum universa hac terræ machina, omnibusque illam inhabitantibus, tam bestiis quam hominibus: cum die etiam & nocte, hyeme & æstate, frigore & æstu, semente ac messe, & c.”

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Loci communes



49

covenant.23 This covenant “can be called general, because it comprehends the whole world, and it is able to be called earthly and temporal therefore because it concerns the stability of earthly things, to the extent that it is evident from these very words, and it does not continue beyond the state of this world which at last shall be destroyed.”24 After dispensing with his discussion of the general covenant in one brief section, Musculus goes on to expound the special covenant throughout the remainder of the locus. The special covenant (fœdus speciale) is that bond first explicitly entered into with Abraham and administered under three major dispensations; that is, the times before the law, under the law, and after the law, each one associated with the “notable persons” (insignes personæ): Abraham, Moses, and Christ, respectively.25 In this way, “The special covenant is also everlasting [sempiternum], because he [God] has condescended to ratify it with the elect and believers.”26 Musculus initiates his discussion of the special covenant with references to Genesis 17:5–7, appealing also to Romans 9:8 and Galatians 3:29. Following a discussion of the significance of Abraham, Musculus makes it clear that by terming this covenant “special,” he does not mean it to be understood as referring only to Israel. This special covenant is not limited to the Israelite nation of the Old Testament, but rather to “all the elect and believing in Christ,” who are the “true seed of Abraham and children of the promise.”27 This covenant is termed “special” in respect to the prior “general” covenant, “which comprehends the whole world, men and beasts, as it does not discriminate between the elect and reprobate, believing and unbelieving, but also includes without discrimination [indiscriminatum] men and beasts.”28 As is seen in more detail in the discussion of Genesis 9, another key difference between the general and the special covenant, as evidenced by the inclusion of animals in the general covenant, is that the special covenant has conditions that narrow the scope of the parties involved. In Musculus’ view the “heads” or “chief points” (capita) of the special covenant are twofold, concerning God and his human confederates. Thus, even though all covenants are unilaterally instituted by God, as in Musculus’ second See Bierma, German Calvinism in the Confessional Age, 50. Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 14, p. 142: “Fœdus hoc generale est, quia totum orbem complectitur, terrenumque vocari potest ac temporarium propterea quod terrenarum rerum stabilitattem concernit, quemadmodum ex verbis ipsis patet, nec durat ultra mundi huius statum aliquando interiturum.” 25 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 14, p. 145. 26 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 14, p. 142: “Fœdus speciale est ac sempiternum, quod cum electis ac credentibus sancire dignatus est.” 27 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 14, p. 143. 28 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 14, p. 143. 23 24

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

50

Covenant

point noted above, we might say that there is an aspect of bilaterality involved in the special covenant that differentiates it from the general covenant. These two “heads” exactly mirror the conditions attributed to God and his people by Bullinger in his De testamento. Regarding God’s part, Musculus writes that God joins (subiungo) with the covenant partners (consortes), that “I may be your God, and to your seed after you.”29 In this way, God is committing himself not only as creator, “but also as savior.”30 In his description of this divine part of the covenant, Musculus explores in more detail the eternal (æternum) nature of the special covenant. In syllogistic fashion, Musculus argues from Jesus’ statements against the Sadducees in Matthew 22 (that God is God of the living and not the dead) to conclude that the covenant is not terminated by death. “If he is not God of the dead,” writes Musculus, “but of the living, moreover that he is my God by an everlasting covenant, then it entirely follows that not even while I am dead in body, I shall not be without a share in this covenant, and to this point it is necessary that I will live forever.”31 This leads Musculus to reason that the perpetuity (perpetuitas) of this covenant is a threefold eternity (trina æternitatem) encompassing: (1) God who covenants; (2) the confederates; and (3) the grace under which the pact is set up and confirmed. In the second part of the special covenant involving the human confederates, Musculus summarizes the obligation this way: “Walk before me, and be pure [integer].”32 This brief statement includes everything related to true faith, obedience, religion, sincerity of the soul, trust of the heart, and inclination of the will.33 Musculus concludes this section by noting that this is the “one covenant of God, which concerns our true and perpetual salvation, by which all the elect and believing, to the end of the world, are comprehended, and that is perpetual as it is immutable.”34 Where Musculus says that we are to refer all things to this special covenant that “we read in Scripture of the chief points of our salvation,”35 Bullinger too writes that “nothing else was handed down to the Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 14, p. 143. Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 14, p. 143. Calvin writes similarly of this divine commitment, “This is not for the sake of earthly happiness, but because he delivers them from death, he preserves forever and keeps in his everlasting mercy those whom he has chosen as his people.” See Calvin, Institutes, II.x.8, p. 435. 31 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 14, p. 143: “Si non est Deus mortuorum, sed viventium, est autem Deus meus fœdere sempiterno: consequentur omnino, ut ne mortuus [quidem] corpore, exors ab hoc sim fœdere futurus, adeoque necesse est, ut vivam in sempiternum.” 32 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 14, p. 144. 33 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 14, p. 144. 34 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 14, p. 144. 35 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 14, p. 144. 29 30

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Loci communes

51

saints of all ages, throughout the entire Scripture, other than what is included in these main points of the covenant.”36 The final section of the locus includes in scholastic fashion a series of potential objections (obiecta) to the doctrine as presented, followed by Musculus’ reply (responsum). In the course of these initial answers, Musculus anticipates many of the issues that will be explicated in even greater detail in the succeeding loci, de discrimine veteris & novi Testamenti and de gratia Dei. It is important to note here, however, that Musculus does clearly connect the special covenant to the so-called protevangelion of Genesis 3:15.37 Where before Abraham the special covenant was in effect but not distinctly manifest, it became expressly revealed with the covenantal relationship with Abraham. In this Musculus’ opinion is in accord with the assessment of Calvin regarding the special covenant that at the beginning when the first promise of salvation was given to Adam [Gen. 3:15] it glowed like a feeble spark. Then, as it was added to, the light grew in fullness, breaking forth increasingly and shedding its radiance more widely. At last—when all the clouds were dispersed—Christ, the Sun of Righteousness, fully illumined the whole earth.38

The rather scant treatment that Musculus gives the general covenant in this locus relative to that of the special covenant belies the importance that Musculus places on the general covenant. He writes, “I do not urge that because of this, that such a notable, remarkable, and general grace of our creator, without which the world would not be able to endure, therefore we ought to condemn [it] because it is earthly and temporary. God forbid. Certainly he is unworthy of the everlasting good, who denigrates the earthly and temporary. He is unworthy of the gift of his own life, and unworthy of the air which he breathes every day.”39 The general covenant is not to be derided simply because it is “earthly 36 Bullinger, De testamento, 16v: “… nihil aliud omnium ætatum sanctis per universam scripturam traditum constat, quàm quod hisce capitib. Fœderis comprehendum est …”; ET: A Brief Exposition of the One and Eternal Testament of God, 112. 37 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 14, p. 144: “Habuerunt illi promissionem gratiæ Adamo & posteris eius de semine mulieris, Christo videlicet, factam, cui tanquam fidei ac spei suæ fundamento sunt innixi.” Compare also Zwingli, In Catabaptistarum strophas elenchus Huldrychi Zuingli, p. 29v: “Credebat Adam nato sibi filio, eum esse natum, quem non adeo pridem deus dixerat diaboli caput comminuturum.”; ET: Selected Works, p. 220: “Adam believed that the son born to him was he of whom God had said not long before that he should bruise the head of the devil.” 38 Calvin, Institutes, II.x.20, p. 446. 39 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 14, p. 142: “Huius non ob id admoneo, ut tam insignem tam conspicuam, tamque generalem creatoris nostri gratiam, sine qua mundus durare non poterit, propterea contemnamus, quod terrena est & temporaria. Absit. Planè indignus est sempiternis bonis, qui terrena ac temporaria depreciat. Imó ingratus est dono vitæ suæ, ac indignus hoc aere quem quotidie spirat.”

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

52

Covenant

and temporal,” but rather must be rightly appreciated as the foundation and continuation of created existence. This is an emphasis on the importance of the general covenant that is unique to Musculus in comparison with Calvin and Bullinger. Selderhuis notes that the “originality” of Musculus’ covenantal doctrine lies in his affirmation and explication of the general covenant as opposed to the special covenant.40 Indeed, Bullinger is so concerned with explicating the special covenant that his description of the Noahic covenant emphasizes it as an expression of the special rather than the general covenant. As he traces out the history of God’s covenant people through the patriarchs, Bullinger writes, “For Noe was of our faith, even of the seed of God, and put his trust in the blessed Seed, our Lord Jesus.”41 He continues, Seeing that Noe was preserved through the ark, it followeth that he was saved by Jesus Christ; therefore is it manifest, that he first believed in Christ. Noe also was he, with whom God first renewed the covenant made with Adam. For it is but one covenant only, even the foresaid promise and end, made by God unto Adam.42

Bullinger’s discussion here closely follows that of Zwingli, who had expounded a doctrine of the covenant as part of his reply to the so-called Catabaptists. Zwingli observes that the covenant was “renewed” with Noah, “in whom the whole human race was renewed and spreading to all parts of the earth in order to its cultivation.”43 Musculus’ connection of the special covenant with the protevangelion of Genesis 3:15 puts him in agreement with Bullinger and Zwingli regarding the status of Noah as a participant in the special covenant. Indeed, Musculus refers to Noah as a head and father of the people of God, and so for Musculus Noah is both a representative head of the general covenant as well as a patriarch of the

40 Selderhuis, “Die Loci Communes des Wolfgang Musculus,” 319: “Die Originalität dieser Bundeslehre liegt in der Konzipierung des Unterschiedes zwischen dem ›foedus generale‹ und dem ›foedus speciale‹.” 41 Bullinger, The old faith, V, p. 32. 42 Bullinger, The old faith, V, p. 32. 43 Zwingli, Opera, II, p. 29v: “Renovatur cum illo fœdus, à quo deinde humanum genus postliminio nascitur, atque in omnes orbis partes ad colendum terram diducitur.”; ET: Selected Works, 221. The language here mirrors Zwingli’s discussion of the protevangelion, and shows that the general aspects of the covenant with Noah are simply manifestations of the broader stress of the special covenant on the cultivation and population of the earth.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Loci communes

53

special covenant.44 But where Bullinger identifies the Noahic covenant with a dispensation of the special covenant in a particular “season,” and Zwingli points indirectly to the general character of the renewal of the special covenant with Noah, Musculus goes to great lengths to more carefully and precisely lay out the existence of a general covenant and its relationship to the special covenant. To this end there appears in Musculus’ discussion of the general covenant an allusion to an idea that can be traced back to Augustine regarding the relationship between earthly and spiritual goods. That is, Musculus’ judgment that the one who denigrates or deprecates earthly and temporal goods is unworthy to enjoy everlasting good echoes Augustine’s sentiments that the one “who uses temporal goods ill, however, shall lose them, and shall not receive eternal goods either.”45 The relationship between right use of temporal goods, resulting in the reception of eternal good, “the peace of immortality and the glory and honour appropriate to it, in an eternal life made fit for the enjoyment of God and of one’s neighbour in God,” is given by God “under a most fair condition” or pact (eo pacto aequissimo).46 Given the emphasis that Musculus and Bullinger both place on the importance and centrality of the special covenant in Scripture, it is understandable why Baker and McCoy might consider the former to be a single-covenant theologian. Musculus certainly did emphasize the unity of the special covenant throughout its various administrations. Baker and McCoy write, “In the end, for Musculus as for Bullinger, there was one covenant, one people of God, and one church from Adam to the end of the world.”47 But in Musculus’ case such a reductionist summary obscures the innovative development of a two-covenant schema, including the complex relationship between the general and special covenant as outlined above, in his locus de fœdere. In the words of Musculus himself, “I find the covenant of God to be twofold.”48 And as Selderhuis observes, this is not simply a statement that there are only two covenants, but rather that there are two kinds of covenant, or that there are two aspects, one general and one special, of God’s covenant.49 The relationship between the two kinds of covenant or the 44 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim plenissimi Comentarii (Basel: Johann Herwagen, 1554), “Præfatio in Genesin,” 1: “Manifestatur discrimen electorum ac reproborum in filiis Adæ, Noe, Abrahæ, Isaac & Iacob, tanquam populi Dei capitum ac patrum.” 45 Augustine, The City of God against the Pagans, ed. and trans. R. W. Dyson (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 19.13, p. 940. 46 Augustine, City of God, 19.13, p. 940. 47 McCoy / Baker, Fountainhead of Federalism, 22. 48 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 14, p. 142. 49 Selderhuis, “Die Loci Communes des Wolfgang Musculus,” 320: “Musculus spricht nicht von zwei Bünden, sondern von einem zweifachen (›duplex‹) Bund.”

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

54

Covenant

two aspects of the covenant is critical to parsing the meaning of the twofold nature of divine covenantal action. The best way to understand this distinction in Musculus’ thought is to note that as is so often the case in Musculus’ use of scholastic distinctions, there is a single distinction made between two kinds of covenants, the general and the special. But in any case the affirmation of the latter, the special covenant, as referring to “one covenant, one people of God, and one church from Adam to the end of the world” might just as well characterize Calvin’s views on the covenant of grace as it does the positions of Musculus and Bullinger.50 Indeed, rather than distinguishing Musculus and Bullinger on the one hand from Calvin on the other, the shared recognition of the unity of the church as the people of God throughout history serves to underscore the fundamental solidarity of midsixteenth-century Reformed theology on this point rather than to undermine it. Approaching Calvin’s teaching on the covenant is more methodologically problematic than doing so for Musculus or Bullinger, each of whom either explicitly drew out a separate locus for the treatment of covenant (Musculus) or authored a separate treatment of the concept (Bullinger). As many commentators on the work of Calvin have observed, he did neither of these things.51 With our evaluations of the impact of our investigation for the totality of Calvin’s theology properly chastened, it does bear some fruit to compare Calvin’s doctrinal work in the Institutes with Musculus’ Loci and Bullinger’s De testamento.52 Moving beyond the explicitly identifiable doctrine of covenant per se to related topics such as the difference between the Old and New Testament, the value of such comparison becomes even more clearly apparent. At this point it suffices to observe that the paucity of explicit reference to the covenant in the Institutes is itself worth notice, if only because in comparison 50 See Bullinger, The old faith, V, p. 35: “For first was he [Christ] promised unto Adam; afterward was the promise renewed with Noe, and now with Abraham. And all this now is but one promise, one Saviour, and one faith.” See also Calvin, Institutes, II.x.1, p. 428: “All men adopted by God into the company of his people since the beginning of the world were covenanted to him by the same law and by the bond of the same doctrine as obtains among us.” 51 See, for instance, Peter A. Lillback, The Binding of God: Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 127; and Anthony A. Hoekema, “The Covenant of Grace in Calvin’s Teaching,” Calvin Theological Journal 2, no. 2 (1967): 135f. Eenigenburg judges that “the covenant element in the Institutes is relatively minor,” while noting that in Calvin’s explicitly exegetical work the covenant concept only “appears for discussion as often as the biblical text under analysis requires it.” See Elton M. Eenigenburg, “The Place of Covenant in Calvin’s Thinking,” Reformed Review 10 (1957): 4. As Hoekema recognizes rightly, the bulk of Calvin’s explicit covenantal discussions come in his commentaries and sermons. See Hoekema, “The Covenant of Grace in Calvin’s Teaching,” 136. 52 See the comments of Richard A. Muller about Calvin’s theological method, in comparison with his contemporaries, in The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 28f.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Loci communes



55

with Musculus and Bullinger it shows that Calvin places less explicit methodological or thematic emphasis on the concept. This does not mean that Bullinger and Musculus were covenant theologians while Calvin was not, but rather illustrates each theologian’s differing judgment about the utility of the concept for their respective doctrinal endeavors. The relationship between Calvin’s work on biblical commentaries and the construction of his Institutes is sufficient to account for the lack of a specific locus on covenant. As Muller writes, It should not be surprising that certain of the theological issues raised and even developed in some exegetical depth by Calvin in his commentaries are not brought over into the Institutes as loci communes. Apparently, the issue was not present in current debate or was not one that fell easily into either the catechetical topics of the 1536 or the added Pauline topics of the 1539 Institutes. A case can be made, along these lines, for the absence of discussion of the divine essence and attributes or of the doctrine of covenant from the Institutes.53

In the Institutes Calvin generally seems to prefer using the language of “law” and “gospel” rather than more explicitly covenantal terms, due in part to his reliance on an organizational pattern for his Institutes borrowed from Melanchthon and based on the order of topics appearing in the book of Romans. But even so, concepts like law, gospel, commandment, and sacrament are not without covenantal implications.54 At the beginning of the locus de fœdere in particular, Musculus had noted that “the Law” is “itself a part of the divine covenant,” a cryptic comment that leaves open myriad possibilities for construing the relationships between law, gospel, covenant, and obedience.55 Recognition of the interrelations between these and other concepts helps us methodologically in that we will be able to identify covenantal themes in places and topics which we might otherwise overlook. But such recognition will also aid in understanding what conclusions are warranted by the presence or lack of specific covenantal terms in a particular doctrinal discussion. One place where Calvin does briefly and explicitly discuss the covenant in broad terms is at the conclusion of a section focused on good works by the Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 114. See for instance Calvin, Institutes, II.xi.4, p. 454: “A controversy arose over whether or not the ceremonies that had been ordained in the law ought to give way to Christ. Now these were only the accidental properties of the covenant, or additions and appendages, and in common parlance, accessories of it. Yet because they were means of administering it, they bear the name ‘covenant,’ just as is customary in the case of other sacraments.” 55 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 14, p. 141. 53

54

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

56

Covenant

regenerate and God’s acceptance of these works. Calvin is at pains to show that God’s pleasure with good works does not mean that these works are fundamentally grounded in human merit. Lest we err, warns Calvin, “we must always remember that God ‘accepts’ believers by reason of works only because he is their source and graciously, by way of adding to his liberality, deigns also to show ‘acceptance’ toward the good works he has himself bestowed.”56 Calvin’s point here about the graciously divine origin of good works coheres with Musculus’ judgment of the unilaterally gracious initiation of all divine-human covenants illustrated above. Calvin’s discussion of the covenant in this section fleshes out both the unilateral and bilateral elements of covenants. Contrary to a theology of unconditional testament attributed to him by Baker, Calvin writes that “in all covenants of his mercy the Lord requires of his servants in return uprightness and sanctity of life.”57 Here we find agreement between Calvin, Musculus, and Bullinger on the conditions imposed upon the human confederates in the covenant of special grace. As Muller observes, “Whereas Bullinger, more than Calvin, seems to stress the mutual character of covenant and the necessity for obedience in covenant, this stress is not an indication of widely divergent patterns of Reformed theology.”58 In short, for Calvin, Musculus, and Bullinger, there are both unilateral and bilateral features of the special covenant (to use Musculus’ favored term). God, acting in gracious freedom, is the source and originator of the covenant relationship. God binds himself in the promise of faithfulness to those whom he has determined to save. For their part, humans are bound to faithfully serve him in righteousness. But even the service which humans perform finds its source in divine grace. As Calvin puts it, God’s gracious mercy “anticipates all gifts whose source it is.”59 While Bullinger writes an early treatise focused exclusively on articulating his doctrine of the covenant of saving grace, Calvin affirms the substance of the Calvin, Institutes, III.17.5, p. 807. Calvin, Institutes, III.17.5, p. 808. Contrast with the evaluation of Baker, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant, 197; and idem, “Heinrich Bullinger, the Covenant, and the Reformed Tradition in Retrospect,” 374. See also “Calvin’s View of the Mutuality and Conditionality of the Covenant,” in Lillback, The Binding of God, 162–75. For a recent survey and analysis of divine and human reciprocity in Calvin, see J. Todd Billings, Calvin, Participation, and the Gift: The Activity of Believers in Union with Christ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). 58 Muller, Christ and the Decree, 41. See also Lillback, “The Early Reformed Covenant Paradigm,” 76–80; and Peter Opitz, “Scripture,” in The Calvin Handbook, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 237–240. 59 Calvin, Institutes, III.17.5, p. 808. 56 57

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Loci communes

57

special covenant but does not make large-scale programmatic use of the term in his own systematic work.60 Calvin likewise seems to treat at least some of the ideas introduced in Musculus’ concept of general covenant under the rubric of “general providence.”61 Of the three, Musculus is the only one to develop a covenant doctrine into a separate locus that includes a distinction between a general and a special covenant of God. But in Bullinger, Calvin, and Musculus, the features of the special covenant are in essential accord. Especially regarding the interplay of monopleuristic and dipleuristic aspects of the covenant, this agreement ought not to surprise us overmuch given the shared soteriologically Augustinian heritage of these three theologians. It was, after all, Augustine who gave classical expression to the complex interplay between divine unilateralism and human bilateralism in his prayerful inclusio, “Give what you command, and then command whatever you will.”62

2.1.2 De discrimine veteris & novi Testamenti Having already laid out the basic structure of his covenantal thought in the preceding locus, Musculus proceeds to focus his attention more particularly on the precise relationship between the latter two dispensations of the special covenant, commonly referred to as the Old and New Testament, identified with Moses and Christ respectively. Musculus opens this discussion by referring back to the previous locus in which he had more precisely described the distinctive characteristics between covenants (e.g. fœdum, pactum) on one hand and testaments (i.e. testamentum) on the other. At this point Musculus notes that the

60 Compare with the comment of Lillback, The Binding of God, 127: “Finally, it would seem fairly obvious from this source analysis that Calvin does not simply use the covenant idea in a locus sense, or as a single distinct topic as some have suggested. Instead, one finds that Calvin uses the covenant terms in a wide range of topics throughout his work. In other words, the covenant appears to be an integral part of Calvin’s theology.” In this sense the evaluation of Lillback coheres with that of Ives, namely that Musculus’ placement of covenant into a separate locus relegates it to a lesser rather than to a greater place of significance. See Ives, “Theology of Wolfgang Musculus,” 154. By setting it into its “place,” so to speak, the doctrine of the covenant is unable to exercise a larger architechtonic methodological influence. 61 See Calvin, Institutes, I.5, p. 51–69. See also generally Susan E. Schreiner, The Theater of His Glory: Nature & the Natural Order in the Thought of John Calvin (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001). 62 Augustine, The Confessions, ed. John E. Rotelle, trans. Maria Boulding, The Works of Saint Augustine, pt. I, vol. 1, (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2005), X.29, 40, p. 204.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

58

Covenant

term testamentum more properly refers to the New Covenant (novum pactum) than to the Old on account of the death of Christ the testator.63 In this first step beyond the locus de fædere we can see the error of Ives’ judgment that “covenant in Musculus is not a structure” but rather “an idea discussed and dispensed with.”64 To be sure, covenant does not form an architectonic device upon which Musculus builds his entire system of doctrine. His is not a doctrinal system structured around covenant as a fundamental principle or central dogma. But as we will see in the discussion of the following loci, the idea of covenant provides a way through, a methodus for navigating, the various topics that comprise the series from his treatment de fœdere to de electione ac reprobatione.65 Muller characterizes the development in Musculus’ Loci in this way, noting that “as with Bullinger the doctrine of covenant serves as the transition point from the historical order of man’s sin to the historical order of divine grace breaking in upon and redeeming man’s sin.”66 This methodological use helps explain the appearance of de fœdere as a separate topic in Musculus’ Loci communes and differentiates Musculus’ approach to covenant from that of Calvin, Melanchthon, and others who do not have a separate covenantal locus. In the discussion in the previous locus, Musculus had made it a priority to point out that the descriptive term “general” in the fœdus generale was a relative rather than an absolute modifier. Here too Musculus notes that the Old Testament is so-called only in relation to the New Testament, and not because it is absolutely the oldest or first administration of the fœdus speciale. He writes, maintaining consistency with the threefold administration explicated in the preceding locus, that this appellation would instead apply more properly to the 63 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 15, p. 146. See also Calvin, Institutes, II.ix.2, p. 425: “From this it follows that the word ‘gospel,’ taken in the broad sense, includes those testimonies of his mercy and fatherly favor which God gave to the patriarchs of old. In a higher sense, however, the word refers, I say, to the proclamation of the grace manifested in Christ.” We should observe that the immediate object of Musculus’ discussion here is the historical reality of the particular covenant relationships, and only indirectly does this concern the written record of these covenants recorded in the books of the Bible (also commonly referred to as the Old and New Testament) and their interpretation. On the interrelationship and interpretation of the biblical text, see Bullinger, The old faith, VII, p. 49: “And in these five books, given us of God by Moses, is the whole ground of our holy faith. For all the prophets afterward grounded themselves upon the same, and wrote thereout; like as afterward our Lord Jesus and the apostles point unto Moses.” See also idem, The old faith, X, p. 71: “This is the cause also that the scriptures of the New Testament hang all together and refer themselves to the scriptures of the Old Testament; so that these cannot be right understood without the other, no more than the gloss without the text. The text is the law and the prophets, the exposition are the evangelists and apostles.” 64 Ives, “The Theology of Wolfgang Musculus,” 154. 65 On the role of the “right order” or methodus in the construction of the Loci genre, see Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 105. 66 Muller, Christ and the Decree, 47f.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Loci communes



59

covenant with Abraham rather than with Moses, with respect to which both Old and New Testament are called new, because each followed after it.67 Once the object of the locus has been properly set forth, Musculus continues by lining up the ways in which the Old and New Testament differ. Both the continuities and the discontinuities must be properly understood, for a misreading of passages in the book of Hebrews, for instance, might lead one to think that the Old Testament had been entirely nullified. Musculus writes that “it must not be understood in such a way that the substantial elements [substantaliam] of the Mosaic covenant are absolutely reduced to nothing, God forbid, but rather that the appendages [accessoria] are abrogated by that succession of a new dispensation.”68 This statement picks up and continues the answer given in an objection dealt with in the previous locus. At that point, Musculus had concerned himself to answer the challenge that the Abrahamic covenant involved elements like circumcision that did not apply to the elect who preceded Abraham or to believers in the New Testament. There, as here, Musculus pointed to the difference “between those things which are substantial, and those things which are appendages.”69 Musculus’s favored term in these discussions for the transitory elements of the covenant is accessoria, or “appendages.” Calvin uses this term too as a synonym (albeit translated as “accessories”), along with “appendages” (accessiones) and “additions” (annexus) for the the “accidental properties of the covenant” (accidentia fœderis).70 Bullinger observes that in the New Testament, “now that Christ hath appeared, and fulfilled and performed all that was written and figured of him in the law and the prophets, the figure ceaseth, and the outward sacraments of Moses’ law are of no more value, to be exercised and used.”71

Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 15, p. 146: “Vocatur autem vetus, non quod sit primum & antiquius, id quod illi fœdus Abrahæ non permittit, sed respectu novi:vetus & novum respectu huius novum apellatur, propterea quod antiquato illi successit.” Likewise Bullinger, The old faith, X, p. 72: “This full and perfect forgiveness is not therefore called the new testament, as though there had been no remission of sins among the old fathers; but because the promise made long afore unto the fathers is now confirmed and renewed, and the old figures that represented the same are abrogate.” 68 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 15, p. 146: “… non sic debet intelligi, quod substantaliam Mosaici pacti prorsus sint in nihilum redacta, absit: sed quod accessoria illius successione sunt novæ dispensationis abrogata.” See also Calvin, Institutes, II.x.2, p. 429: “The covenant made with all the patriarchs is so much like ours in substance and reality that the two are actually one and the same. Yet they differ in the mode of dispensation.” 69 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 14, p. 144: “… inter ea quæ sunt substantalia, & ea quæ sunt accessoria.” 70 John Calvin, Ioannis Calvini Opera, 1:821; ET: Institutes, II.xi.4, p. 454. 71 Bullinger, The old faith, VI, p. 47. 67

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

60

Covenant

Whereas in the earlier locus Musculus was concerned to relate the Abrahamic dispensation to the other administrations of the special covenant, here he is focused on the relation between Moses and Christ. In this way, Musculus states that there are two aspects of this succession to be considered, namely the succession of the persons, heads, or mediators of the covenant and the succession of the administration or dispensation of the covenant. The discussion proceeds along these lines, first briefly addressing the succession of persons and then continuing to discuss the succession of dispensations. Musculus had already introduced the difference in the succession of the persons in the previous locus in his description of the three “notable persons” (insignes personæ), Abraham, Moses, and Christ. Here Musculus depicts Christ’s relation to Moses as that of “master to servant, teacher of life to one who accompanies a child to school [pædagogus], liberator and savior to an overseer [exactor].”72 Referring to Hebrews 3 later on, Musculus returns to this succession of persons by contrasting Moses and Christ as “mediators” of their respective covenants. “Indeed, Moses was faithful in a house not his own but Christ’s,” writes Musculus, “as a house-servant to testify to those things which were to be spoken.” By contrast “Christ, as a true son in his own house, is this, worthy of greater glory [ampliori gloria dignus], who might have greater glory who also built the house, and is lord in it, more than who does not rule in a house not his own, but serves as a servant.”73 The remainder of locus de discrimine veteris & novi Testamenti proceeds in two major parts tracing out the succession of dispensations. The first part outlines the characteristics of the dispensation of the Old Testament and the second part outlines the same for the New Testament. These parts follow a roughly similar pattern to more precisely highlight the contrast between the two. The dispensation of the Mosaic covenant is described as “servile, shadowy, and temporary” (servili, umbratili ac temporaria) in comparison with the New Testament.74 For instance, in Moses’ dispensation there was deliverance of God’s people from bondage in Egypt. But in Christ’s dispensation there is “liberation not from any earthly, but rather from a spiritual bondage, that is clearly of sin and of the kingdom of Satan.”75 Similarly Bullinger writes, Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 15, p. 146. Bullinger writes that “thus the law was given to further the promise; namely, that we through the law might be led only unto Christ.” See Bullinger, The old faith, VI, p. 43. 73 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 15, p. 146. 74 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 15, p. 146. Calvin writes that the gospel “confirmed and satisfied whatever the law had promised, and gave substance to the shadows.” See Calvin, Institutes, II.ix.4, p. 427. 75 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 15, p. 146. 72

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Loci communes



61

And thus the whole deliverance out of Egypt was a figure of the true redemption, by which we are delivered from the power of the devil and from everlasting death through Jesus Christ, and brought into the land of promise, even to eternal joy and salvation, which God promised unto our fathers, Adam, Noe, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.76

Calvin describes the relationship between the Old and New Testament as concerning “a difference in the nature or quality of the promises: the gospel points out with the finger what the law foreshadowed under types.”77 Musculus points to the difference in the communication of the law between the old and new dispensations of the covenant as an important point of discontinuity. The law given on Mount Sinai was transmitted through the ministry of angels in a frightful manner and by letter on tablets made of stone.78 But in the New Testament dispensation, the law is given “not in Sinai, but in Zion; not through the ministry of angels, but through the presence and dispensation of the Lord; not in a frightful manner, but with incredible gentleness; not by the letter, but the spirit; not inscribed into tablets of stone but effectively insinuated into the hearts of the elect.”79 In this way the events and figures of the Mosaic dispensation are earthly and physical types of those that are spiritual and heavenly in Christ’s dispensation. In short, under Moses “those are figures, shadows, and promises,” while under Christ “is the fulfillment of all of those.”80 After comparing Musculus, Bullinger, and Calvin on their covenant thought and the relationship between Old and New Testament, we can see that there are striking similarities in approach, perspective, and even terminology. What Muller judges regarding the relationship between Zurich and Geneva on the two loci examined so far holds similarly true for the Bernese theology of Wolfgang Musculus: “It is also certainly the case that there is a continuity of theological Bullinger, The old faith, VI, p. 39. Calvin, Institutes, II.ix.3, p. 426. 78 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 15, p. 146: “Legislatio in monte Sina per ministerium angelicum, modum horribilem, literam, tabulas lapideas.” 79 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 15, p. 146: “Est legislatio facta non in Sina, sed in Sion: non angelico ministerio, sed præsentia & dispensatione Dominica: non horrendis modis, sed mansuetudine stupenda: non litera, sed spiritu: non in tabulas lapideas insculpta, sed in corda electorum efficaciter insinuata.” Compare Bullinger, The old faith, VI, p. 39: “[God] wrote it with his own fingers in two tables of stone,” a view also expressed by Musculus in his locus de sacris scripturis. See Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 21, p. 174: “… sed Dei digitis exaratum est.” See also the discussion of Musculus and Bullinger on this point in Muller, PRRD, 2:188–91. 80 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 15, p. 147: “Illic erant figuræ, umbræ & promissiones : hic omniium istarum adimpletio.” So also Calvin, Institutes, II.xi.4, p. 453: “The second difference between the Old and New Testaments consists in figures: that, in the absence of the reality, it showed but an image and shadow in place of the substance; the New Testament reveals the very substance of truth as present.” 76 77

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

62

Covenant

argument on the definition of covenant and on the problem of the relationship of the testaments between the Zürich theology of Zwingli and Bullinger and the theology of Calvin.”81

2.1.3 De gratia Dei Musculus’ locus de gratia Dei ends the three sequential loci under examination here. Immediately following these is the locus de redemptione generis humani. Musculus opens the locus de gratia Dei, as he often does, by explaining the ordering of the loci. He writes that the locus on divine grace follows the place on testament because the testament arises out of grace, and so moving up the river to the source, we might be able to see to what end the plan “of the eternal covenant of God” (æterni fœderis Dei) leads.82 Again we see how the doctrine of the covenant stands behind this series of loci, providing the methodus for navigating the various topics that culminate with the locus de electione.83 In typical fashion Musculus opens the locus by examining the biblical terms for the relevant topic in the languages in which the Holy Spirit revealed the Old and New Testaments, namely Hebrew and Greek. There are three basic biblical usages that Musculus identifies. The first has to do with the linkage of grace to bodily or corporeal elements, such as beauty or attractiveness. This sense, says Musculus, is not frequently used in Scripture, and will not be examined in this place. The latter two senses, however, are more closely related. The first of these usages has to do with the propensity of soul or disposition to will the good to someone. The second refers to something given, a gift, which is given out of goodwill. These two senses are much more often used in Scripture, and the latter especially, so that Musculus defines grace in this context as “that affection of favor, by which we desire well for someone from the soul, and whatever of this favor the giver is freely and graciously led without any regard for merit

Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 124. Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 16, p. 147: “… videamus cui sit deputandum æterni fœderis Dei consilium.” 83 See Muller, Christ and the Decree, 71: “Bullinger contributed several important structural insights into the relation of covenant with Christ and decree, and Musculus more than any of his contemporaries pressed into soteriological service the distinction between decree and temporal execution. Musculus, in particular, by means of this distinction was able to show the function of the decree in determining the christocentric shape of the work of salvation and, in so doing, manifest the underlying unity of perspective above and beyond the various possible locations of the locus de praedestinatione within the system.” 81 82

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Loci communes

63

or due.”84 This is the working definition for grace that governs the remainder of the discussion. Having set forth his basic understanding of the term, Musculus raises a series of issues regarding the attribution of this affection and its expressions to God. That is, Musculus is concerned to show not only that grace is a reality, but also particularly that it is a divine reality. The first obstacle he considers is presented by the very definition of grace, which as noted above disregards “merit or due.” Thus, writes Musculus, justice and grace appear to be contraries. Humans reason in a fleshly way: “If justice is in God, grace is not, but if grace is, justice is not.”85 In answering this objection, Musculus appeals to an authority greater than fleshly judgment, namely the sacred Scriptures, which “do not lie” and which predicate both justice and grace to God. Musculus contends that if we impose an either / or dichotomy regarding justice and grace on God, “we take away from God liberty of will [voluntatis libertatem], which he has over everything which he made, in respect to which he is not able to be unjust, when he favors, spares, and does good to those whom he wills, without good or evil merit, and punishes what sinners he will, and in what manner it pleases him.”86 Indeed, says Musculus, God possesses a most free power [liberrima potestas] in all things, and so we can be sure that God is able to justly and graciously do as he wills. But simply showing that God is able to be gracious is not sufficient. Musculus must also show whence this affection of grace (affectus gratiæ) is in God. Distinct from human expressions of grace, divine grace comes from God’s own goodness, and is oriented not toward his own gain, but rather to the salvation of humankind. Indeed, says Musculus, if any of us inspect ourselves within and without, we will find nothing to which we can attribute the cause and origin of the grace of God. “It is the nature of grace to be unmerited,” writes Musculus. “Whatever is not unmerited is not grace, neither has it that purity of grace drawn out of the spring of goodness [ex fonte bonitatis], of which we speak.”87 Calvin similarly writes that God “is moved by pure and freely given love of us to receive us into grace.”88 84 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 16, p. 147: “… affectus ille favoris, quo cuipia bene volumus ex animo, & quicquid favoris huius ductu libere & gratuito absque ullius meriti vel debiti respectu donator.” Compare with the definition of Bullinger, Summa, art. 5, ch. 2, pp. 76r–77v; ET: Common places, bk. 5, ch. 2, pp. 104v–105v. 85 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 16, p. 147. 86 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 16, p. 148. 87 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 16, p. 148. 88 Calvin, Institutes, II.xvi.3, p. 506.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

64

Covenant

Musculus’ final concern is to determine how many kinds of divine grace there are. The Schoolmen (Scholastici) find two, operating (operans) and cooperating (cooperans), also called prevenient (præveniens) and subsequent (subsequens) grace.89 Musculus explicates the meanings of these terms in an in-depth discussion, and from his description and concluding comments we can make a more precise determination regarding the identity of the Schoolmen with whom Musculus engages here. Muller identifies Musculus’ critique of the prevenient / subsequent grace distinction with a rejection of Gabriel Biel and “the synergistic pole of the doctrine of grace.”90 Such a rejection is no doubt what Musculus has in mind in the concluding references to opponents who will be dealt with in other loci. But as will become evident, this does not mean that Musculus engages here in a wholesale rejection of the scholastic distinction between prevenient and subsequent grace. At the conclusion of the locus, Musculus notes that his intent is not to dispute with the teachers (doctores) of free choice, merit, and their particular conception of justice. These teachers are obscurers of the grace of God and will be dealt with explicitly in other loci more directly concerned with particular elements of the ordo salutis, such as faith, justification, forgiveness of sins, and good works.91 Musculus’ focus in this locus on grace is not primarily Biel or a late medieval synergistic soteriology, but rather a standard medieval, perhaps Augustinian, scholastic distinction.92 When we look at Musculus’ evaluation of the scholastic distinction between prevenient and subsequent grace, we can see that his critique does not amount 89 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 16, p. 148. See Peter Lombard, Sententiarum Quatuor Libri, vol. 2, S. Bonaventurae opera omnia, ed. Collegii S. Bonaventura (Florence: Quaracchi, 1885), bk. 2, d. 26–27, pp. 627–52; ET: The Sentences, trans. Giulio Silano, 4 vol. (Toronto: Pontifical Institute for Mediaeval Studies, 2007–2010), 2:123–38. Compare Bonaventure, Commentaria in Quatuor Libros Sententiarum, in S. Bonaventurae opera omnia, ed. Collegii S. Bonaventura, vol. 2 (Florence: Quaracchi, 1885), d. 27, dub. 1, pp. 668ff. 90 Muller, Christ and the Decree, 49. 91 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 16, p. 151. 92 Musculus’ evaluation is thus rather different than Calvin’s discussion of the Augustinian position on prevenient grace and how it was, in Calvin’s view, “preposterously twisted” by Peter Lombard. See Calvin, Institutes, II.iii.7, p. 299. For Musculus, the problem is not so much with Lombard and the distinction itself, but rather on its misuse by later theologians. This is why Musculus wants to correct rather than simply reject the distinction itself, undercutting the later misappropriation. Lombard’s own discussion draws on Augustine heavily. See, for instance, Lombard, Sententiarum Quatuor Libri, bk. 2, d. 26, ch.1, p. 627. Compare the discussion of Occam, Biel, and Robert Holcot in Heiko A. Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000), 243–48. As Oberman writes, the soteriological use of the distinction at issue here can hinge upon the use of the potentia absoluta / ordinata distinction. Thus, Oberman writes, “The dialectics of the two powers of God permits Holcot, as it did Occam and Biel, to hold an extreme predestinarian position which centers around the idea that God does not owe anything to any man. While this is true

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Loci communes

65

to a total rejection, and is certainly not as negative as his judgment of those addressed in other loci related to the ordo salutis. For after explicating his understanding of the scholastic distinction, Musculus judges that the opinion of these scholastics might be tolerated, since, by contrast with other opponents (perhaps including Biel), the opinion “does not obscure the grace of God.”93 Even so, Musculus judges the distinction to be incomplete or “narrow” (angustus) and therefore in need of revision and expansion.94 By his reckoning, the scholastic distinction between prevenient and subsequent grace (or operating and cooperating grace), is not appropriately reflective of the Apostle Paul’s manner of speaking.95 The idea of “cooperating” grace makes it seem as if God is a co-worker with us in our performance of good works. Instead of saying “God is our co-laborer,” we should rather say, as the Apostle does, “we are God’s co-laborers,” through which the Apostle “makes God to be working in us rather than cooperating.”96 The danger in speaking loosely, as in the manner of the scholastic distinction, is that we might take the principal part of good work and attribute it not to the grace of God but rather to ourselves.97 But beyond this concern with the scholastic division, Musculus makes the point that the object of the distinction is too limited to comprehensively encompass a discussion of the grace of God. Rather than simply looking at the private workings of grace in the life of the elect, which the scholastic division does in its attention to the role of grace in particular soteriological topics, Musculus writes that we must also examine “the foundation of our common salvation and redemption.”98 As in his discussion of covenant previously, Musculus is concerned to broaden the margins of the discussion beyond the realm of the special saving covenant of grace itself. The foundation of our salvation and redemption, says Musculus, is found in the counsel, good pleasure, and purpose of the will of God, “out of which that entire dispensation of our redemption de potentia absoluta, Holcot can now at the same time assert a doctrine which one cannot but term Pelagian, according to which man can earn first grace and ultimately – in cooperation with grace – earn his salvation, de potentia ordinata” (246). 93 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 16, p. 149: “… gratiam Dei non obscurat.” 94 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 16, p. 150. 95 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 16, p. 149. 96 Musculus, Loci communes, 1 loc. 16, p. 49: “Malim tamen imitari Apostoli diligentiam, qui maluit dicere, Sumus cooperarii Dei: quam, Deus est cooperarius noster: id quod nusquam dixit, quod ego sciam, sed ubicunque operis Dei meminit, facit eum operantem in nobis potius quam cooperantem.” 97 See also Calvin, Institutes, II.xvii.1, p. 529: “Inasmuch as Christ’s merit depends upon God’s grace alone, which has ordained this manner of salvation for us, it is just as properly opposed to all human righteousness as God’s grace is.” 98 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 16, p. 150.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

66

Covenant

proceed.”99 Musculus proposes what he thinks is a better, more comprehensive and expansive distinction than that offered by the scholastics; that is, the division between proponing (proponens) and operating (operans) grace.100 This choice of terminology is instructive, since the latter term, operans, is identical to the first term in the received scholastic distinction. This hints at the reason Musculus does not entirely dismiss the operating / cooperating distinction as invalid, since its focus on the private work of grace in the elect can be subsumed under his newly proposed and broader proponing / operating distinction. Musculus is not concerned here to precisely lay out the way in which God’s saving grace works in an individual person’s life. That discussion is better left for the more particular relevant loci within his series on soteriology. Instead, Musculus wants to orient those later discussions to a broader conceptual framework, better captured by his proponing / operating distinction. Proponing grace refers to God’s “willing, purposing, electing, and predestinating those things which concern the salvation of humankind.”101 This grace of God is “from eternity” (ab æterno) and before the making of the world. In his definition of proponing grace, we find the first clues as to the interrelationship between predestination (election and reprobation) and covenant (the dispensation of redemption).102 Put simply, the proponing grace of predestination is the eternal foundation for the temporal dispensation of the special covenant. This manner of articulating the relationship between predestination and covenant is confirmed by Musculus’ definition of operating grace, the correlative to proponing grace. Musculus defines operating grace as referring to those things concerned with redemptive history beginning with Adam, and continuing through his line to Noah, Abraham, Moses, the prophets, John the Baptist, and Christ.103 A brief section in this locus rehearses the dispensations Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 16, p. 150. See the brief discussion of proponing and operating grace in Muller, Christ and the Decree, 49. 101 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 16, p. 150: “… volentem, proponentem, eligentem ac prædestinantem, ea quæ salutem generis humani concernunt.” See also the comments of Bullinger, Common places, bk. 5, ch. 3, pp. 105v–106r: “For as he foresaw from everlasting the fall of manne, so also hee prepared from everlasting remedies whereby the lost worlde should be restored, and appointed to send his Sonne in to the world, which should take upon him mannes nature, by whom the fall of man should be restored and repayred.” 102 See Selderhuis, “Die Loci Communes des Wolfgang Musculus,” 320: “Dabei sollte man bedenken, daß Musculus in bezug auf seine Prädestinationslehre nich nur aussagt, daß dieser Bund nur mit den Erwählten geschlossen sei, sondern auch, daß die Erwählten schlichtweg die Gläubigen sind.” 103 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 16, p. 150. See also Muller, Christ and the Decree, 50: “The high counsel of God has been accomplished in the promise given to Adam in paradise and then subsequently to Abraham and then to David to the end that Christ’s coming also be recognized by us as belonging to the consilium Dei.” 99

100

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Loci communes



67

of the special covenant before the law, under the law, and after the law, as were previously laid out in the preceding covenant-related loci. The relationship of the proponing / operating distinction to the twofold definable aspects of divine grace as an internal attitude or inclination and the external manifestation of the inclination as gift is a curious one. The most plausible way of construing the relationship is to identify the aspects as two different moments of divine grace.104 The first moment of proponing grace would thus be the eternal divine inclination to favor humankind through salvation. Proponing grace as expressed in predestination is the first of the two aspects of divine grace, the eternal propensity to do good to fallen humankind. Operating grace is then the redemptive-historical process of expressing that goodwill through the manifestation of the gift of salvation in various covenantal dispensations. In the first moment God wills to save (proponing grace) in predestination and in the second moment he acts to save (operating grace) through covenant. Muller summarizes the relationship of proponing grace to operating grace as the former referring to God’s eternal decree to send his Son as savior into the world and the latter to the creation of man in the image of God, the plan of salvation in Christ, the establishment of the covenants with man, and the private working of grace in the hearts of the elect; the former to the will which was in God before the constitution of the world, the latter to the working-out of that will in all dispensations of the covenant.105

At the conclusion of this discussion of divine grace we see that Musculus’ broadening of the discussion is not merely meant to remove but rather to properly orient and relegate the scholastic distinction to its rightful, subsidiary place. He writes that once the proponing / operating conceptual framework is in place, “we are led by a right order to the private operations of divine grace,” that is, the particular workings of saving grace in the life of the elect.106 Musculus’ purpose in this locus is therefore not to simply reject the scholastic distinction between prevenient (operating) and subsequent (cooperating) grace, but rather with some subtlety to critically correct and nuance the distinction and place it within a broader context of divine grace from eternity. To this end

Muller, Christ and the Decree, 49. Muller, Christ and the Decree, 49. 106 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 16, p. 150. 104 105

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

68

Covenant

he integrates the covenantal themes of the preceding loci into a framework that connects them to their foundation in eternal predestination.107

2.1.4 De electione ac reprobatione The locus on election completes an arc of interrelated loci that begin with the locus on covenant and finds its completion in the locus de electione.108 There is a discernible internal coherency, given Musculus’ preference for treating a deductively subsequent doctrine first, moving on to treat the logically prior doctrine second, progressing inductively, or “up the river to the source,” as he puts it. In this way, we have seen that covenant, treated at the beginning of this sequence, is related as a manifestation of operating grace to proponing grace, which finds expression in election and predestination. In the intervening loci Musculus has treated a number of more specific topics regarding the private operations of grace in the life of the believer. The locus de fide is directly antecedent to the one on election, and this relationship is precisely what Musculus describes in ordering them in this way. He writes that because the locus on election follows that on faith, we are not to assume that election follows faith in temporal order, so that once we begin to believe then we become elect, but rather that we move from faith to election just as “after considering a river we might draw back to consider its source.”109 Musculus opens his discussion by asserting that the doctrine of election is itself plain (planus) and clear (perspicuus), but that cleverness and desire for contention make the doctrine difficult (spinosus) and confused (intricatus). Following his intention to present in the simplest and briefest manner, Musculus plans in

Compare with the comment of Bullinger, Decades, IV.4, p. 185: “The doctrine of the foreknowledge and predestination of God… hath a certain likeness with his providence,” wherein the latter is understood as God’s temporal administration. 108 The index to Muculus’ Loci identifies this locus as de electione ac reprobatione. In the text, however, the major title is merely de electione. As we shall see below, the topic of reprobation is treated in passing throughout, but comes up as the object of discussion only in the tenth and final section, de reprobis. 109 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 24, p. 246. 107

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Loci communes



69

the same way to explicate out of sacred Scripture what is useful for pious men.110 He proceeds in scholastic fashion by breaking up the discussion into ten parts.111 In the first part Musculus proceeds in his usual manner, opening the locus with an examination of the way in which the concept of election is used in Scripture. There are two basic ways in which the word is used. The first is to be chosen from “out of others who are exactly similar” for a certain purpose. Musculus compares use of the term to someone having the power to choose according to his or her own will, without regard to quality or merit.112 The second main scriptural usage of the idea has to do with making a judgment about the relative quality or worthiness of that which is “chosen.” Thus, says Musculus, to be chosen, or as we might say to be “choice,” is to be exceptional and excellent, as signified by particular words in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and German.113 Musculus makes it clear that his usage of the word in this locus is the first and not the second, as he defines the elect of God as those who “out of the whole multitude of mortals are chosen by a singular counsel.”114 Having defined election Musculus moves on to determine whether it exists, specifically whether there be election of God (sitne electio Dei). Musculus observes two aspects to this question: whether God would choose some but not all out of the whole multitude of men to save and whether God actually has chosen any or not. “To the first we respond out of the second,” writes Musculus.115 Briefly summarizing the biblical evidence, Musculus finds it clear that Scripture teaches that some have been chosen for salvation while others have not. Since it therefore is shown to us that God “has chosen some to himself,” Musculus wonders if anyone is so godless (impius) as to question the validity of God’s action. “No one of sound mind denies this right to God [iuris Deo] that Selderhuis notes that the ordering of the covenant-predestination-providence relationship is closely related to pastoral concerns. See Selderhuis, “Die Loci Communes des Wolfgang Musculus,” 322: “Dies wird auch der Grund dafür sein, daß die Providenz erst nach der Prädestination besprochen wird. Mit Ausgeglichenheit wird die Christologie auf die Erwählung bezogen und die Behandlung der Prädestination pastoral zugespitzt.” Gordon draws a comparison between the work of Bullinger and Musculus in this regard. See Bruce A. Gordon, The Swiss Reformation (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002), 184: “In all his theological formulations Bullinger sought to present their pastoral aspects, stressing that election was part of God’s will to save his people. In this sense, Bullinger’s work was similar to the writings of Wolfgang Musculus.” 111 1) Quid sit esse electum; 2) Sitne electio Dei; 3) Quotuplex sit electio Dei; 4) Quando elegerit nos Deus; 5) Quo respectu elegerit suos Deus; 6) In quo simus electi; 7) Quos elegerit Deus; 8) Quales elegerit Deus; 9) Ad quid nos elegerit Deus; 10) De reprobis. 112 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 24, p. 247. 113 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 24, p. 247. 114 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 24, p. 247: “… qui ab illo sunt ex omni mortalium multitudine singulari consilio electi.” 115 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 24, p. 247. 110

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

70

Covenant

he may do with regard to his own what he pleases,” he says.116 To deny God this right to choose whom to save, contends Musculus, amounts to a denial of God’s divinity. The only other option is to acknowledge that by his own right (iure suo) God is yet able to establish with man what he pleases, “and not to admit anything against his justice, whatever he would establish.”117 From the context it is clear here that Musculus has in mind the specific question of God’s right to either choose to save all, some, or none out of the multitude of fallen humanity, and thus to determine the salvation of humanity.118 Calvin writes similarly of God’s free grace, that “God has already shown that in his mere generosity he has not been bound by any laws but is free, so that equal apportionment of grace is not to be required of him.”119 The next concern is to outline how many kinds of divine choosing there are, and which of these is under consideration here. Musculus identifies three elections of God in Scripture: of the saved, of the people of Israel, and of the ministers. These latter two elections are not necessarily related to the first, so that membership in the nation of Israel or in the ministry of God is not coidentical with membership among those who are saved. Musculus identifies the first election, the election of those who are saved, to be the object of discussion in this locus.120 The fourth point of discussion under the locus de electione has to do with when the elect are chosen by God. Because the Scriptures consider this issue important enough to relate, it is only appropriate to discuss the matter here, asserts Musculus.121 Citing Ephesians 1, Musculus writes that God elects those 116 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 24, p. 247: “Nemo sanæ mentis negat hoc iuris Deo, ut de suo faciat quod sibi placuerit.” 117 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 24, p. 247: “… nec admittere contra iusticiam quicquam, quiduis constituat.” 118 So also Calvin, Institutes, III.xxiii.3, p. 950: “As all of us are vitiated by sin, we can only be odious to God, and that not from tyrannical cruelty but by the fairest reckoning of justice. But if all whom the Lord predestines to death are by condition of nature subject to the judgment of death, of what injustice toward themselves may they complain?” Given this explicit context of fallen humanity for Musculus’ discussion of election and reprobation, it is unclear to me why Muller would characterize him as a supralapsarian in contrast with Calvin. See Muller, Christ and the Decree, 56: “[Musculus] appears more consistently supralapsarian than Calvin but no less christocentric.” 119 Calvin, Institutes, III.xxi.6, p. 929. 120 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 24, p. 247f. 121 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 24, p. 248: “Non est hæc consideratio spiritui sancto negligenda visa, quare nec nos illam transire debemus.” This is a key motivation for the discussions of both Calvin and Bullinger. See Calvin, Institutes, III.xxi.3, p. 924: “Therefore we must guard against depriving believers of anything disclosed about predestination in Scripture, lest we seem either wickedly to defraud them of the blessing of their God or to accuse and scoff at the Holy Spirit for having published what is in any way profitable to suppress.” See also Bullinger, Decades, IV.4, p. 185: “In the mean time truly, they do not contemn neither yet neglect those things which it hath pleased God by the open scriptures to

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Loci communes

71

who do not yet exist. “It is incredible,” says Musculus, “how great an assurance of salvation arises in the hearts of the faithful,” who believe that God had concerned himself to elect them to salvation before the creation of the world, before they existed.122 Despite the clearly scholastic progression of the locus to this point, it is here that Musculus makes his first explicit mention of any medieval antecedent. Musculus takes time to highlight his contention that the fact that election occurs in eternity is “more useful to people of faith” than to dispute about the number of elect and whether or not that number can be increased or decreased. He notes that this is a concern raised in Lombard’s Sentences, but Musculus judges that it is a matter of curiosity not worthy of consideration by godly men.123 Musculus also takes this occasion to point out the difference between foreknowing (præscio) and predestining (prædestino): “That which God predestined, certainly he also foreknew; nevertheless he did not then predestine every future thing he foreknew, unless we say that he did not only foreknow those future evil things, but that he also predestined them.”124 Bullinger makes a similar distinction between foreknowledge and predestination, defining the former as “that knowledge in God, whereby he knoweth all things before they come to pass, and seeth even present all things that are, have been, and shall be.” Bullinger defines predestination as “the eternal decree of God, whereby he hath ordained either to save or destroy men; a most certain end of life and death being appointed unto them.”125 Fifthly, Musculus considers in what respect God has elected his own. In contrast to the way that humans seek and choose, looking only for the fulfillment of our own affections and not having a concern for the advantage of the ones chosen, God elects according to the good that will be done to those who are chosen. And indeed we stand in need of having divine good done to us, for reveal to his servants touching this matter.” See also Muller, Christ and the Decree, 45: “Much like Calvin, Bullinger viewed predestination as a hopeful doctrine, a teaching which underscored the sovereign ability of God to effect his saving will. But more than Calvin and like Musculus, Bullinger strove to show the pastoral and positive side of the doctrine in its universal application.” 122 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 24, p. 248. 123 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 24, p. 248. See Peter Lombard, Sententiarum Quatuor Libri, in S. Bonaventurae opera omnia, ed. Collegii S. Bonaventura, vol. 1 (Florence: Quaracchi, 1882), bk. 1, d. 40, p. 699ff; The Sentences, 1:221f. 124 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 24, p. 248: “Quæ prædestinavit Deus, utique præscivit etiam : verum non mox prædestinavit quicquid futurum præscivit, nisi dicturi sumus futura illum mala non modo præscivisse, sed & prædestinasse.” 125 Bullinger, Sermonum decades quinque, IV.4, p. 278v: “Præscientiam vocant illam in Deo cognitionem, qua cuncta priusquam fiant, novit, omniaque quæ sunt, fuerunt, & erunt tenet ob oculos præsentia … Prædestinatio autem decretum Dei æternum est, quo destimavit homines vel salvare vel perdere, certissimo vitæ & mortis termino præfixo.”; ET: Decades, IV.4, p. 185. See also the similar definitions in Calvin, Institutes, III.xxi.5, pp. 926ff.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

72

Covenant

“all are born by nature children of wrath,” a fact which God foreknew, so that he had cause to refuse (reprobo) rather than to choose (eligo).126 Citing Lombard again, but this time in an unreservedly affirmative manner, Musculus writes that any godliness (pietas) and justice (iusticia) that is in us is not a cause of but rather a fruit of election and the grace of God. Quoting Lombard’s Sentences, Musculus writes that God “chose whom he willed by free grace, not because they were future believers, but so that they would be believers; and he gave grace to them not because they would be believers but so that they would become believers.”127 In short, God’s election is made without regard for any quality of ours.128 Beyond God’s pleasure, will, and determination, we are to seek no causes of these causes (causarum istarum causæ).129 At this point we might recall the distinction between the two scriptural uses of the concept of election or choosing that Musculus outlines in the first part of this locus. There he noted that the second use, referring to things that possessed some exceptional quality, was not in view. Here we see that the priority of the first sense of election, without respect to the quality of the object chosen, can in some sense be referred to the second. That is, we are chosen without respect to any quality (the first sense) so that we might become faithful, godly, and righteous (the second sense). The next step in the discussion turns to the question regarding in whom we are elect. To answer this, Musculus compares election and reprobation. Election, he writes, is such that the separation of the chooser and the chosen is not possible. For just as in reprobation any manner of conjoining between the one refusing and the one refused is excluded, so does election conjoin the chooser and the chosen.130 Given in this case that the chooser (God) is divine and Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 24, p. 249. Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 24, p. 249: “Elegit quos voluit gratuita misericordia, non quia fideles futuri erant, sed ut fideles essent : eisque gratiam dedit, non quia fideles essent, sed ut fideles fierent.” See Peter Lombard, Sententiarum Quatuor Libri, bk. 1, d. 41, cap. 2, p. 726; ET: The Sentences, 1:226. See also Calvin, Institutes, III.xxii.5, p. 937: “… God could foresee nothing good in man except what he had already determined to bestow by the benefit of his election.” Compare Bullinger, Decades, IV.4, p. 191: “Not that without God we are able to do any thing of ourselves, but that the Lord requireth our endeavour, which notwithstanding is not without his assistance and grace.” See also Augustine, The Spirit and the Letter, trans. John Burnaby, in Augustine: Later Works, ed. John Burnaby (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1955), vii.11, p. 201: “He extends his mercy, not because they know him but in order that they may know him: he extends his righteousness whereby he justifies the ungodly, not because they are upright in heart, but that they may become upright in heart.” 128 See Bullinger, Decades, IV.4, p. 187f: “God’s predestination is not stayed or stirred with any worthiness or unworthiness of ours; but of the mere grace and mercy of God the Father, it respecteth Christ alone. And because our salvation doth stay only upon him, it cannot but be most certain.” 129 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 24, p. 249. Compare also Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 45, p. 450 and the discussion in 3.1.1 below. 130 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 24, p. 249. 126

127

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Loci communes



73

the chosen (humans) are not, the conjoining of the two most diverse natures, “divine and human, is not able to be done without the binding [glutino] of some mediator.”131 The God-man is the necessary mediator for the election which binds together God and humans.132 Thus we are elect “by God the father in Christ his son by an eternal election, before time.”133 Similarly Bullinger calls Christ the “end” of predestination, in that “God hath ordained and decreed to save all, how many soever have communion and fellowship with Christ, his only-begotten Son; and to destroy or condemn all, how many soever have no part in the communion or fellowship of Christ, his only Son.”134 Venema summarizes Bullinger’s view in this way, The salvation promised in the covenant of grace could only be realized upon the basis of God’s provision of a Mediator and Savior. From eternity God purposed to provide this Mediator as the Savior of his elect people, those to whom he purposed to grant faith and repentance at the preaching of the gospel. The doctrine of predestination, therefore, constitutes a necessary basis for the realization of God’s saving purposes in history through the administration of the covenant of grace.135

This is a great mystery, says Musculus, that we were in Christ before the world was made. Bullinger concurs, “God hath chosen us; and he hath chosen us before the foundations of the world were laid; yea, he hath chosen us, that we should be without blame, that is, to be heirs of eternal life: howebeit, in Christ, by and through Christ hath he chosen us.”136 But who is in Christ? Even broaching the topic of whom God has elected Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 24, p. 249. See Muller, Christ and the Decree, 50: “Incarnation, as the temporal focus of the work of redemption, provides for Musculus’ system the necessary nexus between the vertical axis of divine causality, the electing will of God, and the historical axis of human history the life of mankind in covenant and under grace. Christ’s coming in the flesh and his historical work, accomplished according to the eternal plan of God, provide both the fulfillment of the historical course of the covenant and, as fulfillment, the sum of the scriptural message, the Gospel.” 133 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 24, p. 249. See also Muller’s characterization of “Calvin’s Christology” and “much of the Reformed Christology after him” as “a Christology developed out of the historical line of the covenant-promise which points, as by a soteriological necessity, to the concrete, historical person of the God-man,” in Christ and the Decree, 29. 134 Bullinger, Sermonum decades quinque, IV.4, p. 279r: “Decrevit enim Deus servare omnes quotquot communionem habent cum Christo unigenito filio suo, perdere autem omnes quotquot a Christi filii sui unici communione alieni sunt,” ET: Decades, IV.4, p. 186. 135 Venema, Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination, 55f. 136 Bullinger, Sermonum decades quinque, IV.4, p. 279r: “En elegit nos Deus, & elegit ante iacta mundi fundamenta, elegit autem ut essemus irreprehensibiles, hoc est, æternæ vitæ hæredes. Cæterum in Christo, per vel propter Christum nos elegit.”; ET: Decades, IV.4, p. 186. 131 132

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

74

Covenant

might be considered to be treading upon the realm of inappropriate curiosity. Indeed, it would be vain curiosity for the world to seek out who are the elect, for the world is not able to know who are the elect and who are the reprobate.137 But, contends Musculus, “this consideration is neither curious nor incomprehensible to the elect of God themselves,” as it is for the world.138 We are not to be concerned here with searching out the eternal counsel of God by which he chose whom he willed, “for that is an inscrutable abyss [abyssus inscrutabilis].”139 This is a concern which Calvin shares: “If anyone with carefree assurance breaks into this place, he will not succeed in satisfying his curiosity and he will enter a labyrinth from which he can find no exit. For it is not right for man unrestrainedly to search out things that the Lord has willed to be hid in himself, and to unfold from eternity itself the sublimest wisdom.”140 For Musculus there are three elements necessary for appropriate discrimination in this matter. First, to judge of the elect, it is necessary to be elect. And it is not only necessary to be elect, but also to have reached the point in life where the elect person is “imbued with true faith and the spirit of God.” And finally, the elect who are able to judge ought to be mature, “the elect being known by the elect, ought to be formed and established by God, so that they could be distinguished by certain marks of the children of God, just as like is known by like.”141 It is noteworthy that without an “apparent argument” that they are without the true faith and the spirit of the children of God, all of the faithful are to be considered as elect. These marks, namely faith in Christ,142 love toward his holy ones, and the testimony of the Holy Spirit, are useful not only for knowing others but also ourselves as elect.143 The assurance offered 137 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 24, p. 250. Compare with Bullinger in the Second Helvetic Confession, 5.059, p. 67: “We therefore find fault with those who outside of Christ ask whether they are elected.” See Bullinger, Confessio, x. 235.1f: “Improbamus itaque illos, qui extra Christum quarent, An sint electi?” See also Venema, Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination, 96. 138 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 24, p. 250. 139 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 24, p. 250. 140 Calvin, Institutes, III.xxi.1, p. 922. 141 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 24, p. 250: “… electos ab electis cognoscendos, a Deo sic formari & institui oportet, ut certis filiorum Dei notis insigniti possint ab electis, tanquam similes a similibibus congnosci.” 142 See Bullinger, Decades, IV.4, p. 187: “Faith therefore is a most assured sign that thou art elected; and whiles thou art called to the communion of Christ, and art taught faith, the most loving God declareth towards thee his election and good-will.” 143 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 24, p. 251. Bullinger writes, “If thou hast communion or fellowship with Christ, thou are predestinate to life, and thou art of the number of elect and chosen: but if thou be a stranger from Christ, howsoever thou seem to flourish in virtues, thou art predestinate to death, and foreknowledge, as they say, to damnation.” See Bullinger, Decades, IV.4, p. 187. See also Calvin, Institutes, III.xxiv.5, p. 970: “But if we have been chosen in him, we shall not find assurance of our election in

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Loci communes

75

by these marks and signs is of inestimable comfort to the believer, and so they seriously err “who judge that the doctrine of election and predestination is so abstruse, indeed dangerous, that they think no mention ought to be made in the Church, whereas in it is the firmest anchor of our salvation.”144 The doctrine of predestination is in this way a pastoral comfort to believers who have been beset by the “doubt doctors” and taught to be constantly in a state of anxiety regarding their salvation. In the eighth section Musculus takes up the issue of what kind of person God has elected. Is there any qualitative difference between the elect and the reprobate? Do the elect have that same infection of sin as the reprobate? Summarizing the biblical witness, in accord with all that he has said so far, Musculus surmises that the elect are born in sin, out of the contagion of a corrupt nature (ex contagione viciatæ naturæ).145 On this account the elect are worthy to be condemned. Otherwise, as Musculus reasons syllogistically: “If Christ died for the ungodly, sinners, and enemies of God; but the elect are not such; therefore he did not die for the elect, but only for the reprobate.”146 This is an absurd conclusion, and so of course the elect too must be considered to be ungodly, sinners, and enemies of God by nature. In the penultimate section in this locus, Musculus considers to what end or ourselves; and not even in God the Father, if we conceive him as severed from his Son. Christ, then, is the mirror wherein we must, and without self-deception may, contemplate our own election.” And compare this with Bullinger in the Second Helvetic Confession, 5.060, p. 68: “Let Christ, therefore be the looking glass, in whom we may contemplate our predestination. We shall have a sufficiently clear and sure testimony that we are inscribed in the Book of Life if we have fellowship with Christ, and he is ours and we are his in true faith.” See Bullinger, Confessio, x, 235.14ff: “Christus itaque sit speculum, in quo praedestinationem nostram contemplemur. Satis perspicuum et firmum habebimus testimonium, nos in libro vitae inscriptos esse, si commnicaverimus cum Christo, et is in vera fide noster sit, nos eius simus.” See also Venema, Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination, 97. 144 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 24, p. 251: “… qui doctrinam electionis ac prædestinationis sic iudicant esse abstrusam, imo periculosam, ut nullam illius putent in Ecclesia mentionem esse faciendam, cum in ea sit omnium firmissima salutis nostræ anchora.” Calvin comments that “they who shut the gates so that no one may dare seek a taste of this doctrine wrong men no less than God.” See Calvin, Institutes, III.xxi.1, p. 922. Baker presumes that Musculus has Calvin in mind when he opens the locus by castigating those who confuse or obscure the doctrine. See Baker, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant, 201. But this comment from Musculus makes it clear that he agrees with Calvin (as well as Bullinger, for that matter) that the doctrine of predestination appears explicitly in Scripture, offers comfort to the believer, and therefore must be taught publicly. All three men concur that it must be taught carefully and responsibly, and they define these caveats a bit differently. It is worth noting, too, that at one point during the Bolsec controversy the Bernese authorities had prohibited discussing predestination at classical meetings, and so in some sense Musculus’ criticism of those who want to omit public discussion of predestination hits closer to Bern than Geneva. For background on the relations between these cities in the 1550s, see Holtrop, The Bolsec Controversy on Predestination, vol. 1, bk. 1, pp. 353–363. 145 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 24, p. 251. 146 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 24, p. 252.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

76

Covenant

purpose God has chosen the elect. Previously he had determined that God’s inscrutable will was the source of election. But here he determines the final causes of election, corresponding to each of the parties involved. For God, the divine chooser, he elected us for only this purpose, “so that the glory of his own grace might be made clear.”147 For those elect of God are chosen so that they might be “restored in everlasting happiness.”148 Musculus summarizes implications of the preceding parts of the locus briefly: “This grace of divine election is incomprehensible, and therefore will never be satisfactorily valued by us.”149 In the final and concluding section Musculus takes up the topic of reprobation directly. Musculus’ reasons for placing his treatment at the end are simple. Whereas the doctrine of election is plain and clear in Scripture, the Apostle Paul only made mention of reprobation in one or two places. Even so, given the definition of election outlined at the beginning of the locus, that from the mass of fallen humanity God chose some to save, it necessarily follows that there are some reprobate “who are not of the number of the elect.”150 Although Musculus clearly affirms the doctrine of reprobation, and discusses it at greater length than does Bullinger, Musculus’ approach is far more hesitant that Calvin’s. Calvin asserts too that “election itself could not stand except as set over against reprobation,” but rejects the category of divine permission that loosens the causal links between the divine will and reprobation.151 Calvin asks, “Whence does it happen that Adam’s fall irremediably involved so many peoples, together with their infant offspring, in eternal death unless because it so pleased God?”152 Just as there were two senses of being “chosen” that Musculus outlined in the first section, there are also two senses of being “refused.” The first is that of being refused by God, and that is the primary sense in which the term is used in this locus, corresponding to the first sense of being chosen. Where the elect are Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 24, p. 252. Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 24, p. 252: “… ut sempiternum felices reddamur.” 149 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 24, p. 253: “Gratia hæc diviniæ electionis est incomprehensibilis, ideoque nunquam a nobis satis æstimata.” Calvin says that no other doctrine will “suffice to make us humble as we ought to be nor shall we otherwise sincerely feel how much we are obliged to God.” See Calvin, Institutes, III.xxi.1, p. 922. 150 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 24, p. 253. Here again Musculus cites Peter Lombard, Sententiarum Quatuor Libri, bk. 1, d. 40, p. 699, for support: “Prædestinavit eos quos elegit, reliquos vero reprobavit,” or, “He predestined those whom he elected, but he reprobated the rest ….” See The Sentences, 1:220, which locates this text not as part of distinction 40 but rather at the conclusion of distinction 39. See also the textual note in the Quaracchi edition. 151 Calvin, Institutes, III.xxiii.1, p. 947. On Calvin’s critique of divine “permission,” see his Institutes, I.xvi.8; xviii.1, pp. 207f; 228ff. See Muller, Christ and the Decree, 53: “Musculus, then, allows place for the divine permission and formulates his doctrine with less causal rigor than does Calvin.” See also the discussion of the divine will and power in Steinmetz, Calvin in Context, 40–52. 152 Calvin, Institutes, III.xxiii.7, p. 955. 147 148

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Loci communes



77

chosen without regard to quality or merit, the reprobate likewise are refused. But in the second sense, they are called “evil and reprobate on account of innate wickedness.”153 This second sense of reprobation is also applicable to the elect, since they share in the same vitiated and corrupt nature. Again, the second sense of being chosen, that is, on the basis of some quality or merit, does not apply to either the elect or the reprobate because of their shared sinful nature. There are four other correlative judgments made by Musculus with regard to reprobation. First, since reprobation is the correlative result of election, it follows that, like election, reprobation occurred “before the constitution of the world.”154 Second, to be reprobate has the same meaning as being not elect. Here Lombard’s Sentences is used to summarize the point: God “has reprobated some from eternity by not electing them.”155 Thirdly, just as we ought not to search for the causes behind the causes of election, we are not to seek the cause of reprobation “because it is secret.”156 This is a key difference in emphasis between Musculus and Calvin. Where Musculus simply notes the cause of reprobation is an unsearchable secret, Calvin acknowledges explicitly that “the first man fell because the Lord had judged it to be expedient; why he so judged is hidden from us. Yet it is certain that he so judged because he saw that thereby the glory of his name is duly revealed.”157 Again, the difference is not that Calvin affirms the doctrine of reprobation while Musculus denies it, or that either thinks the ultimate cause of reprobation can be known, but rather that Calvin is more willing to explicitly draw out the causal and logical implications of his attribution of the fall to God’s active will.158 And in contrast to Bullinger, Musculus is inclined to explore the doctrine of reprobation in some detail. In this way Musculus’ approach to predestination cannot be simply identified with either Bullinger’s or Calvin’s approach, even though there are a number of Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 24, p. 253. Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 24, p. 254. 155 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 24, p. 254: “Deum ab æterno quosdam non eligendo reprobasse dicit.” Musculus cites Peter Lombard, Sententiarum Quatuor Libri, bk. 1, d. 40, cap. 2, p. 700: “…reprobatio Dei, qua ab aeterno non eligendo quosdam reprobavit…,” or, “…God’s reprobation, by which he has reprobated some from eternity by not electing them….” See The Sentences, 1:223. 156 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 24, p. 254: “…est enim occulta.” Compare with Musculus’ depiction of the search for the causes of election beyond God’s will, purpose, and choice as being mired in an “inscrutable abyss.” 157 Calvin, Institutes, III.xxiii.8, p. 957. 158 Compare the presentation of Otto Ritschl, who says that Musculus on predestination, in addition to bearing close resemblance to Bucer’s doctrine, shows dependence on Calvin. See Ritschl, Dogmengeschichte des Protestantismus, 3:249f. Ritschl also says that Musculus would have preferred to “ignore” the doctrine of reprobation, and that he is a representative of the Bucerian mediating line between Calvin and Zwingli. 153 154

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

78

Covenant

basic similarites that unify all three thinkers into a single, variegated theological tradition.159 As Philip Benedict writes, Musculus “espoused a cautious variant of double predestination.”160 Musculus’ final point is that the reprobate are neither able to obey the call of God, nor to believe, nor to repent, nor to be justified, nor to be saved.161 The Sentences capture Musculus’ point here well: “None of those predestined are able to be damned, and none of the reprobate are able to be saved.”162 But just as in the section on judging who are elect, Musculus here warns against rashly judging who are reprobate. Indeed, we are to heartily seek that everyone might be saved, to pray for everyone, to lovingly embrace everyone, and to do good to everyone, not heedlessly despairing of anyone.163 “Because it is hidden from us,” he concludes, “what has been finally established for anyone by God.”164

159 Thus Baker is incorrect to radically juxtapose Bullinger and Calvin, and then to simply identify Musculus with Bullinger’s position. This does both too much in hermetically separating Musculus and Bullinger from Calvin, and too little in glossing over Musculus’ characteristic nuances. See Baker, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant, 202: “Although Musculus’ treatment of predestination was more sharply focused and more clearly based in formal logic than Bullinger’s, the two men were essentially in agreement on predestination and the covenant.” For a survey of the debate that rightly judges there to be no fundamental disagreement between Bullinger and Calvin on covenant and predestination, see Moots, Politics Reformed, 40–50. Selderhuis observes that it is “questionable” to what extent Musculus is closer to Bullinger than to Calvin on the topic of predestination. See �������������������������������� Selderhuis, “Die Loci Communes des Wolfgang Musculus,” 322: “Ob Musculus in der Prädestinationslehre Bullinger näher steht als Calvin, ist zumindest fragwürdig und hängt zudem davon ab, wie die Unterschiede zwischen Bullinger und Calvin Bewertet werden.” On the continuing Reformed diversity amid controversy, see also J. V. Fesko, “Lapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dort,” in Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism, ed. Michael A.G. Haykin / Mark Jones (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 121f. 160 Philip Benedict, Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), 63. 161 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 24, p. 254. 162 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 24, p. 254: “… neminem prædestinatorum damnari, & neminiem reproborum salvari posse.” See Peter Lombard, Sententiarum Quatuor Libri, bk. 1, d. 40, cap. 1, p. 699: “Praedestinatorum nullus videtur posse damnari, nec reproborum aliquis posse salvari,” or, “It seems that none of the predestined may be damned, and none of the reprobated be saved.” See The Sentences, 1:221. 163 Compare with Bullinger’s expression in the Second Helvetic Confession, 5.055, p. 67: “… we must hope well of all, and not rashly judge any man to be a reprobate.” See Bullinger, Confessio, x. 235:24f: “… bene sperandum est tamen de omnibus, neque temere reprobis quisquam est annumerandus.” See also Venema, Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination, 96. 164 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 24, p. 254.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



In Mosis Genesim plenissimi Commentarii

79

2.2 In Mosis Genesim plenissimi Commentarii As the title of Musculus’ commentary on Genesis indicates, the work is copious, running in excess of 850 pages in Latin and written in dialogue with a host of both ancient and more recent commentators.165 With the events of the previous decade firmly in his mind, especially the imposition of the Interim and his resulting flight from his home in Augsburg, Musculus dedicates his commentary to Philip of Hesse. In the dedicatory letter, Musculus writes that no matter what problems we encounter or troubles we experience, such as the recent calamities in “our Germany,” we must never neglect the study of the Holy Scriptures.166 Musculus deplores the current situation of evangelicals and academics, the vast majority of whom, seeking worldly gain, would rather study the literature of the age than the sacred Scriptures, worldly teachers rather than Christ.167 Juxtaposing a sort of “secular” humanistic academic pursuit with a godly study of the Scriptures, Musculus connects the former with the calamities that have befallen Germany. As part of his long-term project to restore proper focus on the sacred Scriptures, Musculus has found it fitting to write this commentary on Genesis next, at the “counsel of good men,” following similar works on the gospels of Matthew and John and the Psalms of David.168 In his preface to the Christian reader, Musculus again employs a distinction between the wisdom of the world and the knowledge to be sought in Scripture. Using the biblical imagery of light and dark, Musculus compares the teaching and doctrine of Christ to light which reveals the sins of human beings so that 165 The full title is In Mosis Genesim plenissimi Comentarii, in quibus veterum & recentiorum sententiæ diligenter expenduntur (Basel: Johann Herwagen, 1554). 166 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, “Epistola Nuncupare,” i. For the concept of Vaterlandsliebe in the early modern era, see Alexander Schmidt, Vaterlandsliebe und Religionskonflikt: Politische Diskurse im Alten Reich (1555–1648) (Leiden: Brill, 2007); and Robert von Friedeburg, “‘Patrioten’ in der frühen Neuzeit: Teilhabe an den öffentlichen Angelegenheiten im Verlauf von Konfessionalisierung und europäischen Mächtekonflikten,” in Wege der Neuzeit: Festschrift für Heinz Schilling zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Stefan Ehrenpreis / Ute Lotz-Heumann / Olaf Mörke / Luise Schorn-Schütte (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2007), 431–456. For the question of confessionalism and “German” identity in the context of Augsburg, see Etienne François, “Konfessioneller Pluralismus und deutsche Identität,” in Wege der Neuzeit, 285–310. For a recent statement of the confessionalization thesis, see Heinz Schilling, Early Modern European Civilization and its Political and Cultural Dynamism (Hanover: University Press of New England, 2008). See also the special issue of the Dutch Review of Church History, Wim Janse / Barbara Pitkin, ed., The Formation of Clerical and Confessional Identities in Early Modern Europe (Leiden: Brill, 2006). 167 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, “Epistola Nuncupare,” ii. 168 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, “Epistola Nuncupare,” ii: “In hoc itaque studio sacrarum scripturarum pergens post Matthæum, Ioannem, & Psalterium Davidis, contuli me bonorum virorum consilio ad librum Geneseos explicandum, ac benignitate Domini concessum est ad illius pertingere finem.” This is perhaps a reference to Bucer, whose suggested order for Old Testament exegesis Musculus follows closely, as argued in section 1.3.2.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

80

Covenant

they might see and know where salvation and life might be established.169 Alluding again perhaps to the difficulties besetting German-speaking lands, Musculus notes the context of “these turbulent and most ferocious disturbances of war,” undertaken by kings as if they ruled the heavens.170 With characteristic humility, Musculus offers his collection of lucubrations on Genesis to his readers so that they might take only what is good, knowing that no work can be judged useful by everyone. His intention is not to be loose with Scripture, but if his readers will only freely judge his work, they will find nothing bad, nothing that confines or restricts grace.171 Noting that judgment is in the power of the prudent and observant reader, Musculus describes the various sections in which he divides his commentary. The lectio deals with various readings of the text, and is joined with an explanation (explanatio) of the text as Musculus judges it was composed in the minds of the writers. After lectio and explanatio follow quæstio of “obscure places,” not for the purpose of satisfying vain curiosity, but rather to meet the needs of pious consciences according to his own limited abilities. Following lectio, explanatio, and quæstio, Musculus includes observatio, so that those who are unlearned and not well-versed in Scripture might be edified. Keeping these distinctions in mind will help the reader to know where the text has been separated.172 Musculus concludes the preface by describing the fourfold understanding of the text that is necessary for proper scriptural study. The first is what ought to be called the “singular” understanding of the words, which requires the knowledge of the sacred languages, specifically Hebrew and Greek. Without this knowledge having been gathered, writes Musculus, the reader would depend on the judgment of others.173 The second level of understanding is the “sense of speech” (sensum orationis), in which the words in their singular understanding are ordered as part of a sentence. This sense is necessary because it is impossible to understand a single word rightly without taking into account its relationship with the surrounding words. Thirdly, Musculus writes that what is said by God, the Prophets, the Apostles, or the Evangelists ought to be understood spiritually. By spirit Musculus means the reasoning, judgment, sense, and purpose of Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, “Præfatio Christiano Lectoris,” iii. Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, “Præfatio Christiano Lectoris,” iv: “Extra hasce molestias crescunt quotidie turbulenti illi & truculentissimi bellorum motus, quibus monarchæ inter se pro regno non cœlorum, sed mundi concertantes, orbem Christianum miserandis modis consciunt ac vastant, viribus suis spoliant, & extero hosti horrendam in nos irruptionem molienti omnes valvas latissime aperiunt.” 171 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, “Præfatio Christiano Lectoris,” iv. 172 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, “Præfatio Christiano Lectoris,” v. 173 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, “Præfatio Christiano Lectoris,” v: “Sine hac cogeris, lector ab aliorum pendêre iudicio.” 169 170

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

In Mosis Genesim plenissimi Commentarii



81

the speech.174 This spiritual sense cannot be understood alone, but as the why and to what end something has been declared, and in connection with the verbal (singular) and grammatical senses (sensus orationis). The fourth and final sense is to what use the place of Scripture is to be put (scripturarum loci usus). Citing 2 Timothy 3:16, that Scripture is divinely inspired and “useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work,” Musculus concludes that this sense is what the pious and assiduous not only read but also meditate on to put into practice.175 These are the four senses that Musculus has in mind for the exposition in his commentary, and can be helpfully understood to correspond roughly to his four part division. The verbal sense is the focus of the lectio, the grammatical sense is dealt with in the explanatio, the spiritual sense as left unclear from the literal-grammatical reading alone is considered in the quæstio, and the fourth sense concerning moral application is explicated in the observatio.176 In the short introductory preface to Genesis, Musculus notes that it is better to begin with the account of God’s creation, rather than with the generations of Adam, Abel, Seth, Noah, Abraham and his posterity, because without God’s creative initiative neither the heavens nor the earth, nor any of the patriarchs would be able to exist.177 Musculus observes a basic threefold division of the book: the first is the time from the beginning of the world to the flood, the second from the flood to the time of Abraham, and the third following after Abraham to the time of Jacob and his descent to Egypt. In his summary of the course of the narrative of the book, the most relevant section to our following textual studies is his note that following the fall into sin and God’s retribution, the account follows concerning the restoration of our kind through the preservation of Noah, the calling of Abraham, and the covenant initiated with Abraham and his posterity.178

Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, “Præfatio Christiano Lectoris,” v: “Spiritum autem voco rationem, mentem, consilium ac propositum loquentis.” 175 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, “Præfatio Christiano Lectoris,” v. 176 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, “Præfatio Christiano Lectoris,” v. The correspondence is not perfectly absolute. For instance, Musculus is more than willing to draw out the fitting implications for godly behavior and belief from the quæstio as well as the observatio. 177 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, “Præfatio in Genesin,” 1. 178 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, “Præfatio in Genesin,” 1: “… reparatio generis nostri per asservationem Noe, vocatio Abrahæ, fœdus cum illo ac posteris eius initum ….” 174

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

82

Covenant

2.2.1 Genesis 9:8–18 (The Noahic Covenant) The first text under consideration appears as Genesis 9:8–18 in modern translations. This is the section of the story of Noah that describes the initiation of the covenant with Noah following deliverance from the flood in the ark. This is one of the primary biblical texts referred to by Musculus in his exposition of the general covenant in his Loci. To better place Musculus within the exegetical tradition, his commentary on this passage is compared with that of Ambrose, Nicholas of Lyra, and Conrad Pellicanus.179 The exegesis of Ambrose comes in his treatise De Noe et Arca, part of a cycle of expositions of the biblical text that focuses on the generational (toledoth) structure of the patriarchal narratives. The works of Nicholas and Pellicanus share some similarities as they consist mainly of brief running commentary on the entire biblical text. 2.2.1.1 Lectio As noted in the preface, Musculus divides his exegesis into four major components. The first of these is the lectio, in which he compares the Latin text with the original Hebrew and Greek. He makes observations as to variant readings that come from the original languages. For example, Musculus notes that where the Latin text has God saying that all flesh will not be destroyed (interficio), the Hebrew is better understood as saying that all flesh will not perish (excido), while the Greek reads that all flesh will not pass away (morior).180 Recognizing the cognate accusative contained in the Hebrew of verse 14,181 Musculus avers that instead of the Latin verb obduxero nubibus (“I spread clouds”), the text is better read as obnubilabo nube (literally, “I cloud clouds”), a construction which retains the sense of the cognate accusative. He provides another reading as well, concluding that the verb induxero (“I lead in”) is a more accurate signification of the Hebrew. 2.2.1.2 Explanatio Placing the Noahic covenant within the historical narrative of the Old Testament, Musculus outlines the nature of the covenant. The first part of the cov179 Ambrose of Milan, De Noe, in Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, ed. Carolus Schenkl, vol. 32, pt. 1 (Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1897), 411–497; Nicholas of Lyra, Postilla super Genesim (Nuremberg: Anton Koburger, 1498); and Conrad Pellicanus, Commentaria Bibliorum, tomus primus (Zurich: C. Froschauer, 1536). Nicholas breaks the text into smaller segments identified with a letter in a series, and here there are five postilla (a, b, c, d, e) corresponding to the sections of Musculus’ pericope. The third postil (c) is by far the lengthiest. 180 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 240. 181 ‫ְּבַענְִני ָעָנן‬

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

In Mosis Genesim plenissimi Commentarii



83

enant outlines what God has done. God is able simply to promise, writes Musculus, what he has determined to do, but instead God has raised this covenant (pactum) with Noah and his progeny “so that their souls might be rendered certain and secure.”182 We are not to think that only Noah and his family are part of this covenant, but rather that it includes his seed after him and all the living animals on the earth. In the second place, Musculus explores the quality of this covenant. This covenant is that which God has made so that after the flood God will not bring on another disaster which would devastate the earth and annihilate all flesh. Musculus writes that given the context of the recent flood this was the most fitting kind of covenant under which to be placed.183 Such a covenant will assure anyone in the future who experiences a similar storm so that during the tempest they might be more courageous and secure. The third point of this narrative touches the sign by which this covenant would be consecrated. God found it fitting to first repeat the covenant he made with all men and animals and then to pronounce a sign that would endure through all the successive generations to everlasting (in sempiternum). The rainbow is placed “so that it might be a sign not of wrath, but of grace and of the covenant.”184 The sign of the rainbow is placed in the clouds so that God’s pledge to preserve the inhabitants of the earth through storms and tempests might be apparent through such a reminder. God relates this in his promise to “look upon” (videbo) the rainbow “and remember the covenant” (recordor) so that “every hesitation of the hearts of humans might be removed.”185 Musculus concludes his basic explication of the covenant narrative by noting that the rainbow is a special sign for the rational members of the larger class of confederates. Anticipating an important distinction that will arise later in the discussion, Musculus recognizes that both rational humans and irrational animals are made party to the Noahic covenant. The rainbow clearly is not meant to comfort irrational animals, but is rather a special sign of the covenant intended for rational humans who can apprehend it with their senses and recognize it as a sign of God’s faithfulness to his covenant promise. Nicholas of Lyra briefly notes that the sign is intended to be a sensibile signum rather than a spoken word.186 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 240: “… ut animos eorum certos redderet ac firmos ….” Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 240: “Erat hoc genus pacti omnium convenientissime statim post diluvium præcedenti benedictioni subiectum.” 184 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 241: “… ut sit signum non iræ, sed gratiæ & fœderis.” Ambrose makes a similar point with regard to the choice of bow rather than arrow as covenantal sign. 185 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 241: “… omnem hæsitationem cordis humani auferret ….” 186 Nicholas of Lyra, Postilla super Genesim, 23r, (a), col. 1. 182 183

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

84

Covenant

Musculus also includes in this text verses dealing with Ham, Shem, and Japheth, the sons of Noah. He concludes the explanatio with a brief explication of these verses. As is typical in the history of exegesis, Musculus notes the special attention given to Ham as the father of Canaan.187 He also notes the significance of these sons as the forefathers of the generations that would fill and populate the earth (an activity with some important contextual antecedents in Genesis 1:28, 8:15–17, and 9:1,7). 2.2.1.3 Quæstio There are two quæstiones in Musculus’ exegesis of this pericope dealing alternatively with the questions of the covenant itself and the rainbow as covenantal sign. Ambrose similarly raises two major topical concerns in this context, also roughly corresponding to the topics of covenant and rainbow. In the first quæstio Musculus addresses the issue of how it is possible to enact a covenant with animals and beasts without rationality. In this way Musculus raises the question of how and why God was both willing and able to include animals in the covenant with Noah. He answers that there are different kinds (genera) of covenants and goes on to divide them into two basic types: those which have conditions and those which do not have conditions, or are unconditional.188 Musculus admits that it is not possible to place conditions on irrational beasts (bestiae irrationalia). Therefore beasts are included in the covenant with Noah as a clear indication that it is a covenant made without conditions (simpliciter sine conditione).189 That is, the covenant requires neither observance, nor recognition, nor gratitude, conditions which humans alone are able to meet.190 Further, Musculus points out examples of covenants that are to be distinguished from this Noahic covenant, specifically the covenants with Abraham and Moses. The former covenant required that Abraham and his seed walk before the Lord purely (sincere) and faultlessly (integre), while the latter had obedience to the precepts contained in the tablets of the covenant (tabulæ fœderis) as a condition. In this kind of conditional covenant only humans, not animals, are able to participate.191 Foreshadowing the special / general terminology that would appear later in his Loci, Musculus contends that this covenant See Nicholas of Lyra, Postilla super Genesim, 23r, (e), col. 2. Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 241: “Multum refert quale pacti genus statuatur. Quod in praesenti cogitandum est, duo sunt pactorum genera. Unum est eorum quae sub conditione, alterum eorum quae sine omni conditione statuuntur.” 189 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 241f. 190 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 242. 191 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 242. Indeed, not all humans are comprehended in the Abrahamic covenant, but only those who meet the conditions. 187 188

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



In Mosis Genesim plenissimi Commentarii

85

with Noah is not particular (particulare) but universal (universale). By the grace and will of God, this universal covenant is not made with respect to the quality or type of person, as it comprehends both the evil and the good, the grateful and the ungrateful, but is permanently made constant and firm. Evil men as well as good, beasts as well as men, indeed the whole earth, and day and night, planting and harvest, cold and heat, are contained in this universal covenant.192 The implication of this is that the reader ought to acknowledge (agnoscendum) and confess (fatendum) that this covenant of God is firm and unalterably enduring. Moreover, we ought to learn from the state of the world before the flood and its evil causes. From such behavior we ought to abstain, even though the covenant is unconditional and cannot be undone by the evil of mortal man. Musculus concludes by referring to the restoration of the image of God in man, and the gift of the light of intelligence (lux intelligentiæ), which hint at the relation between this universal covenant with Noah and the particular covenant of salvation with Abraham.193 Although Ambrose likewise raises questions related to the covenant as his first concern in this scriptural context, he pursues a rather different course in his exegesis. While Musculus makes conclusions about the nature of the covenant based on the inclusion of animals as confederates, Ambrose notes that God’s promises in this covenant do not mean that “no soul is able to perish inwardly.”194 Pointing to the post-flood realities of sins like parricide, murder, adultery, and collusion, Ambrose is convinced that the promises of God in this context mean those who repent of their sin might yet be saved. He writes that one who is unjust in their use of money or in their behavior toward the foreigner, orphan, or widow, “returning in regret he might restore what was taken,” and in this way, like Zacchaeus, such a person might gain pardon (mereo).195 Thus in Ambrose’s commentary we can discern a faint foreshadowing of an emphasis that could later be used to advance the late medieval nominalistic soteriological construal of the divine pactum. The second quæstio in Musculus’ exegesis of this pericope has to do with the nature of the rainbow. The first question in this matter has to do with whether the rainbow originated in the clouds by means of natural causes or otherwise.196 This concerns whether the rainbow was caused to be shaped in the ordinary Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 242. Musculus includes a similar list to that contained in the description of the general covenant in his locus de fœdere, both undoubtedly allusions to Genesis 8:22. 193 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 242. See also Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, “Præfatio in Genesin,” 1. 194 Ambrose, De Noe, 27,102:17–18, p. 483: “… nullius anima possit penitus interire.” 195 Ambrose, De Noe, 27,102:28, p. 483: “… in paenitentiam regressus restituat quod abstulit.” 196 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 242. 192

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

86

Covenant

course of nature, or if it was not natural but according to the singular will of God, which set it forward as a sign in the clouds. Secondly, there is a question of whether or not rainbows existed before the flood just as they did afterwards. “And this,” writes Musculus, “some deny, others affirm.”197 Thirdly, it is asked concerning the rains whether before the flood the water came from the earth or whether the rains watered the world before the flood as they do after. Addressing the first set of issues, Musculus acknowledges that those who affirm that the rainbow came to be through natural causes have some reasons to do so. Pointing to the times and ways in which rainbows form in clouds, and including a marginal reference to Seneca, Musculus writes that from such constant, certain, and infallible observations some argue that this rainbow came to be in no way except through natural and ordinary causes.198 Others, however, who deny the origin of the rainbow to be natural, point to the formation of the rainbow as a singular sign of the covenant of God which was not made out of natural works. Ambrose also makes reference to the question of the natural causes related to the rainbow, but spends the majority of his time addressing the significance of the rainbow as a covenantal sign. Those who deny that the rainbow existed before the flood are moved by such reasons as that which appears to be natural is not willed (nolo). They judge it to be unsuitable that something which was common and usual before the flood would begin to be a special sign after the flood. Those of the contrary opinion, however, hold that God was making a particular point having to do with a specific rainbow, giving the thing that had existed before a new meaning. They judge that the conditions for the formation of the rainbow, which arose out of the constant opposition of the sun and clouds, existed before the flood as well as after. Finally, those who deny the rains had fallen before the flood point to the shortage of rain clouds and of the watering of the earth from the dew and springs Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 242: “Et hic negant alii, alii affirmant.” Musculus might have Luther, among others, in mind here. Compare Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 2: Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 6–14, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan / Hilton C. Oswald / Helmut T. Lehmann (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999), 149: “I hold that the rainbow was a new creature, not seen by the world until now, in order that the world might be reminded of the past wrath, of which the rainbow shows traces, and might also be assured of the mercy of God.” 198 The reference is to Seneca, Naturales quaestiones, trans. Thomas H. Corcoran (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971), bk. 1, ch. 3,9, pp. 36ff: “‘Quomodo’, inquis, ‘tu mihi multa milia imaginum istic esse dicis, ubi ego nullam uideo? Et quare, cum solis color unus sit, imaginum diuersus est?’ Ut et haec, quae proposuisti, refellam et alia, quae non minus refellenda sunt, illud dicam oportet: nihil esse acie nostra fallacius non tantum in his, a quibus subtiliter peruidendis illam locorum diuersitas submouet, sed etiam in his quoque, quae ad manum cernit: remus tenui aqua tegitur et fracti speciem reddit; poma per uitrum aspicientibus multo maiora sunt; columnarum interualla porticus longior iungit.” 197

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

In Mosis Genesim plenissimi Commentarii



87

(ex rore & fontibus irrigatam). Those of the opposite opinion point to the text of Genesis 2:5, which designates a time at the beginning of creation at which the rain had not yet come. It follows from the fecundity of the earth and the growth of plants after this initial period that the rains had come to water the earth. Having outlined the reasons for and against the various opinions on these issues, Musculus gives his own views. He agrees with those who say that the rainbow has natural causes and that rainbows existed before the flood. He writes, though, that “after the flood it has been constituted as a sign of the covenant.”199 Neither is it unsuitable for a natural thing to be used as a sign. The water of baptism is a natural element, observes Musculus, but was instituted as the sign of baptism at the initiation of the Christian sacrament. There are three kinds of signs, says Musculus. First is the extraordinary (portentosa) and miraculous (miraculosa). Next is the natural (naturalia) and ordinary (usitata), but rare (rara). And third is the natural (naturalia) and most common (utitatissima). Signs in the heavens, such as certain luminous bodies (cometes), are examples of the first type. The second type is exemplified by the rainbow. And the sun and the moon are examples of the third type of sign. He similarly concludes concerning rain that it existed before the flood, seeing no cause for holding that it did not previously exist. Nicholas of Lyra’s largest postil in this section deals with questions similar to those raised by Musculus here. Nicholas also holds a negative opinion regarding the suppositions of the unnatural material origins of the rainbow and its unique inception at the time of the flood. Nicholas characterizes these kinds of opinions variously as not cohering with reason, not reflecting the truth, and conflicting with Scripture.200 Musculus ends the second quæstio by discussing the colors of the rainbow, specifically whether there were two or four colors. Musculus judges that this is not a question to be decided by theologians (theologi), but rather by natural philosophers (physici), because it concerns questions of sense perception. Musculus, in agreement with Nicholas of Lyra, concludes that the efficient cause of the flood is God, and the material causes are the waters and heavenly bodies. As regards the rainbow, Musculus sees natural phenomenon as the efficient causes, noting that the rains are a part, but not the totality, of the material causes.201 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 243: “Nunc enim fœderis post diluvium constituti signum est ….” Nicholas of Lyra agrees. See, for instance, Postilla super Genesim, 23r, (c), col. 2: “… sed pacto facto deus instituit appartionem iridis sive ipsam iridem de novo insignum huius pacti vel federis: liceat iris sit res naturalis et ante diluvium fuerit ….” 200 See, for instance, Nicholas of Lyra, Postilla super Genesim, 23r, (c), col. 1: “Sed hoc non videtur rationabilem dictum.” 201 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 243. 199

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

88

Covenant

2.2.1.4 Observatio The fourth major section of Musculus’ exegesis consists of the observationes, of which there are four in this particular text. Under the first observatio, Musculus treats five points. The first has to do with God’s revelation through which we come to know the true nature of divine goodwill. We initially come to know that God, possessing the most free will and power, deigned to communicate, to reveal himself verbally, in a work of benevolence (benevolentia) and love (philanthropia) toward those who were miserable (misera). In the second place we see that not only has God declared to us words of benevolence but he has also bound himself in a covenant. God has thus obligated himself through the bonds of faith (fides) and oath (iurisurandum). This has been done of his own accord, out of his own freedom and power. For what reason might God decide to do such a thing? Musculus answers that the purpose of God’s public binding in the covenant with Noah was to provide a basis, a reason (ratio), for the removal of all the hesitation from our hearts. Nicholas of Lyra similarly notes in passing that it was not for his own need of a reminder for himself that God entered into this covenant, but rather so that there might be a public and written record for humanity.202 Musculus asserts that we often find it difficult to believe and trust in God, but if we would only fashion our belief simply on the word of God as shown in this purpose, there would be abundant sufficiency for our faith. It follows that because we are inspired in this way that the divine majesty does not hesitate to increase the certainty of covenantal and oath-sworn promises. Musculus proceeds to outline three admonitions that follow from this certainty. The first warning is that we tend to have faith in God only with difficulty and diffidence if we prefer to believe in deceitful and deceptive humans rather than in God’s covenant and oath. The second admonition is that we ought to admire this benevolence of God, who would rightly be able to detest and loathe our disobedience but instead desires to make an oath to save us.203 Musculus’ third exhortation is that we ought to strive for great trust and certain faith in the immovable covenant of God, knowing that the earth and the heavens shall pass away before the covenant of God could become void.204 The third section of this first observatio has to do with a related theme regarding the temporality of the covenant. God made this covenant with Noah not only for that generation but also for the generations that follow. In this way, God’s Nicholas of Lyra, Postilla super Genesim, 23r, (b), col. 1. Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 243. 204 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 243f. 202 203

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

In Mosis Genesim plenissimi Commentarii



89

covenant is not like the temporary covenants of men but is instead everlasting (sempiternum). Picking up on an aspect of the traditional patristic and scholastic characterization of God as the fons omnium bonorum, Musculus points out that the goodness of God, which is the source (fons) and root (radix) of all his pacts and covenants, is not “temporary and momentary,” but utterly infinite, and so is not present only for a prescribed number of years, but continues to the future.205 This observation anticipates one of the three aspects of the eternality of the covenant treated in his Loci, specifically the one having to do with the eternality of God’s grace as a foundation for the covenant. This is not the kind of covenant that is bound by mutual good (mutua benevolentia) or that might be undone by hostility (odia) and discord (dissidia). Those kinds of covenants are finite and temporary. Musculus’ fourth concern in this observatio returns to a topic treated in the first quæstio, namely, the inclusion of all kinds of irrational beasts in the covenant with Noah. From this inclusion we are to admire the goodness of God, who was concerned not only for the salvation of humankind, but also for the preservation of animal life. Musculus’ fifth and concluding point under this first observatio flows to a related concern, which again was treated in the first quæstio. From the inclusion of animals under the covenant, it follows that the covenant with Noah was unconditional. It is within the context of this discussion regarding the conditionality of covenants that Musculus introduces a distinction between what he calls God’s general and special kindness or grace (inter bonitatem Dei generalem, & specialem).206 This distinction should be understood as corresponding to that of the general and special covenants made in the Loci, as the general kindness of the commentary here possesses the same characteristics as the general covenant of the Loci.207 In this place Musculus calls the Noahic covenant an example (exemplum) of this kind of covenant. The identification holds true for the special kindness and special covenant of the Genesis commentary and Loci, respectively. In the commentary Musculus expressly identifies the bonitas specialis with the singular special covenant (fœdus) with Abraham,

For the meaning and use of this formula, which is found in patristic, medieval, and Reformation thought, in the later Protestant scholastics, see Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), s.v. “fons omnium bonorum,” 123. 206 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 244. 207 Such that it applies to all human beings, both good and evil, as well as animals, and is of temporary duration. See Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 244. 205

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

90

Covenant

Isaac, Jacob, and their progeny, characterized by the conditions of faith, piety, righteousness, and sincere obedience.208 With Musculus’ discussion in the first quæstio as well as his later statements in the Loci communes in view, we can see that the distinction between the general and the special covenant in Musculus’ thought arises out of an exegetical struggle with issues flowing directly out of the biblical narrative. The inclusion of irrational animals in the Noahic covenant raises questions for Musculus about what kind of covenant it is, whether it has conditions or not, and thus how it differs from the covenant with Abraham. While Musculus has not yet settled here on the specific fœdus generale / speciale terminology that he would later adopt in the Loci, he does deal with correlative concepts and terms, such as the bonitas generale / speciale, that anticipate and lay the foundation for the later distinction. While bonitas and pactum / fœdus are not identical concepts, they are clearly correlated in Musculus’ thought, and to some extent are interchangeable within a particular theological emphasis or context. Indeed, by looking at this exegetical context that rests behind the doctrinal statement in the Loci, we get a clearer sense of the gracious nature of all covenants in Musculus’ thought, given that they arise out of God’s benevolence and freedom. Musculus concludes this first observatio by examining what we ought to consider in light of what has been said. First, he says, it is right that we should think of the width and breadth of this kindness of God which comes without condition or discrimination to all humankind and beasts as long as the world endures. Secondly, we ought to think how much more infinite excellence is manifested to the elect, whom God chose from eternity (ab æterno), having chosen then justified, and having justified then glorified to everlasting (in sempiternum). Following this allusion to the so-called “golden chain” of Romans 8:29–30, Musculus writes, “At this point let us consider how we may study to imitate examples of both the goodness of God so general towards all, and that singular [goodness] towards the elect and believers.”209 Of the general goodness, Musculus cites the words of Christ in Matthew 5, “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who falsely accuse and persecute you, so that you might be sons of your father who is in heaven, who brings the sun out over the good and the evil, & the rains over

Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 244: “… conditiones fidei, pietatis, iustitiæ, & sinceræ obedientiæ.” Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 244: “Adhæc cogitemus, quomodo exemplum utriusque bonitatis Dei tam generalis erga omnes, que singularis erga electos & fideles imitari studeamus.” 208 209

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



In Mosis Genesim plenissimi Commentarii

91

the just and the unjust.”210 This kind of love given indiscriminately and without favoritism between friend and foe is required of us based on the example given by our Father in the general covenant. Just as the Father did not hesitate to freely bind himself in a covenant to save all indiscriminately, man and beast, so too we ought not to hesitate to bind ourselves to a covenant (pactum) according to the exhortation of Christ.211 The singular and particular benevolence spoken of in many places in sacred Scripture to all who are of Christ is likewise required. Here Musculus makes reference to Christ’s words of final judgment in Matthew 25, by which the reprobate are damned and the elect are saved, “I was hungry and you gave me food to eat.” He continues citing Christ’s words, “Whatever you have done to one of the least of mine, you have done to me.” Indeed, citing other Scripture as support, Musculus observes that we are bound to mutual love: “Do good to everyone, especially to those of the household of faith” (Galatians 6:10). Thus the distinction between the special and the general grace of God declares what is due to those who are in the household of faith, and what is due to everyone more generally.212 The second observatio of this section is brief and discusses the use of covenantal signs (usus signorum). Musculus writes that signs are used to confirm the covenant and remind us of it. Signs are typically conventions used in human covenants, first to confirm the covenant and second to prod (refrico) and preserve (conservo) the observance of the covenantal conditions. In this way God uses a sign for the covenant so that the mortal heart might be reassured. Musculus points to the Apostle’s designation of circumcision as a seal (obsignatio) and the Passover as a memorial of the establishment of liberation. But in this place the sign of God’s covenant with Noah is equally a confirmation and a prod to remember. It is according to the kindness of God that he does not covenant with us except with the use of a sign.213 Pellicanus dubs the rainbow a “sacramental sign” (signum sacramentale) indicating the certainty of divine clemency.214 The third observatio of this pericope addresses the particular sign used in the Noahic covenant. First Musculus observes that it is fitting for a covenant that is a fœdus sempiternum, and thus lasts as long as the world endures, to use 210 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 244: “Ego autem dico vobis, diligite inimicos vestros, benefacite his qui oderunt vos, et orate pro calumniantibus & persequentibus vos, ut sitis fillii patris vestri qui in cœlis est, qui solem suum producit super bonos, & malos: & pluit super iustos, & iniustos, &c.” 211 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 244. 212 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 245. 213 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 245. 214 Pellicanus, Commentaria Bibliorum, 13r, col. 1: “Et promissioni signum sacramentale instituit, arcum videlicet in nubibus certum clementiæ divinæ indicum esse volens.”

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

92

Covenant

a sign that Noah as well as those who would follow in the future could see. The rainbow as a recurring artifact of the natural order is just such a sign. Indeed, the particular unconditional nature of the Noahic covenant makes this sign particularly fitting. The signs of the covenant with the elect, first circumcision and the Passover, then baptism and the Lord’s Supper, are fit for a different purpose. These signs admonish the elect to the observance of the special covenant. But since the Noahic covenant is unconditional with respect to the human (and animal) confederates, the rainbow is well-suited since its heavenly placement signifies its divine focus. That is, as God says that when he sees the rainbow he will remember his covenantal promises, it is fitting that the sign be a heavenly one. Indeed, the rainbow also appears universally throughout the world, so that it can serve as a reminder for humans of God’s faithfulness. Pellicanus also finds the rainbow to be a particularly appropriate sign, although he more concretely focuses on its heavenly status as reflective of the divine glory, citing Ecclesiasticus 43:10.215 The third consideration of this third observatio has to do with a further aspect of the rainbow’s place in the world. The rainbow is a phenomenon that occurs frequently and naturally, but only those who are faithful to the covenant are able to understand it as a sign of God’s grace. Even though Seneca was able to accurately describe the natural causes of the rainbow, for example, he was never able to know that it symbolizes God’s covenant with the earth after the flood. In this way the rainbow is similar to the natural elements in baptism and the Lord’s Supper. When the faithful person sees the rainbow she remembers the covenantal promise of God. Similarly when we consider the water, bread, and wine we do not understand the form, material, and nature as natural men.216 Here Musculus briefly engages the opinion of Scotists (Scotisti) regarding the sacraments. He criticizes particularly the doctrine of transubstantiation as obscuring the nature of the sacramental signs as symbols of grace.217 Musculus concludes the discussion in this third observatio by summarizing what we might take away from the consideration of the sign of the Noahic covenant. First, it is a sign that is possible to be seen by all. Second, it is not simply present in the heavens, but in the clouds. Thirdly, it is not simply fixed permanently in the clouds, but only appears with the rain. With all this in mind we are able to discern the providence of God. The rainbow appears during the rains and tempests, when we are most likely to fear our own destruction. God 215 In the Vulgate, “Species caeli gloriosa stellarum mundum inluminans in excelsis Dominus ….” See Pellicanus, Commentaria Bibliorum, 13r, col. 2. 216 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 245. 217 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 246.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

In Mosis Genesim plenissimi Commentarii



93

wishes it to be this way so that consolation might be mingled in the midst of the despondency of our souls. The rainbow is a sign to all that the end of the storm is near. In the same way the Scriptures speak of our Savior, our head, so that as our redemption approaches we might be refreshed. “This is the providence of God,” writes Musculus, “which only the pious with great joy observe and admire greatly.”218 Pellicanus similarly writes that it is through reverent faith that we discern this sacrament.219 He is, however, more explicit than Musculus in symbolically connecting the rainbow directly to Christ.220 Indeed, Pellicanus’ main emphasis seems to be on linking the Noahic covenant to the covenant of redemption in Christ. In this way he writes that the words of God’s institution of the covenant with Noah signify a time of promise, with the implicative focus on the “most recent of times” in which the “one sign of the covenant” (unicum fœderis signum) for the satisfying of the sins of all is confirmed.221 In an emphasis unique among the commentators under examination here, Ambrose’s discussion of the significance of the rainbow points especially to the fact that God chose the bow for a covenantal sign rather than the arrow. The bow, says Ambrose, is not directly an instrument of the infliction of wounds.222 From this Ambrose arrives at a conclusion similar to Musculus and Pellicanus, that the rainbow is a sign designed to instill comfort rather than to spark fear. The fourth and final observatio picks up the concluding verses of the pericope that deal with Noah’s sons. Musculus praises the “diligence” of Moses, who goes on to name specifically those sons of Noah who came out of the ark with him. Picking up on a point made briefly in the explanatio, Musculus notes that previously the biblical text had left the sons unnamed, but in the interest of thoroughness and consistency Moses gives us the names of the sons here. As Pellicanus had done before him, Musculus cites the judgment of the supposed Berosus the Chaldean (a Babylonian official, fl. third century BC) that there was a fourth son of Noah (Tuisco, or Tuisto) who was the ancestor of the Gallic Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 246: “Hæc est providentia Dei, quam soli pii magno cum gaudio observant & exosculantur.” See also Ambrose, De Noe, 27,104:27–29, p. 484: “… quam ideo in nubibus dicit poni, quia tunc maxime opus est divinae auxilio providentiae, quando agmina nubium in procellas tempestatque coguntur.” 219 Pellicanus, Commentaria Bibliorum, 13r, col. 1. 220 Pellicanus, Commentaria Bibliorum, 13r, col. 2: “Christum quoque significat iris illa, signum reconcilationis a Deo pare nobis donatum, qui pro nobis advocatus constutus, respicitur, cum illius misericordiam supplices, & in fide imploramus.” 221 Pellicanus, Commentaria Bibliorum, 13r, col. 2. 222 Ambrose, De Noe, 27,104:1–2, p. 485: “… arcus enim instrumentum iaculandae agitate est; itaque non ipse arcus vulnerat, sed sagitta.” 218

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

94

Covenant

(Gallus) and Germanic (Germanus) peoples. This is an opinion that Musculus rejects.223 Musculus’ concern here apparently is to defend the veracity of the Mosaic narrative against the implicit claims of inaccuracy or oversight that would attend to the acceptance of Berosus’ account. After describing in some detail the redemptive-historical importance of the identification of Ham as the ancestor of Canaan, Musculus concludes the exegesis of this final observatio and thus of the entire pericope. He observes that the description of the sons of Noah as the forebears of all the peoples of the whole world is a frequent topic of this chapter. As noted above, there are important antecedents in Genesis 1:28, 8:15–17, and 9:1,7, and the connection of the so-called “cultural mandate” to these creation and covenant narratives gives some explanation beyond their mere transitional usefulness (the reason given by Nicholas) as to why these verses are included by Musculus, as opposed to many modern biblical editions, in the pericope concerning the Noahic covenant.224

2.2.2 Genesis 17:1–8 (The Abrahamic Covenant) The second biblical text to be considered here is the first portion of Genesis chapter 17, one of the texts to which Musculus refers as representing the special covenant in his exposition of the locus on the covenant. Musculus breaks this chapter into four parts. The first corresponds to verses 1 through 8 in most modern translations, and concerns God’s covenant with Abraham, in which he repeats the promises of the multiplication of Abraham’s progeny and possession of the land of Canaan. The other three parts deal with, in turn, the sign of covenant (circumcision), the promise of a son by Sarah, and Abraham’s obedience to God’s covenant illustrated in the circumcision of all the males of his household. As in the earlier pericope, the exploration of Musculus’ exegesis of the Abrahamic covenant is put into dialogue with relevant sections from Ambrose of Milan, Nicholas of Lyra, and Conrad Pellicanus. It should be noted here that Nicholas of Lyra breaks up this chapter into three parts rather than four, concerning in turn the dispositio ad circumcisionem, the expression of the form and order of circumcision, and the execution of the command of circumcision. This first part in Nicholas’ treatment corresponds to that of Musculus’ Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 246. For more on the reception of (pseudo-)Berosus in the early modern period, see Glyn Parry, “Berosus and the Protestants: Reconstructing Protestant Myth,” Huntington Library Quarterly 64, no. 1 / 2 (2001): 1–21; and Arnold Williams, The Common Expositor: An Account of the Commentaries on Genesis, 1527–1633 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1948), 159f. 224 This is the reason given by Nicholas of Lyra, Postilla super Genesim, 23r, (d), col. 2. 223

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

In Mosis Genesim plenissimi Commentarii



95

exposition, and concerns the dispositio, the admonition (monitio) of God, the promise to Abram, and the change of his name.225 2.2.2.1 Lectio Musculus’ regular practice at the introduction of each pericope of the biblical text is to compare the Latin text with that of other languages and briefly note variant readings. Here, for instance, where the Latin reads “Ego Deus omnipotens,” Musculus observes that a more literal translation of the Hebrew would read “omnisufficiens,” and would therefore more closely recall the Hebrew name El Shaddai.226 Pellicanus glosses the text similarly, although he makes explicit reference to the work of Maimonides.227 The Greek, by contrast, would simply read, “Ego sum Deus tuus.” In this lectio Musculus moves beyond merely examining the Greek and Hebrew languages, and makes an explicit reference to the Chaldaean (Aramaic) text referring to Abram’s covenantal obligations, “Ambula coram me, & esto perfectus.” The Hebrew, says Musculus, refers to the qualities “integer, sincerus, candidus,” while the Greek signifies the condition, “versare coram me placidè, & sis irreprehensibilia.” The Chaldaean text is best translated as, “Servi coram me, & sis integer.”228 2.2.2.2 Explanatio The explanatio begins with an examination of the text discussing the timing of the divine meeting with Abram, noting that this constitutus is part of the fulfillment of the divine promise concerning the promise of his seed. With Abram now ninety-nine years old, and with the birth of Isaac less than a year away, God appears not only to repeat the previous promises, “but also to raise a perpetually-lasting covenant with him and his seed,” along with the designation of an appropriate seal.229 Pellicanus emphasizes the novelty of this covenant, which inaugurates the age of “new promises, a new name, a new covenant, new obedience, a new sacrament,” as well as “a new woman, a new son, a new religion, a new family.”230 Regarding the first words of God in this communication with Abram, Musculus contends that if anyone does not thoroughly distinguish the words of this Nicholas of Lyra, Postilla super Genesim, 66r, (m), col. 2. Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 398. 227 Pellicanus, Commentaria Bibliorum, 20v, col. 2. 228 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 398. 229 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 398. 230 Pellicanus, Commentaria Bibliorum, 20v, col. 1: “… promiβiones novæ, nomen novum, pactum novum, obedientia nova, sacramentum novum. Nova uxor, novus filius, nova religio, nova familia.” 225 226

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

96

Covenant

prophetic saying, he will consider this section to be something of a “confused chaos” and a thing whose repetition is unnecessary. But a careful consideration of the text shows that there is no confusion. God’s primary purpose in speaking here with Abram is to say, “Ego sum Deus omnisufficiens: ambula coram me, & esto integer.”231 In identifying God particularly here as “omnisufficiens,” Musculus follows the modification of the Latin text in his lectio, that the Hebrew is better signified by omnisufficiens rather than omnipotens.232 Nicholas of Lyra simply notes that the identification of God as omnipotens communicates that it is within God’s power to give more to Abram than he had previously promised.233 Indeed, beyond simply identifying himself, God initiates a perpetual covenant here, and so this is not simply a repetition of previous promises. Previously God had made promises to Abram, which are recalled by his self-identification, “Ego Deus omnisufficiens.” But previously what was to be understood and believed so that Abram and his progeny might live well and be obedient was not made manifest. What had been promised to Abram before is here instituted and confirmed in the initiation of a formal covenant. Nicholas of Lyra observes that God returns here to the promises he had previously made. Using an analogy to the movement in the works of nature and art progressing from the imperfect to the perfect, Nicholas also contends that the divine revelation and promise proceeds similarly, so that the earlier expression of God’s promise is followed by even greater expressions of promise.234 Musculus adds that God explicitly includes the conditions on Abram, “walk before me and be blameless,” because it is necessary to know this so that those who follow Abram might be confirmed in faith regarding God’s promise. In God’s prefatory address to Abram, Musculus notes that God does not refer specifically to particular promises to multiply Abram’s seed and to possess the land of Canaan, but these previous specific promises of Genesis 15 are to be understood as included in the general statement that Abram will be exceedingly multiplied.235 While Abram’s act of falling prone before God is a sign of reverence toward the majesty of God, it interrupts the beginning of God’s discourse. God is not then to be understood as speaking to a prostrate Abram throughout the rest of the text, although the insertion of Abram’s activity might be understood Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 398. Compare to Musculus’ discussion in his loci on the omnipotence and sufficiency of God. 233 Nicholas of Lyra, Postilla super Genesim, 66r, (n), col. 2. 234 Nicholas of Lyra, Postilla super Genesim, 66r, (s), col. 2: “Sicut enim natura and ars in opibus suis precedunt de imp[er]fecto ad perfectum: ita est in precessu divina revelationum et promissionum.” 235 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 398. 231 232

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

In Mosis Genesim plenissimi Commentarii



97

this way. Picking up after Abram had fallen prostrate and returned to his feet, God briefly repeats the beginning of the discourse and afterwards proceeds to explicate the promise in more detail.236 First, God does not simply promise to Abram that he will be the father of a great nation as in the text of Abram’s calling in Genesis 12, but rather that he will be the father of many nations. Secondly, so that Abram might be reminded of the truth of this promise, God changes Abram’s name to Abraham. The name Abram, says Musculus, signifies an exalted (excelsum) or great (magnum) father. It is not enough, however, to call the father of many nations simply “great.” It is fitting therefore for God to make more of Abram’s name, changing it to Abraham, which signifies an “exalted father of many.”237 Contrasting the difference between the offspring of Hagar and of Sarah more sharply, Ambrose describes the change of name from that “de patre vano” to “pater sublimis, pater electus vel de patre fieret pater fili.”238 God’s third point here, according to Musculus, is to make it clear that despite Abraham’s advanced age it is not impossible that he become the father of many nations. It is as if God says, “It is not so that you might consider natural strength, and that you might judge after those according to this promise of mine.”239 Musculus points here to the example of the first chapter of Exodus, where the more the Israelites were oppressed the more they flourished. Finally, Musculus notes that the inclusion of kings in the promise of Abraham’s progeny especially signifies the historical kingship of David up to the captivity in Babylon, although Musculus also notes that this promise can also be referred to all the kings of Judah and Israel and the Idumeans from Esau.240 Continuing his explanation of the text, Musculus notes that in the second part of God’s explication of the covenant, God reaffirms for the third time in this section the divine institution of a covenant. Here God makes it clear that Abraham is the head of the covenant, but that the covenant will continue throughout the generations of Abraham’s offspring following after him, and God thus binds himself everlastingly to be their guardian (protector) and savior

Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 399. Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 399. Nicholas of Lyra also notes that the change of name is one that is fitting, since the earlier name Abram denoted excellence, but not necessarily the great increase of offspring. See Postilla super Genesim, 66r, (t), col. 2. 238 Ambrose, De Abraham, I.4,27: 6–9, p. 522. 239 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 399. Compare Pellicanus, Commentaria Bibliorum, 21r, col. 1: “… sine me semper sterilis futurus eras. Fructus itaque tuus, mihi imputandus est, non tibi.” 240 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 399. Compare Pellicanus, Commentaria Bibliorum, 21r, col. 1, who traces the leaders (duces) of Ishmael, Esau, and Jacob, and notes too that Christ is king of kings. 236 237

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

98

Covenant

(servator).241 Pellicanus writes that God makes the covenant so that he might be “benefactor, curator, pater, amicus,” to Abraham.242 This section concludes by noting the other promise included in this covenant, the possession of the land of Canaan. Here Musculus refers the reader back to the exposition of this promise in chapter 15, and also notes the reiteration of the promise in chapter 13.243 2.2.2.3 Quæstio Musculus includes three brief quæstiones arising from the text. The first quæstio has to do with the presence of an angel as the means of communication with Abram. If there was an angel speaking with Abraham, why did the angel not reprimand Abram for falling prostrate to the earth? Prostration is a manner of adoration and worship only due toward God himself and not towards any creature, including angels, as we see from the angel’s testimony in the nineteenth chapter of John’s Apocalypse. Musculus responds by affirming that worship is only due toward God alone. Since Abram would not be worshiping with gratitude if he had fallen prostrate and the angel had been speaking, it follows that insofar as Abram was worshiping with gratitude that it was God himself speaking and not an angel.244 Musculus notes another objection, namely that in the following chapter (Genesis 18:2) Abraham worships angels. Musculus responds to this objection by saying that Abraham was ignorant that these men were angels, but thought, like his brother Lot, that they were simply foreigners. His actions here are not those of worship but of salutation and welcome, and thus from this text then it cannot be argued that worship is due to angels.245 The second question arising from the text has to do with the identification of the nations belonging to Abraham’s offspring. A reading of Romans 9 could be understood as saying that the promise applies to Israel alone. Musculus responds that the posterity of Abraham is divided into those who are offspring of the flesh (carnis) and of the choice and promise (electionis & promissionis).246 If we are speaking of who are the offspring according to the flesh, then we cannot say that this applies to Israel alone. Understood in this way, Abraham is the father of Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 399. Pellicanus, Commentaria Bibliorum, 20v, col. 2. 243 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 399. 244 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 400. Beginning with this page the numbering in the 1554 edition I consulted skips ahead to p. 500 (rather than 400) and continues through until resetting into the proper number order in the following pericope. I have retained what the correct page numbers should be in my following citations. 245 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 400. 246 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 400. 241 242

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

In Mosis Genesim plenissimi Commentarii



99

many nations, including the twelve sons of Ishmael, the twelve tribes of Israel, and all the offspring of Abraham’s other wife Keturah (Genesis 25:1–4).247 This way of understanding Abraham’s offspring fulfills God’s promise that Abraham would be the father of many nations. But if we consider Abraham’s offspring according to the choice and spirit (electionis ac spiritus), we have another reason to consider Abraham the father of many nations. According to the words of the Apostle in Galatians 3, “If you are of Christ, then you are offspring of Abraham.” Musculus concludes by noting that Paul is speaking in Romans 9 of the carnal propagation of Israel, out of which Christ came according to the flesh.248 Pellicanus similarly observes the distinction between the carnal and the spiritual descendants of Abraham, concluding, “Therefore Abram is given to be the father of all, who also reclines in the kingdom of God, with Abram, Isaac, and Jacob.”249 Ambrose is primarily concerned in his treatment of this part of Genesis 17 to contrast the offspring of Abraham. The son of Hagar is conceived according to human endeavor and is outside the covenant promise. Ishmael is thus not to be considered a “true son” in the same sense as Isaac, who is conceived of a lawful marriage. In the immediate exegetical context, Ambrose has in mind the allegory of Galatians 4, in which Paul himself contrasts Abraham’s two sons, “unum de ancilla et unum de libera.”250 The third and final quæstio has to do with the promise concerning a line of kings descending from Abraham. If the promise of kings coming from Abraham is understood as a gracious promise, how does that relate to the narrative in 1 Samuel 8, in which God is displeased by Israel’s request for a king? Musculus answers the question by stating unequivocally that the blessing of kings in Abraham’s offspring is a gift of God.251 Israel is not guilty for having a king, but only because of its attempt to seize and usurp this blessing. Israel, of its own choice (suapte sponte) rashly disdained the political rule by the judges set up by God, and aspired to the glory and majesty of kingship in the manner of the nations. Because Israel’s request came out of human judgment that they might grasp the greatest splendor, God was not able to grant their request solely out of a graNicholas of Lyra traces the Saracens (saraceni) to Ishmael, the Idumeans to Esau, and the Jews (iudei) to Isaac. See Postilla super Genesim, 66r, (z), col. 2. 248 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 400. 249 Pellicanus, Commentaria Bibliorum, 20v, col. 2: “Horum igitur omnium Abram pater datur, qui & recumbent in regno Deo, cum Abram Isaac et Iacob.” 250 Ambrose, De Abraham, I.4,28: pp. 523f. Compare Ambrose, De Abraham, I.4,27: 6–9, p. 522, on the distinction of Abram as “de patre vano” to Abraham as “pater sublimis, pater electus vel de patre fieret pater fili.” 251 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 400. 247

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

100

Covenant

cious disposition. Thus, in his fury God gave Saul and all those like him as king of Israel, and out of grace gave them kings like David, Hezekiah, and Josiah.252 2.2.2.4 Observatio There are six observationes in Musculus’ final section of this first part of his exegesis of Genesis 17. The first of these picks up at the beginning of the narrative and makes five separate points. The first thing to consider, says Musculus, is Abraham’s age when God makes his appearance. It would seem that God’s promise to Abraham that he would be the father of many nations in the future is something that would be done while Abraham was in the prime of life, full of youthful vigor, and not when he was almost one hundred years old and would shortly be departing from this world. Abraham’s age shows that God did not will (nolo) the multiplication of his offspring through a natural course of events.253 Rather, God wanted it to be achieved through a singular disclosure of grace. Musculus acknowledges that Abraham’s offspring would be created in the natural course of human propagation, but Abraham’s age made it clear that God nevertheless willed this to be the first instance that the chosen people were made so more by grace than flesh. Pellicanus writes that “true faith is not able to be proud,” and that we might depend on nothing but the confession of our infirmity and God’s mercy.254 Musculus cites Augustine for support, noting that where the work of God is evident in the cessation of natural causes, there grace is understood to be evident.255 In a similar manner the New Testament and the Church is instituted by the first causes of divine providence, since God chose to make use not of human wisdom and power, but ignorant and obscure men, of no estimation in establishing the Church, so that nothing could be accounted to human causes, but everything to the perfection of divine strength. All this shows that to be the people of the kingdom and covenant of Christ is not to be a people of the world and the flesh, but to be of his grace, election, promise, and power. Musculus connects here the similarity of origin of the special covenant in the Old Testament and covenant with Abraham to the fulfillment of that covenant in the establishment of the Church of Christ under the New Testament and covenant, the beginnings of which both point not to human strength or causes but to divine grace and strength. Thus the multiplying of Abraham’s offspring,

Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 400. Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 400. 254 Pellicanus, Commentaria Bibliorum, 20v, col. 2: “… non potest superbire vere fidelis, nihil deo rependere valemus, præter infirmitatis nostræ confeβionem, & suæ clementiæ.” 255 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 401. 252 253

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

In Mosis Genesim plenissimi Commentarii



101

as indicated by Abraham’s advanced age, is not accomplished according to the wisdom and power of the world.256 Ambrose sets up the covenant narrative in a way that similarly emphasizes the uniqueness of the divine initiative. But in his case, Ambrose more clearly contrasts the natural human efforts of Abram with God’s plan. On Ambrose’s construal, Abram had despaired of his wife’s sterility and intended to ensure his posterity to propagate his line through Sarai’s handmaiden Hagar.257 Pellicanus holds that Abraham is approved by God as long-suffering example of faith (exemplum fidei), given to teach not to despair of the divine promise.258 The second point to consider in this first observatio has to do with God’s self-identification as omnipotens or omnisufficiens. Musculus makes two observations. First, because the Lord is the only creator and God of all, he is allpowerful and all-sufficient.259 Pellicanus describes God as the “Lord of nature,” who is above nature and able to promise things against natural possibilities.260 From God’s status as creator it follows that he has sufficient power to uphold all things he has created, through the freedom of his own will. Secondly, God is not only all-powerful and all-sufficient. He is also willing for us to know him as such through the manifestation of his works, a fact which has great positive implications for the persuasion of our hearts to believe.261 Musculus’ third topic in this initial observatio concerns the conditions placed on Abraham and his progeny, “Walk before me and be blameless.” Here we observe, says Musculus, to what end faith and knowledge of the omnipotence of God might aim. To walk before God is to live in the knowledge of God (in conscientia Dei) just as we live in the knowledge of that which is before our eyes.262 Nicholas of Lyra briefly notes that this implies that we might always consider God.263 Nicholas also connects the condition of perfection in light of Jesus’ words to the rich young ruler in Matthew 19. This raises the image of the human stretching toward perfection (tendens ad perfectionem) as the purpose Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 401. Ambrose, De Abraham, I.4,27: 2–4, p. 522: “… qui desperat sterilis partum uxoris et de ancilla posteritatem quaereret.” 258 Pellicanus, Commentaria Bibliorum, 20v, col. 1: “Nonagintanovem annis probavit, probatum mundo exemplum dedit, fidei & longanimitatis. Unde discamus, promi������������������������� β������������������������ ionibus divinis non diffidere, promissa Dei non posse excidere qui sua sapientia, virtute, ac benevolentia, nobis semper est præsentiβimus.” 259 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 401. 260 Pellicanus, Commentaria Bibliorum, 20v, col. 1: “Dominus naturæ, supra naturam, & contra, quæ promiserat dare potest.” 261 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 401. 262 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 401. 263 Nicholas of Lyra, Postilla super Genesim, 66r, (o), col. 2. 256 257

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

102

Covenant

of the covenant condition. Thus, Abraham is not to be understood as already having achieved perfection.264 According to Musculus, the blameless heart is simple and unacquainted with all duplicity and cunning.265 Pellicanus similarly defines the covenantal condition of perfection in terms of being faithful, simple, and not proceeding with a duplicitous heart.266 Secondly, so that the lives of all of us might be oriented toward the will of God, we live under that knowledge in all things. Thirdly, so that we might do this out of good trust and faith, we must be persuaded that God is omnipotent and omnisufficient. “This I say is true piety,” writes Musculus, “by which alone we may be approved by God.”267 The penultimate point in this first observatio concerns God’s confirmation of the covenant, which he wills to do out of his benevolence. Of this Musculus says he treats elsewhere, referring perhaps to passages where he says the purpose of the covenant is to provide stability and instill trust in human hearts.268 Here Musculus is concerned to discuss the connection between the divine foundation of the covenant which comes first and is followed by the human conditions. We learn from this ordering that it is not possible for the covenant of God to be stable except with the faithful, walking with blameless hearts before him. The clear emphasis here is on the unilateral foundation of the covenant, on God as the initiator and sustainer of the covenant relationship. This relationship is precisely fitted out of divine grace and accommodation to a relationship with the faithful, and is a relationship of which the unfaithful, impious, depraved, and perverted can know nothing and cannot hope.269 Nicholas of Lyra calls this relationship a special friendship (specialis amicitia).270 Pellicanus explicates God’s promise to mean that he desires to be had, believed, worshiped, and loved as God alone.271 Musculus’ fifth and final point under this observatio is a brief reference to the promise to make Abraham’s offspring like the sands of the seashore, which Musculus notes has been discussed in chapter 13.272 The second observatio is relatively brief, and deals with Abraham’s act of falling facedown, which was also discussed in the first quæstio. Musculus begins Nicholas of Lyra, Postilla super Genesim, 66r, (p), col. 2. Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 401. 266 Pellicanus, Commentaria Bibliorum, 20v, col. 2: “… esto perfectus, fidelis, simplex, non duplici mecum corde pergas.” 267 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 401: “Hæc inquam est vera pietas, qua sola Deo probamur.” 268 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 401. So also Nicholas of Lyra, Postilla super Genesim, 66r, (t), col. 2: “… sicut sum immutabilis: ita pactum meum erit firmum and stabile tecum.” 269 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 401. 270 Nicholas of Lyra, Postilla super Genesim, 66r, (q), col. 2. 271 Pellicanus, Commentaria Bibliorum, 20v, col. 2: “Ego ecce sum, solus vult haberi, credi, coli, amari Deus ….” 272 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 401. 264 265

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

In Mosis Genesim plenissimi Commentarii



103

by noting that the peoples of the West, East, South, and North have varied cultural practices. He observes that in the East, whoever makes a pact falls upon the ground facedown. Some either stretch out without speech, settle down, or remain still as the Rock of Marpesia, or the Marpesian Cliff, a reference to Dido’s reaction to Aeneas in Vergil’s Aeneid (6.471).273 Because some of the pious are said to fall down, all are to be understood as falling down in shock and dismay. Musculus distinguishes two kinds of shock (consternatio) and dismay (perculsio) of the body and the soul. The first has to do with humiliation and subjection in response to the appearance or consideration of power and excellence.274 Abraham’s actions are not to be understood as caused by the hand of God, but rather as his own reaction to what he had heard.275 Musculus writes that even though it may not be customary to prostrate the body on account of the shock in the soul, we ought to be in this position if we might hear from the divine oracle about the excellence and grace of God. This is appropriate especially when we hear that God initiates a covenant not with us alone but also with the children of our flesh, and through the crucifixion of our sins, he also wills us to be adopted as children and heirs in the covenant. It is therefore the most impudent and rotten hypocrisy to prostrate and gesticulate in body, as in the sacrifice of the papal Mass and monks before the image of the crucifix in the practices of the East, without any consternation of mind, and thus the most shameful gain feigns to repay grace to God.276 Abraham’s reaction was not staged and feigned but rather was spontaneous and genuine. The third observatio takes its point of departure with God’s words to Abraham introducing the covenant. Musculus distinguishes between the things to be believed (credo) by Abraham here and the things to be done (facio).277 Regarding that which is to be believed, God says, “Ego Deus omnipotens.” Regarding that which is to be done, God says, “Ambula coram me, & esto integer.” The believing concerns the goodness, grace, and truth of God. The doing concerns our righteousness (iustitia) and integrity.278 The repetition of these elements of God’s discourse to Abraham leads the reader to consider the divine source of all faith in the goodness, grace, truth, power, and promises of God and how Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 401: “… quam si dura silex aut stet Marpesia cautes.” See Virgil, Aeneis Buch VI, ed. Eduard Norden (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1995), p. 78. This was a common Renaissance humanist allusion. Compare Hermann Schottenis Hessus, Confabulationes tironum litterariorum (Cologne, 1525), ed. Peter Macardle (Durham: Durham University, 2007), 316, 557. 274 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 401. 275 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 402. 276 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 402. 277 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 402. 278 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 402. 273

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

104

Covenant

this faith depends on him. Wherever the doctrine of faith languishes then to such extent crass deeds must be seriously proclaimed against and correction of our lives must be sought.279 The fourth observatio concerns the change of Abram’s name to Abraham, which signifies that he will be the father of many nations and that kings will follow in his line. The first thing to note here is that it is not only in the power and will of God to bless Abraham, but to multiply those blessings. Not only will he be father a great nation, but he will also father many nations which will produce kings. To instill foreknowledge and certainty of all this in Abram, God changes his name to Abraham as part of the initiation of the covenant. The repetition of all the promises, the covenant, and the name change was intended to give Abraham a sure soul (animus certus), as well as to give evidence to his posterity that all this was achieved not through a natural course of events but through the singular grace of God.280 Abraham was not able to see what he promised through the eyes of flesh (oculis carnis), but with the eyes of faith (oculis fidei) he considered his future offspring.281 Pellicanus, too, notes that Abraham does not see God with fleshly eyes (carnalibus oculis).282 The promise of God, the sign of the covenant, and the name change are put in place to serve this purpose. Ambrose similarly connects the change of the name to the covenant offspring, although again in the context of his contrast between Hagar and Sarah. Abraham was a father when he had offspring by Hagar, but he was not a father of the son of the covenant, which was received of a lawful marriage.283 Musculus’ second consideration follows the historical sense of the text having to do with the promises to make Abraham fruitful, the father of many nations, and the ancestor of kings. “This gift,” writes Musculus, “is political and noble, because it cannot be produced without spiritual unity and cohesion.”284 Musculus points to the natural inclination for many to be born from one and the same parents, and yet to be unable to remain together, live together, and produce a people and kingdom. Musculus notes especially the example of Jacob and Abraham’s great-grandchildren, that despite the dispersion among many peoples and nations, they were not able to increase the number of their peoples and kings. This shows, concludes Musculus, that it is not for humans to give or Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 402. Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 402. 281 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 402. 282 Pellicanus, Commentaria Bibliorum, 20v, col. 2: “Non carnalibus oculis deum vidit ….” 283 Ambrose, De Abraham, I.4,27: 10–12, p. 522: “Pater erat, cum de ancilla prolem haberet, sed pater fili non erat, quia non erat ei filius legitimo susceptus coniugio.” 284 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 402: “Donum hoc politicum est, & præclarum, quod sine spiritu unitatis & cohæsionis contingere non potest.” 279 280

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

In Mosis Genesim plenissimi Commentarii



105

determine what peoples and kings are increased, but it must be admitted to be a gift of God and a good institution.285 Thirdly, Musculus considers what has to do with the secret in this present place (mysterium praesentis locis).286 The mysterium, how Abraham was to become the father of many nations, is fulfilled in Christ, the offspring of Abraham: “Under the name of Abram were both sterility and the concealment of the mystery of Christ.”287 While Musculus makes no mention of antecedent interpreters, Pellicanus writes that Jerome and other post-apostolic fathers, “the doctors of the Church,” observe that “Christ the Lord,” who is also “our brother and redeemer,” completes and fulfills the promise of the Father.288 Where he is called Abraham, along with the promise of fruitfulness, what has been secret or concealed becomes revealed. In this same way, the carnal Israelites were sterile and ignorant of this mystery, and are to be accounted more to Abram than to Abraham. The fifth observatio and the penultimate one in this pericope has to do with the third repetition of the covenant between God and Abraham. There are four primary things to consider in this renowned place of Scripture: first, what God established; second, with whom; third, for how long; and fourth, to what purpose.289 What God has established is clearly expressed in the words, “And I establish my covenant [pactum].”290 This covenant is not a simple promise, but a promise conjoined to an oath of obligation. The emphasis here is on the divine initiative and the divine origin of the covenant: “Ego paciscor,” says the Lord.291 Who might dare to request such an obligation from God, in whom there is not even the suspicion of falsehood? From a serious and honest man an oath is scarcely to be sought, and for this reason it does not seem possible to doubt the truth of his words without injury. Thus Musculus concludes, “And God, the truth itself, who cannot lie, not only promises but also contracts by swearing an oath; and he does this not bound by any necessity, but rather by the free will of his own goodness.”292 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 402f. Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 403. 287 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 403: “Sub nomine Abram & sterilitas fuit & mysterii Christi occultatio.” 288 Pellicanus, Commentaria Bibliorum, 20v, col. 2. 289 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 403. 290 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 403. 291 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 403. 292 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 403: “Et Deus, ipsa veritas, qui mentiri non potest, non solum promittit, sed & iureiurando paciscitur: nec facit hoc aliqua necessitate adactus, sed libera bonitatis suae voluntate motus.” 285 286

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

106

Covenant

The second matter at hand has to do with the human parties involved in the covenant. God is speaking with Abraham and declares that the covenant is “between me and you, and between your seed after you.”293 Musculus wonders whether we can ever adequately appreciate the magnitude and importance of this covenant with men made of earth and dust and guilty of sin, to whom God owed nothing, and its source in the philanthropia Dei.294 Pellicanus contends, “No one is able to believe in God too much, nor are they able to venerate or love him too much.”295 Musculus notes that nowhere do we read that God engaged in similar covenants with angels, who are spiritual and heavenly beings, near to the divine nature and utterly yielding to God’s will. Instead, it is with men that he wills to initiate a covenant, and we read of this in many places. Quoting the Psalmist, Musculus asks, “Lord, who is man, that you are mindful of him? Or the son of man, that you call upon him?”296 Picking up again the contrast between human and divine covenants, Musculus notes the great value that men would place on such a thing if Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great, false men and wretched in every way, were to establish this kind of covenant. And Musculus asks, “Now what is either Julius or Alexander compared to the divine majesty?”297 The covenant pertains not only to Abraham but also to his posterity, and thus is not broken up or terminated upon Abraham’s death. This illustrates the character of God’s goodwill.298 In the world it is rare to find someone who after the death of a friend is good to the deceased’s offspring, but almost all friendships are ended by death: “Whence also commonly among we Christians it has started to be said, ‘When the child has died, so also does godfatherhood.’”299 The divine goodwill, which endures beyond the death of the pious to their offspring, is not guilty of this kind of human defect. “True riches are these,” writes Musculus, “which the pious leave behind after them to their posterity.”300 This leads to the next consideration regarding the duration of this covenant with Abraham. This covenant, identified as a fœdus sempiternus, includes not only Abraham, his sons and grandsons, but also the entire posterity through all generations perpetually.301 This provision of the covenant displays the perpetual Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 403. Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 403. 295 Pellicanus, Commentaria Bibliorum, 21r, col. 1: “… nemo Deo nimium fidere potest, sicut nec venerari & amare.” 296 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 403. 297 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 403. 298 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 403. 299 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 404: “… wann das kind gestirbt, so ist die gevatterschafft auss.” 300 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 404: “Hæ sunt veræ divitiæ, quas post se pii posteris suis relinquunt.” 301 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 404. 293 294

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Summary



107

divine goodness and gracious constancy. He notes that the prophet Jeremiah and the Apostle Paul have in mind in various places (Jeremiah 31; Romans 9,11) not the perpetuity of the succeeding divine covenant with Israel, but with the offspring of the election and promise (semen electionis & promissionis).302 Pellicanus observes that the “spiritual seed” of Abraham, those who are of the faith of Abraham, are made heirs, “coheirs also with Christ in the true faith of God, and the promises of heaven.”303 To be God to them, says Musculus, is also to be father, protector, king, friend, and savior, not temporarily but eternally; not merely as regards a particular thing, but universally in everything; not imperfectly, but perfectly.304 The final matter concerning the covenant in this section has to do with the purpose of this covenant. God promises continuity of his covenant. For what purpose? So that he might be God to Abraham and to his seed after him. Musculus makes it clear that this purpose does not fulfill any need on God’s part, but that it is initiated in the goodness and grace of God.305 In the same way that our deceit does not void the truth of God, so also does our impiety not extinguish the happiness of this divine goodness. The sixth and final observatio concerns the promise of possession of Canaan. Musculus refers the reader to his annotations in Genesis 12 and 13, and especially to his treatment of the promise regarding the possession of Canaan in the thirteenth chapter.306

2.3 Summary Chapter 2 examines Musculus’ teaching on covenant, election, and related topics in his Loci communes and places these teachings in dialogue with his exegetical work on the book of Genesis. While we find Musculus to be in broad agreement with the larger Reformed tradition, represented here by Calvin and Bullinger, we observe two important characteristics arising from the study of Musculus’ loci on covenant, the differences between the Old and New Testaments, grace, and election. First, the inductive nature of the relationship between these variMusculus, In Mosis Genesim, 404. Pellicanus, Commentaria Bibliorum, 21r, col. 1: “… hæredes quidem fidei Abræ facti, cohæredes autem Christi in fide Dei veri, & promiβionum cœlestium.” 304 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 404: “Deum esse, & patrem & patronum & regem, & amicum & servatorem in se comprehendit, idque non temporarium, sed sempiternum : non in quibusdam duntaxat, sed universaliter in omnibus non imperfectum, sed perfectum.” 305 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 404. 306 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, 404. 302 303

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

108

Covenant

ous topics is clear. Musculus is intent upon moving “up the river,” so to speak, moving synthetically from the doctrine of covenant to its grounding in divine election. Second, we note the recurrence of Musculus’ intention to refashion and reframe traditional distinctions and teachings within a broader and more comprehensive doctrinal framework. In the case of the covenant, for instance, Musculus introduces the distinction between the general and the special covenant in order to place the latter within the context of the former. He does the same with his distinction between proponing and operating grace, subsuming the standard distinction of operating and cooperating grace under this broader framework. In this we can see the basic dynamic of Musculus’ relationship to the theology of the medieval period, one neither of radical discontinuity nor uncritical continuity. In comparing the exegetical sections to the relevant sections of the Loci communes, we see that those in the former discussions are much more expansive and detailed than those in the latter, evidence for the different purposes of the respective genre. Our study of the Noahic and Abrahamic covenants in Musculus’ exegesis of Genesis 9 and 17 shed light on the development of his doctrine of the covenant. We find here early expressions of terminology that form the background to his later usage of “general” and “special” covenantal terminology. In the Genesis commentary Musculus makes a different, albeit complementary, distinction between “conditional” and “unconditional” covenants. It is clear in comparison with the other commentators that Musculus is much more concerned to explore the precise nature of the covenant with Noah and to relate this covenant more concretely to the broader themes of Scripture. In this early exegetical material written before the publication of his Loci we can see that Musculus emphasizes the temporality of this covenant, its unconditional nature, and its reflection of a general beneficence on God’s part. These themes are picked up, refined, and clarified in the locus on the covenant in Musculus’ later, more systematic, work. Such a distinctive concern arising from exegetical material would naturally find its expression in a uniquely distinguishing systematic treatment, and this in some way accounts for the novel appearance and content of the locus de fœdere in Musculus’ Loci communes. In general, the relationship between the special and general grace of God, manifest in the general and special covenants, is a key point for Musculus’ entire commentary on Genesis. He relates in a summary statement of the biblical themes in his preface to the book that the providence of God is manifest first by which he preserves the existence of all and second by which he chooses freely

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Summary

109

and graciously a special people to himself.307 This emphasis on the broader, gracious context underscores a thematic continuity between his Genesis commentary and the Loci communes, since one of his purposes in the sections we study here is to broaden the scope of the discussion surrounding covenant and predestination to include questions of general grace. Based on the doctrines contained in this portion of the study, we might provisionally conclude Musculus to be echoing a broadly Franciscan emphasis on the stability of divine grace and the created order. Chapter 3 continues this study, moving from the initial point of departure in Musculus’ doctrine of the covenant and predestination to the metaphysical issues concerning divine will, causality, and contingency.

307 Musculus, In Mosis Genesim, “Præfatio in Genesin,” 1: “In summa, manifestatur providentia illa Dei, quæ primum ominia a se condita conservat: deinde eos præcipue, quos in peculium sibi ac populum delegit, in nullis necessitatibus non tuetur, ac tanquam suos amanter complectitur, ut non immerito librum hunc, librum manifestionum Dei vocare possis.”

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

3. Causality

Under the broad rubric of “causality” in this third part we examine both the foundation for divine commands in the created order (questions related to divine will, omnipotence, causality, and justice) as well as the manifestation of those commands in the life of human creation (questions related to human freedom, contingency, obligation, and righteousness). This structural division corresponds to Musculus’ own twofold identification of the will of God toward us (voluntas Dei erga nos). First, God’s will must be considered simply so that we might know what he established (constituo) concerning our salvation from eternity. And second, we can understand God’s will as regards what he would have us do or not do, and what kind of people he would have us be or not be.1 The primary context for the first set of issues concerning the divine will and causality is the standard medieval scholastic distinction between the divine potentia absoluta and potentia ordinata.2 Indeed, beyond the textual links in Musculus’ own work, there is good reason in the scholarship to connect the discussion of this distinction directly to our previous consideration of covenant. As William J. Courtenay observes, there is a close correspondence between the late medieval concept of covenant and the absolute and ordained power of God. Comparing the covenant idea to the potentia absoluta / ordinata distinction, Courtenay writes that the “concept of covenant” is the basis for and “gives rise 1 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 45, p. 445: “Nos simpliciter voluntatem Dei erga nos sic considerandam esse sentimus, ut primum intelligamus, quomodo & quid de salute nostra penes seipsum ab æterno constituerit: deinde, quid nos facere vel vitare, & quales nos esse velit.” See also Loci communes, loc. 50, p. 482: “Eius est, inquam, mandare, qui non verbis tantum quæ fieri velit, imperare, sed & spiritu suo animum & vires obediendi præstare potest, ut possimus ad ipsum cum Augustino dicere: Da Domine quod iubes, & iube quod vis.” 2 This is only one of a number of key distinctions and issues that emerge from and ought to inform the understanding of the complexity and diversity of theology in the late-medieval period. See John E. Murdoch, “From Social into Intellectual Factors: An Aspect of the Unitary Character of Late Medieval Learning,” in The Cultural Context of Medieval Learning, ed. John E. Murdoch / Edith D. Sylla (Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1975), 271–348; Zenon Kaluza, Les Querelles Doctrinales à Paris: Nominalistes et Realistes aux Confins du XIVe et du XVe Siècles (Bergamo: Pierluigi Lubrina, 1988). See also more generally Berndt Hamm, The Reformation of Faith in the Context of Late Medieval Theology and Piety: Essays by Berndt Hamm, ed. Robert J. Bast (Leiden: Brill, 2004); and Daniel Hobbins, Authorship and Publicity Before Print: Jean Gerson and the Transformation of Late Medieval Learning (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009).

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

112

Causality

to the dialectic of ordained and absolute power.”3 This emphasis on covenant is a “type of theological causality that was primary for the Franciscan tradition in general and Nominalist theology in particular.”4 A general picture of the role of the dialectic of God’s absolute and ordained powers has been revised in recent decades, largely due to the work of scholars including Courtenay, Francis Oakley, Heiko A. Oberman, and Berndt Hamm.5 While there is some disagreement over the proper characterization of particular figures, including John Duns Scotus and William of Ockham, a basic consensus has emerged that summarizes the potentia absoluta / ordinata distinction as codified in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries as primarily concerned with the contingent existence of the created order. “The order that God has established,” writes Courtenay, “is not necessary in any absolute sense but is only relatively or contingently necessary inasmuch as it has been established by God out of free choice. God is not bound, save in the sense that he has bound himself.”6 Elsewhere Courtenay states, “Both parts of the dialectic, which must be taken together to be meaningful, face in the direction of creation, not God. Together

William J. Courtenay, “Covenant and Causality in Pierre d’Ailly,” 96, ch. 9 in Covenant and Causality in Medieval Thought: Studies in Philosophy, Theology, and Economic Practice (London: Variorum, 1984). 4 Courtenay, “Covenant and Causality in Pierre d’Ailly,” 116. Oberman calls this more broadly the “Franciscan alternative” to the Thomist perspective. See Heiko A. Oberman, The Dawn of the Reformation: Essays in Late Medieval and Early Reformation Thought (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 6. Courtenay has more recently noted that in the first half of the thirteenth century, “it was primarily among Dominicans that one finds the distinction being used frequently to explore hypothetical possibilities, de potentia absoluta.” See Courtenay, Capacity and Volition: A History of the Distinction of Absolute and Ordained Power (Bergamo: Pierluigi Lubrina Editore, 1990), 74. On the variable usefulness and content of the term nominalist, see most recently William J. Courtenay, Ockham and Ockhamism: Studies in the Dissemination and Impact of His Thought (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 1–19. 5 See William J. Courtenay, Capacity and Volition; idem, Covenant and Causality in Medieval Thought; Francis Oakley, “Omnipotence and Promise: The Legacy of the Scholastic Distinction of Powers,” Etienne Gilson Series 23 (2002): 1–28; idem, “The Absolute and Ordained Power of God in Sixteenth– and Seventeenth–Century Theology,” Journal of the History of Ideas 59, no. 3 (1998): 437–61; idem, Omnipotence, Covenant, & Order: An Excursion in the History of Ideas from Abelard to Leibniz (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1984); Heiko A. Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000); idem, The Impact of the Reformation: Essays by Heiko A. Oberman (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994); and Berndt Hamm, Promissio, Pactum, Ordinatio: Freiheit und Selbstbindung Gottes in der scholastischen Gnadenlehre (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1977). For a helpful survey, see also Rega Wood, “Epistemology and Omnipotence: Ockham in Fourteenth-Century Philosophical Perspective,” in Popes, Teachers, and Canon Law in the Middle Ages, ed. James Ross Sweeney / Stanley Chodorow (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989), 160–176. 6 Courtenay, “The Dialectic of Divine Omnipotence,” 6, ch. 4 in Covenant and Causality in Medieval Thought. See also Heiko A. Oberman, The Dawn of the Reformation, 27. 3

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Causality

113

they declare the contingent, non-necessary, covenantal character of our created world.”7 A key question at issue for us here is the extent to which Musculus is indebted to late medieval concepts of covenant, causality, and contingency for the formation of his doctrinal methodus explored in our discussion of covenantal themes in chapter 2. We see that although Musculus is influenced by the traditionally Franciscan conception of a divine covenant or pact as definitive for the created order, Musculus’ treatments of covenant, predestination, and the divine will are largely attempts to transcend the various divisions that appeared in the late medieval period.8 Musculus’ standard medieval reference point for doctrinal matters is Lombard’s Sentences, just as Gratian’s Decretum is a typical point of departure for discussions of social and political matters, particularly with regard to law. These are strategic choices, foundational sources for his program, intended to avoid what he regards as undue metaphysical speculation. On this point Musculus aligns himself with a basically nominalist, anti-speculative, theological impulse, even while he considered scholastic theology in the later middle ages to have become much too speculative.9 Thus Selderhuis observes rightly that Musculus prefers Lombard to Ockham because of the former’s more straightforward and simple scholasticism and despite the latter’s campaign contra vanam curiositatem.10 When we move from the realm of divine causality to the questions of creaturely freedom and responsibility, we find that study of Musculus’ doctrine of free choice helps to flesh out our understanding of his doctrine of the will in the first half of the sixteenth century, which in turn provides a more solid and 7 Courtenay, “Nominalism and Late Medieval Religion,” 39, ch. 11 in Covenant and Causality in Medieval Thought. See also Courtenay, Capacity and Volition, 76. 8 See Oberman, The Dawn of the Reformation, 2. 9 See Oberman, The Dawn of the Reformation, 6f: “… the metahistorical alternative retraces nature and supernature, creation and redemption, to the Person of God, and points to God’s will as – to use air traffic terminology – the ‘ceiling’ of theology. His eternal decree of self-commitment has established the limits of theology which to surpass is to trespass, yielding sheer speculation.” 10 Herman J. Selderhuis, “Die Loci Communes des Wolfgang Musculus: Reformierte Dogmatik anno 1560,” in Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563) und die oberdeutsche Reformation, ed. Rudolf Dellsperger / Rudolf Freudenberger / Wolfgang Weber (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1997), 329: “Bemerkenswerterweise zitiert Musculus bei diesen Fragen auch die Auffassungen der ›scholastici theologi‹, welche nicht unbedingt zurückgewiesen werden, wenn sie nur nicht zu weit gehen. Klar zieht Musculus Lombardus Ockham vor, weil letztere die Dinge zu scholastisch behandelt und Lombardus viel schlichter ist.” See also Heiko A. Oberman, Contra vanam curiositatem. Ein Kapitel der Theologie zwischen Seelenwinkel und Weltall (Zurich: TVZ, 1974), 33: “Mit der Kampagne «contra vanam curiositatem» is nicht – wie bei Thomas – ein subsidiaries Thema berührt; sie is nicht nu rein, sondern sogar das zentrale Anliegen des Nominalismus und äußert sich in zwei scheinbar grundverschiedenen Reformprogrammen.” For a background discussion of Lombard, see Hamm, Promissio, Pactum, Ordinatio, 22ff.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

114

Causality

expansive grounding for examinations of the development of the doctrine in later Reformed theologians. An important strand in the secondary scholarship has understood Duns Scotus to be the primary medieval influence on Reformed thought on free choice, and the broader Franciscan background in general and the relevance of Duns Scotus on Musculus are explored here as well.11 As in chapter 2, the discussion here is broken up into two major sections. The first section explores the doctrinal presentations in Musculus’ Loci communes, in dialogue here primarily with medieval antecedents, notably Lombard and Gratian. Of initial concern will be the loci de voluntate Dei and de iusticia Dei, wherein the issues related to divine causality and the contingency of the created order are treated. The latter two doctrinal loci move us more concretely into the creaturely realm, focusing on the issue of human freedom in the locus de libero arbitrio and Christian obligation in the locus de votis. Beyond the vociferousness of the Reformation complaint against monasticism there are two compelling reasons that the question of monastic vows is relevant to the discussion here. First, it lies in the background of medieval debates over the application of the potentia absoluta / ordinata distinction to papal power.12 And second, as we shall see, in Musculus’ thought the religious vow forms an important correlative both to the divine covenant on the vertical plane and to the civil oath on the horizontal plane. The second major section of chapter 3 takes up important exegetical texts from Musculus’ commentary on the Psalms, in dialogue with the exegetical comments of Augustine of Hippo (354–430), Denis the Carthusian (1402–1471), and John Calvin (1509–1564).13 The issues raised here form a thematic bridge

This is important given the basic picture received from our study of “covenant” in chapter 2 above and the provisional alignment of Musculus with Franciscan covenantal emphases. For a survey of figures beginning with the third-generation reformer Girolamo Zanchi and continuing up through Bernardinus de Moor in the late eighteenth century, see Willem J. van Asselt / J. Martin Bac / Roelf T. te Velde, ed., Reformed Thought on Freedom: The Concept of Free Choice in the History of Early Modern Reformed Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010). On a second-generation contemporary of Musculus (other than Calvin), see Luca Baschera, “Peter Martyr Vermigli on Free Will: The Aristotelian Heritage of Reformed Theology,” Calvin Theological Journal 42, no. 2 (November 2007): 325–40. Especially on the question of divine causality in the later Reformed scholastics, see also J. Martin Bac, Perfect Will Theology: Divine Agency in Reformed Scholasticism as against Suárez, Episcopius, Descartes, and Spinoza (Leiden: Brill, 2010). 12 See the discussion of the application of the distinction in the context of canon law in Courtenay, “The Dialectic of Divine Omnipotence,” 11. 13 Augustine of Hippo, Ennarationes in Psalmos 1–32, ed. Clemens Weidmann (Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenshaften, 2003); Denis the Carthusian, In Psalmos omnes Davidicos (Cologne: Petrum Quentell, 1531); John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. 1, trans. James Anderson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949). 11

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Loci communes

115

between the questions of divine causality and human freedom in chapter 3 and the social concerns regarding natural law and the civil magistrate in chapter 4.

3.1 Loci communes Our discussion of issues relating to divine causality and human freedom begins with the loci de voluntate Dei and de iusticia Dei. These two topics are part of the second major section of Musculus’ Loci communes. As noted in chapter 1, the structure of the Loci communes has been a topic of some difficulty in the secondary scholarship. But generally speaking we find that Musculus’ work is broken up into two major parts. The first pursues an ordering of topics that broadly (but not identically) reflects the ordering of Melanchthon’s Loci communes after the major revisions of the so-called third aetas beginning in the 1540s. But at the end of these series of topics, concluding with the locus de traditionibus humanis, Musculus introduces a new set of loci. This second set of loci is introduced without explanation, and does not seem to follow in any readily identifiable way with the methodus of the earlier loci. This latter half of Musculus’ Loci communes begins with a discussion of the name of God (de nomine Dei), and proceeds through topics related to the nature and attributes of God. The loci de voluntate Dei and de iusticia Dei are both part of this larger series of topics focusing on the doctrines of God’s nature and attributes. The locus de libero arbitrio is our third topic under consideration here, and it is part of the early loci in the first part of Musculus’ work. Musculus’ placement of the discussion of free choice mirrors that of Melanchthon, who had introduced his 1521 Loci communes with the locus on free choice in the first position, and in subsequent editions had preceded it with discussions of the Trinity and creation, the cause of sin and contingency. In our present study, this locus functions to shift the focus from divine causality to human freedom, from the role of the divine will in determining necessity and contingency to the role of the human will in its execution of free choice. The final locus under examination in chapter 3 is the locus de votis, which appears toward the end of Musculus’ Loci communes. This locus serves to bring together the themes of covenant in chapter 2 as well as issues related to oaths and human society that will be discussed in the exegesis of Psalm 15 and in more detail in chapter 4.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

116

Causality

3.1.1 De voluntate Dei Musculus’ discussion of the will of God is immediately preceded by his locus on God’s omnipotence, and there is a close relationship between the two topics in Musculus’ thought. These loci are part of a series following the locus de natura Dei, a series which Musculus finds is critical to the human understanding of the divine nature.14 As is usual, Musculus introduces the locus de omnipotentia Dei with a terminological discussion.15 After identifying the biblical texts that form the basis of discussing God as omnipotent, Musculus makes a distinction between potentia (power) and potestas (might). The Greek δύναμις refers to the former, while ἐξουσία refers to the latter. Potestas is potentia that is effective (robur) and firm (fortitudo) because it includes right (ius) and authority (authoritas).16 Thus, potestas is limited by considerations of authority and right in a way that potentia is not. God’s omnipotence is under consideration in this locus and the more particular discussion de potestate ac dominio Dei follows later (locus 50). In this way, Musculus is concerned here with God’s free and unconditioned omnipotentia rather than relative to questions of authority and right. This omnipotence that is proper to God, for which “nothing is impossible,” is universal (universalis).17 This omnipotence cannot have any determination or limitation, but is “entirely free, full, and absolute.”18 Musculus’ discussion in the loci on God’s omnipotence and will is rooted in the traditional medieval distinction between God’s potentia absoluta and potentia ordinata. In the locus on omnipotence, Musculus focuses on the former half of the distinction, while in the locus de voluntate Dei, Musculus proceeds to consider God’s power as determined by his will, or his ordained power. Musculus includes a treatment of questions and disputed issues surrounding God’s omnipotence, such as whether things associated with human inability are to be predicated of God. Musculus considers these questions to be the kind raised by men who are more inquisitive than pious (homines curiosi magis quam 14 This is the way Musculus introduces the locus de sufficientia Dei, the locus that immediately follows de natura Dei and therefore the first in the series concluding with de præsentia Dei. See Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 43, p. 434. 15 For a discussion of the background of posse and potentia absoluta in the Middle Ages, see Hamm, Promissio, Pactum, Ordinatio, 435f. 16 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 44, p. 438. 17 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 44, p. 438: “… unde & omnipotentia dicitur, propterea quod illi nihil est impossibile.” 18 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 44, p. 438: “Nec capax est ullius determinationis ac limitationis, sed prorsus libera, plena & absoluta.”

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Loci communes



117

religiosi), but treats them as worthy of answer even though his contention is that we ought simply to realize that God is almighty.19 Here, as we have seen is the case previously, Musculus’ discussion closely follows the progression in Lombard’s Sentences, book 1, distinction 42, where first the question is asked and answered, “how God is truly called omnipotent: whether because he can do all things, or because he can only do all things that he wills.”20 Lombard cites Augustine to the effect that God can do all things, but that his will, which is itself rationabilis et aequissima, limits what he actually does.21 One of the questions Musculus examines is whether the past might be undone (quod factum est, sit infectum), a question with a storied past in the history of debates over the absolute and ordained power of God. Musculus answers in the negative, which was the majority medieval opinion, but avers that this does not take away from God’s omnipotence. Musculus gives three reasons for this. The first is that such a power is unnecessary and superfluous for God, whose omniscience prevents anything from being done without his knowledge (sine conscientia). This answer coheres well with Musculus’ view of the potentia ordinata. Rather than undoing something that has already occurred within the world order, from eternity God would simply have created a different order or world system, since he foreknows everything that was to occur. A second reason might be called a moral one, so that if the past involves morally good or morally evil acts, the tenets of justice (ratio iustitiæ) prevent God from simply undoing them. And finally, to be done and to be undone at the same time is a logical contradiction (contradictio).22 Each one of these concerns places a restriction of sorts on God’s omnipotence, but they do so without detracting from his glory or divinity.23 Another question Musculus singles out for consideration has to do with the necessity of the actual created order, and again these questions are in accord with Lombard’s Sentences.24 Could God have made things differently, either better or worse (melius vel deterius), in a different way, or by omitting things he has done? Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 44, p. 442: “… simplicter sentiendum, esse Deum omnipotentem.” Peter Lombard, Sententiarum Quatuor Libri, in S. Bonaventurae opera omnia, ed. Collegii S. Bonaventura, 4 vol. (Florence: Quaracchi, 1882–1889), bk. 1, d. 42, cap. 1, p. 743; ET: The Sentences, trans. Giulio Silano, 4 vol. (Toronto: Pontifical Institute for Mediaeval Studies, 2007–2010), 1:230. 21 See Courtenay, Capacity and Volition, 30: “God has the capacity or power to do things he does not do (and in a sense cannot do) because they are not appropriate to his nature or, more frequently, his decreed moral order in which certain actions, well within divine capacity, would be unjust or in some way inappropriate.” 22 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 44, pp. 443f. 23 Musculus’ position here is in accord with Lombard. See Courtenay, Capacity and Volition, 54. 24 Lombard, Sententiarum Quatuor Libri, bk. 1, d. 42, cap. 1–2, pp. 779f; ET: The Sentences, 1:230f. 19 20

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

118

Causality

Could he do the things he has done once and do them always?25 Emphasizing the foundation of God’s absolute power, Musculus answers vigorously in the affirmative. Unless God could have done these things, “he would not have free power, but [power] constrained and limited to that which he does.”26 Musculus asserts, “Our God in heaven does whatever he wills, and how, in what manner, and how often, he wills.” Lest we fear that this turns God into an arbitrary tyrant, Musculus assures the reader: “This is not a contradiction, that nothing might be impossible according to the omnipotence of God.”27 In his combination of answers to the last two sets of questions, Musculus essentially follows the Lombardian answer to the difficulty arising out of the opinions of Abelard.28 Musculus also briefly addresses a question from William of Ockham, “Whether it is agreeable to God not to be able to do what is impossible,” or whether “the impossible is not able to be done by God.”29 Musculus writes that Ockham’s question is easily answered, for simply to be impossible and to not be able to be done by God are “correlatives” (correlativa).30 The meaning of impossibility is therefore co-identical with the inability to be done by God, for with correlatives the one necessarily follows the other. Musculus opposes this definition with that of “contradictories” (contradictoria), but remands further discussion of these points of logic to the dialecticians (Dialectici).31 In the locus on God’s omnipotence, Musculus has established understanding of the potentia absoluta as a concept that makes the created order contingent. Because God could have inaugurated a different created order, this world system is radically contingent. To say otherwise is to impinge upon God’s glory and freedom. This omnipotence of God conceived as the potentia absoluta is

25 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 44, p. 444: “Possit ne Deus aliquid aliud ab eo quod facit facere, quod sit vel melius vel deterius, & alio quoque modo, quam quo facit, & aliquid eorum quæ facit omittere, & quod olim fecit, facere semper.” 26 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 44, p. 444: “… respondeo, nisi hæc posset, liberam non haberet potentiam, sed ad ea quæ facit constrictam & limitatam.” 27 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 44, p. 444: “Nihil hic est contradictionis, nihil quod omnipotentiæ Dei sit impossibile, nihil quod sit iniustum.” 28 See Courtenay, Capacity and Volition, 46–54. 29 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 44, p. 442, 444: “… Priasne conveniat Deo, non posse facere quod est impossibile: vel impossibili, non posse fieri a Deo ….” See William of Ockham, Scriptum in Librum Primum Sententiarum Ordinatio: Distinctiones 19–48, vol. 4, Opera Theologica (St. Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Institute, 1986), d. 43, q. 2. Compare Lombard, Sententiarum Quatuor Libri, bk. 1, d. 43, cap. 1, p. 763ff; ET: The Sentences, 1:233–38. See also Oberman, The Impact of the Reformation, 8f. 30 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 44, p. 444: “Simpliciter esse impossibile, & a Deo fieri non posse, correlativa sunt.” 31 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 44, p. 444.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Loci communes



119

what stands behind the expressions of the God of the covenant as “most free” (omnis liberrimus).32 God’s will stands between his potentia absoluta and his potentia ordinata, between what he could do and what he does do. After all, writes Musculus, “It is one thing to be ominipotent, and it is another to be all-doing.”33 In the same way one might say that to not be all-willing (omnivolens) is to not be all-doing (omnifaciens). Thus the locus de voluntate Dei follows the locus on God’s omnipotence. Whereas the previous locus centers on the issue of God’s absolute power, the locus on God’s will takes up the issues traditionally linked with God’s ordained power. Musculus begins his discussion in the locus de voluntate Dei by chastening impulses toward undue speculation and investigation into the will of God. He cites the questions of the Schoolmen (Scholastici) as those of irreligious and curious persons, pursuing questions like whether the will of God is his essence and whether he be what he wills.34 Musculus’ concern is not to investigate (scrutari) the secrets of the divine will that do not pertain to us, but rather to humbly and chastely seek out and understand “what God’s will is toward us.”35 This statement reinforces the soteriological emphasis of Musculus’ overall discussion of the divine nature and attributes.36 Moreover, Musculus warns against identifying too closely the workings of the human and the divine will, “so that we might not transfer to God the quality of human will.”37 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 14, p. 142. Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 44, p. 444: “Aliud est, esse omnipotentem: & aliud, esse omnifacientem.” Here Musculus follows and is in essential accord with the presentation in Lombard, Sententiarum Quatuor Libri, bk. 1, d. 43, ch. 1, p. 761ff; ET: The Sentences, 1:233–38. 34 A number of the questions Musculus derides appear in Lombard, Sententiarum Quatuor Libri, bk. 1, d. 45, p. 794ff; ET: The Sentences, 1:241–46. For a discussion of the background of velle / voluntarius / voluntas in the Middle Ages, see Hamm, Promissio, Pactum, Ordinatio, 436f. 35 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 45, p. 444: “… ita nostrum non est, voluntatis divinæ secreta ad nos non pertinentia scrutari, sed quae sit voluntas Dei erga nos probare & intelligere.” 36 Compare, for example, Musculus’ locus on God’s sufficiency, Loci communes, loc. 43, p. 436: “Idem Deus omnibus a se creatis inexhaustus est omnis sufficientiæ fons ….” Selderhuis notes that this anti-speculative stance is a preeminent example of Musculus’ fundamental alteration of the medieval scholastic method. See Selderhuis, “Die Loci Communes des Wolfgang Musculus,” 329: “Das Verhältnis zur mittelalterlichen Scholastik zeigt sich am deutlichsten bei der Besprechung der Allmacht Gottes. Musculus beginnt mit der Aussage, er werde die Omnipotenz Gottes erörtern, soweit Gott selbst uns darüber wissen müssen; denn Gott offenbart uns nicht mehr, als wir für unserer Heil brauchen.” 37 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 45, p. 444: “… ne qualitatem humanæ voluntatis transferamus ad Deum.” In another context, see also Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 43, p. 435: “Nulla comparatio est inter Deum & solem, inter creatorem & creaturam.” Compare William of Ockham, Opera theologica: Quodlibeta septem, ed. Joseph. C. Wey (St. Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Institute, 1986), III, q. 1 ad. 3, p. 207: “Intellectio Dei est alterius rationis a nostris intellectionibus.” Quoted and translated in Oberman, The Reformation: Roots & Ramifications, 197: “The ‘rational and logical’ analysis of God’s 32 33

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

120

Causality

What Musculus is guarding against in part is the seeming entailment of divine deliberation, given his embrace of the traditional potentia absoluta / ordinata distinction. As Courtenay puts it, “The distinction entailed the further inconvenient supposition, albeit a hypothetical device for purposes of analysis, of ascribing to God a moment of choice, when a course of action is chosen from a wider field of possibility. A God with freedom of choice is a deliberating God, if only for an instant.”38 Investigation into the recesses behind the divine will is precisely the sort of speculation that Musculus is at pains to avoid, in accord with Ockham and a basically anti-speculative nominalist perspective, and in contrast with Scotus, of whom Courtenay writes, “the same definition of free choice applies univocally to God and man, a point that earlier theologians were reluctant to grant except insofar as they needed the analogy to defend divine freedom. For Scotus, free will has the same meaning for God as for man.”39 While Musculus confesses that God does not will irrationally or without reason, he is loathe to attempt to determine precisely what those reasons are, or the precise way in which the divine will, wisdom, and knowledge interrelate. While humans are clearly temporal and deliberating creatures, Musculus takes great care to avoid attributing what he considers creaturely characteristics to the will to God. For Musculus the divine will has two aspects, corresponding to God’s determination to save the elect and his prescriptive will for the behavior of his creatures. Musculus uses the scholastic distinction between the divine voluntas beneplaciti and the voluntas signi to describe this division.40 In this way, Musculus’ employment of the division corresponds to Oakley’s identification of the standard use of the voluntas beneplaciti / signi distinction. Oakley observes “that the distinction between the hidden and revealed wills was somewhat narrower in scope than that between the absolute and ordinary powers. In theology it was nature and characteristics comes up against and impenetrable barrier in the form of God’s peculiar and particular way of being and perceiving, divine activities which are not structured according to the standards of human logic: ‘God’s mind is of a different sort than our minds’ – impossible for us to grasp.” See also Courtenay, “Nominalism and Late Medieval Religion,” 42: “Ockham’s use of the distinction of the powers of God is a natural outgrowth of the thirteenth-century use, not a contradiction of it. Ockham was aware as Thomas that the analogy between human and divine volition on which the distinction was based (namely, that God shares the human experience of feeling one has the physical power to do many things one does not desire to do and will never do) is basically inapplicable because of God’s immutability and a-temporality, and because of the unity of God’s wisdom, will, and essence. The distinction therefore, was a statement about the created order, not the divine nature.” 38 Courtenay, Capacity and Volition, 78. 39 Courtenay, Capacity and Volition, 102. 40 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 45, p. 445. Musculus further divides the voluntatem beneplaciti into the grace which goes before and which follows (antecendem & consequentem) or prevenient and subsequent grace, which should be understood in the context of Musculus’ prior discussion concerning proponing and operating grace.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Loci communes



121

used characteristically to refer not to the activity of the divine will in general but rather to that activity in so far as it pertained to the moral order or the economy of salvation.”41 Picking up on the latter portion of the division between the divine potentia absoluta and potentia ordinata, Musculus affirms that God’s absolute omnipotence, considered in itself, is no comfort or hope for the believer. But God’s omnipotence considered in its second sense, as it follows the divine will, is the foundation of our faith, piety, and salvation. God’s ordained omnipotence, which is sufficient for us (as explored in detail in Musculus’ locus de sufficienta Dei), follows God’s will to save, and the potentia Dei thus conceived is a maidservant (ministra) to the voluntas Dei. As he emphasized at the conclusion of his locus on God’s omnipotence, here again Musculus observes that “whatever God wills to do he can do,” but he does not will to do everything he might.42 Regarding predestination, election, and adoption, Musculus notes that these are fundamentally grounded upon God’s will. In this Musculus establishes the priority and irreducability of God’s will for divine action, for God did not will to save us because he chose and predestined us, but rather he chose and predestined us because he willed to save us.43 God’s will is thus the first cause which lies behind predestination. This position represents a major point of discontinuity with the basic soteriological emphasis of the bulk of late medieval nominalism. Oakley summarizes this emphasis with regards to predestination in this way: “While these thinkers can still speak of God’s predestination of the elect, it is very much a predestination post praevisa merita, one grounded, that is, in God’s foreknowledge of man’s meritorious deed.”44 So while there is correspondence between Musculus’ use of covenant and the late medieval concern to relate the stability of the world order to the divine will, there is discontinuity insofar as in Musculus this covenantal emphasis does not serve but rather guards against a view of human work as Oakley, Omnipotence, Covenant, & Order, 116. See also Oberman, Harvest of Medieval Theology, 91–110. 42 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 45, p. 446: “Quæcunque vult, potest: non quæcunque potest, mox vult facere.” 43 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 45, p. 446: “Neque enim nos salvos esse voluit, quia elegit ac praedestinavit: sed elegit ac praedestinavit, quia salvare voluit.” 44 Oakley, Omnipotence, Covenant, & Order, 63. See also Oberman, The Dawn of the Reformation, 107: “The independence of the nominalistic theologians vis-à-vis Duns Scotus and his disciples comes through most clearly in their rejection of the scotistic doctrine of the ‘praedesinatio ante praevisa merita,’ according to which the predestination of the elect in God’s eternal council precedes the foreseen good works of the elect. This doctrine is rejected by the nominalists – with the notable exception of Gregory of Rimini – and transformed into a doctrine of ‘praescientia,’ the doctrine of the foreknowledge of God the future behavior of both the elect and the damned”; and Courtenay, Capacity and Volition, 154f. 41

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

122

Causality

meriting salvation. As Muller notes, “Musculus retains the nominalist perspective but affirms, within that perspective, not only the sovereignty of God de potentia absoluta but also the sovereignty of divine grace de potentia ordinata, a soteriological monergism.”45 In this, the role of predestination in Musculus’ thought functions quite similarly to that of Scotus, whose predestinarian view Oberman characterizes as forming “the insuperable wall of defense against the inroads of Pelagianism.”46 As Hamm summarizes this aspect of medieval Augustinian scholasticism, the promissio of God is the basis for any hope of “heavenly reward,” and is to be sought not in the value of the works themselves but rather is to be “anchored only in the redemptive-historical Bow” of the covenant.47 In answering whether God’s will is the cause of everything, Musculus takes care to say that he is not discussing secondary causality, the sort of causes that are infinite in number. Instead, he is discussing God’s will as first cause, which he argues is clearly presented in Scripture as the “first and highest cause of all things.”48 In this allusion to Psalm 134:6, which also appears in the Sentences, Musculus explicitly juxtaposes the divine sapientia and potentia with voluntas, placing God’s will in first position relative to the others.49 Given the essentially Augustinian argument that Musculus pursues here, we should not read this as a fundamental opposition between the divine wisdom and will. Indeed, previously in the Sentences Lombard glosses a quote from Augustine about Muller, Christ and the Decree, 49. Oberman, Harvest of Medieval Theology, 213. Oberman elsewhere calls this “the protective wall around the doctrine of justification.” See Oberman, The Dawn of the Reformation, 117. 47 Hamm, Promissio, Pactum, Ordinatio, 24: “Für die Theologen, die in der Frage der Selbstbindung Gottes als Gefolgsleute Augustins und damit als Vertreter der integrativen Lösung anzusprechen sind, ist kennzeichnend, daß sie durch den promissio-Aspekt nicht das immanente Wertelement der guten Werke in seiner Auswirkung auf den himmlischen Lohn einschränken, sondern nur in einem heilsgeschichtlichen Bogen verankern.” 48 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 45, pp. 448f: “… voluntatem illius primam ac supremam esse omnium causam.” 49 Compare Lombard, Sententiarum Quatuor Libri, bk. 1, d. 46, ch. 1, p. 814; ET: The Sentences, 1:246f. Musculus also explicitly cites Augustine, The Augustine Catechism: The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope, and Love, trans. Bruce Herbert, vol. 1, The Augustine Series (New York: New City Press, 1999), cap. 95–96, pp. 111f: “So nothing happens unless the Almighty wills it, either by allowing it to happen or by doing it himself. Nor should it be doubted that God does good even when he permits evil things to happen, for he does not permit this except by his just judgment, and clearly everything that is just is good. And so although evil things, insofar as they are evil, are not good, yet the fact that there are not only good things but evil ones is good. For if the existence of evil things as well as good were not good, they would by no means be permitted to exist by the almighty good, for whom without doubt it is as easy to prevent things he does not will to exist as it is to do what he wills. If we do not believe this, the very beginning of our profession of faith is endangered, in which we confess our belief in one God the almighty Father. For the only true reasons why he is called alimighty are that he can do whatever he wills, and that the effectiveness of the will of the almighty is not impeded by the will of any creature whatsoever.” 45 46

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Loci communes

123

the divine wisdom limiting the divine power by noting that for Augustine, the divine will is rational.50 Having established the priority of the will in relation to the divine ordained power, Musculus moves on to describe the relationship between God’s will as first cause and creaturely activity. He affirms that God’s will is not only the absolute (immediatus) cause of that which God does, but also the first cause of everything done by creatures.51 This raises the question of the relationship of God’s will to evil, especially evil done by those creatures who rely on him for their existence and vitality. Again Musculus emphasizes his trepidation in delving too deeply into these matters, averring that it ought to be sufficient for those of pious minds (pii mentiae) to believe that God cannot will or do anything that is evil.52 Musculus does admit that the existence of evil shows that God does not absolutely or utterly will evil not to be done (nolo), but again reiterates the warning against ungodly curiosity.53 Perhaps realizing that this answer might be unsatisfactory to some, the next section of the locus addresses the question directly “whether we might seek the cause of God’s will.” To say that we ought not to inquire after the will of God or why he wills what he wills is not to say that there is no cause for what God wills and does. Indeed, Musculus is sure that God does not will and do “contrary to reason” (præter rationem), but he is equally sure that God himself knows the causes and that “we are not to inquire of them.”54 This is a fundamentally Augustinian insight that appears in various expressions throughout the medieval period. Augustine writes of things God does by his will alone or by concurrence with created wills, 50 Lombard, Sententiarum Quatuor Libri, bk. 1, d. 42, cap. 1, p. 743: “… Dei voluntas rationabilis est et aequissima,” or, “… God’s will is reasonable and most equitable.” See The Sentences, 1:230. We shall see too that Musculus affirms that God does not will contrary to reason, but for our purposes here we should note that Musculus’ operative category is sapientia rather than ratio. 51 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 45, p. 449: “Neque eorum tantum quae immediate fiunt a Deo, voluntatem illius causam esse dicimus: sed & omnium eorum quae fiunt & geruntur ab iis, quae ipse condidit.” 52 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 45, p. 449: “Nos ab hac quæstione piis mentibus abstinendum esse sentimus. Nostrum est omnipotenti ac iustissimo Deo hanc simpliciter dare voluntatis libertatem ac iusticiam, ut nihil velit ac faciat, imo ne facere quidem possit, quod sit malum.” 53 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 45, p. 449. Compare Lombard, Sententiarum Quatuor Libri, bk. 1, d. 46, cap. 3, pp. 815f; ET: The Sentences, 1:248ff. 54 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 45, p. 450: “Sic vult, & sic facit, quur sic velit, praeter rationem fieri non credimus. Causas novit ipse. Nostrum non est in illas inquirere.” Put another way, Musculus affirms on the basis of the Scriptural testimony that there is no will in God without cause. See Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 45, p. 450: “… non esse in Deo voluntatem ullam sine causa.”

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

124

Causality

Anything in either kind that he does not do will be without example in fact, but will have the reason of its possibility in God’s power and the reason of its non-occurrence in God’s wisdom. Such reason may be hidden from a man; but he must not forget his humanity, and attribute unwisdom to God because the wisdom of God exceeds his grasp.55

Here again we see that there is an intimate relationship between the divine will and reason, and an implicit affirmation that God wills in accord with his reason. Still, in faithfulness to his pledge not to speculate on divine mysteries, Musculus declines to adjudicate the exact dynamic between God’s will and wisdom. Musculus’ anti-speculative approach here broadly corresponds with the late medieval nominalist perspective. As Courtenay writes of the nominalist view, “God always acts wisely, not because his actions accord with some previously established norm but rather because he possesses an inward sense of justice, consistent with his nature, which will always be unknowable by man. For the Nominalists, there is no real distinction in God between will and intellect. Accordingly God’s action, although completely voluntary, is internally consistent and, when revealed to man, is absolutely dependable.”56 In nominalist thinking, the “contingency and dependability of God’s acts” are “always understood from the point of view of covenant.”57 In this way there is a broadly Franciscan (Scotist / nominalist) conception of covenant as the external sign of divine stability that stands behind Musculus’ general / special distinction. For these Franciscans as for Musculus, “There are, in fact, two covenants rather than one. One covenant is with the world in general, a covenant which God has made with all mankind, begun at creation and assured through promises made to Adam and Noah. The second covenant is with the Church, understood in the broad, Augustinian sense of all those belonging to the City of God either for a time or for all eternity.”58 Thus, there is a generally Franciscan background in Musculus’ bifurcation of divine covenants into a general and special scheme. But the background is not the nominalist semi-Pelagian construal of the facere quod in se est formula as regards the special covenant, but rather the condescension of the divine will to create and uphold this particular world order.59 The basic function of Musculus’ expansion of the covenantal discussion Augustine, The Spirit and the Letter, v.7, p. 199. Courtenay, “Covenant and Causality in Pierre d’Ailly,” 117. 57 Courtenay, “Covenant and Causality in Pierre d’Ailly,” 117. 58 Courtenay, “Covenant and Causality in Pierre d’Ailly,” 117. 59 See Oberman, The Dawn of the Reformation, 29: “God is a covenant God, his pactum or foedus is his self-commitment to become the contractual partner in creation and salvation. Here originates the Pelagianism of the facere quod in se est, which stands in the area of justification for the meager but sufficient human moral efforts which God has contracted, accepted or pledged to reward. In this emphasis 55 56

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Loci communes

125

to include both the general and the special covenant is to emphasize the prevenience of divine grace.60 While the nominalists generally apply this scheme in a semi-Pelagian fashion as relates to the special covenant, Musculus takes over the basic twofold covenantal framework without abandoning a fundamentally Augustinian soteriology.

3.1.2 De iusticia Dei The locus on the justice of God is immediately preceded by the exposition of the power and dominion of God (de potestate ac dominio Dei). This discussion picks up the distinction between God’s might (potentia) and power (potestas) that was made in the locus de omnipotentia Dei. Potestas is a concept conditioned by considerations of authority and right in a way that the absolute concept of bare might (potentia, either potentia absoluta or potentia ordinata) is not. So in this discussion of God’s power and dominion, Musculus is picking up and expanding on the idea of God’s ordained power as actually manifest in this particular world order. The placement of the loci on God’s power, dominion, and justice follow that of his goodness (bonitas), love (philanthropia), and mercy (misericordia). The more proximate context therefore is in what way these blessings of God are distributed and dispensed among his creatures. Noting first God’s dominion or authority (dominium), Musculus contends that God’s dominion differs in kind from that which humans exercise. God has absolute right of sovereignty over his creation. Whereas the potter makes an on covenantal and not-necessary relationship between God and his world, as well as between God and his Church, man is no longer primarily a second cause moved by the prime mover and first cause. In the nominalist view man has become the appointed representative and partner of God responsible for his own life, society and world, on the basis and within the limits of the treaty or pactum stipulated by God.” See also David C. Steinmetz, Luther in Context, 2d edn (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 62: “God does not deny his grace to those who do what is in them. To use this axiom commits the user to no particular school of theology.” 60 So too for the nominalists. See Courtenay, “Covenant and Causality in Pierre d’Ailly,” 118: “Both of these Nominalist covenants are instituted by God from above. While they were made as an act of kindness toward man, they were in no sense made by man as an equal or participating partner. In every illustration of the covenant it is the will of the king or master that creates and sustains the relationship, that gives to it whatever validity it possesses.” And for Biel, see Steinmetz, Luther in Context, 62: “God has bound himself in a covenant by an immutable oath to give saving grace, what the scholastics call gratia gratum faciens, to any person who will, by the heroic exercise of his or her natural moral energies, love God supremely. Considered from the standpoint of his absolute power, God was under no obligation to bind himself to the Church by a covenant this generous. Considered from the standpoint of his ordained power, the obligations which God has assumed under the terms so of this covenant are absolute and immutable and will never be abandoned.”

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

126

Causality

artifact from a lump of clay that he did not cause to come into being, God created the world ex nihilo, and therefore has freedom of right and proper dominion over his works.61 This is a differentiation for Musculus that follows from the basic difference between the creator and his creation, even those creatures of God that are entrusted with stewardship and dominion over other parts of his creation. Thus, writes Musculus, his conception of God’s absolute dominion does not derogate the status of worldly authorities, but rather subsumes them under the broader framework of divine sovereignty. This “true, proper, full, perfect, and universal dominion” is attributed to God alone.62 The implications for God’s power (potestas) that follow from the affirmation of God’s sovereign dominion are that he has equally full power to exercise over his creation as he wills. Musculus exhorts his readers to “acknowledge his power, which he has over us and over all things which he created,” to use his creatures “either for our good, or for our evil.”63 Musculus sums up God’s power in this way: “He has free and absolute power over his own affairs. He does not owe anything to anyone. Concerning his own [affairs] he rightly does whatever he wishes.”64 Musculus connects this discussion of God’s power explicitly with the question of his predestination, God’s right to “choose some before the making of the world” as he willed to do.65 Alluding to a number of scriptural passages that deal with predestination, Musculus avers that all of these passages are abundantly defended by an appeal to the free, absolute, and full power of God.66 In this way Musculus’ affirmation of God’s “unconditioned and absolute power over his own things” ought itself be conditioned by the contexts of his discussion of 61 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 50, p. 480: “Præterea habet quidem in opera manuum suarum liberum, iustum ac proprium dominium ….” 62 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 50, p. 480: “Non detraho dominationibus, quas varias habemus in hoc mundo: sed verum, proprium, plenum, perfectum & universale dominium soli Deo vindico, qui solus omnium verus est, proprius, plenus, perfectus & universalis Dominus.” 63 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 50, p. 482: “Quocunque modo creaturis utatur, sive nostro bono, sive nostro malo, agnoscamus illius potestatem, quam habet in nos & in omnia quae condidit, dicamusque: Dominus est, quod bonum est in ipsius oculis, faciat.” 64 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 50, p. 483: “Potestatem habet in res suas liberam & absolutam. Nemini quicquam debet. De suo, recte quod vult, facit.” See Oberman’s description of Biel in Harvest of Medieval Theology, 97: “This concept of the absolute freedom of God with respect to man’s moral standards and the human understanding of the distinction between good and evil reappears as an introductory statement to Biel’s analysis of the doctrine of divine predestination: the Creator of the universe and Ruler of the world can do whatever he wants to do without injustice to his creatures.” 65 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 50, p. 483: “… elegerit aliquos ante constitutionem mundi, utique quos voluit ….” 66 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 50, p. 483: “Quod me attinet, nihil esse sentio ex his omnibus, quod non unico hoc liberæ, absolutæ ac plenæ potestatis argumento abunde defendatur.”

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Loci communes



127

predestination and his discussion of free choice. Regarding the latter, Musculus makes it clear that it would have been unjust for God to condemn Adam “unless he would have been endowed” with freedom of will and faculty.”67 Musculus opens his discussion of God’s justice by setting forth the scriptural evidence for the proposition that “God is just.” Beyond this it is necessary to define what God’s justice is, and in order to do this, says Musculus, we must first determine what it is to be just (iustum), for iusticia is taken from iustum.68 Musculus defines what it is to be just, in terms of nature, “to be genuine, upright, and pure according to the state, condition, office, and person.”69 For God and humans, then, there are two different conceptions of justice, in the sense that it is of the nature of God to be one thing, and the nature of humans another. Musculus had previously discussed the nature of God in a separate locus, and here he summarizes the implications for the concept of justice as applied to God. He writes that the iusticia Dei is “that by which those good things are offered which are of a true God and cannot be offered by anyone else.”70 Later on Musculus summarizes this aspect of justice of God as “the goodness of God’s nature” (divinæ naturæ bonitas).71 Given the differences between the creator and creatures, Musculus states explicitly that we are to “distinguish God’s justice from human justice,” in the sense that whatever God does is just, but these same things would be prohibited or unjust if done by humans.72 An example of what Musculus has in mind here is made clear when he notes that in respect to divine judgment and reprobation, God is “not subject to any laws, still less to those which are imposed on us.”73 The idea that this might result in a view of God that is capricious, arbitrary, or tyrannical is mitigated by the way Musculus roots the divine justice in the Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 23: “Quòd bonum eligere & malum repudiare potuisset, modò voluisset, ex eo probatur, quòd propter transgressionem sancti mandati tanquam culpabilis & peccator divinitus est condemnatus: id quod nullo potuisset iusto fieri iudicio, nisi libera fuisset & voluntate & facultate præditus.” 68 For a discussion of the background of iustus / iustitia in the Middle Ages, see Hamm, Promissio, Pactum, Ordinatio, 427–32. 69 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 51, p. 484: “Iustum autem esse ut breviter dicam, est esse syncerum, rectum & integrum, secundum statum, conditionem, officium & personam, quam quisque gerit, ut illi in omnibus inculpabiliter respondeat. Est unicuique ordini, conditioni, statui & personæ suum mispat, suaque iusticia.” 70 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 51, p. 484: “Sic iusticia Dei est, qua præstantur ea bona, quæ sunt veri Dei, & a nemine præterea præstari possunt ….” 71 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 51, p. 486. 72 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 51, p. 486: “… ut iusticiam Dei separemus ab humana, fateamurque iustum esse quicquid ille fecerit, etiamsi nobis sit prohibitum, & iniustum, si a nobis fiat.” 73 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 51, p. 487: “Si vero fatemur, nullis esse legibus subiectum Deum, nedum iis quæ nobis sunt impositæ ….” 67

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

128

Causality

divine nature. For the divine nature is made known to us through his proper and natural (proprius ac naturalis) works as creator and savior. By contrast the works of God’s wrath, to “strike and destroy” (percutio ac perdo), are his “alien” or “foreign” (alienum) work.74 Selderhuis writes that for Musuclus, the anger of God “springs from his love,” and is thus his occasional and alien work; and God’s grace rooted in his love is his proper work.75 Just as the nature of God determines what his justice is, so too does the nature of every created thing determine what justice is for that creature. Musculus cites the opinion approvingly that “the justice of the human mind is wisdom; of the body, good health; of every house, concord; and every city, peace.”76 So too does he say that unless we know what the nature of wine is, we cannot determine what it is for wine to be just (iustum vinum).77 In his previous locus on the nature of God, Musculus identifies the nature of a thing as its “proper strength, naturally given to it at its inception, through which it receives not only the quality of its mode of being, but also of doing, bearing, begetting” and so on.78 There too Musculus had identified the particular nature of the human being as “the prerogative of its reason and spirit” (τὸ ἡγεμονικόν), for which humans are sometimes called of the genus Dei, on account of which they surpass all other living creatures.79 But at this point Musculus’ statements regarding the nature of things serves to align him with an essentially realist rather than nominalist epistemology, pushing him in a direction more in accord with the realist via antiqua rather than the nominalist via moderna. At this point in the discussion of the justice of God that is required of human beings, Musculus makes it clear that he is not talking about what might be called 74 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 42, p. 431: “Quod Deus nonnunquam percutit ac perdit, non est illip roprium ac naturale, sed alienum, ad hoc usurpatum, ut ad proprium perveniat.” 75 Selderhuis, “Die Loci Communes des Wolfgang Musculus,” 318: “Der Zorn Gottes entspringt seiner Liebe, und das gilt zugleich auch von seiner Gnade.” 76 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 51, p. 484: “Haud igitur inepte sensit, qui mentis humanæ iusticiam dixit esse sapientiam, corporis prosperam valetudinem, uniuscuiusque domus concordiam, & civitatis pacem.” 77 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 51, p. 484: “Nisi scias quid si vinum, & quæ sit illius natura, non poteris iudicare quid sit esse iustum vinum.” 78 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 42, p. 429: “Non sentimus naturam esse rem ipsam, sed propriam rei vim, naturaliter mox initio ortus ipsius insitam, per quam accipit: quam habet non essendi modo, sed & faciendi, ferendi, gignendi, &c. qualitatem.” 79 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 42, p. 432: “Sic homo genus Dei vocatur propter rationis ac spiritus prærogativam, & ἡγεμονικόν illud, quo cunctis aliis præstat animantibus.” This identification of the nature of humankind as rational fits into his traditional identification of natural law as recta ratio. Musculus also identifies the nature of man as a “civil animal” (civile animal). See Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 51, p. 484. On recta ratio more broadly, see Louis I. Bredvold, “The Meaning and Concept of Right Reason in the Natural-Law Tradition,” University of Detroit Law Journal 36 (December 1959): 120–29.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Loci communes



129

natural justice in the sense of according with our actual nature. The justice of God exceeds natural justice, or that which comes ex natura, and is instead the justice “which we ought to have, and to which we are called in Scripture.”80 The ambiguity of the term natural comes into play here, and in his discussion of natural law, also to be discussed in more detail below, Musculus makes it clear that the nature to which natural law refers does not include the vitiated and corrupted elements of human nature. So what then is this justice to which we are called? Significantly Musculus defines the content of this justice in a way that identifies it with the conditions of the special covenant: to love God and our neighbor. He writes that the justice commanded by God is that “we might be good, depending upon the will of God, and love him and our neighbor, that we might worship him in sincere faith, and live innocently toward everyone, not doing anything to anyone which we do not wish to be done to ourselves.”81 This gap between what we are by nature, particularly sinful nature, and what we are called to be by the scriptural mandate, leads directly into the question of human ability and the question of that fundamental characteristic of the human will, free choice (liberum arbitrium).

3.1.3 De libero arbitrio There are two sections in Musculus’ locus on free choice that can be distinguished by their subject matter. The first and introductory section deals primarily with describing three kinds of freedom that either never were or no longer are applicable to human beings. The second section handles questions characterizing the nature of free choice in the fallen and regenerate states. Musculus begins the exposition of his doctrine of free choice by making two foundational observations and exploring three ways in which freedom of choice is to be considered. First, Musculus notes that while the doctrine is one that has occasioned much strife, everyone agrees that the human person “was made and constituted by God in such a way so that not only before, but also after the fall, he was endowed with the ability of loving and hating as well as also of willing Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 51, p. 486: “Quare dum humanæ iusticiæ mentionem facimus; quidque discriminis sit inter illam & eam quæ Dei est, quærimus: non intelligimus de ea quam habeamus ex natura, sed de ea quam habere debeamus, & ad quam in Scripturis vocamur.” 81 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 51, p. 486: “Conditio iustitiæ, quae a nobis requiritur, & ad quam præceptis divinis instituimur, haec est, ut a voluntate Dei pendentes boni simus, diligamusque ipsum & proximum, colamus ipsum sincera fide, & innocenter vivamus erga omnes, nemini faciamus quod nobis fieri nolimus ….” 80

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

130

Causality

and refusing.”82 Musculus makes this point about the affective and volitional character of human beings because of the critical role the affections played in the fall into sin. In fact, Musculus considers the locus on free choice to be a more detailed explication of what he had written in the locus on the creation and fall of humankind. Musculus notes that it was man’s susceptibility to “be tempted by inordinate affections to sin” that differentiated him from the angels and made the fall possible.83 The fact that man is a creature characterized by affections is foundational for the discussion regarding the human faculties of intellect and will. The second observation that introduces Musculus’ survey of free choice is a warning to approach the topic with due piety and reverence, which is part and parcel of his generally anti-speculative approach, and consistent with similar admonitions in the loci on predestination and the divine attributes. Indeed, Musculus’ care lest we “transfer to God the quality of human will” underscores his contrast with Scotus on both the operationalization of the potentia absoluta and deliberation on the part of God, and thus raises serious problems for attempts to construe Musculus’ doctrine of free choice as characteristically Scotistic.84 For while the doctrine of free choice has been an occasion for “disputation among learned men,” this should not prevent the reader from pursuing the topic “restrainedly without contention” (si citra contentionem moderate inspiciantur). 85 This echoes and reinforces the purpose of the Loci themselves, which Musculus states is not to pursue the vagaries of human imagination but rather to build up true and saving knowledge of God.86 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 22: “Principio, sic esse conditum a Deo hominem, & sic comparatum, non solum ante, sed & post lapsum, ut sicut diligendi & odiendi, ita & volendi & nolendi præditus sit affectibus, nemo, opinor, inficias ibit.” 83 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 7, p. 15: “Talis itaque cum esset primus homo natura conditus, rectus videlicet non corpore tantum, sed & animo, libero sic potiebatur arbitrio, ut Deo obedire posset, sit voluisset: ac rursus si noluisset, peccare posset. Quamvis enim rectus & ad bonum liber esset conditus, simul tamen in eo differebat ab angelis, quod inordinatis potuit affectibus ad peccandum tentari, illisque consentire, & a rectitudine originalis iustitiæ abduci ….” 84 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 45, p. 444: “… ne qualitatem humanæ voluntatis transferamus ad Deum.” Contrast with the claim that “there is enough evidence to argue that Reformed theology and anthropology participated in a tradition articulating an overarching theory of synchronic contingency developed by Duns Scotus, in which the radical dependence and freedom of all creaturely beings was formulated,” in van Asselt et al., ed., Reformed Thought on Freedom, 22. 85 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 22: “Nam hic ortæ sunt doctorum hominum disceptationes, quorum alij hominis voluntatem esse liberam asserunt, alij negant.” 86 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 22: “Sunt quidem etiam ista talia, ut aliqua ratione ad cognitionem hominis, & simul providentiæ Dei considerationem faciant, si citra contentionem moderatè inspiciantur : verùm homini pio seriora quæruntur, cuius animus ad id est intentus, ut sese iussis Dei conformet.” 82

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Loci communes

131

A primary way in which the topic of free choice is appropriately approached is by due circumspection of the issue at hand. That is, the reader is to understand that Musculus is not speaking generally of human life and daily circumstances, but rather is focused on the question of Christian obedience in reference to God’s commandments.87 Musculus means to treat of free choice as specifically related to the question of sin, and not to mundane matters of human life, “whether the free choice [arbitrium liberum] of man might be to this extent, so that he might speak or be silent, leave a house or remain, eat or not eat, and any other sorts of things of this kind, either to do or to omit.”88 Having dispensed with these introductory statements, Musculus expands the study by introducing a threefold distinction concerning liberum arbitrium. The first type of liberty is the liberty of right or privilege.89 The second sort of liberty is that “by which free will is restored; that is by which that faculty to will and not will is free in such a way so that man is possible through freedom of his choice to do what God wills, and not to do what displeases him.”90 The third and final kind of liberty that Musculus introduces here is the “free ability of doing” (libera faciendi facultas).91 Musculus describes the liberty of right as consisting in being “liable to the command of no one.”92 Musculus immediately and firmly denies that any creature possesses this kind of liberty. Neither human beings nor angels are free in this sense. “But this liberty is God’s alone,” writes Musculus, “who is thus free by right [iure] and choice [arbitrio], so that he is not subject to the command of anyone.”93 Musculus continues by showing what this sort of freedom would entail. For if Adam had possessed this free right, then “it would have freed him

87 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 22: “Illud autem cum primis præmoneo, non esse evagandum in hac cause ad ea, quæ humanam vitam & conversationem attinent, sed consistendum in termino obedientiæ, quam mandatis Dei debemus omnes.” 88 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 22: “Quid enim attinet de eo rixari, sit nê homini arbitrium liberum hactenus, ut possit vel loqui vel tacere, domum exire, vel domi manere, edere vel non edere & quæ alia sunt huiusmodi aut facere aut omittere?” 89 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 22: “Quaeramus itaque de primo libertatis genere, videlicet de libertate iuris, sitne mortalium aliquis, vel angelorum quoque, sic libero arbitrii sui iure praeditus, ut nullius sit imperio obnoxius.” 90 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 22: “Secundum libertatis genus est, quo voluntas redditur libera: hoc est, quo facultas illa volendi ac nolendi sic est libera, ut possit homo pro libero suo arbitrio ea velle quæ Deus vult, & nolle quæ ipsi displicent.” 91 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 23. 92 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 22: “… nullius sit imperio obnoxius.” 93 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 22: “… sed est ista libertas solius Dei, qui sic est iure & arbitrio liber, ut nullius sit imperio subiectus.”

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

132

Causality

from all that fault of violating a divine command.”94 This freedom, therefore, should be understood as the freedom from any external obligation or moral duty. It would be impossible for any being who has this power to sin, because there is no external standard of judgment to which it would be accountable: no one sins by not obeying whom or what he is not bound to obey.95 Citing Ecclesiasticus 15, Musculus reiterates that this text is not to be understood in a way that would attribute free right to any creature, including human beings, for “not only is man liable [obnoxia] to God, but so also are all other creatures.”96 The very nature of the relationship between the creator and the creature entails that the latter are always under the jurisdiction and administration of God. The emphasis that only God possesses the liberty of right is in accord with Musculus’ previous statements regarding the ultimate freedom of God, who is all-powerful and on this basis voluntarily and graciously covenants with his creation. At this point Musculus does note, however, that the endowment of human beings with “free will and power” is a prerequisite for God’s judgment on humankind, for because of Adam’s “transgression of the holy commandment, he was divinely condemned as culpable and a sinner, that which could not have been done by any just judgment, unless he had been provided with free will and ability.”97 Here we can see a clear limitation on God’s liberty of right, in the sense that there is a real obligation that exists because of the nature of the thing God has created. In light of what Musculus says regarding God’s will as related to his ordained power, Musculus affirms that God did not have to create the world by any free necessity, but having willed to create this particular world order, he has thus through his own free decision bound himself to particular obligations. One of these seems to be the duty to treat his creatures justly, in that they cannot be condemned for immoral acts without the precondition of having been created with free will and ability (libera voluntas & facultas). God’s own absolute right is conditioned by his own choice to create a particular kind of creature. When this assertion is read in conjunction with Musculus’ linkage 94 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 22: “… si Adæ suisset, omni illum culpa violati divini mandati liberasset.” 95 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 22: “Nemo peccat non obediendo ei, cui nulla est in re ad obediendum obstrictus.” 96 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 22: “Deo autem obnoxia est non solum humana, sed & universa reliqua creatura.” 97 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 23: “Quòd bonum eligere & malum repudiare potuisset, modò voluisset, ex eo probatur, quòd propter transgressionem sancti mandati tanquam culpabilis & peccator divinitus est condemnatus: id quod nullo potuisset iusto fieri iudicio, nisi libera fuisset & voluntate & facultate præditus.”

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Loci communes

133

of the nature of a created thing to its standard of justice, Musculus’ accord with the realist via antiqua tradition is manifest. The second sort of liberty relates to the ability of human beings to choose good or evil.98 What is particularly at issue in this distinction is the freedom from the hindrances of compulsion and impediment.99 The freedom from the vis or “violence” of external action or constraint is necessarily characteristic of Adam and Eve before they sinned if it is ever to be accounted to humans after the Fall.100 That is, no external influence of Satan could compel Adam and Eve to sin, and God similarly placed no external barrier to the possibility of sin. But this kind of liberty has been lost in the fall into sin. Fallen humanity no longer has the freedom simply to choose between good and evil. The third kind of freedom is related to the second, in that it is the power to effectuate that which is willed in the second kind. Musculus terms this sense of freedom libera faciendi facultas, or “free ability of doing,” or more simply facultatis libertas, or “liberty of ability.”101 Again Musculus has in mind external constraint and compulsion, so that whoever is in possession of this freedom “may freely do [facere] what he wills, either good or evil.”102 Having raised three types of freedom and dismissed them all as inapplicable to human kind in the corrupted state, in the large concluding section of the locus Musculus next takes up the issue of defining the nature of human choice in the fallen and regenerate conditions. Given that man has lost the liberty of will (voluntas) and power (facultas), is it still appropriate to attribute freedom of choice to the fallen human being? Musculus asserts the affirmative: “It is not the case therefore that free choice, or a free will, must be denied [as] in man, however much it is liable to the slavery of sin and Satan.”103 In affirming a measure of free choice to fallen and corrupt humanity, Musculus is quick to clarify that he is not saying that it is possible for the unregenerate person not to sin. Instead, “the evil which he does in his bondage, by no means does anyone do it coerced and compelled, but most zealously and with most

98 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 23: “…gemina est, sic ut possit homo utrunque & bonum & malum libera voluntat appetere.” 99 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 23: “… coactionis & impeditionis remoras …” 100 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 23: “Hæc gemina libertas non potest ulli mortalium dari, nisi primis nostris parentibus antequam peccassent.” 101 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 23. 102 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 23: “… ut qui hac præditus est, id quod vult, vel bonum vel malum liberè facere queat.” 103 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 23: “Non est itaque negandum esse in homine liberum arbitrium, sive liberam voluntatem, quamvis servituti & pecati & Satanæ sit obnoxius.”

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

134

Causality

free will.”104 The key factor in this assessment remains the same in the latter two types of freedom ascribed to human beings in the primal state. For Musculus, the freedom from external coercion or obstruction is enough to establish the essential character of human free choice. In examining the biblical evidence for his position, Musculus raises Romans 7 and points out that this text is not referring to the situation of the fallen man. He writes, “For the Apostle speaks there as a regenerate person, and as at this point plainly a slave to sin.”105 But instead of allowing that such texts as Romans 7 describe the situation of the unregenerate and corrupt man, Musculus writes, “In this and other similar places of Scripture nothing else is able to be added, than what indeed is yet remaining of man after original corruption of the freedom of will and ability, but only to evil.”106 Musculus adds that the experience of this reality is so great “that we need no testimony of Scripture to prove it.”107 So it becomes clear that what was lost in the fall into sin was not the will’s freedom from constraint or compulsion, but rather its freedom to will and do good. For even in the corrupt state the sinner does not sin “coerced and unwilling.”108 The freedom to do evil, without coercion or obstruction, is increased and strengthened at the expense of freedom to do good: “That bondage does not extinguish this freedom in an evil will, by which evil persons are bound to sin and Satan, but rather conveys and confirms it. For they are slaves to those things which excessively please the corrupted flesh.”109 Free choice has thus been limited but not extinguished. To prove his point that the corrupt will is not constrained, Musculus outlines the process by which evil is willed and accomplished. First, the free will precedes everything in concupiscentia. Next follows pursuit with eagerness (in studio). And finally, the deed is accomplished with pleasure (in operis delectatione).110 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 23: “Sic enim corrupto est & perverso ingenio, ut malum quod serviliter facit, haud quaquam coacta & repugnante, sed liberrima voluntate & cupidissimè faciat.” 105 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 23: “Loquitur enim Apostolus illic tanquam homo regeneratus, non tanqua adhuc peccati planè servus.” 106 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 23. 107 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 23: “Hisce & alijs consimilibus scripturæ locis nihil aliud astrui potest, quàm esse quidem homini post originalem corruptionem reliquam adhuc vonluntatis ac facultatis libertatem, sed ad malum duntaxat: cuius rei experientia tanta est, ut nullis scripturæ testimonijs egeat.” 108 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 23: “Nemo malus irascitur, nemo superbit, nemo inuidet, nemo obloquitur proximo coactus & invitus.” 109 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 23: “Liberam hanc in malo voluntatem non extinguit servitus illa, qua & peccato & Satanæ obstricti sunt mali, sed provehit potius & confirmat. Serviunt enim in illis, quæ carni corruptæ admodum placent.” 110 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 24. 104

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Loci communes



135

Thus, because there is no external necessity imposed on the human action, the voluntas & facultas hominis malie ad peccandum are to be considered plus æquo liberam ac spontaneam.111 This freedom establishes the justice of God’s judgment against sinners.112 Musculus’ final point of concern is the question of whether or not the freedom and ability to sin in the “creaturely and fleshly man” simultaneously entail the freedom and ability to be obedient and subject to the commandments of God.113 Citing the words of Christ in the gospels of Matthew and John, as well as of the Apostle in 2 Corinthians, Musculus concludes “that man, not yet regenerated by the grace of God, does not have that freedom of will and ability so that he is able to freely will and do what God commands.”114 In order to freely will and accomplish good, the grace of God must go before to regenerate the sinner. On his own the corrupt man will be only free to will and do evil, unless, writes Musculus alluding to Matthew 7, “He first is changed by the grace of God into a good tree.”115 Here Musculus admits that the unregenerate person “is able from a different cause either to be forced or to be moved, so that in whatever way he might say with his mouth or do with his hands what is good.”116 He denies, however, that this good can be accomplished out of a free will and power, for “truly it is not able to happen that he might say and do [good] out of a purpose of intellect and freedom of will as he speaks and does those things which are evil.”117 Musculus’ basic assertion is that the good the unregenerate man does is not pursued “as he speaks and does those things which are evil,” i.e., freely and with eager delight.118 It is enough for Musculus’ purposes here to acknowledge in passing the possibility for a measure of good done by the unregenerate. Thus Musculus’ emphasis here is on the contention Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 24. Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 24. 113 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 24: “Restat ut de eo quoq; videamus, an sicut homini animali, carnali, & adhuc filio Adæ inest liberum arbitrium ad peccandum, ita insint illi ad bene quoq; & rectè agendum, hoc est, ad obediendum ac serviendum præceptis Dei, libera voluntatis pariter & facultas.” 114 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 24: “Est itaq; firmiter statuendum, non esse homini, nondum per gratiam Dei regenerato, eam voluntatis ac facultatis libertatem, ut quę Deus præcipit, liberè velle & perficere possit.” 115 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 24. Muller notes, “Intentionally, Musculus strips away scholastic distinctions between the prevenient grace that creates free choice, the habit of grace that follows as the condition of divine acceptation, and the cooperating grace that works sanctification—intentionally, because in the gap created by his excision of the scholastic categories, he inserts his own distinction between proponing and operating grace.” Even so, Musculus’ formulation “affirms…a soteriological monergism.” See Muller, Christ and the Decree, 49. 116 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 24. 117 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 24. 118 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 24. 111 112

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

136

Causality

that the only way for the corrupt man to do good freely would be for God to transform his nature, mutetur per gratiam Dei.119 Musculus asserts this against a position that holds that the grace of God merely makes it easier for a fallen man to accomplish good that otherwise could be done by the natural man, albeit only with difficulty.120 To further bolster his argument, at this point Musculus makes his only explicit citation of a medieval source in this section, a work attributed to the twelfth-century monk Gratian, the first major codifier of canon law. The Decretum Magistri Gratiani was a source with a great deal of authority in the canon law tradition, and this citation fits with Musculus’ larger strategy to overcome more recent scholastic developments by appealing to older sources. Musculus quotes a canon anathematizing anyone who asserts that “the grace of justification is given to us so that what we are commanded to do by free choice, we could more easily fulfill by grace, just as if grace were not given, not indeed without difficulty, nevertheless we could also fulfill the divine commands without [grace].”121 Combined with the previous citations of Augustine, including his agreement with Augustine on the interpretation of Romans 7, the reference to Gratian (and particularly Musculus’ use of the citation) makes it clear that Musculus’ primary concern is to refute an essentially Pelagian position. The key distinction on this issue for Musculus is between a corrupt and a regenerate nature. Responding to the question of whether or not we have free choice toward the good, Musculus advises, “Distinguish, brother, between man and man, between good and evil, creaturely and spiritual, corrupt and regenerate, Christian and pagan, elect and reprobate, believer and unbeliever.”122 The

Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 24: “Potest quidem aliunde vel cogi, vel moveri, ut quod bonum est utcunq; vel ore dicat, vel manu operetur: verùm ut id sic dicat & faciat ex animi sententia & libera voluntate, sicut ea loquitur & facit quę mala sunt, id fieri non potest, nisi primùm per gratiam Dei in arborem bonam mutetur.” 120 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 24. 121 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 24: “Placuit, ut quincunque dixerit, ideo nobis gratiam iustificationis dari, ut quod facere per liberum arbitrium iubemur, facilius implere possimus per gratiam, tanquam si gratia non daretur, non quidem facilè, sed tamen possimus etiam sine illa implere mandata divina, anathema sit”; quoting Gratian, Decretum Magistri Gratiani, in Corpus Iuris Canonici, vol. 1 (Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1959), c. 156, de Cons., d. IV; col. 1412. Compare Council of Trent, The Canons and Decrees of the Sacred and Œcumenical Council of Trent Celebrated under the Sovereign Pontiffs, Paul III, Julius III, and Pius IV, trans. J. Waterworth (London: Dolman, 1848), Session VI, Chapter XVI, Canon II, p. 44. 122 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 24: “Dicet aliquis. Ergo nullam habemus arbitrij libertatem ad bonum? Respondeo: Distingue frater inter hominem & hominem, inter bonum & malum, animalem ac spiritualem, corruptum ac regeneratum, Christianum & ethnicum, electum & reprobum, fidelem & infidelem.” 119

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Loci communes



137

corrupted man has no liberty of will and power toward good. But for the regenerate, “God forbid that we might say that they are not free toward the good.”123 Indeed, the distinction between the situations of the regenerate as opposed to the fallen man is one of two clarifications that Musculus holds as essential to a proper construal of the doctrine of free choice. He writes, “I judge therefore that we must never to speak of free choice without distinction.”124 The first critical distinction is that inter hominem ante lapsum, & hominem post lapsum.125 The initial tripartite division that Musculus describes concerning the types of freedom serves to adequately ground the distinctions based on the latter category. The liberty of will and power to good is lost in the fall. The second essential distinction is that inter bonus & malus, regeneratos & adhuc corruptos, filios huius seculi & filius regni Dei, servos peccati & servos iustitiæ.126 This distinction is between those who have lost the liberty of will and power to good and only have left the liberty of will and power to evil, and those who have had the will and power to good restored through the work of God’s grace. The second part of Musculus’ analysis is directed at explicating and defending this distinction. With these distinctions firmly in hand, Musculus judges that “every man is both free and a slave. If he is evil, then he is a slave to sin, and free and disposed in his will to sin. If he is good, then he is a slave to righteousness, free and spontaneous in his will to do right.”127 Musculus therefore concludes that in this presentation of the doctrine we do not take away “free choice either in the evil or the good person, because the very providence of God does not destroy it.”128 The operative thematic framework for Musculus’ exposition of the doctrine of free choice is the distinctions between the various states of human existence. That is, the two distinctions that Musculus says are critical for rightly understanding the doctrine complement each other to form a threefold preFall / post-Fall / post-regeneration structure. Notably absent from Musculus’ threefold structure is the question of freedom of will and power in the state Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 24: “Si verò interrogas de fidelibus, bonis, regeneratis ac fide iustificatis: absit ut illos dicamus non esse ad bonum liberos ….” 124 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 25: “Censeo itaq; nunquam esse de libero arbitrio sine distinctione loquendum.” 125 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 25. 126 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 25. 127 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 25: “Servata distinctione rectè afferimus unumquenque hominem & servum esse & liberum. Si malus sit, servum peccati, & voluntate ad peccandum liberum ac propensum: si bonus existat, servum iustitiæ, & voluntate ad rectè agendum liberum ac spontaneum.” 128 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 25: “Itaq; non tollimus liberum arbtrium nec à malis, nec à bonis, quòd nec ipsa providentia Dei tollit ….” 123

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

138

Causality

of glorification. Musculus makes some passing reference to the state of the angels who did not fall into sin, but it is readily apparent that the question of how human freedom coheres with the inability to sin is not a primary concern. Here, as throughout the Loci, Musculus avoids engaging topics that range too far from his basic soteriological concern. At the conclusion of his locus on free choice, Musculus reiterates his opinion that the question of free choice “has been judged soberly and usefully, although I have investigated the contentions of pious men in comparison with the analogy of faith and the simplicity of holy Scripture.”129 He advises against greater speculation into matters concerning the foreknowledge and necessity of God’s providence, fate, and contingency, calling such things a “labyrinth” which one who has sense ought to flee.130 The soteriological focus on this topic is evident, as Musculus only affirms the distinctions that he feels are necessary to rightly understand the doctrine and make its relevance to salvation clear. He writes that his readers should focus on “the corruption of humankind in Adam, and the restoration which is through Christ.”131 Thus, a detailed and full explication of the doctrine of free choice in all its theological and philosophical implications is not necessary for the simple task of imparting the knowledge of God’s truth sufficient for salvation. Ives sums up Musculus’ doctrine of free choice this way: “We are left with a number of questions, but Musculus stops with the Biblical data and suggests that we are to know no more than is profitable for godliness.”132 We might wonder why Musculus does not make greater use of philosophical and scholastic distinctions in his discussion of free choice. No doubt these tools were readily available to him. Musculus does not provide a standard scholastic definition of the term liberum arbitrium, although we can gather from his discussion that at its most basic elements, freedom of choice involves freedom from coercion and impediment. But neither does Musculus clearly address the relationship between the realities signified by terms like voluntas, arbitrium, ius, 129 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 25: “Ad hunc modum arbitror posse sobriè & utiliter liberi arbitrij causam, quantumvis contentiosam à pijs hominibus iuxta fidei analogiam, & sacrarum scripturarum simplicitatem considerari, cui multa ab hominibus ad disputandum paratis, non sine obscuratione veritatis & turbatione conscientarum immiscentur: qualia sunt quæ de præscientiæ ac providentiæ Dei necessitate, de fato, deque contingentia disputantur: quorum labyrinthum qui sapit, studiose in hac causa fugiat.” 130 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 25. 131 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 9, p. 25: “Fideles homines non disceptant de secretis consilijs Dei, quibus omnia omnium gubernantur, nec inquirunt causas, vim & operationim illorum, neque disputant de contingentibus, sed unicum hunc scopum in hac causa spectant, ut humani generis corrputionem in Adam, & restaurationem quæ per Christum est, utiliter & ad gloriam gratiæ Dei cognoscant.” 132 Ives, Theology of Wolfgang Musculus, 144.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Loci communes



139

and facultas. And the absence of explicit references to medieval antecedents like Bernard of Clairvaux or Peter Lombard is similarly curious, especially given Musculus’ use of medieval sources throughout the rest of his Loci.133 Although the fundamental pre-Fall / post-Fall / post-regeneration structure clearly accords with the picture given in Bernard, for instance, Musculus seems to have intentionally limited his explicit dialogue with standard interlocutors on free choice, even those (such as Bernard) who generally garner a measure of approbation among the Reformers. The lack of explicit citations to medieval antecedents makes it difficult to trace the relevant influences on Musculus’ articulation of the doctrine. His citation of Gratian fits with what we have seen to be a recurring pattern in Musculus’ system: His standard medieval references are early magisterial sources like Lombard’s Sentences or Gratian’s Decretum, aimed at overcoming the divisions of later medieval thought.

3.1.4 De votis Musculus’ locus on vows (locus 63) is preceded by his treatment of prayer. These are part of a series of loci that come in the second half of the work and follow upon the treatments of the divine nature and attributes (including de voluntate Dei and de iusticia Dei examined previously). The significance of this locus for the issues under exploration here is that it provides a broader context for understanding both Musculus’ doctrine of the covenant as well as his treatment concerning the oath, which is taken up in the analysis of Musculus’ commentary on Psalm 15. In this latter function this section also helps provide a transition between the two senses of God’s will in Musculus’ usage, between God’s will towards us in itself and God’s will for our behavior and life. In the former sense Musculus deals with questions of primary causality. But in the latter sense he engages questions of secondary causality and human righteousness. In this way the locus also provides a greater perspective on Musculus’ point of departure from the Roman church. As James T. Ford has noted, “No other major reformer had stayed in the monastery as long as Musculus did.”134

See Selderhuis, “Die Loci Communes des Wolfgang Musculus,” 327ff; Muller, Christ and the Decree, 47; and Ives, Theology of Wolfgang Musculus, 115–23, 125ff, for surveys of sources cited by Musculus, ranging from Augustine to Lombard, Scotus, Occam, and Biel. 134 James T. Ford, “Wolfgang Musculus and the Struggle for Confessional Hegemony in Reformation Augsburg, 1531–1548” (Ph.D. diss.: University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2000), 66. 133

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

140

Causality

It seems that for Musculus, at least, there was no immediately apparent sharp contrast between monastic life and evangelical doctrine.135 Whereas in his doctrine of the covenant the clear focus is on the divine initiative, religious vows are understood by Musculus to move from the human level to God. That is, a vow is a promise directed toward God.136 This definition serves to distinguish vows (votum: human promise directed toward God) from covenants (fœdus: divine promise to his creation sealed by oath) and oaths (iusiurandum: human promise directed toward other humans, often sealed with invocation of the divine name). While the terminology does overlap and is not highly technical (there is not always clear specificity with regard to the use of the terms), on this basis we can understand divine covenants and human vows to be reciprocal (even if ontologically unequal) realities. Musculus uses Lombard’s Sentences and the definitions of the “Schoolmen” to differentiate types of religious vows. In this we discern another possible antecedent for Musculus’ distinction between types of covenants, as explicated in both his locus on the covenant and his commentary on Genesis 9. In his covenantal locus Musculus differentiates between general and special covenants, which refer to the class of confederates (either creation in general, animals as well as humans, or the specially chosen of the human race). In his Genesis commentary Musculus also makes a complementary distinction between unconditional and conditional covenants, those which do not have stipulations and those which do. There are analogous distinctions between types of vows, which Musculus traces to Lombard and the medieval scholastics. Lombard distinguishes between “common” (commune) and “private” (singulare) vows, while the other scholastic distinction is between unconditional (absque conditione) or pure and absolute (purum et absolutum) and conditional (conditione) vows.137 The terms are not identical to those used by Musculus in the covenantal locus and exegesis, but 135 On Musculus’ appreciation of the Asceticon of Basil the Great as “a model for all Christian communities, lay as much as monastic,” see Irena Backus, Historical Method and Confessional Identity in the Era of the Reformation (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 210, 368; and idem, Lectures Humanistes de Basile de Césarée: Traductions Latines (1439–1618) (Paris: Institute d’Études Augustiennes, 1990), 35–42. On Musculus’ and Vermigli’s monastic careers, see Rudolf Dellsperger / Marc van Wijnkoop Lüthi, “Peter Martyr Vermigli und Wolfgang Musculus,” in Peter Martyr Vermigli: Humanism, Republicanism, Reformation, ed. Emidio Campi (Geneva: Droz, 2002), 107f. See also René Bornert, “Wolfgang Musculus und das Benediktinische Mönchtum des ausgehenden Mittelalters und der Reformationszeit im südwestdeutschen Raum,” in Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563) und die oberdeutsche Reformation, 42–67; and Marc van Wijnkoop Lüthi, “Wolfgang Musculus und Mönchtum,” in Reformation und Mönchtum: Aspekte eines Verhältnisses über Luther hinaus, ed. Athina Lexutt / Volker Mantey / Volkmar Ortmann (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 145–171. 136 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 63, p. 568. 137 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 63, p. 569.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Loci communes

141

there is some conceptual similarity between the sets of distinctions. And even if the scholastic distinctions between types of vows are not direct influences on Musculus’ covenantal typologies, they are certainly instructive antecedents in the medieval scholastic background with which Musculus was acquainted. Indeed, a methodological movement from the emphasis on human action in religious vows to the overarching framework of divine grace in the covenant coheres well with Musculus’ motivation for reworking of the scholastic distinctions between prevenient and operating grace. Thus, in noting that human vows are in reciprocal relationship to divine covenants in Musculus’ scheme, we should not understand this construction as entailing any sense of salvation by works or merit accrued to religious vows. Musculus makes it clear that vows are permissible only within certain parameters. Thus he writes that vows cannot be made obligatory as “necessary to salvation, as though without them we would not be able to be saved.”138 That is, religious vows are not simply identical with Christian obedience (servitus ac cultus Dei). For this reason, vows cannot be permanent or indefinite, for while Christians must always be obedient and serve God, it is not the case that they must always be under special vows. Here Musculus picks up a common complaint among the Reformers about the rigidity and duration of religious vows. Musculus contends that to be legitimate the vow must be “limited to some end, lest it is extended beyond what can be profitable.”139 Vows are not to be rejected wholesale, but must be practiced within the broader framework of Christian obedience. It is for this reason too that Musculus opposes in principle the vows of monastic orders, which place under “singular profession of separate status” what ought to be regarded as required from all Christians.140 Such arrogation of monastic vows as a higher form of righteousness destroys and condemns “the general profession of all Christians once made at their baptism.”141 Musculus proceeds

138 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 63, p. 570: “Non debemus causam votorum sic reddere ad salutem necessariam, ut sine illa, perinde atque sine servitute ac cultu Dei, servari nequeamus.” 139 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 63, p. 571: “Postremo nec illud modici momenti est, ut votum suo quasi termino limitetur, ne ultra quod conducere potest, extendatur; vel perpetuum apponatur, quod temporarium esse conveniebat.” 140 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 63, p. 573: “Sed hic merito quæreitur, quomodo hæc ad monastica vota, singularemque separati status professionem trahantur, cum ad omnes pertineant Christianos?” 141 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 63, p. 573: “Quid hac in re aliud faciunt, quam quod generalem Christianorum omnium professionem semel in baptismate factam, quantum in ipsis est, pessundant ac contemnunt?”

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

142

Causality

to contrast the Benedictine purpose of vows with the various responsibilities in civic life.142 One aspect of this contrast is with the monastic ideal of “willful poverty” (paupertas voluntaria). Musculus contends that there “voluntary poverty is of two sorts: one spiritual, another bodily.”143 Whereas the monk can claim to have nothing, the Christian is not called to this but rather to exercise proper responsibility toward and stewardship of his or her possessions. The Christian is not to own nothing, but rather to regard those things which he does own as if they were not his possessions.144 Musculus contends that the monastic concept of usufruct, the enjoyment of the use of something without the responsibility of ownership, is a practice that is both abusive and fallacious. “Having willfully presumed,” says Musculus, “one scorns his own goods and covets others, and lives off of the toil and labor of others.”145 And indeed, Musculus concludes, that it is not true poverty to not own anything but still to receive from the community whatever is necessary.146

3.2 In sacrosanctum Davidis Psalterium Commentarii Musculus’ commentary on the Psalms is his largest exegetical work, running roughly 1,100 pages in the various editions (a count which does not include the two lengthy appendices on oaths and usury). The commentary was one of Musculus’ most popular, going through six Latin editions by the end of the century along with another published in 1618. Portions of the commentary, whether the exegesis of selected psalms or the appendices, were published in German, Dutch, French, and English throughout the sixteenth century.147 In 1646 Edward 142 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 63, p. 573: “Si vero monastico haec ac superstitioso sensu voventur, ut morum conversio sit abdicatio vitæ popularis, qua extra monasteria inter Christianos in iis statibus & ordinibus vivitur, qui a Deo sunt convictui mortalium deputati ….” 143 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 63, p. 575: “Voluntaria paupertas duplex est: spiritualis una, corporalis altera.” 144 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 63, p. 575: “Christiani hominis est, non possidere nihil, se ijs quæ possidet haud aliter affici, quam si ea non possideat.” 145 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 63, p. 575: “Sponte præsumpta, qua proprijs bonis reiectis, inhiatur alienis, deque aliorum labore ac sudore vivitur.” 146 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 63, p. 576: “Neque enim vera paupertas est, nihil habere proprij singulos, & interm omnes abunde, quæ necessaria sunt, de communi accipere.” 147 See, for instance, Musculus, Den eersten Psalm Davids, seer fijn ende Christleick wtgheleit (Emden: E. van der Erve / Gailliart, 1554); idem, Vom Woker (Rostock: Ludwig Dietz, 1554); idem, Een claere ende Scriftelicke onderrichtinghe vanden Eedt (n.p.: Martin Micron, 1555); idem, On the lawful and unlawful usury amongest Christians (n.p.: ca. 1556); idem, Traicté de l’usure (n.p.: 1557); idem, An Exposition of the 51 Psalmen by Musculus translated (London: 1586); idem, Von dem schandlichen hochschaedlichen,

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



In sacrosanctum Davidis Psalterium Commentarii

143

Leigh included Musculus, along with Heinrich Möller (Mollerus), Simeon de Muis, and John Calvin, among his list of “the best Expositors on the Psalms.”148 The commentary is dedicated to the Bernese authorities and follows Musculus’ regular exegetical pattern. Before each psalm Musculus provides a brief argumentum, or summary, of the text. He then produces the biblical text of the psalm, broken up into shorter pericopes where he judges appropriate. The main body of commentary itself consists of three parts: the reading (lectio); the explanation (explanatio); and the observations (observationes).149 The reading consists of Musculus’ exploration of alternative and variant textual readings, drawing on “Hebrew, Septuagint, Vulgate, and patristic renderings of selected lemmata.”150 In the Psalms commentary the reading for the entire pericope is placed before the explanations and observations. Musculus then proceeds verse by verse, first giving the explanation for the verse, and on that basis making his observations. In the observations Musculus “discusses the moral maxims that may be derived from the text.”151 In this way there is a methodological progression from establishing the text in the reading, understanding the text through the explanation, and finally applying the text in the observation. It is with this structure in mind that Farmer rightly judges Musculus’ commentaries to be “dominated by tropological exposition.”152

von Gott verfluchten unnd verdampten, by heutiger Welt aber hochgeehrtem, gemehrtem unnd allen Geytzhaelsen ausserwoehlten Schaetzlein dem Wucher so welandt (Strasbourg: Jobins Erben, 1593). For the influence of Musculus’ Psalms commentary on the work of Primus Truber, “the first Slovenian translator of the Bible,” which is seen as evidence of Musculus’ “wide influence…in the Slovenian-speaking areas of the 16th century,” see Kozma Ahačič, “Musculus, Gwalther, Luther, Erasmus. Primus Truber as the First Slovenian Translator of Scriptural Texts,” Zwingliana 36 (2009): 115–135. 148 Edward Leigh, A Treatise of Divinity (London: E. Griffin, 1646), bk. I, ch. 3, p. 55. Leigh also prefers Musculus on Matthew, John, and 2 Corinthians. Richard Bernard had previously recommended the Common places and commentaries of Musculus. See Richard Bernard, The Faithfull Shepheard (London: Arnold Harfield, 1607), 40. For his part, Calvin acknowledges the value of Musculus’ Psalms commentary, noting that Musculus “in the judgment of good men, has earned no small praise by his diligence and industry in this walk.” See John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. 1, trans. James Anderson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), xxxv. On Musculus and Calvin on the Psalms, see also Wulfert de Greef, “Calvin as commentator on the Psalms,” trans. Raymond A. Blacketer, in Calvin and the Bible, ed. Donald K. McKim (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 89f. 149 This tripartite structure is standard for Musculus. In the Genesis commentary, Musculus would add a fourth section, quæstio, to fill out his exegesis. But this category would generally be omitted in later commentaries. See Farmer, The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century, 200, n. 21. 150 Farmer, The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century, 200, n. 21. 151 Farmer, The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century, 50. 152 Farmer, The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century, 50.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

144

Causality

3.2.1 Psalm 15 (Christian Righteousness) One benefit of placing Musculus’ appendices on oaths and usury within the broader exegetical context, specifically his comments on Psalm 15, is that doing so allows us to better understand how doctrine emerges from and is shaped by exegesis.153 As we have seen, Musculus’ exegetical method builds from text to application, from the lectio, to the explanatio, to the observatio. In the decade prior to the publication of his Loci communes in 1560, Musculus was heavily engaged in writing biblical commentaries, and we can see how this plays out in the composition of his “common places.” These Loci communes function not only as “common topics,” in the sense of the usual and standard issues to be discussed in a systematic theological presentation, but also as “common places” in Scripture where these discussions are rooted. Put quite starkly, Musculus’ doctrinal formulations cannot be fully understood without engagement of the exegetical background within which they were formed. Psalm 15 presents just such a context for questions of human righteousness, especially with respect to the issues of oaths and usury. Controversy over oaths was a relatively new phenomenon in the sixteenth century, but the discussion of usury, focused particularly on Psalm 15, goes back to the earliest conversations in the church. As Noonan writes, “Both because it admits no exceptions and because of its use by the first ecumenical council,” this psalm in particular “becomes the favorite early medieval biblical text against usury.”154 Indeed, there is typically more than one scriptural text within a series that function as “seats of doctrine” (sedes doctrinae) for Reformed orthodox theological constructions.155

A recent translation of this portion of the Psalms commentary, including the related appendices on oaths and usury, appears as Wolfgang Musculus, “Commentary on Psalm 15 (1551),” trans. Todd M. Rester, Journal of Markets & Morality 11, no. 2 (Fall 2008): 379–460 (1–82). An earlier version of some of the following material also appears in the introduction to this translation, Jordan J. Ballor, “Wolfgang Musculus on Christian Righteousness, Oaths, and Usury,” Journal of Markets & Morality 11, no. 2 (Fall 2008): 353–77. The Latin references in the following section are to Musculus, In sacrosanctum Dauidis Psalterium Commentarii (Basel: Johann Herwagen, 1556). 154 John T. Noonan Jr., The Scholastic Analysis of Usury (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957), 15. The popularity of this text and topic continues later into the early modern era. In addition to Musculus’ exegetical treatment, see Urban Rhegius, Der XV. Psalm Dauids (Magdeburg: Michael Lotther, 1537); and George Downame, Lectures on the XV. Psalme (London: Adam Islip, 1604). On the relationship between issues of money and causality, see Courtenay, “The King and the Leaden Coin: The Economic Background of ‘sine qua non’ Causality,” in Covenant and Causality in Medieval Thought, ch. 6. 155 See Richard A. Muller, PRRD, 1:87. See also Richard A. Muller, After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 58ff; and idem, The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 107. 153

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



In sacrosanctum Davidis Psalterium Commentarii

145

Sensitivity to this prevents the historian from making greater claims about the theological tradition attached to a single biblical text than is warranted.156 Moreover, attention to the commentary on a biblical text allows us to more carefully compare a text sui generis, placing a particular writer’s comments within the broader history of exegesis. If we examine the position of John Calvin as expressed in his Psalms commentary, for instance, to that of Wolfgang Musculus, we see a marked contrast in both style and attitude. Where Musculus opposes all forms of usury, Calvin briefly and handily dispenses with a straightforward application of the Psalms text. Calvin contends that the prohibition against usury was a ceremonial law pointing toward the principle of equity, and which only prohibited usurious lending to the poor. We know, writes Calvin, “that generally it is not the rich who are exhausted by their usury, but poor men, who ought rather to be relieved.”157 If only we would follow “the rule of equity,” says Calvin, “it would not be necessary to enter into lengthened disputes concerning usury.”158 It is this “common principle of justice” that is operative for applying the Psalms text in the Christian era. As Herman Selderhuis writes, “Calvin believes that receiving a gain from charging interest is perfectly lawful when it does not injure anyone.”159 The key context that the full exegesis of Psalm 15 provides is the interpretive emphasis on Christian righteousness, a theme common to the exegesis of Augustine, Denis the Carthusian, Calvin, and Musculus. Musculus makes a distinction between the dispensations of the Old and New Testament, urging his reader to obedience by asking rhetorically, “For which of the faithful is ignorant of the fact that a zeal for piety and righteousness ought to be preeminent in us, who do not dwell in a shadowy tabernacle and mount but in the kingdom of 156 Benjamin Nelson, for instance, focuses primarily on the exegesis of Deuteronomy 23:20f, another important biblical text for theological reflection on usury, as the basis for a grand narrative of the “transvaluation of values” from “brotherhood” to “otherhood.” But without broader engagement with other scriptural texts, like Psalm 15:5, as well as systematic and polemical treatises, valid generalizations of the doctrinal development of usury cannot be made. See Benjamin Nelson, The Idea of Usury: From Tribal Brotherhood to Universal Otherhood, second edn (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969), xix. 157 Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. 1, 213. For a brief comparison of the exegetical method of Calvin and Musculus related to the formation of their respective doctrinal systems, see Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 112f. Calvin’s commentary style, emphasizing facilitas and brevitas, is exhibited in his treatment of usury in this Psalm and belies the argument of Kerridge that Calvin was “forced to resort to long-winded circumlocution” in defining usury. See Eric Kerridge, Usury, Interest and the Reformation (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2002), 30. 158 Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. 1, 214. On Calvin’s view of usury and equity, see Guenther H. Haas, The Concept of Equity in Calvin’s Ethics (Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1997), 117–21. 159 Herman J. Selderhuis, Calvin’s Theology of the Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 200.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

146

Causality

the Son of God, and we who have been transported into that truth?”160 Here we have an emphasis common to Reformed commentators of the early modern era, picking up the traditional contrast between the “shadows” of the Old Testament and the “light” of the New. This is a hermeneutical theme that recurs throughout Musculus’ work and Reformed exegesis more generally.161 But where Calvin argues that the prohibition of usury was a part of the shadows of the law that passes away in the New Testament, Musculus uses the shift to argue from the lesser to the greater. Since usury was prohibited among the Old Testament community, a forteriori it ought to be despised that much more among Christians. This greater “zeal for piety and righteousness” among Christians is contrasted not only with the situation of God’s people in the Old Testament, but also with those who are not part of the covenant community. The contrast between a form of civil or public good and Christian righteousness is manifest as Musculus summarizes the Psalm’s import in verse 2: The chief point that must be observed is that kind of righteousness that the prophet prescribes to those who would remain inhabitants of the tabernacle and holy mountain of God. He clearly requires that sort of righteousness from those people that does not exist in the ceremonies and legal shadows only but that embraces the whole life and also lives and breathes true honesty of soul and charity toward one’s neighbor.162

The concern to relate the present membership in the church to the future state after death is the primary theme for Denis the Carthusian’s exegesis. His commentary is broken up into a longer tropolgoical exposition followed by a brief allegorical section. In the tropological section, in which the Psalmist intends the readers to be formed morally (nos moraliter informare), Denis seeks to connect the ecclesia militante, the “number of the elect” who are in præsenti per gratiam,

Musculus, In sacrosanctum Dauidis Psalterium Commentarii, 131; ET: “Commentary on Psalm 15,” 383 (5). 161 See the discussion “De discrimine veteris & novi Testamenti” in Musculus, Loci communes, 146f. See also Richard A. Muller, PRRD, 2:493–97. Denis the Carthusian’s explicitly allegorical exegesis of this psalm, while brief, is a feature that differentiates his exegesis from Augustine, Calvin, and Musculus. See Denis the Carthusian, In Psalmos omnes Davidicos, 29r. While Musculus was not entirely opposed to allegorical exegesis, he was far more circumspect in his recognition of allegory than many medieval commentators. See Farmer, The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century, 51: “Musculus clearly does not reject allegorical interpretation altogether, since he offers allegories in his own exegesis. However, allegorical interpretations should always be circumscribed by a primary devotion to the historical or literal sense.” 162 Musculus, In sacrosanctum Dauidis Psalterium Commentarii, 131; ET: “Commentary on Psalm 15,” 384 (6). 160

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

In sacrosanctum Davidis Psalterium Commentarii



147

and the ecclesia triumphante, the elect who are in futuro per gloriam.163 Denis’ concern is thus the temporal transition between the church in the present and the church in the future, and he concludes that the question of membership in each time is solved by a single answer: “For whoever now truly and steadfastly relates to the militant church, in the future truly he will relate to the triumphant church.”164 Musculus does deal with the question of perseverance, and shares an emphasis on the moral content of the psalm. But Musculus makes more of the distinctiveness of the covenant morality of Christians in juxtaposition with the morality of the pagans. This distinction between types of good, reflected variously in ecclesiastical and civil realms, becomes an important part of Musculus’ analysis of usury and the relevance of its application in positive law. The key distinction for Musculus between the realities of Christian righteousness and civil morality are the conditions of the special covenant first explicitly enjoined to Abraham: “Walk before me and be blameless.”165 Farmer has noted the tropological, or moral, emphasis of Musculus’ exegesis, and this point comes through clearly where Musculus contends, “A true zeal for righteousness is not [found] in a bare knowledge alone, but it is located in its practice. We do not reject knowledge, but we require the sort that is living and effective. For a pious person to know righteousness is not simply to know what it is but to press it out into his deed.”166 Calvin too invokes the relevance of the Abrahamic covenant for the Christian life, as he writes that God “adopted Abraham freely, but, at the same time, he stipulated with him that he should live a holy and an upright life, and this is the general rule of the covenant which God has, from the beginning, made with his Church.”167 This shared emphasis on the conditions of the covenant as effective for the Christian underscores the essential unity between Calvin and Musculus on this point. In verse 3 Musculus notes that the Psalmist transitions from “a summary of righteousness of words and deeds” to the examination of “certain kinds” of righteousness, a move from the general to the particular. This is an observation shared by the commentators on this psalm, as Augustine notes that the second verse introduces what is developed in the remainder of the psalm, although for Augustine the virtues introduced in the earlier verses surpass those required Denis the Carthusian, In Psalmos omnes Davidicos, 28v. Denis the Carthusian, In Psalmos omnes Davidicos, 28v. 165 Musculus, In sacrosanctum Dauidis Psalterium Commentarii, 132; ET: “Commentary on Psalm 15,” 385 (7). 166 Musculus, In sacrosanctum Dauidis Psalterium Commentarii, 132; ET: “Commentary on Psalm 15,” 386 (8). 167 Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. 1, 203. 163 164

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

148

Causality

in the final verses.168 Thus the concluding verses concerning oaths and usury outline particular forms of righteousness. One other item to note beyond the context of a distinction between Christian and other forms of righteousness is Musculus’ definition of Christian social responsibility. Musculus exhorts, “Let each person consider in what way he may accomplish righteousness: first, toward persons in general; next, toward those to whom he is especially connected.”169 This approach is reflective of a nascent appreciation of the complexity and diversity of social relations, what would become a hallmark emphasis in Reformed ethical and political thought. Augustine simply identifies proximus with all human beings, while Denis the Carthusian observes the question of whether justice is defined as a virtus communis or a virtus specialis.170 Calvin connects the general and the particular, noting that by using the term neighbor, “the Psalmist means not only those with whom we enjoy familiar intercourse, and live on terms of intimate friendship, but all men, to whom we are bound by the ties of humanity and a common nature.”171 Musculus develops the point in more detail, defining a neighbor as “someone who is bound to us at some point, either by religion, by humanity, by blood, by affinity, by friendship, either in familiar or civil society, or by proximity, or conjoined [to us] by some plight of necessity. God mutually conjoined us in many degrees, so that there are also many occasions for his hand of love and beneficence.”172 This perspective has implications for Musculus’ political thought as expressed in his explication of verse 4 dealing with the oath. Musculus’ view is part of a strand of Reformed thinking that holds the role of the Christian magistrate as decisive in the imposition of discipline in the church. In concord with his emphasis on the true zeal for righteousness working itself out in deeds, Musculus writes, “the fear of God is not only in those things that immediately concern God (that is, the first table of the Decalogue) but also in those things that pertain to 168 Augustine, Ennarationes in Psalmos 1–32, ed. Clemens Weidmann (Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenshaften, 2003), 250f; ET: St. Augustine on the Psalms, trans. ���������������� Scholastica Hebgin / Felicitas Corrigan, vol. 1 (Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1960). 169 Musculus, In sacrosanctum Dauidis Psalterium Commentarii, 132; ET: “Commentary on Psalm 15,” 386 (8). 170 Augustine, Ennarationes in Psalmos, 250; Denis the Carthusian, In Psalmos omnes Davidicos, 28v. 171 Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. 1, 207. 172 Compare with Augustine, Teaching Christianity: De Doctrina Christiana, trans. Edmund Hill, part I, vol. 11, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (New York: New City Press, 1996), 1.28.29, p. 118: “All people are to be loved equally; but since you cannot be of service to everyone, you have to take greater care of those who are more closely joined to you by a turn, so to say, of fortune’s wheel, whether by occasion of place or time, or any other such circumstance.”

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



In sacrosanctum Davidis Psalterium Commentarii

149

one’s neighbor.”173 The vertical aspect of the first table commandments intersect with the second table commandments in the person of the Christian magistrate: “In our time, we think that if a pious man and citizen of the kingdom of God should keep good faith with his neighbor, whoever he may be, then how much more should he keep good faith with his magistrate, and next how much more fully besides that to the Lord God?”174 In his exegesis of verse 5 Musculus lays out in summary form the position on usury that will be explicated more fully in the appendix. He finds that the loaning of money, “if done rightly, it is a kind of true kindness. However, if it should approach usury, then the kindness is perverted into viciousness.”175 Musculus’ alignment with the older medieval rejection of usury is signified in his distinction between the standard of justice corresponding to the real essence of each created thing. Thus follows Musculus’ formulation that “the farmer who commits his seed to the ground for interest [usura] does not sin, however, whoever gives his money to his neighbor for interest does sin.”176 3.2.1.1 The Appendix on Oaths As noted previously, of the two questions Musculus treats with extended treatises, the problem of oaths represents a comparatively new issue for debate, at least when contrasted to the centuries-long discussion over usury that had preceded the sixteenth century.177 The basic context that gives rise to discussion of the issue in the early modern era is the challenge to the validity of the oath by various parties of the so-called radical Reformation, movements dubbed “Anabaptist” or “Catabaptist” by their adversaries. Musculus says of his treatment of the oath, “This question would not be necessary if the Anabaptists in our time had not thrown the consciences of many into confusion by that erroneous 173 Musculus, In sacrosanctum Dauidis Psalterium Commentarii, 138; ET: “Commentary on Psalm 15,” 402 (24). 174 Musculus, In sacrosanctum Dauidis Psalterium Commentarii, 139; ET: “Commentary on Psalm 15,” 404 (26). 175 Musculus, In sacrosanctum Dauidis Psalterium Commentarii, 139; ET: “Commentary on Psalm 15,” 405 (27). 176 Musculus, In sacrosanctum Dauidis Psalterium Commentarii, 139; ET: “Commentary on Psalm 15,” 406 (28). The classic argument concerning the sterility of money is found in Aristotle, The Politics of Aristotle, ed. and trans. Ernest Barker (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1958), 1.10.4. See also Aristotle, The Nichomachean Ethics, trans. David Ross, rev. J. L. Ackril / J. O. Urmson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), 5.5. 177 For a discussion of kinds of oaths in the seventeenth century, see Conal Condren, Argument and Authority in Early Modern England: The Presupposition of Oaths and Offices (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 233–53. See also John Spurr, “A Profane History of Early Modern Oaths,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Sixth Series, 11 (2001): 37–63; and on the legal context Helen Silving, “The Oath: I,” Yale Law Journal 68, no. 7 (June 1959): 1329–1390.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

150

Causality

doctrine by which they strive to destroy absolutely every oath from the public, as if [oaths] were illicit.”178 A representative statement of Anabaptist consensus appears in the seventh point of the Schleitheim Articles of 1527: “All swearing has been forbidden because we cannot fulfill what is promised in swearing.” Following this judgment the article attempts to answer various challenges to this understanding of “God’s simple command” contained in Matthew 5:33–37.179 In an article examining three Reformation-era polemics against the Anabaptist view, Farmer introduces the text that would prove to be foundational for Musculus’ later appendix on oaths. Farmer notes that Musculus’ Peaceful and Christian Dialogue, first published in the vernacular German in 1533 in Augsburg, was later modified from a dialogue “into an essay on the oath, which he included in his Psalms Commentary of 1551.”180 With the advent of the Reformation, radical groups would raise new challenges to doctrines and practices, such as the oath, that were accepted among Lutherans, Roman Catholics, and Reformed alike. But in order to properly understand Musculus’ view of the oath, it is necessary to place his opinion within the broader context of his theology, particularly with regard to two related topics which have been examined in this study: covenants and vows. The focus of Musculus’ construal of the covenant is to place emphasis on the divine initiative.181 It is purely for our benefit that God graciously makes clear his firm purposes in covenantal relationships. Musculus’ emphasis on the presence of covenantal oaths helps distinguish a bare promise from a covenantal obligation.182 A covenant is identified by the presence not merely of promise

Musculus, In sacrosanctum Dauidis Psalterium Commentarii, 1164; ET: Musculus, “Commentary on Psalm 15,” 410 (32). 179 Michael Sattler, The Schleitheim Articles, in The Radical Reformation, ed. and trans. Michael G. Baylor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 178. 180 Craig S. Farmer, “Reformation-Era Polemics Against Anabaptist Oath Refusal,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 81 (April 2007): 212. Musculus’ original work is Ain frydsams unnd Christlichs Gesprech ains Evangelischen auff ainer und ains Widerteüffers auff der andern seyten so sy des Aydschwürs halben mitainander thünd (Augsburg: Philip Ulhardt, 1533). It would also be translated into English later in the sixteenth century and appended to his Common Places. 181 In his locus de fœdere ac testamento Dei, Musculus calls it entirely astounding that God in his infinite majesty, whose will and power is most free, considers it worthy to bind and obligate himself to the rule of covenants or pacts, out of neither necessity to act nor hope for any other advantage. See Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 14, 142. 182 God binds himself in covenants “so that through these two immovable things,” writes Musculus, “a promise and oath, because it is impossible for God to lie, we may have a most strong refuge to which we may flee in all temptations, and we may continuously seek to strengthen the keeping of our hope to the end.” See Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 14, 142: “…ut per duas res immobiles, promissionem 178

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



In sacrosanctum Davidis Psalterium Commentarii

151

but also by the binding of oaths (iureiurandum). Covenants function as divine institutions intended to provide comfort for God’s people. Vows, conversely, are human institutions directed toward God. Where a covenant is a promise from God combined with an oath, a vow is a human promise “piously and righteously made to God.”183 In some sense, then, covenants and vows are reciprocal realities. The former are made from God to men, and the latter are made from humans to God. This correspondence is critical in distinguishing a vow (votum) from an oath (iureiurandum). The distinction is made clear in that it is not “licit to vow, except to God alone. But we may swear to man, and bind ourselves to him by an oath.”184 The corresponding realities of covenants and vows form the primarily vertical dimensions that orient the proper use of oaths. Thus where covenants and vows primarily concern the divine-human relationship, oaths lend stability and certainty to human interrelations.185 Musculus observes, “By taking an oath, those things that are doubtful and uncertain are confirmed. Also, if something arises that is disputed, it is settled by the intervention of an oath.”186 Musculus points not only to the observable benefits of oaths in society, but also to the scriptural affirmation of the practice. He writes, “Therefore, the use of oath-taking has been commended not only in such a way by its quality but also by the commandment of God, so that it is a fanatical person who wishes to remove it as if he destroys a reprehensible thing from the community and [also] removes it from calming human affairs.”187 Musculus’ opposition to the Anabaptist rejection of oaths is in part, therefore, based on suspicion that acceptance and implementation of the Anabaptist view ac iusiurandum, quandoquidem impossibile est mentiri Deum, solatium habeamus omnium fortissimum, ad quod in omnibus tentationibus confugiamus, speique nostrae ad finem usque retinendae corroborationem quaeramus.” 183 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 63, 568: “Propria tamen significatio vocis huius est, qua promissionem significat, eamque non quamlibet, sed Deo religiose ac sanctè factam.” 184 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 63, 571: “Vovere non licet nisi Deo soli : iurare verò possumus homini, illlique; nos iureiurando reddere obstrictos.” 185 For a helpful study of the distinction between oaths and vows particularly in the English theological and political context in the sixteenth century, see Jonathan Michael Gray, “Vows, Oaths, and the Propagation of a Subversive Discourse,” Sixteenth Century Journal 41, no. 3 (Fall 2010): 731–756. Gray argues that the Protestant rationale for attacking vows paved the way for similar attacks against oaths, even though many magisterial reformers distinguish between the two. Musculus is among those who, like Luther and Vermigli, upheld the permissibility of oaths even while decrying the validity of monastic vows. 186 Musculus, In sacrosanctum Dauidis Psalterium Commentarii, 1164; ET: “Commentary on Psalm 15,” 410 (32). 187 Musculus, In sacrosanctum Dauidis Psalterium Commentarii, 1165; ET: Musculus, “Commentary on Psalm 15,” 413 (35).

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

152

Causality

would radically upset the world’s social order. After rehearsing the positive role the legitimate oath plays in social life, Musculus asks rhetorically, “Who is the sort of person who does not see that the advantage of an oath is so great that it cannot be withdrawn from human affairs without great detriment?”188 For Musculus, as for many of the Reformers, the Anabaptist is just such a person.189 The immediate scriptural occasion for the context, Psalm 15:4, affirms the use of oaths. Indeed, as noted previously, this psalm describes the necessary “kind of integrity from a citizen of the kingdom of God,” including that “he does not wish to change what he vowed to his neighbor.”190 Moving from the Old Testament affirmation of oaths, Musculus engages the core argument from the command of Christ that “you shall not swear at all.”191 Musculus proceeds to examine the circumstances within which an oath might be legitimate and illegitimate, and concludes that Christ had only illegitimate oaths in view. Indeed, Christ did not prohibit legitimate oaths, used in legal, economic, or religious contexts, but simply “the usual ones used in conversation.”192 The interpretive move Musculus makes is thus from the approval given to oaths in the Old Testament to a nuanced and careful clarification of what Christ’s apparent blanket injunction against oath-swearing means in the New Testament. As Farmer rightly notes, “Musculus recognized the Anabaptist challenge on this particular issue—the question of oath swearing—as fundamentally a hermeneutical challenge.”193 3.2.1.2 The Appendix on Usury In contrast with the question of oaths, in the sixteenth century there were longstanding debates and doctrinal statements on the question of usury among the magisterial reformers and the Roman Catholics. Musculus affirms what he believes to be the traditional definition of usury as involving “not only the reception, but also the hope and expectation for something beyond your share,” and a 188 Musculus, In sacrosanctum Dauidis Psalterium Commentarii, 1165; ET: “Commentary on Psalm 15,” 412 (34). 189 One place where the Reformed tradition explicitly identifies Anabaptism with anarchism comes in Article 36 of the Belgic Confession as modified in 1566. On the revision of this article see, Nicholas H. Gootjes, The Belgic Confession: Its History and Sources (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 127–31. 190 Musculus, In sacrosanctum Dauidis Psalterium Commentarii, 139; ET: “Commentary on Psalm 15,” 404 (26). 191 Musculus, In sacrosanctum Dauidis Psalterium Commentarii, 1168ff; ET: “Commentary on Psalm 15,” 421 (43), 423 (45), 428 (50). 192 Musculus, In sacrosanctum Dauidis Psalterium Commentarii, 1169; ET: “Commentary on Psalm 15,” 423 (45). 193 Farmer, “Reformation-Era Polemics Against Anabaptist Oath Refusal,” 213.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



In sacrosanctum Davidis Psalterium Commentarii

153

loan “in which more is received than what is given.”194 Whereas the Anabaptist challenge to the legitimacy of the oath is the immediate context for Musculus’ defense of the oath, the confessional strife between various Protestant factions on the one hand, and Roman Catholics on the other, forms the proximate polemical background for Musculus’ discussion of usury. In 1515, at the instigation of Conrad Peutinger, the town clerk in Augsburg, Johann Eck wrote a treatise defending the so-called “triple contract,” a business agreement favored by banking houses like the Fuggers that was designed to insure a guaranteed rate of return (in this case five percent).195 In that same year Eck traveled to Bologna to dispute the question at the university. Noonan writes that Eck’s performance in this episode “is of great importance to the history of usury, for he made the triple contract known both to all the learned world of Europe and to the merchant bankers of his time.”196 When Musculus’ position is compared with Reformed contemporaries like Martin Bucer, John Calvin, and Heinrich Bullinger, the Augsburg preacher and Bernese professor seems remarkably inflexible.197 Perhaps his direct experiences with the Fuggers and the poorer classes in Augsburg go some way in explaining his trenchant criticisms of usury, including loans at interest to wealthy merchants. As Brady writes, “Urban antimonopoly sentiment developed as a defense of old, corporate, and collective values against the invasion of privileged wealth.”198 It would be too facile, however, to simply point to the economic power of the Fuggers and the theological support lent to them by theologians like Johann Eck to explain Wolfgang Musculus’ seemingly singular rejection of 194 Musculus, In sacrosanctum Dauidis Psalterium Commentarii, 1173; ET: “Commentary on Psalm 15,” 440 (62). 195 On the triple contract, see Noonan, The Scholastic Idea of Usury, 202–29, especially 208–12, which focuses on Eck and his treatise, Tractatus de contractu quinque de centum (1515). For background on Eck’s defense, see Steven W. Rowan, “Ulrich Zasius and John Eck: ‘Faith Need Not be Kept with an Enemy’,” Sixteenth Century Journal 8, no. 2 (1977): 87f. See also Heiko A. Oberman, Masters of the Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 128–57. On the Fuggers, see Richard Ehrenberg, Das Zeitalter der Fugger, 2 vol. (Jena: Gustav Fischer, 1922); ET: idem, Capital & Finance in the Age of the Renaissance: A Study of the Fuggers and their Connections, trans. H. M. Lucas (New York: Harcourt, 1928); Götz von Pölnitz, Die Fugger, 6th edn (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999); and Bernd Roeck, “Rich and Poor in Reformation Augsburg: The City Council, the Fugger Bank, and the Formation of a Bi-confessional Society,” in The Impact of the European Reformation: Princes, Clergy and People, ed. Bridget Heal / Ole Peter Grell (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2008), 69ff. On Augsburg and monopolistic firms, see Thomas A. Brady Jr., Turning Swiss: Cities and Empire, 1450–1550 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 119–27. 196 Noonan, The Scholastic Idea of Usury, 209. 197 Noonan writes that “in allowing profit on loans to wealthy merchants,” Calvin “permits no more than Angelus, Biel, Summenhart, Cajetan, and Eck had permitted in approving the triple contract.” See Noonan, The Scholastic Idea of Usury, 367. 198 Brady, Turning Swiss, 121.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

154

Causality

usury as “damnable and most foreign to a profession of Christian justice.”199 Thus in our sensitivity to attend to non-dogmatic causes for dogmatic constructions, we must beware of downplaying the importance or denying the reality of key doctrinal interrelationships.200 In this case there seems to be clear hermeneutical reasons for Musculus’ opinion on usury. Indeed, Musculus’ opposition to usury is not as comprehensive as it might appear upon first glance. Musculus recognizes that the righteousness that is expected of the Christian is not the same as that which is required by the civil magistrate, and so Musculus’ main concern is to address whether it is legitimate for a Christian to engage in usury. His primary focus thus is not on whether usury should be made illegal in all cases, for “civil laws do not forbid all things which are illicit before God, and besides those things which they do not forbid they also do not punish.”201 Musculus uses this distinction between moral and positive law to explain why it may be acceptable in certain times and places for the civil magistrate to refrain from banning all forms of usury, even if no form of usury could ever meet the higher standard of Christian righteousness. He states quite plainly that “we are inquiring in this place about usury, whether or not it is lawful or unlawful, not before the world, but before God: and thus the pretext of civil law and whatever sort of human arrangement cannot have a place in this question.”202 It is with this pastoral or moral rather than political or civil Musculus, In sacrosanctum Dauidis Psalterium Commentarii, 1176; ET: “Commentary on Psalm 15,” 446 (68). 200 See Heiko A. Oberman, The Two Reformations, ed. Donald Weinstein (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 65: “Only by entering into the social history of ideas, combining in thick description the mud and the marketplace, the guildhall and the council chamber, can we possibly overcome confessional triumphalism and pursue the critical task of even-handed adjudication, considering the stake of all parties in the unavoidable clash we call Reformation.” See also Richard A. Muller, After Calvin, 44: “The point is not, of course, for intellectual history to be dissolved into social history – rather, the issue is for the historian of ideas to recognize consistently that the ideas belong to a particular historical context and that the context may be defined socially or politically within a very narrow geographical or chronological frame, just as it may be defined by a particular debate that was little informed or influenced by immediate social issues.” 201 Musculus, In sacrosanctum Dauidis Psalterium Commentarii, 1174; ET: “Commentary on Psalm 15,” 442 (64). 202 In this Musculus’ perspective is closer to that of Zwingli than to that of Bucer and Calvin, who arguably had a greater focus on questions regarding the propriety of civil laws regarding usury. Compare Ernst Ramp, Das Zinsproblem. Eine historische Untersuchung (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1949), 73ff. See also J. Wayne Baker, “Heinrich Bullinger and the Idea of Usury,” Sixteenth Century Journal 5, no. 1 (April 1974): 50: “If it had been possible, Zwingli would have had no Zins. Since that was not possible, because of the institution of private property and the sinfulness of man, he tried to ameliorate the existing situation.” Compare also the prudential position articulated by Thomas Aquinas, which allowed that “the purpose of human law is to lead men to virtue, not suddenly, but gradually. Wherefore it does not lay upon the multitude of imperfect men the burdens of those who are already virtuous, viz. that they 199

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



In sacrosanctum Davidis Psalterium Commentarii

155

concern in mind that Musculus also avoids the intricacies of medieval scholastic debates concerning legitimate interest.203 This is not to say that Musculus ignores the patristic and medieval exegetical and legal traditions, but rather that the genre of this work is not scholastic in a strict sense, as following a specific order of questions, or in a more general sense, as explicating the topic in exhaustive detail. We can see, however, from his citations of standard sources in the history of exegesis and Gratian’s Decretum, for instance, that Musculus’ argument was formed in dialogue with a host of medieval antecedents. Musculus’ argument against usury progresses through differentiation between the parties involved with the usurer in the transaction. First Musculus addresses the impropriety of lending at guaranteed profit to the poor. Next Musculus moves on to question usurious lending to princes and merchants. Musculus concludes by examining the issue of usurious lending to widows and orphans. Each of these three classes of usury is to be rejected, although not always for precisely the same reasons. A great deal of his discussion is spent on the question of usurious lending to the poor, which Musculus concludes is not only contrary to the justice of Christ (i.e. charity), but also to natural justice. Lending at profit to the poor “is not only condemned as inhuman by the laws of Christ but also by the laws of nature. For it is plainly inhuman to pursue a profit from the sweat and calamities of the poor.”204 The entire discussion of usury is remarkably focused on the ethical implications of the practice, in harmony with Musculus’ tropological exegetical emphasis. Musculus identifies the root of usury as avarice or greed, “the pursuit of one’s own advantage,” which is never an acceptable Christian purpose.205 In this way Musculus is more concerned about the internal motivation behind should abstain from all evil.” See Aquinas, Summa Theologica (New York: Benzinger Bros, 1947), II.1.96. ii. On Scotus and economic matters more generally, see Robert I. Mochrie, “Justice in Exchange: The Economic Philosophy of John Duns Scotus,” Journal of Markets & Morality 9, no. 1 (Spring 2006): 35–56. 203 Thus Musculus writes, “To be sure, the scholastic decisions are no less complex than the intricate nature of this sort of avarice, but I will by no means touch up on that [topic], but rather I will simply mention those things that, it seems to me, must be said without any sort of thorny debate.” See Musculus, In sacrosanctum Dauidis Psalterium Commentarii, 1173; ET: “Commentary on Psalm 15,” 438 (60). See also Baker, “Heinrich Bullinger and the Idea of Usury,” 50: “When the Protestant reformers considered the topic of usury, they dealt mainly with the Biblical prohibitions and the sterility of money, ignoring the detailed analysis of the scholastics.” For a discussion of the legitimate forms of interest allowed in the medieval era, see Noonan, The Scholastic Analysis of Usury, 100–132. 204 Calvin appeals to a “common principle of justice” in making the same judgment. See Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. 1, p. 213. 205 Musculus, In sacrosanctum Dauidis Psalterium Commentarii, 1179; ET: “Commentary on Psalm 15,” 454 (76).

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

156

Causality

usurious practice rather than adjudicating the question of any social or external benefit. As he writes in the body text of the commentary on Psalm 15, “this also must not only be considered, what should be done as in what spirit it may be done. In fact those things which have the appearance of good can be done in such a way that they are evil not good.”206 Musculus admits that money can be put into use to produce wealth, but contends that if this is done out of avarice then the results are morally disastrous: Moreover, nowhere do I find that the Lord has promised that he wishes us to preserve and nourish ourselves by usury in leisure and luxury. Therefore, rather what it is to test the Lord is to live in leisure, to dedicate one’s children also to leisure, and meanwhile to hope for that money from which the annual usury is received, to be able to provide perpetually so that one may be a slave to not only necessary enjoyments but also to luxuries and delicacies.207

When abundance of wealth is added to someone whose focus is intemperately directed at material and temporal goods, the work of charity is undermined. Interestingly enough, despite his earlier comments on the proper use of money as compared with seed, Musculus does not base his arguments here explicitly on the impermissibility of usury on the classical (Aristotelian and Thomistic) argument that money is a non-fungible and sterile measure. He acknowledges the productivity of money as it is employed in various ways, but contends this reality does not excuse the vice of the usurer. The Christian is called neither to lend at profit nor to lend not at all, but rather to lend gratuitously to those from whom the prospect of repayment is slim, to those who have never had the means to give a loan, to friends as well as enemies, and to those from whom no gratitude or thanks can be expected.208 Musculus’ restrictive approach to usury stands in more direct continuity with the dominant medieval rejection of usury than do the approaches of many of his Reformed contemporaries. His position on usury is important therefore, not because Musculus represents a development of the inevitable march of Recall that Musculus’ definition of usury involves the “hope” or “expectation” of gain. In focusing on the “spirit” in which things must be done to be righteous, Musculus’ analysis shares features with the treatments of usury by other reformers, even though in the end Musculus disagrees that there could ever be “innocent and legitimate occasions for lending at interest.” See Norman Jones, God and the Moneylenders: Usury and Law in Early Modern England (Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell, 1989), 19. 207 Musculus, In sacrosanctum Dauidis Psalterium Commentarii, 1179; ET: “Commentary on Psalm 15,” 455 (77). 208 Musculus, In sacrosanctum Dauidis Psalterium Commentarii, 1176; ET: “Commentary on Psalm 15,” 445 (67). 206

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

In sacrosanctum Davidis Psalterium Commentarii



157

economic progress through history, but because he shows that there was no unanimous Protestant or Reformed consensus on the question of usury in the sixteenth century. Indeed, the disputes that had arisen in the late medieval era between distinctively permissive and restrictive attitudes toward usury do not come over into the Reformation along confessionally-identifiable lines. The opinion of Petrus Canisius, the Jesuit who came to Augsburg after Musculus’ departure, is a good example of this. Canisius, unlike a number of his Roman Catholic contemporaries, steadfastly opposed the validity of the triple contract.209 As Norman Jones summarizes aptly, “The coming Reformation did little to change attitudes toward usury, and usury doctrines never became a partisan issue between Protestants and Catholics.”210 In the Reformation era, as in the later Middle Ages, there continued to be two basic positions on usury, and both sides continued to enjoy vociferous support.211 Positions for and against usury did not fall out along confessional lines, with the Reformed representing progressive permissibility and Roman Catholics representing retrograde prohibitionism.212 Instead, positions along a continuum from prohibition to permissibility, with mediating positions in between, can be found represented by a variety of figures across confessional boundaries. For this reason the exegetical background becomes especially significant. In Musculus’ case the appendices on usury and oaths provide us with a clear See Klaus Hansen, “Petrus Canisius’s Stand on Usury: An Example of Jesuit Tactics in the German Counter Reformation,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 55, no. 2 (1964): 192–204. Hansen argues that Canisius’ opposition is due in large part to his sensitivity to the particular social and economic environment in Augsburg. This would in part explain the consistency between the attitudes of Musculus and Canisius on usury, given that both were at different times concerned to advance their particular confessional causes among the townspeople of Augsburg. 210 Jones, God and the Moneylenders, 19. 211 See especially Jones, God and the Moneylenders, 19. 212 See, for instance, the scholarship on the school of Salamanca and the diversity of scholastic economic approaches, including Stephen J. Grabill, ed., Sourcebook in Late-Scholastic Monetary Theory: The Contributions of Martín de Azpilcueta, Luis de Molina, S.J., and Juan de Mariana, S.J. (Lanham, MD: Lexington, 2007); Alejandro A. Chafuen, Faith and Liberty: The Economic Thought of the Late Scholastics (Lanham, MD: Lexington, 2003); Francisco Gómez Camacho, “Later Scholastics: Spanish Economic Thought in the XVIth and XVIIth Centuries,” in Ancient and Medieval Economic Ideas and Concepts of Social Justice, ed. S. Todd Lowry / Barry Gordon (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 503–62; Odd Langholm, The Legacy of Scholasticism in Economic Thought: Antecedents of Choice and Power (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998); Jeffery T. Young / Barry Gordon, “Economic Justice in the Natural Law Tradition: Thomas Aquinas to Francis Hutcheson,” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 14 (Spring 1992): 1–17; Raymond de Roover, “Scholastic Economics: Survival and Lasting Influence from the Sixteenth Century to Adam Smith,” in Business, Banking, and Economic Thought in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe: Selected Studies of Raymond de Roover, ed. Julius Kirshner (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976), 306–55; and Marjorie Grice-Hutchinson, The School of Salamanca: Readings in Spanish Monetary Theory, 1544–1605 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952). 209

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

158

Causality

contrast in exegetical result through the use of a consistent exegetical method. The injunctions of Christ against usury and oaths in the New Testament seem at first glance to be equally stringent. We are to loan without expecting anything in return (cf. Matthew 5:42) just as we are not to swear by anything (cf. Matthew 5:33–37). But for Musculus’ exegetical process, the background provided by the broader New Testament context and the received Old Testament attitudes are determinative for his exegetical result. Where both usury and oaths are apparently rejected by Christ in the New Testament, in the Old Testament usury is prohibited while the keeping of oaths is obligatory. These basic attitudes of approval toward legitimate oaths and disapproval of lending at profit are also represented in the medieval approaches to these questions. In this psalm in particular it is shown to be a positive mark of the righteous to swear and be true to an oath but not to lend at usury. The interpretive method employed by Musculus, which compares Christ’s injunctions against oaths and usury to the broader biblical and traditional witnesses, is the same for both questions. Musculus interprets Jesus’ proscriptions with this question in mind: “How is it fitting that the justice of the law of Moses is more complete than the gospel of Christ?”213 But the larger scriptural witness on the validity of oaths and usury diverges in the Old Testament, approving the former but disapproving of the latter. It is this consistent hermeneutical approach that critically determines Musculus’ exegetical and doctrinal result. Musculus’ commentary on Psalm 15, including the appendices on oaths and usury, therefore has threefold significance. First, the commentary stands as a significant example of the application of interpretive method in the history of exegesis, as Musculus comes to two radically different concrete conclusions about seemingly equivalent prohibitions in the words of Christ, based in part upon their respective approbation or proscription in the psalm. Second, Musculus’ psalm exegesis and appendices function as topical moral texts, forerunners of later and more developed Protestant ethical thought and casuistry. And finally, Musculus’ treatment of oaths and usury are representative of influential streams of Reformed thought on social, political, legal, and ethical affairs that continued to be formative for the next two centuries.

213 Musculus, In sacrosanctum Dauidis Psalterium Commentarii, 1175; ET: “Commentary on Psalm 15,” 444 (66).

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

In sacrosanctum Davidis Psalterium Commentarii



159

3.2.2 Psalm 19:7–11 (The Sweetness of the Law) Musculus’ exegesis of Psalm 19:7–11 serves as the transition in this study from the themes of divine causality and human obedience to the realm of the law manifested in the created order. The four exegetes under examination here all concur that the second section of Psalm 19 consists of the five verses beginning with verse 7 in modern editions. All concur as well that there is a final section that begins at verse 12 that takes up the Psalmist’s prayer of confession. There is some disagreement however between Augustine and Denis on the one hand, and Calvin and Musculus on the other, regarding the theme in the first section and its relation to the second part of the psalm. The first opinion is represented by Augustine and holds that the psalm is to be read Christologically. That is, Augustine identifies this psalm as “an allegory of Christ,” and thus interprets the first section accordingly.214 The heavens of the first verse are identified with the Evangelists, “in whom God dwells as in the heavens,” and who “proclaim the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.”215 The reference to the ubiquity of the language or speech of the heavens is referred to the witness of the Evangelists throughout the world.216 Denis the Carthusian similarly relates the first section to the adventus Christi and his incarnation.217 Musculus and Calvin, however, do not read the psalm allegorically. Calvin in particular dismisses the opinion represented by Augustine and Denis, speaking instead about the distinction between the natural and special knowledge of God, arguing that, David, before coming to the law, sets before us the fabric of the world, that in it we might behold the glory of God. Now, if we understand the heavens as meaning the apostles, and the sun Christ, there will be no longer place for the division of which we have spoken; and, besides, it would be an improper arrangement to place the gospel first and then the law.218

Indeed, as Calvin notes, the relationship between law and gospel is a key concern in the exegesis of Psalm 19:7–11, and this is where the two diverging exegetical traditions overlap. But whereas Augustine, Denis, and others who share their Augustine, “Second Discourse on Psalm 18,” St. Augustine on the Psalms, vol. 1, 182. Augustine, “First Discourse on Psalm 18,” St. Augustine on the Psalms, vol. 1, 177; idem, Ennarationes in Psalmos 1–32, 295: “Iusti evangelistae, in quibus deus tamquam in caelis habitat, exponunt gloriam domini nostri Iesu Christi, sive gloriam domini nostri Iesu Christi, sive gloriam quam glorificavit patrem filius super terram.” 216 Augustine, “First Discourse on Psalm 18,” St. Augustine on the Psalms, vol. 1, 177. 217 Denis the Carthusian, In Psalmos omnes Davidicos, 39r. 218 Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. 1, p. 314. 214 215

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

160

Causality

opinion are apt to understand the psalm allegorically, Calvin and Musculus understand the first section of the psalm to refer to, in Calvin’s words, “the knowledge of God, which is naturally presented to all men in this world as in a mirror,” while the second part of the psalm deals with the special revelation of God’s will to the people of Israel.219 3.2.2.1 Lectio As is typical for Musculus’ exegetical method, he opens the commentary on Psalm 19 by exploring various renderings of the text. For verse 7, for instance, Musculus notes how the Hebrew, Greek, and the Vulgate, as well as numerous other commentators, including Felix of Prato, render the term modifying “law,” usually translated in English as “perfect.” The Vulgate, for instance, reads immaculata, while Musculus favors the rendering of Felix, Pagninus, and Justin Martyr as perfecta. Likewise in verse 8 Musculus notes the renderings, translations, and paraphrases in the Hebrew, Greek, Vulgate, Pagninus, Justin Martyr, Felix, Johannes Campensis, the Zurich Bible, and Zwingli.220 In the midst of his running exegesis, aimed at facilitas et brevitas, Calvin notes in passing the variety of covenantal terminology in the Hebrew. Thus he writes that the Hebrew word eduth is rendered as testimony, which “is generally taken for the covenant, in which God, on the one hand, promised to the children of Abraham that he would be their God, and on the other required faith and obedience on their part. It, therefore, denotes the mutual covenant entered into between God and his ancient people.”221 Here again we have Calvin explicitly defining covenant in a bilateral way that is in essential agreement with the expositions of Musculus and Bullinger.222 Indeed, Calvin does not simply note the covenantal significance of this psalm in passing, but integrates it into his exegesis throughout. Thus he concludes, It is no mean commendation of the law when it is said, that in it God enters into covenant with us, and, so to speak, brings himself under obligation to recompense our obedience. In requiring from us whatever is contained in the law, he demands nothing but what he has a right to; yet such is his free and undeserved liberality, that he promises to his servants a reward, which, in point of justice, he does not owe them.223 219 Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. 1, p. 314. See also Musculus, In Davidis psalterium sacrosanctum commentarij (Basel: Johann Herwagen, 1573), 292f. 220 Musculus, In Davidis psalterium sacrosanctum commentarij, 299. 221 Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. 1, p. 318. 222 Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. 1, p. 326. 223 Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. 1, p. 326.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

In sacrosanctum Davidis Psalterium Commentarii



161

By means of this covenant God “accepts for perfect righteousness” his servants’ “holy desires and earnest endeavours to obey.”224 3.2.2.2 Explanatio Musculus opens this second section of Psalm 19 by distinguishing between the teaching offered in the first section and the latter five verses. He writes that God clearly “supplied to the people of Israel alone, the teaching of his law, which he denied to all the rest of the nations.”225 Musculus also observes that in the first three verses (7, 8, 9), the Psalmist names various things pertaining to the law of God, and then goes on to describe what pertains to each. Musculus glosses the law of God as “perfect” (perfecta) as meaning “absolute, faithful, certain, level, clear, pure, and true,” linking the Psalmist’s description directly to Paul’s identification of the law in Romans 7 as “holy, spiritual, just and good.”226 This connection to the Apostle’s discussion of the relationship between law and gospel anticipates one of the key interpretive issues related to this section of Psalm 19, which Musculus takes up under the observationes. In the basic explication of the verses Musculus also introduces a distinction that will be critical for his method of unraveling the problems of relating the Psalmist’s and the Apostle’s various attitudes towards the law. This is the distinction between the law considered in itself (in seipsa) and considered in its execution (effectus) or efficacy (efficax).227 The law considered in itself is commended for its attributes listed above.228 But the efficacy or execution of the law has to be considered in conjunction with those in whom it is to work. The state of the human being has everything to do with determining the extent to which the law can be effective. Thus Musculus introduces the second major question to be explored in the observationes. Musculus’ exposition picks up two other themes that are explored in more detail in the concluding observationes. First, there is a question of the “fear of Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. 1, p. 326. See also Selderhuis, Calvin’s Theology of the Psalms, 211–16. 225 Musculus, In Davidis psalterium sacrosanctum commentarij, 299: “His quinque versibus Propheta magna animi gratitudine ac pietate benevolentiam illam Dei prædicat, qua populo Israeli singulariter id præstitit, quod reliquis gentibus omnibus negavit, doctrinam videlicet legis suæ, per quam non modo veri Dei cognitionem ac sapientiam acquireret, sed & mundo corde ac mente alacri cognitum Deum coleret & observaret.” 226 Musculus, In Davidis psalterium sacrosanctum commentarij, 300: “His elogijs Propheta legem Dei tanquam absolutam, fidelem, certam, planam, lucidam, mundam & veracem deprædicat, & perinde extollit atque Paulus, qui eam vocat sanctam, spiritualem, iustam, & bonam Rom. 7. dubio procul ad hunc Prophetæ locum respiciens.” 227 Musculus, In Davidis psalterium sacrosanctum commentarij, 300. 228 perfecta, certa, plana, munda, vera, lucida, sancta, spiritualis, iusta, & bona. 224

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

162

Causality

God” that the Psalmist praises in verse 9. And second, Musculus notes the position of the Psalmist in verse 11, which serves as a transition to the third section of the psalm. In verse 11 Musculus writes that the Psalmist draws on the example of himself and his own sense of the “sweetness of the law” (suavitatem legis) to show that the renewal of the affections are of prime importance in holding a proper regard for the law of God.229 3.2.2.3 Observatio The categories of quæstio and observatio that are fully separated in Musculus’ Genesis commentary are put together in his Psalms commentary, and so questions of dispute are treated alongside and in conjunction with the primarily moral application of the text. The first question treated by Musculus has to do with the description of the law as “perfect.” In what way does the Psalmist (or Prophet) say the law of God is perfect? Musculus’ answer to this question is twofold, and expands upon the distinction between the law considered in itself (in seipsa) and considered in its effectiveness (in efficacia). In itself the law, and everything contained in it, point to perfection and sure piety (solida pietas), and Musculus affirms that in this sense the law is most certainly perfect, “even to the extent that the letter is death.”230 In itself the law is holy, just, and good (sancta, iusta, & bona). Considered in its efficacy, the law cannot be said to lead to perfection. The ineffectiveness of the law is not due to any imperfection in it, but rather to the infirmity and corruption of human beings. By the flesh the law is ineffective or infirm, even though in itself it is firm and perfect.231 “It is one thing to not be perfect,” writes Musculus, “and another to not bring anything to perfection.”232 Musculus may be attempting to correct here the line of interpretation represented by Denis, who affirms that the divine precepts are right and just, leading without error to blessedness.233 229 Musculus, In Davidis psalterium sacrosanctum commentarij, 301. See also Augustine, “Second Discourse on Psalm 18,” St. Augustine on the Psalms, vol. 1, 190: “… those eyes not of the flesh but of the heart, not of the outer but of the inner man. This again is the effect of the Holy Spirit.” 230 Musculus, In Davidis psalterium sacrosanctum commentarij, 301: “Primum in seipsa, ut intelligamus omnia contineri in illa, quæ ad perfectam ac solidam pietatem pertinent. Sic utique lex perfecta est, etiam quatenus est in litera occidente. Hactenus etiam sancta, iusta, & bona est.” 231 Musculus, In Davidis psalterium sacrosanctum commentarij, 301: “Per carnem enim infirmatur, quæ in se firma est, & perfecta.” 232 Musculus, In Davidis psalterium sacrosanctum commentarij, 301: “Et aliud est, non esse perfectum: & aliud, nihil ad perfectionem adducere.” 233 Denis the Carthusian, In Psalmos omnes Davidicos, 39r: “divina præcepta recte & iuste ad beatitudinem sine errore ducentes.”

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

In sacrosanctum Davidis Psalterium Commentarii



163

This distinction between the law in itself and in its application is critical to the next set of questions Musculus’ addresses, centering on the relationship of the law to regeneration and the characterizations of the law by the Psalmist and the Apostle Paul. Through the conversion (converto) of the heart (corda) is the human person changed (muto) and restored (reddo).234 The interior orientation of the law, its connection to the human heart and soul serves to link the depiction of the law in this psalm to the description of the law by the Apostle Paul. The question revolves around how to interpret the praise of the law by the Psalmist in light of the Apostle’s rather harsh description of the law in Romans as leading to death. Calvin puts it thusly: “But here a question of no small difficulty arises; for Paul seems entirely to overthrow these commendations of the law which David here recites.”235 Calvin notes there are those who wish to spiritualize the law to the extent that they refer the interiority of the law “to the repentance and regeneration of man.”236 Calvin wishes to be more precise than those who make such a reference, however. Without denying that “the soul cannot be restored by the law of God, without being at the same time renewed unto righteousness,” Calvin considers “David’s proper meaning, which is this, that as the soul gives vigour and strength to the body, so the law in like manner is the life of the soul.”237 Musculus’ solution to this interpretive difficulty is to identify the law of which the Psalmist and the Apostle speak while arguing that the two writers have different objects in mind. That is, Musculus contends that “the Prophet does not speak here about another law of God [other] than the one about which the Apostle speaks.”238 But whereas the Apostle has in mind carnal and unregenerate persons, the Psalmist is considering the efficacy of the law for those who are regenerated to life.239 Again the law is to be understood as “perfect” in itself, but its efficacy depends upon the condition of those who receive it. “The corruption of our nature” is to be blamed when the law that is plain seems to be “difficult and distorted, and what is clear seems obscure.”240 To carry the comparison to a Musculus, In Davidis psalterium sacrosanctum commentarij, 301. Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. 1, p. 321. 236 Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. 1, p. 319. 237 Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. 1, p. 319. 238 Musculus, In Davidis psalterium sacrosanctum commentarij, 302: “Respondeo: Primum Propheta non loquitur hic de alia lege Dei, quam de qua loquitur Apostolus: nempe, quam populo suo Deus per Mosen, tanquam preciosissimum thesaurum dedit.” 239 Musculus, In Davidis psalterium sacrosanctum commentarij, 302: “Deinde, loquitur Propheta de ea legis efficacia, quæ reperitur in regeneratis, ad quam etiam data est, nempe ad vitam.” 240 Musculus, In Davidis psalterium sacrosanctum commentarij, 303: “Observandum est hoc loco, quod legem Dei rectam, id est planam et æquam, et lucidam vocat. Ergo proditur et culpatur naturæ nostræ corruptio, propter quam sit, ut lex plana videatur difficilis ac torta: & lucida cum sit, videatur 234 235

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

164

Causality

greater degree, Musculus compares the quality and efficacy of “commandments of men and tradition” with the commandments of God, and determines that the commandments of God are recta, ac plena, while those of men are obliqua, intricata, perplexa et contorta.241 This depiction of the superiority of the divine commandments in comparison to the mutability and untrustworthiness of human laws and traditions relates directly to Musculus’ valuation of divine law as an ultimate norm over any human (positive) law. Thus Musculus praises the divine justice, saying that “it is not temporary, it is not particular, it is not imperfect and inconstant, but perfect, full, and perpetually constant of itself to us.” On this basis the judgments of God (iudicia Dei) are to be preferred before all human judgment (humanum iudicium).242 One interpretive issue that all four of the commentators under examination address involves the identification of the fear of God (timor Domini). Augustine and Denis identify this fear as a “chaste” fear (castus), and Denis contrasts this fear of a son (filialis) and a friend (amicabilis) with the fear of a slave (servilis).243 Calvin pays passing attention to the question of the type of fear, noting simply that the fear of God in this context “is taken in an active sense for the doctrine which prescribes to us the manner in which we ought to fear God.”244 Musculus concurs with the other commentators, noting that the fear that is always to be observed by the godly is not a servile fear (timor servilis) but a godly or “pure” fear.245 Musculus interprets the verse praising the “sweetness of the law” as another reference to its internal orientation. The Psalmist “extols the sweetness of the internal man, out of the appetite for the conception of the divine law above all sweetness of the external mouth, which leads him to what seems to be most obscura. Illic dicimus, mandata Domini sunt difficilia & molesta, non possumus in illis ambulare.” See also Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. 1, p. 320: “If we, however, more attentively consider the contrast which he no doubt makes between the rectitude of the law and the crooked ways in which men entangle themselves when they follow their own understandings, we will be convinced that this commendation implies more than may at first sight appear. We know how much every man is wedded to himself, and how difficult it is to eradicate from our minds the vain confidence of our own wisdom.” 241 Musculus, In Davidis psalterium sacrosanctum commentarij, 303. 242 Musculus, In Davidis psalterium sacrosanctum commentarij, 304: “Ergo iusticia Dei non est temporaria, non est particularis, non est imperfecta & inconstans, sed perfecta, plena, & perpetuo sibi ipsi constans. Habent ista iudicia Dei peculiaria præ omni humano iudicio.” 243 Augustine, “First Discourse on Psalm 18,” St. Augustine on the Psalms, vol. 1, 179; Denis the Carthusian, In Psalmos omnes Davidicos, 39r. 244 Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. 1, p. 322. 245 Musculus, In Davidis psalterium sacrosanctum commentarij, 304: “Deinde & illud expendendum est, quod timorem hunc perpetuo permanere dicit. Iterum discriminatur inter timorem servilem, & hunc quem purum vocat.”

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Summary

165

sweet.”246 Calvin and Denis also explicitly note the contrast between “carnal pleasures” (Calvin) and “any carnal or sensible thing” (Denis) and this internal and spiritual “sweetness” of the law.247 Significantly, Musculus points us to the “character of the Prophet” (persona Prophetæ) in his composition of the psalm. David was the king of Israel, and therefore a servant of God. Rather than considering himself to be free from the observance of the commandments of God, David “confesses himself to be a servant of God, and bound to the commandments as all the others” in the nation of Israel.248

3.3 Summary Chapter 3 continues the study by providing the larger context for the issues of covenant, election, and grace from chapter 2. This broader doctrinal and methodological context involves questions of causality and contingency. In approaching questions of the divine will, for instance, we find Musculus to pick up a standard medieval distinction between God’s absolute and ordained power (potentia absoluta et ordinata). On this question Musculus affirms a position in line with the older model, which views the absolute power of God as a limiting concept placing the created order on a plane of creaturely contingency. It is not, for Musculus and the older via antiqua, however, an operative power by which God occasionally and miraculously interacts with the created order. On questions related to justice and the nature of created things, Musculus again seems to side with the older realist tradition. But following this the eclecticism of Musculus’ reception of medieval theology becomes evident, as he generally follows the via moderna project contra vanam curiositatem with regard to questions of divine causality. That is, Musculus is loathe to speculate beyond God’s will, beyond the “cause of causes,” and is content to simply affirm that God does not will without or in conflict with reason (praeter rationem). In terms of the question of human freedom and divine will, Musculus is at pains to avoid anthropomorphizing divine action. If our survey of issues related to 246 Musculus, In Davidis psalterium sacrosanctum commentarij, 305: “Et dulcia, inquit, super mel & favum. Extollit suavitatem interni hominis, e gustu divinæ legis conceptam supra suavitatem externi oris, quam adferunt ea quæ videntur esse dulcissima.” 247 Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. 1, p. 324; Denis, In Psalmos omnes Davidicos, 40r. 248 Musculus, In Davidis psalterium sacrosanctum commentarij, 305: “Quarto consideremus etiam hic personam Prophetæ. Erat rex populi Israelis, & hactenus quoque servus Dei. Agnoscit hoc, cum se servum Dei vocat, & tam abest, ut se putet propter regiam maiestatem ab observantia mandatorum Dei exemptum, ut fateatur se esse servum Dei, & mandatis illius plusquam cæteros obstrictum.”

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

166

Causality

covenant might have moved Musculus in a direction more aligned with the theology of John Duns Scotus, for instance, Musculus’ views of divine causality, contingency, and human freedom push us toward a more eclectic reception of medieval theology. The dual aspect of the divine will in Musculus’ theology, God’s will toward us (erga nos), provides a helpful transition from questions of divine causality and creaturely contingency (what God established concerning our salvation) to issues related to God’s normative will for us (what he would have us do or not do).249 In terms of creaturely freedom and contingency, Musculus’ exposition of the doctrine of free choice represents an early expression of the Reformed position that the will is characterized by an essential element of freedom that is not destroyed in the fall. The articulation of the doctrine in the Loci is not as detailed or developed as the treatments of later Reformed theologians, but is intended to serve Musculus’ primarily soteriological focus. Focus on God’s normative will for us is continued in discussions related to vows and Christian righteousness, and brought to fulfillment in the final section of our study of Musculus’ teaching related to the broad themes of “law.”

249 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 45, p. 445: “Nos simpliciter voluntatem Dei erga nos sic considerandam esse sentimus, ut primum intelligamus, quomodo & quid de salute nostra penes seipsum ab æterno constituerit: deinde, quid nos facere vel vitare, & quales nos esse velit.” præstare potest, ut possimus ad ipsum cum Augustino dicere: Da Domine quod iubes, & iube quod vis.”

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

4. Law

The final major section of our textual examination of Musculus’ work brings us to the topics subsumed under the broad category of “law.” These topics flow easily from the conclusion of chapter 3, which examines “The Sweetness of the Law” in the context of Musculus’ exegesis of Psalm 19. But the issues under examination here also relate more generally to the first two parts and serve as a fitting way to end the close examination of Musculus’ texts and transition to the analytical conclusion of the study. The correlation between the two senses of the divine will examined in chapter 3 (God’s determination to save us as well as his desire for how we should live) leads naturally to the questions of what function the law generally, and the Decalogue more particularly, serve. Are these expressions of one or the other senses of God’s will? That is, is the law the means by which God effectuates the salvation of his chosen people, is it the way in which he instructs those people about how they ought to conduct themselves, or some combination of both? In order to answer these and related questions, chapter 4 takes up Musculus’ loci on the law, the Decalogue, the abrogation of the law, and the magistrate. These topics in some sense bring the textual exploration full circle as well, because as Musculus’ himself says somewhat cryptically in the introduction to his locus on the covenant, “the Law” is “itself a part of the divine covenant.”1 This particular comment has some influence in the way in which covenant theology develops in the seventeenth century, but for our purposes here it serves to underscore the fundamental inter-relatedness of all of the topics treated under the categories of “covenant,” “causality,” and “law.” Concerning the loci at issue here, Musculus’ approach to the law and the Decalogue has received some scholarly attention, particularly with regard to his doctrine of natural law. The connection between Musculus’ view of the relationship between the divine potentia absoluta and potentia ordinata is manifest in his explication of law. Musculus’ traditional rendering of the absolute power of God as a non-operational and merely hypothetical reality is underscored by his construal of the eternal law as linked with the “wisdom” (sapientia) of God. It is with Musculus’ view of the relationship between church and state, includ1

Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 14, p. 141.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

168

Law

ing the role of the Christian magistrate, and Musculus’ connection to the work of Thomas Erastus, that we also include here a section on Musculus’ locus de magistratibus. Musculus’ role in the formation of what has been called an “Erastian” view of the relationship between church and state has been a topic of some study in recent scholarship. Johannes Heckel is credited with attributing to Musculus influence on the development of this branch of Reformed political thought, and thus reviving interest in this aspect of Musculus’ work.2 Heckel’s attention to Musculus occasioned further reflection on Musculus’ political thought, including varying attitudes regarding his influence on Erastus and the development of the Anglican church.3 Richard Bäumlin’s study in particular, which examines both Musculus’ doctrine of natural law and its connection to his views of church and state, follows this series of studies that explore Musculus’ construal of the relationship between church and state.4 Whereas in chapter 2 Musculus’ doctrinal exposition is primarily compared with some of his Reformed contemporaries (Calvin and Bullinger), and in chapter 3 the Loci are placed in dialogue with some major medieval antecedents (Lombard and Gratian), these loci on themes related to law are explored in connection with important patristic influences on Musculus, particularly Augustine of Hippo (354–430) and Basil of Caesarea (330–379).5

Johannes Heckel, “Cura religionis, ius in sacra, ius circa sacra,” in Festschrift Ulrich Stutz zum siebzigsten Geburtstag (Stuttgart: F. Enke, 1938), 285–89. 3 See Helmut Kreßner, Schweizer Ursprünge des anglikanischen Staatskirchentums (Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann Verlag, 1953), 45–72; Ruth Wesel-Roth, Thomas Erastus: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der reformierten Kirche und zur Lehre von der Staatssouveränität (Lahr / Baden: Moritz Schauenburg, 1954), 107ff; and more recently Charles D. Gunnoe Jr., Thomas Erastus and the Palatinate: A Renaissance Physician in the Second Reformation (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 396–406. Other recent scholarship on Musculus’ view of the magistrate includes James T. Ford, “Wolfgang Musculus and the Struggle for Confessional Hegemony in Reformation Augsburg, 1531–1548” (Ph.D. diss.: University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2000), who devotes a chapter to “The Christian Magistrate,” 209–43. See also idem, “Wolfgang Musculus on the Office of the Christian Magistrate,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 91 (2000): 149–67. For a brief study of Musculus’ views on religion and politics, see Paul Josiah Schwab, The Attitude of Wolfgang Musculus toward Religious Tolerance (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1933). 4 See Richard Bäumlin, “Naturrecht und obrigkeitliches Kirchenregiment bei Wolfgang Musculus,” in Für Kirche und Recht: Festschrift für Johannes Heckel zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Siegfried Grundmann (Cologne: Böhlau, 1959), 120–43; and idem, “Die evangelische Kirche und der Staat in der Schweiz seit dem Kulturkampf,” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte [Kanonistische Abteilung] 76 [45] (1959): 249–277. 5 Augustine of Hippo, The Spirit and the Letter, trans. John Burnaby, in Augustine: Later Works, ed. John Burnaby (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1955), 193–250; idem, The City of God against the Pagans, trans. and ed. R. W. Dyson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998); and Basil of Caesarea, On the Human Condition, trans. Nonna Verna Harrison (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2005). 2

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Loci communes

169

As in the previous chapters of the study, this section on law concludes with examinations of particular pericopes from Musculus’ exegetical work that expand the focus beyond Musculus’ Loci communes. Given the course of the secondary scholarship as well as the concerns raised in Musculus’ own writing, the two most relevant portions for the questions related to law from Musculus’ Romans commentary are his comments concerning natural law on chapter 2, verses 14–16, and concerning the magistrate on chapter 13, verses 1–8. The work of John Chrysostom (ca. 347–407), Thomas Aquinas (ca. 1225–1274), and Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499–1562) form the major dialogue partners with our examination of these sections of Musculus’ commentary on Romans.

4.1 Loci communes This section opens with an examination of four thematically-linked loci on the law, the Decalogue, and the abrogation of the law, which are three consecutive loci (nos. 11–13) that immediately precede the locus de fœdere ac testamento Dei. These loci therefore are included in the first major part of Musculus’ loci, which closely follows the third aetas ordering of Melanchthon’s Loci communes. The locus de legibus follows the locus de peccato, which stands between the treatments of free choice (de libero arbitrio) and the cycle of loci beginning with de legibus. The locus on the magistrate (number 69) is the final topic in Musculus’ Loci, and follows treatments of heresy and schism.

4.1.1 De legibus Musculus opens the locus on the laws by outlining the reason that knowledge of the law is important. He writes that it is for the sake of Christ that we must seek knowledge (cognitio) of the law. Musculus says that we are to know the law so that as Christ is the “end of the law,” both Christ and the grace which he brings to humankind might be more clearly known.6 To know the law is to better understand salvation in Jesus Christ. 6 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 11, p. 34: “Est enim necessaria illius cognitio, præsertim propter eum qui finis est legis, Christum videlicet, ut gratia illius humano generi allata liquidius cognoscatur.” Compare Augustine, The Spirit and the Letter, xxi.36, p. 221: “It follows that the laws of God, written by God himself upon the heart, are nothing but the very presence of the Holy Spirit who is the finger of God; the presence by which charity, the fulness of the law and the end of the commandment, is shed abroad in our hearts.”

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

170

Law

In typical fashion, Musculus opens the locus with a linguistic analysis. In defining the nature of law, Musculus first turns to the biblical languages for basic definitions. He translates the Hebrew word torah as doctrina, signifying primarily that in law “human minds are taught whatever is just, fair, pious, honest, and truly helpful; and on the contrary whatever is injust, unfair, impious, dishonest, and harmful.”7 The Greek nomos signifies “dividing and distributing” to each person as appropriate, and is understood by Musculus to refer both to a sort of general distributive justice as well as a more particular or special justice. Musculus defines the former as that sort of fairness or equity without which no law can be stable and just.8 He notes too that concerning the latter, no law may be passed which does not respect the difference in conditions, states, and degrees of various individuals. Musculus also examines the source of the Latin lex, whether it is derived a legendo or deligendo (Musculus prefers the former) and the German (Gesatz vel Satzung). On the basis of this discussion Musculus sets forth his own definition of law (lex): “reason, norm, decree, strengthened by its authority and justice, by which those things that must be preserved and fulfilled are ordered, and those things that must be shunned are prohibited.”9 Following his definition of the law, Musculus moves in good scholastic fashion to determine who the parties to law are. That is, he determines to whom the law applies and by whom it is given. Musculus affirms that the law pertains to those who are ignorant of what they should or should not do, or if they know what they ought to do, who are not so moved internally as to delight in doing it and desire to do it from their heart (ex animo).10 The law therefore applies to those who lack in some way, whether that lack is intellectual or volitional.

Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 11, p. 34: “Etenim omnino id convenit esse primarium in lege, ut mentes hominum de eo quod iustum, æquum, pium, honestum & vere utile: ac rursus quod iniustum, iniquum, impium, inhonestum ac noxium sit, edoceantur.” 8 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 11, p. 34: “… quod dividere ac distributere significat. Sic lex nomos vocatur, propterea q[uo]d unicuique distribuit quod ipsi conpetit. Atqui hæc est æquitas illa sine qua nulla lex iusta ac firma esse potest.” For the classical distinction between commutative and distributive justice (and the latter’s subdistinctions) see Aristotle, The Nichomachean Ethics, trans. David Ross, rev. J. L. Ackril / J. O. Urmson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), 5.2f. See also Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (New York: Benzinger Bros, 1947), II.2.61. For a contemporaneous (unfinished) work on the Nichomachean Ethics, see Peter Martyr Vermigli, Commentary on Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics, trans. Kenneth Austin / Stephen Beall / Leszek Wysocki, ed. Emidio Campi / Joseph C. McClelland (Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2006). 9 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 11, p. 34: “Sit igitur lex, ratio, norma, sententia, authoritate & iustitia pollens, qua quæ servanda præstandaque sint præcipiuntur, quæ vitanda prohibentur.” 10 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 11, p. 35: “Relinquitur ergo, legem pertinere ad eos, qui vel non intelligunt quæ facidna sunt & quæ vitanda: vel etiamsi intelligant, sic animati non sunt, ut illis delectentur, & præstandis ex animo studeant.” 7

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Loci communes



171

This leads Musculus to conclude that those who are under law are of necessity subservient to those who propound law. For “no inferior is able to set a law upon his superior, therefore we must be convinced of the baseness of [our] subjection by it, because we have been placed under the arrangement of law.” But if all those who lack intellectual apprehension or volitional adherence to law are therefore subject to law, there must be a being who does not have any such lack.11 Thus, he writes, “the course, reason, and condition of all things requires that those which are inferior, imperfect, mutable, changeable, and temporal are governed by a mind which is superior, perfect, immutable, certain, constant, and eternal.”12 This mind’s wisdom, goodness, fairness, truth, justice, and power (potentia) are bound to no measure, no time, no place, but in everything extends itself in fullness, in all ages of all times, and in everything that is within the scope of the entire universe, immediately, limitlessly, and without any impediment.13 But since no creature can be said to possess such a mind, “every creature is liable to this eternal law on account of its imperfection.”14 But for Musculus this æternæ lex is both eternal and viva (“living”). God himself is source, the fons, out of which springs everything that has wisdom, justice, fairness, and authority.15 For Musculus this ultimately means that law Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 11, p. 35: “Nemo inferior superiori suo legem figere potest, convincimur ergo de subiectionis humilitate per id, quod legis positioni subiecti sumus.” The progression of Musculus’ argument does not follow any attempt to argue for the existence of God, but God’s existence is rather an assumed conclusion for his discussion. 12 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 11, p. 35: “Etenim hoc rerum omnium cursus, ratio & conditio requirit, ut quæ inferiora, imperfecta, mutabilia, varia & termporaria sunt, a superiore quadam, perfecta, immutabili, certa, constanti, & æterna mente gubernentur ….” This exhibits a basically Augustinian ontology. See Augustine The City of God, 19.13, p. 939: “There exists, then, a nature in which there is no evil, and in which evil cannot exist at all.” 13 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 11, p. 35: “… cuius sapientia, bonitas, æquitas, veritas, iustitia & potentia nulli mensuræ, nulli temporie, nulli loco sit alligata, sed in omnem sese plenitudinem, omnem omnium seculorum ætatem, omnemque ilum totius unversi circulum sine ullis impedimentis immediate & indefinenter extendat.” Compare Basil, “On the Origin of Humanity, Discourse 1: On that which is according to the Image,” in On the Human Condition, §5, p. 34: “He is incomprehensible in greatness. Consider what a great thing is, and add to the greatness more than you have conceived, and to the more add more, and be persuaded that your thought does not reach boundless things. Do not conceive a shape; God is understood from his power, from the simplicity of his nature, not greatness in size. He is everywhere and surpasses all; and he is intangible, invisible, who indeed escapes your grasp. He is not circumscribed by size, nor encompassed by shape, nor measured by power, nor enclosed by time, nor bounded by limits. Nothing is with God as it is with us.” 14 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 11, p. 35: “Est enim omnis creatura propter imperfectionem isti æternæ legi obnoxia.” 15 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 11, p. 35: “Nequit enim consistere, quicquid ab hac æterna ac viva lege abalienatur. Quicquid igitur legum est, recta ratione, æquitate & authoritate præditarum, ex hoc veluti fonte promanavit, unde omnis est sapientia, iustitia, æquitas & authoritas.” 11

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

172

Law

is no human construction or simply identifiable with the will of any monarch. This eternal law is “neither the invention of human talent, nor the decree of the people, but an eternal something [quiddam], which issued forth from the divine wisdom for mortal use.”16 It is significant that Musculus attributes this living quality of the law to God rather than to any human authority (e.g. the pope). God himself is the supreme lawgiver, and does not independently communicate that authority to any ecclesiastical (or civil) magistrate. The attributes of sovereignty that had so often been predicated of the pope in medieval hierocratic traditions are posited only of God.17 Having established the meaning, the source, and the recipient of law, Musculus proceeds by describing how many kinds of laws there are. He identifies four basic types beyond the most basic identification of law with the eternal law of God’s wisdom, “the mind of the high lawmaker” (mens supremi legislatoris). The first kind of law is the law of nature (lex naturæ). Our discussion of this kind of law is taken up in the context of Musculus’ exegesis of Romans 2:14–16. The second kind of law is that which is communicated by word without writing (lex verbo sine literis expressa). The third, by contrast, is that which is written (scripta). And the fourth major kind of law is the law of the spirit (lex spiritus). The written law will be explored in the discussion of the next locus, de præcepti Decalogi, for this locus fits in with the overall framework of Musculus’ argument laid out in the locus de legibus. In the opening of his discussion of laws given by word and not by writing, Musculus makes a distinction between the broader category of commandment (mandatum) and the narrower category of law (lex), noting that while all laws have the force (vis) of commandments, not all commandments have the condition (conditio) of a law. Laws are in some sense applicable generally to the human race, whereas individual commands are not.18 This distinction is borne out and applied in more detail in connection with the discussion of the first law given by God through the spoken rather than the written word. Musculus first identifies the law of creation as containing the 16 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 11, p. 35: “Quare, qui recte sapiunt, non immerito statuunt legem nec hominum esse ingenijs excogitatam, nec scitum populorum, sed æternum quiddam, quod divina sapientia in usus mortalium profluxerit.” 17 This is one aspect of Musculus’ argumentation that makes it clear that foremost in his mind is the threat of papal rather than civil tyranny. See, for instance, the attributions often derived from Roman law, including the idea of the pope as the “living law” (lex animata) in K. Pennington, “Law I: Law, Legislative Authority, and Theories of Government, 1150–1300,” in The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought c. 350–c. 1450, ed. J. H. Burns (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 434. 18 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 11, p. 37: “Neque enim quodlibet mandatum conditionem legis habet, licet lex quælibet vim habeat mandati.”

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Loci communes

173

so-called cultural mandate (or blessing) of Genesis 1:26–29 (NIV). The law of creation consists in the instructions concerning propagation (“be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it”), dominion and stewardship (“rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground”), and sustenance (“I give you every seedbearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food”). Some object that these should not be considered laws but rather blessings, in part because they do not apply to all human beings. For instance, not all human beings are bound by the mandate to “be fruitful and increase in number.” Only those who are bound by marriage lawfully undertake such a possibility. Musculus responds to these criticisms of describing these three elements as consisting in law by stating that in them are contained a divine ordinance (divinus ordinatio) and thus that it is “entirely necessary that it [each law] concerns that ordination and arrangement of things, so that they cannot be included in the divine blessing alone.”19 For support Musculus cites Basil to the effect that the dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the beasts of the land is a benediction as well as an enactment (nomothesia) and framing of a law (legis positio).20 Basil writes of this passage and the innate relationship between humanity and dominion, “This is the blessing, this is the legislation, this is the honor given us by God.”21 Regarding the exceptions to the universal application of these “laws” to all human beings, Musculus concludes that the supreme Lawgiver, who out of necessity placed this law on humankind, might of his own choice release whomever he wills.22 In addition to the law of creation, Musculus also discusses the law of Paradise, the law of wedlock, the law of the man and woman after having been carried away in sin, the law of the first-born, and the law of creation as communicated with Noah.23

19 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 11, p. 37: “Omnino necesse est concedatur, habere ista divinam ordinationem ac dispositionem rerum summopere necessiarum generi humano, ut in sola benedictione divina includi non possint.” 20 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 11, p. 38: “Ista igitur est benedictio, ista est nomothesia, id est legis positio.” 21 Basil of Caesarea, “On the Origin of Humanity, Discourse 1: On that which is according to the Image,” in On the Human Condition, §14, p. 42. 22 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 11, p. 38: “Qui legem hanc generi humano necessario imposuit, potest ab illa eximere pro suo arbitratu quos vult.” 23 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 11, pp. 39f.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

174

Law

4.1.2 De præceptis Decalogi The locus on the Decalogue fits within Musculus’ larger discussion “of the laws” as part of the written law category. But within the overall structure of Musculus’ Loci, the locus de præceptis Decalogi is organized as separate locus (as is the following locus de abrogatione legis). So in some formal sense these are three separate loci, but as we have seen with other cycles of loci throughout Musculus’ work there are series of interrelated loci within the larger structure. In this way, the loci de legibus, de præceptis Decalogi, and de abrogatione legis form a set of three interrelated loci (nos. 11–13). The locus on the Decalogue follows his brief characterization of “moral precepts” (de præceptis moralibus) as those by which the souls of men are edified concerning affections and customs (affectus & mores), consisting not only of piety but also equity, concluding Musculus’ exposition of the unwritten law.24 For Musculus moral precepts have to do both with external and social conduct as well as internal and religious obligations. With this in mind, Musculus points to the two great love commandments as the summary of the moral precepts (he also recommends his commentary on Matthew, chapters 5 and 22, for those readers seeking more background detail). Musculus introduces his discussion of the Decalogue, the “ten words” (decem verba), by comparing it with the “ten predicates” of the school-theology. He writes that the ten words are far more worthy of being carefully inculcated into the youth than the ten predicates of the scholastics.25 And yet, Musculus does not completely reject the value of the Aristotelian categories, noting that when the predicates are employed carefully (sobrie) they are not unhelpful (inutilis). This is not a complete rejection of scholastic theology in favor of a simple biblicism, but is rather a judgment about the comparative utility of the biblical law and scholastic philosophy. Musculus’ praise of the Decalogue thus cannot be read as a dismissal of the scholastic method. This scholasticism is rather modified and according to Musculus’ judgment more properly subjoined to biblical interests. The first issue to settle regarding the Decalogue has to do with the division of the two tables and their interrelationship. Having summarized the moral precepts as consisting in the commandments to love God and neighbor, Musculus proceeds to identify each commandment with the first and second table respectively. He immediately clarifies that Christ’s likening of the second love Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 11, p. 41. Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 12, p. 41: “… decem verba, quæ Christianæ iuventuti multo accuratius, quam decem illa prædicamenta in scholistrita, inculcanda esse iudicamus: licet nec illorum scientia sobrie usurpata inutilis existat.” 24 25

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Loci communes

175

commandment to the first does not mean that the two are equal in dignitas & excellentia. Rather we must hold that the first commandment (and therefore the first table) surpasses the other in order, dignity, and excellence.26 So just as in some sense each particular commandment is derived from the summary commandment, so too is the second table dependent upon and derivative of the first. Thus, asserts Musculus, the division between the tables teaches us that our love for our neighbor must begin (ordior) out of our love for God, and that we must love God before everything, and love our neighbor on account of God. God must be to us first in everything, and acknowledged to be the source (fons) of all goodness, justice, and fairness toward our neighbors.27 Once the relationship between the tables has been determined, it next falls to set the number of commandments in each table. Musculus follows authorities including Athanasius, Origen, Gregory Nazianzus, Jerome, and Ambrose in placing the first four commandments in the first table and the latter six in the second table. In this he contradicts Thomas, who cites Augustine for support. Musculus points out that Augustine’s determinations are not consistent throughout his writings, and that the variable opinion of one writer should not be preferred to that opinion shared by so many others.28 Thus, rather than following a division that has been changed and corrupted in later times, Musculus follows the order which he believes the Decalogue itself requires and which has been used universally (catholice).29 Musculus examines the first precept, contending that it is not only first in order (ordine) but also is such that if there is not obedience to it, then observation of the other commandments is to no purpose (irrita). This commandment comprehends the sum and head (caput) of true religion, true piety, and all justice.30 The first commandment identifies God and serves to introduce the principal point of the covenant between God and his people, to stand before 26 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 12, p. 42: “Quod autem Christus dicet Matt. 22. Secundum præceptum, videlicet de dilectione promixi, simili esse priori, quod dilectionem dei præcipit, non sic est intelligendum, quod par sit utriusque dignitas & excellentia: nisi dicturi sumus, non esse Deum supra hominem diligendum: sed sic distinguendum, ut primum præceptum ordine, dignitate & excellentia præstantius sit altero ….” 27 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 12, p. 42: “Quid aliud hac divisione admonemur, quam ut dilectionem proximo impendam ordiamur a dilectione Dei, & Deum diligamus ante omnia, & propter Deum etiam proximum, quo Deus in nobis & primas habeat in omnibus, & omnis bonitatis, iustitiæ & æquitatis erga prxomum declarandæ fons sit, & origo.” 28 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 12, pp. 42f. 29 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 12, p. 44. 30 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 12, p. 44: “Primum hoc præceptum, non solum ordine primum est, sed & tale, ut sine illius observantia reliqua omnia sint irrita. Comprehendit enim quod caput est veræ religionis, veræ pietatis, & omnis iustitiæ.”

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

176

Law

him in righteousness and integrity. If this covenantal fidelity is broken, then the entire covenant is broken. In this Musculus compares the covenant to a marriage relationship.31 One other point of this first commandment bears special attention, and it has to do with Musculus’ identification of the initiating member of the covenant. God identifies himself to Israel thusly: “Ego sum Dominus Deus tuus.” By this Musculus observes that the covenantal name YHWH appears here in the Hebrew, which he glosses as the statement, “Ego sum EXISTENS.” The usage of the Latin verb existo rather than simply the “to be” verb esse is significant insofar as it underscores what has been identified in the secondary literature as a specifically covenantal-relational construal of the divine name. Given his linguistic training and his attentiveness to the original Hebrew, Musculus is not bound to simply repeat the Vulgate’s rendering of the divine identity from Exodus 3:16, “ego sum qui sum.” As Oberman has observed, the approach to this “misleading” rendering in the Vulgate marks a basic point of departure between the theological programs of Thomas and the Fransciscans. The “ego sum qui sum” in the Vulgate “seemed to warrant the ontological connotation of being” for Thomas.32 But in preferring existo to a form of esse for his gloss on the divine name, Musculus might be seen as siding with a Franciscan construal of the divine identity, “God as personal lord and his action as covenant,” described by Oberman as propositions which “became the two pivotal points of a surprisingly cohesive new tradition centering on the Franciscan vision of history. The Thomistic unmoved mover was becoming the highly mobile covenantal God who acts, a God whose words are deeds and who wants to be known by these deeds.”33 This fits with Musculus’ fundamentally covenantal construal of divine action, and on this point places him in greater continuity with the Franciscan paradigm, identified with Bonaventure and Duns Scotus, than with the Thomistic tradition. But lest we draw too sharp a line between Thomas’ “unmoved mover” and the Franciscan “highly mobile covenantal God,” Musculus proceeds to expound the gloss “Ego sum EXISTENS” in ontological terms that also involve ability to Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 12, p. 48: “Prima est, quod in hac fidei integritate situm est fœderis caput, quo rupto, rupta sunt omnia. Eadem enim est fœderis, quæ coniugij ratio.” Selderhuis writes that Musculus’ view of the divine nature is in direct contrast to the Aristotelian picture. See Selderhuis, “Die Loci Communes des Wolfgang Musculus,” 318: “Ausdrücklich weist Musculus darauf hin, daß Gott Gefühle hat und daher kein starrer Gott ist. Mit dieser Aussage will er sich nachdrücklich vom aristotelianischen Gottesbild distanzieren.” 32 Heiko A. Oberman, The Two Reformations, ed. Donald Weinstein (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 25. 33 Oberman, The Two Reformations, 26. 31

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Loci communes



177

act. For Musculus this formula means “Ego sum essentia, per quam, & in qua sunt, subsistunt ac conservantur omnia.”34 In this one name is comprehended that “divine and omnipotent essence, virtue, and efficacy of the one and only true God, the beginning, the preservation, and the end of all things.”35 The use of the divine name is discussed in the third commandment, and here Musculus emphasizes the “familiarity” that is the privilege of those who are in a covenant relationship with God. This familiarity, writes Musculus, is that by which we, who are most unworthy and miserable, are conjoined (coniungo) with the true God, without all merit of our own, in a covenantal bond.36 But using the Latin proverb attributed to Publilius Syrus as a point of departure, Musculus observes that in humankind’s fallen state this kind of familiarity “breeds contempt” (familiaritas parit contemptum).37 Rather than contempt, this covenantal bond ought to instill in our hearts “pure love, true and pious obedience and observance, and a perpetual spirit of gratefulness.”38 The second table of the Law is for Musculus a subsidiary but indispensible element of Christian righteousness. “It is not true and full religion and piety,” writes Musculus, “which so honors the divine majesty, that it entirely neglects that which concerns our neighbors.”39 Indeed, the second table pertains to the observance of the covenant not in the primary, but rather in the secondary place relative to the first table.40 The fifth commandment concerning the honor due to parents is the transition between the first and second tables, and it is noteworthy that Musculus does Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 12, p. 44: “… Ego sum EXISTENS: hoc est, Ego sum essentia illa, per quam, & in qua sunt, subsistunt ac conservantur omnia.” 35 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 12, p. 44: “Sic unica voce comprehenditur divina illa & omnipotens essentia, virtus & efficacia veri & unici Dei, principium, conservatio & finis omnium.” 36 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 12, p. 68. 37 See Publilius Syrus, Sententiae (Stuttgart: Caroli Hoffman, 1829), p. 21, l. 617: “Parit contemtum nimia familiaritas.” This common proverb is also quoted in the work classically attributed to Augustine, Scala Paradisi, in Opera Omnia, vol. 6, Patrologia Cursus Completus, ed. J. P. Migne (Paris: Gaume Fratres, 1837), ch. 8, col. 1457. 38 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 12, p. 68: “Familiaritas ista, qua Deo vero præter omne meritum nostrum indignissimi ac miserrimi etiam fœderis vinculo coniungimur, nullum pareret in corde nostro erga bonitatem hanc Dei contemptum: sed inderet nobis potius sincerum amorem, veram ac piam obedientiam & observantiam perpetuamque gratitudinem animi, beneficentiam Dei & agnoscentis & deprædicantis: & in summa, sancte, religiose ac magnifice de Deo, omnibusque in universum illius consilijs, dictis & factis sentientis.” See also Selderhuis, “Die Loci Communes des Wolfgang Musculus,” 318: “Infolgedessen besteht der Glaube, als Reaktion auf dieses Gnade, im Liebhaben Gottes.” 39 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 12, p. 82: “Admonemur hac consideratione, non esse hanc veram & plenam religionem ac pietatem, quæ sic colit divinam maiestatem, ut ea quæ proximos nostros concernunt, prorsus negligat.” 40 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 12, p. 82: “Et altera hæc tabula licet non primo, altero tamen loco ad fœderis pertinet observantiam.” 34

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

178

Law

not link the commandment requiring honor for father and mother to respect and obedience to civil authority.41 But Musculus does introduce some ideas in his discussion of this precept that foreshadow his larger discussion of the civil magistrate in the locus de magistratibus. The relationship between the father and the magistrate is compared to that of the one who bears and begets to the one who forms and educates (Musculus explicitly relates the role of the magistrate to that of a teacher, in the sense that the word magistratus is derived from the word magister, and refers to a teacher, a master, or a ruler).42 The master who “moulds the soul” is not concerned with a lesser matter than the parent who “gives birth to the body,” and indeed, in some sense the magistrate stands in the place of the paternal care.43 Yet respecting this commandment means that we recognize the unique devotion due to parents, for equal honor is not to be given to everyone.44 Musculus writes, “The paternal prerogative claims for itself a certain particular affection, which a right and uncorrupted sense of nature prescribes more than any instruction.”45 But just as Musculus will limit the loyalty due to the magistrate by the reverence due to God alone, Musculus notes here that the inclusion of this commandment in the second table is clear evidence that honor is due to God before either the ones who bear or educate us.46 The fact that this commandment needs to be included at all is evidence of the corruption of human nature. Musculus cites Valerius Maximus to the effect that the honor due to parents is a part of natural law, but the Mosaic legislation that violation of this precept is to be punished by death shows that these laws are given to “refute the perversion of our nature.”47 Even if by nature we 41 Selderhuis observes that pastoral questions of the kind related to the promise in this commandment in particular were some of the proximate concerns for Musculus’ production of the Loci communes, “ein Unterrichtsbuch für künftige Pfarrer – und zugleich für Pfarrer, die weitere Instruktionen benötigen.” See Herman J. Selderhuis, “Die Loci Communes des Wolfgang Musculus,” 314. 42 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 12, p. 82. See also loc. 69, p. 622: “Magistratus a magistris deducta vox est.” 43 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 12, p. 82: “Scimus non minus esse fingere animum hominis, quam gignere corpus: & tutelam quæ est a magistratu, loco esse curæ paternæ.” See also Basil, “On the Origin of Humanity, Discourse 1: On that which is according to the Image,” in On the Human Condition, §8, p. 36: “The things of the flesh are second, the priorities of the soul are first.” 44 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 12, p. 82: “Nec par est honos impendendus omnibus.” 45 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 12, p. 82: “Vindicat sibi paterna prærogativa peculiarem quendam affectum, quem rectus & incorruptus naturæ sensus magis quam ulla præscribit institutio.” 46 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 12, p. 82: “Quare præter rationem non est, quod primum locum in altera hac tabula honorandis assignat parentibus: manifeste admonens, primo post Deum loco habendos nobis esse eos homines, unde & nati sumus & educati.” 47 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 12, p. 84: “Huiusmodi leges divinitus latæ, naturæ nostræ peversitatem redarguunt, quarum nulla esset ratio, nisi meliora scientes, deteriora faceremus, & maliciæ nostræ ingeniumne erga parentes quidem cohiberemus.” See Valerius Maximus, “De pietate in parentes,” in Factorum Dictorumque Memorabilium exempla (Frankfurt: Petri Brubachij, 1555), lib. 5, cap. 4, pp. 280–288.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Loci communes



179

know that we are not to disrespect our parents, “we would do the worst when we know the best.”48 Because of the corruption of our nature, we are unable to hold back our own malice even though we know that we ought to do so. This underscores Musculus’ fundamentally voluntaristic soteriological emphasis, at least with regard to the state of humankind after the Fall. As Augustine writes, “Free choice alone, if the way of truth is hidden, avails for nothing but sin; and when the right action and the true aim has begun to appear clearly, there is still no doing, no devotion, no good life, unless it be also delighted in and loved.”49 It is not simply enough to know what to do, or else the teaching of the Law itself would be sufficient for righteousness. The will must be renewed, because even when we know what we ought to do, our evil will chooses not to do it. So in addition to merely showing what we ought to do, the law must be attended with the threat of punishment so that the perverted will can be restrained through external means. This underscores the legimate use of the sword by the civil magistrate that Musculus explores in the context of the sixth commandment prohibiting murder. The purpose of the law is that the security of human life might be preserved and that the cruelty of our hearts, which comes from the depraved and corrupt nature and is inclined to murder, might be restrained.50 The ineffectiveness of the corrupted human will to live by the law, even when what ought to be done is fully known, requires the complementary function of the civil magistrate to ensure the flourishing of human community. The licitness of the magistrate’s duty to shed blood, whether in the course of war or in the administration of civil laws, raises the question of the absoluteness of the various commandments. If the commandment prohibiting “murder” (occido) does not apply to the responsibility of the magistrate, might there be exceptions to other commandments? Musculus addresses this question within the context of the eighth commandment proscribing theft. In discussing whether every theft (furtum) is culpable and sin, Musculus distinguishes between two kinds of precepts contained in the Decalogue. In the first category are those commandments that are absolute and do not have any exceptions. In this category are the first, second, third, seventh, ninth, and tenth commandments. In the second category are those which do have exceptions, or are in some sense conditional: the fourth, fifth,

Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 12, p. 84. Augustine, The Spirit and the Letter, iii.5, p. 197. 50 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 12, p. 92: “Spiritus & scopus legis huius est, ut consulatur humanæ vitæ securitati: reprimaturque spiritus ille crudelitatis, quo corda nostra ex naturæ corruptione depravata, ad cædes propendent.” 48 49

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

180

Law

sixth, and eighth.51 In this way the commandments prohibiting murder and theft are not understood to be absolute commandments such that a technical violation of the letter of the law must always be considered a sin. In this conclusion Musculus parts ways with both the traditionally Thomistic and Scotistic understandings of the contingency (or lack thereof) of the two tables and particular commandments.52 The need for prudential discernment of when the demands of these conditional precepts might not be in force requires spiritual maturity. This is one more reason why Musculus’ approbation of the Decalogue in comparison with Aristotle’s ten predicates noted at the beginning of this locus must be rightly understood not to be a simple and absolute commendation of the Decalogue. Indeed, at the conclusion of the series of loci concerning law, Musculus makes it clear that he believes the Decalogue has a positive but limited role in the Christian church, fit more for the education of the young than of the mature.

4.1.3 De abrogatione legis The locus on the abrogation of the law is the next locus-level division within Musculus’ Loci communes, following the exposition of the Decalogue and completing the series of loci opened with the place concerning the laws (De legibus). But the directly antecedent lower-level section is that which deals with the law of the Spirit (de lege spiritus). The locus on the law of the Spirit deals with the sort of law that is broadly continuous with the natural law and the written law, but which also persists beyond the abrogation of the Law of Moses. It is in this sense that the abrogation of the law must be understood as the supercession of the Law of Moses and not law altogether or law in general. Thus we find that the more precise identification of this locus is de abrogatione legis Mosaicæ, and therefore has a great deal to do with the transition between the old covenant identified with Moses, Torah, and the Decalogue to the new covenant identified with Jesus Christ. The discussion in this place precedes and orients the discussion that appears in the particularly covenantal locus on the difference between the Old and New Testaments (locus 15, de discrimine veteris et novi testamenti). Again, the path of this present study has in some sense come full circle, as the close relationship between law and covenant in Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 12, p. 109. For Scotus’ opinion contra to that of Thomas, see Robert Prentice, “The Contingent Element Governing the Natural Law on the Last Seven Precepts of the Decalogue, According to Duns Scotus,” Antonianum 42 (1967): 259–292. 51

52

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Loci communes



181

Musculus’ theology is apparent in the interrelationship between his discussions of the abrogation of the Mosaic law and the difference between the Old and New Testaments. This intimate linkage between law and covenant appears in this locus within the context of an objection that what is prophecied about the New Testament is a new covenant (fœdus), not a new law (lex). But Musculus responds that the Hebrew word used by the prophet Jeremiah (‫ )ְּתִריח‬does refer to a covenantal bond (pactum), but is in this place used “in the place” of law (lex).53 “Indeed,” writes Musculus, “God did not stipulate with Israel on Mount Sinai other than through law, from which also the tables of the law are called the tables of the covenant.”54 In this way, God’s covenant with Israel is essentially legal in character, such that it can be rightly identified by reference either to the covenant or to the law. Musculus builds on this argument by noting that the prophet expounds upon the novum pactum by calling it God’s law, which he would write in their hearts.55 Alluding to an ancient maxim, Musculus states simply, “Novus rex, nova lex.”56 The chief figure of the covenant with Israel, Moses, gives way to Christ, and with Christ comes a new law: “The old law yields to the Gospel of Christ.”57 It remains to be determined, however, whether or not there is any continuity between the Law of Moses and the new law, and thus whether the Law of Moses is abrogated in its entirety. In answering this question, Musculus makes use of the common distinction between moral, judicial, and ceremonial laws in the Old Testament. The ceremonial law is clearly fulfilled and abrogated in that the priesthood of Christ, of the order of Melchizedek, succeeds the priesthood of Aaron. The judicial law also gives way when the Israelites were expelled from the Promised Land, such that they lived in exile among the nations, “without

Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 13, p. 139: “Et ne quis causetur hoc loco, vaticinatum esse prophetam de novo fœdere, non de nova lege, manifestum est vocem ‫ְּתִריח‬, id est, pactum hoc loco positum esse loco legis.” 54 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 13, p. 139: “Etenim non pepigerat cum Israele Deus in monte Syna aliter quam per legem: unde & tabulæ legis, tabulæ fœderis vocantur ….” 55 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 13, p. 139: “Ergo quod vocavit novum pactum, exponendo vocat legem suam, quam sit inscripturus ipsorum cordibus.” 56 See Desiderius Erasmus, Colloquia nunc emendatiora (Amsterdam: Danielis Elzevirii, 1677), 282. Worth exploring on this point, given Musculus’ views of the civil magistrate, is the connection between his affirmation of the formula “novus rex, nova lex” and the formula “cuius regio, eius religio.” 57 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 13, p. 139: “… quatenus vetus Testamentum novo est succedente abrogatum, hactenus abrogata est lex veteris Testamenti. Quatenus Moses cessit Christo, hactenus cessit lex vetus Evangelio Christi.” 53

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

182

Law

king, without leaders, without priests, and without law.”58 Musculus dispenses with discussion of these two forms of the old law with these brief comments. This leaves the moral law, represented especially in the Decalogue. To the extent that the Decalogue represents the age of redemption under the leadership of Moses, Christians are quite clearly not bound by it any longer. So from the letter of the moral precepts as they appear in the Decalogue, the Christian can be said to be free. In his exposition of the Decalogue, Musculus points out that there are different requirements appropriate to each epoch of salvation history. Thus, he says, “there is a great difference between what evil is done in the times of ignorance and in the times of the knowledge of God.”59 Musculus makes this observation with regard to the commandment prohibiting images, but it applies as well to his broader understanding of the continuities and discontinuities between the old and new law. As we have seen in his later discussion of the difference between the testaments, the covenant under Moses was a time of ignorance relative to the time of the new covenant in Christ. But the Christian is only free from the moral precepts of the Decalogue insofar as they are understood as representing subjection to Moses. The Christian under Christ is bound to obedience to an even greater degree than the Israelite is under Moses. In this sense, a Christian who does something that violates the Decalogue “sins more greatly” than if he had just been subject and bound to the law, “since although he is free from Moses, yet by no means is he free from obedience to Christ and true justice.”60 As Augustine asks of the precepts of the Decalogue, “Which among these commands can be said not to bind the Christian?”61 The righteousness required of the Christian is greater than that expected under earlier dispensations. Thus insofar as the Decalogue is a particular form of law that is attached to the old covenant, it is abrogated for the Christian. Responding to the significance of the Christian church’s use of the Decalogue in worship, catechesis, and devotion, Musculus observes that the church does not use the Decalogue because it recognizes itself to be under the “schooling of Moses” (pædagogiæ 58 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 13, p. 140: “Iudicialia quoque cessasse in eo declaratur, quod tota Israelis œconomia, qualem terræ promissæ inhabitatio requirebat, ab eo tempore cessavit, quo expulsi inter gentes sine rege, sine ducibus, sine sacerdote, & sine lege habitare cœperunt.” 59 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 12, p. 59: “Multum discriminis inter ea est, quæ temporibus ignorantiæ, & ea quæ temporibus scientiæ Dei male geruntur.” 60 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 13, p. 141: “Quare Christianus faciens contra ea quæ præcepta sunt in Decalogo, enormius peccat, quam si hoc sub lege constitutus faceret: tam ab est ut liber sit ab ijs quæ illic præcipiuntur. Etenim tametsi liber est a Mose, haud tamen liber est ab obedientia Christi ac veræ iustitiæ.” 61 Augustine, The Spirit and the Letter, xiv.23, p. 213.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Loci communes

183

Mosaicæ). Rather, the church has found that there is some substantial continuity between the moral precepts expressed in the Decalogue and the righteousness required in the Christian life. And the particular form of the Decalogue has been deemed useful for instruction, as it is suited to the “simpleness and capacity of new converts and the simple.”62 In this way, the locus on the abrogation of the law ends where the locus on the Decalogue began, where Musculus had recommended the usefulness of the Decalogue for the education of the youth. Instruction in the Law of Moses is of great utility for basic catechesis, and cannot be replaced by instruction in scholastic or philosophical methods. And yet where Musculus had earlier tempered his criticism of Aristotle’s categories by noting that they are of great value when employed moderately and prudently, here too Musculus tempers his praise of the Decalogue by placing its primary usefulness in the instruction of the young, newly converted, and simple-minded. For the mature Christian, knowledge and observance of the two great love commandments are all that are needed to fulfill the obligations of Christian righteousness. This is the content of what Musculus calls the “law of the spirit,” as well as what Augustine calls the “law of faith.”63

4.1.4 De magistratibus As is his usual fashion, Musculus opens the locus on the magistrate with a linguistic examination, and here he notes that the word magistratus is derived from the word magister, which can be understood to mean both “master” and “teacher.” The word magistratus in some sense includes both of these emphases, for it refers in the first place to the power (potestas) and office (officium) of one who rules (domino) their subjects, peoples, or citizens.64 And yet as we have seen, Musculus’ definition of law is at its core a definition referring to “teaching” (doctrina), and thus insofar as the tool of the magistrate is law, he also has a teaching or pedagogical function.65 62 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 13, p. 141: “Quod itaque ecclessia etiamnum utitur Decalogo, non est ex eo quod agnoscat se subesse adhuc pædagogiæ Mosaicæ, sed quod visa est formula hæc Decalogi convenire ruditati ac captui neophytorum ac rudium.” 63 See Augustine, The Spirit and the Letter, xiii.22, p. 211. 64 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 622. 65 Bäumlin recognizes a sharp contrast between the doctrines of Zwingli and Musculus with regard to natural law, noting that the latter’s view moves to “eine andere Welt” from that of the Zurich humanist. This contrast between Zwingli and Musculus carries over into Bäumlin’s evaluation of Musculus’ doctrine of the magistrate, which he sees as the result of moral philosophical and rational argument. See Bäumlin, “Naturrecht und obrigketiliches Kirchenregiment bei Wolfgang Musculus,” 123–128. Bäumlin’s

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

184

Law

One initial point of special importance is Musculus’ identification of the plurality of magistratical offices and powers. The greater magistrate has need of ministers, or lesser magistrates, because despite the loftiness of his dignity and power (dignitas ac potestas), he remains yet a man, beset by human limits and weakness, and thus unable to know or do all that is necessary for the government to do.66 The definition of the relationship between the lesser and the greater magistrate is of critical importance in determining Musculus’ view of the magistratrical care of religion. And so it is not only with the greater magistrates with whom Musculus concerns himself in this locus, but also with the lesser magistrates, including emperors, monarchs, princes, dukes, counts, and civil magistrates. The need for the greater magistrate to be served by ministers also witnesses to the fact that the highest magistrate is himself subject to God. “For who does not know,” asks Musculus, “that there is not any Magistrate on earth, not even him whom they call the Absolute Sovereign [Autocratora], who is not inferior to God in infinite ways?”67 There is a radical, qualitative divide between the authority, power, and dignity of all human magistrates and God, such that not even the highest or greatest human rule can surmount. The insuperable boundclaims, 1) about the continuity between Musculus and Thomas on natural law on the one hand, and 2) the logical connection between Musculus’ doctrines of natural law and the civil magistrate on the other, are 3) undermined by the basic disagreement between Musculus and Thomas on the relationship between civil and ecclesiastical power. By contrast Heckel views Musculus’ doctrine of the magistrate to follow Zwingli and to occupy “eine andere Welt” when compared with that of Melanchthon, although he acknowledges that the various views of the Reformers were united in the sense that they were formed on the basis of the Reformation confessions, and not “philosophical speculation.” See Heckel, “Cura religionis, ius in sacra, ius circa sacra,” 285ff. From a somewhat different angle, Kreßner characterizes Musculus’ doctrine as “unreformed statements” (unreformatorischen Aussage) when compared with the apparently normative Calvinistic view from Geneva. See Kreßner, Schweizer Ursprünge des anglikanischen Staatskirchentums, 46. In this sense Bäumlin and Kreßner agree, in that the former links Musculus with a Thomistic scholastic synthesis and the latter emphasizes continuity between medieval models and Musculus’ view. Despite the various categorizations of specific individuals such as Calvin, Zwingli, and Melanchthon, there is a shared rubric that juxtaposes medieval scholasticism with reformational humanism, and Bäumlin and Kreßner agree that Musculus is a representative of the medieval scholastic view. For the difficulties with an unnuanced juxtaposition of “scholasticism” and “humanism” in the early modern era, see Richard A. Muller, After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 30ff. 66 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 623: “Neque enim propterea non est homo, quod cæteris est dignitate ac potestate maior: sed humana infirmitate circundatus & ipse non videt omnia, non intelligit omnia, non potest omnia, quæ tamen pro ratione officii videre, intelligere & posse debet.” Compare with the judgment of Vermigli, recognizing the dangers inherent on this necessary reliance upon others, in Kirby, The Zurich Connection, 111: “Diocletian said that a good, prudent, and cautious emperor is often betrayed by his aid[e]s.” 67 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 623: “Quis autem ignorat non esse in terris Magistratum quempiam, ne eum quidem quem vocant Autocratora, qui non sit Deo infinitis modis inferior?”

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Loci communes



185

ary between creator and creature is not undone by any ruler and thus serves as an ultimate check and limit on all human authority. The locus proceeds to examine questions regarding the magistrate from two basic perspectives. The first subject moves from above and concerns those things that are required of the magistrate, while the second subject moves from below and takes up the obedience due to the magistrate from those subject to them. Part of the methodological divisions of this study includes exploration of the exegetical contexts of Musculus’ doctrinal statements in the Loci communes, and with this in mind the first of these issues, concerning the duties of the magistrate, is explored here. The second set of issues, concerning the duties of the subjects, is treated in this study in conjunction with the examination of Musculus’ commentary on Romans 13:1–8. Musculus’ first concern in discussing the duties of the magistrate is to establish that such duties do in fact exist and that they are ordained by God. Contra the claims of the Anabaptists, Musculus distinguishes between legitimate power and the abuse of power, or tyranny. Given the nature of God’s relationship to the created order, Musculus must affirm that “all power is from God,” (a Deo est) and yet he also claims in the next breath that the “abuse of power is not from God” (a Deo non est) but rather from Satan (a satana).68 In use here is a distinction between what is ordained by God in his active willing and what is allowed by God in his permissive willing.69 So later Musculus says that indeed, in some sense, tyranny comes “by God” (a Deo), but that “tyranny itself is not ordained by God in the same way that legitimate power is ordained by him.”70

Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 623: “Omnis potestas a Deo est, abusus vero potestatis a Deo non est ….” Compare Bruce Gordon, “‘God killed Saul’: Heinrich Bullinger and Jacob Ruef on the Power of the Devil,” in Werewolves, Witches and Wandering Spirits: Traditional Belief and Folklore in Early Modern Europe, ed. Kathryn Edwards (Kirksville: Truman State University Press, 2002), 155–79; Emidio Campi, “Bullinger’s Early Political and Theological Thought: Brutus Tigurinus,” in Architect of Reformation: An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–1575, ed. Bruce Gordon / Emidio Campi (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 181–99; and idem, “Bullingers Rechts- und Staatsdenken,” in Evangelische Theologie, 64 (2004): 116–126. For a survey of covenant / pact thought and the developing personhood of Satan, see Alain Boureau, Satan the Heretic: The Birth of Demonology in the Medieval West, trans. Teresa Lavender Fagan (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006). Compare also Heinrich Bullinger, Der alt gloub (Zurich: C. Froschauer, 1539), 9r–9v, “…den banden des tüfels,” et passim. 69 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 624: “Alia est eorum conditio quæ permittuntur, & alia eorum quæ ordinantur ac disponuntur.” 70 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 624: “Est igitur & tyrannus a Deo: sed ipsa tyrannis non est ordinata Deo, sicuti ordinata ab illo est legitima potestas.” 68

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

186

Law

In this sense, the abuse of power is a specific kind of evil, which itself is not “ordained” by God in the same way that he actively wills good.71 Musculus proceeds to divide this power of God ordained to the magistracy into three kinds: of nature, of word, and of spirit. The power ordained out of nature has to do with the natural aptness of those who are wiser and stronger (sapientiores ac robustires) to rule, and for those who are less wise and strong to be ruled.72 The power ordained by God’s word has to do with the order of governing, which includes the divine laws, prescriptions, and judgments, as the source of what ought to be punished.73 The spiritual ordination is an unexpected and sudden choosing of a leader by God to save the people from some abnormal danger.74 The first two kinds of ordering have to do with the regular institutions of government, while the third is an occasional and dynamic phenomenon. A comparison of these three sources of legitimate rule raises the issue of the character of the magistrate. It might be, for instance, that a non-Christian magistrate could by nature be of such a wise and strong constitution that he is naturally fit to rule. But for Musculus this is not enough to rightly fulfill the office of the magistrate. In exploring the question of whether the magistrate need be a Christian or not, Musculus makes a clear distinction between the situation of the church in his own time and that of the church in the New Testament period. In the New Testament period, Christians were subject to magistrates who were strangers to Christ (a Christo alienis). The attitude of the church in such situations must be radically different than when it finds itself under the rule of Christian magistrates. In the former times, the church necessarily had to concern itself with its own discipline, and could not spare the effort to wonder what might be expected from a Christian rather than a pagan ruler. Indeed, writes Musculus, if when Paul wrote his instructions for the subjects in Romans

Compare Augustine, The City of God, 7.7, p. 507: “Let no one, then, seek an efficient cause of an evil will. For its cause is not efficient, but deficient, because the evil will itself is not an effect of something, but a defect. For to defect from that which supremely is, to that which has a less perfect degree of being: this is what it is to begin to have an evil will.” 72 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 624. Compare with Aristotle, The Politics of Aristotle, ed. and trans. Ernest Barker (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1958), 1.5.10: “It is thus clear that, just as some are by nature free, so others are by nature slaves, and for these latter the condition of slavery is both beneficial and just.” 73 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 624: “Ex constitutione verbi Dei ordinata est gubernationis potestas: quando lata lex est, & prescripta divinitus iudicia, quibus animadvertatur in fontes.” 74 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 625: “Ordinat etiam Deus ac disponit potestates, quibus populum suum gubernet, quando quos in id muneris elegerit, spiritu suo sic reddit instructos, & præter expectationem excitat, ut populo periclitanti succurrant.” 71

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Loci communes



187

13 had found a Christian magistrate anywhere, he would have been sure to have instructed him in his proper duties.75 And so given the contemporary situation of the church existing within a state ruled by a professedly Christian magistracy, Musculus is attempting to fill in a lacuna left in the explicit scriptural witness. Now it is not only acceptable but also obligatory or “necessary,” where it was not for the Apostle, for “ministers of the word … from their office, to inculcate in them [magistrates] whatever sort of faith as well as care and diligence they ought to serve Christ the Lord and King of kings.”76 From all this it follows that the character of the Christian magistrate must surpass that of his Christian subjects, just as among the pagans the wiser and the stronger are fit to rule. Musculus writes that the Christian magistrate “must excel the faithful he has under him, in true piety and zeal for religion.”77 In this sense it is not simply wisdom, wealth, or strength that must be considered as constutive of the character of the Christian magistrate, but rather “faith in Christ, love toward brothers, zeal for God, devotion to justice, and holiness of life.”78 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 625. Doing precisely this was a key responsibility for the Reformed clergy. For examples of how this was done in concrete cases in the early modern period, see Peter Martyr Vermigli’s letters to Elizabeth and the Duke of Somerset in Kirby, The Zurich Connection, 181–202; 245–58. For contextual background and antecedent pieces in the “mirror for magistrates” genre, see Scott Lucas, A Mirror for Magistrates and the Politics of the English Reformation (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2009). On the classical sources for this tradition, see Peter Stacey, Roman Monarchy and the Renaissance Prince (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). See also C. Scott Dixon, “The Politics of Law and Gospel: The Protestant Prince and the Holy Roman Empire,” in The Impact of the European Reformation: Princes, Clergy and People, ed. Bridget Heal / Ole Peter Grell (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2008), 37–62. 76 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 625: “Neque enim ea est Ecclesiarum conditio quæ fuit olim, cum magistratibus essent a Christo alienis subiectæ: quo tempore non erat ratio instruere fideles, quales se gerere debeant magistratus, cum illi Christiani non essent, neque licebat verbi ministris admonere eos officj. Postquam vero Reges, Principes, & reliqui magistratus Christi ses iugo submiserunt, non modo licet, sed & ex officio necessarium est verbi ministris, ut inculcent illis, qua fide, quaque cura ac diligentia Christo Dominio ac Regi regum servire debeant ….” 77 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 626. Compare with the view of Vermigli, in Kirby, The Zurich Connection, 78: “Princes should never forget that they do not rule over beasts but over men, and that they themselves are also men. They should therefore be much better and superior to those men whom they rule. Otherwise, they are not fit to rule.” 78 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 626: “Egregium autem Christianum voco, non qui potentia, robore & opibus, sed qui fide in Christum, dilectione erga fratres, zelo Dei, studio iusticiæ, & sanctimonia vitæ cæteris sit Christianis præstantior.” Compare Augustine, The City of God, 4.3, p. 147: “It is beneficial, then, that good men should rule far and wide and long, worshipping the true God and serving Him with true rites and good morals. Nor is this so much beneficial to them as to those over whom they rule. For as far as they themselves are concerned, their godliness and probity, which are great gifts of God, suffice to bring them the true felicity through which this life may be well spent and eternal life received hereafter. In this world, therefore, the rule of good men is of profit not so much to themselves as to human affairs.” 75

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

188

Law

Having outlined the basic character of the Christian magistrate, Musculus proceeds by examining the office which the magistrate occupies. He writes that in general the office of the magistrate is to be “a minister of God.”79 Musculus distinguishes this ministry or service from that of the minister of the Word of God, the Evangelist, the Apostle, or the pastor. The latter are ministers of grace (minister gratiæ), who dispense the mysteries of God (mysteria Dei). The former are ministers “of justice, governance, wrath, vengeance, and defense,” according to the Apostle in Romans 13.80 This distinction between the ministry of grace and the ministry of justice is a very strict and essential aspect of Musculus’ political thought. It is not the task of the ministers of the church “to punish the reprobate with the sword of vengeance.”81 The sword is legitimately borne only by the Christian magistrate, and its use is twofold. The first use is that by which subjects are punished, who either harm others by their malice or work impiously against God. The second use is that by which enemies are repelled. In this way there is a legitimate use of the sword directed both internally toward the subjects of the magistrate and externally toward the enemies of the public good. The first use Musculus names the “sword of judgment” (gladius iudicii) and the second the “sword of war” (gladius belli) and both of these uses are considered necessary for the preservation of peace and tranquility.82 Musculus defines the end or purpose of the magistracy to consist in the comfortable, honorable, and pious life of his people. By a “comfortable life” (commoda vita) Musculus means one that is without serious trouble, one that is quiet and tranquil.83 But here Musculus distinguishes between the particular and individual troubles of which the magistrate may not concern himself and the general and common afflictions of the society. There must be troubles in this life that each of us experience that cannot be under the care of the magistrate. Instead, writes Musculus, the magistrate is to be concerned with nothing other Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 626. Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 627: “Alter est minister gratiæ, ac dispensator mysteriorum Dei: alter vero minister est iusticiæ, gubernationis, iræ, ultionis, ac defensionis. Apostolus Rom. 13.” 81 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 627. Compare Vermigli, in Kirby, The Zurich Connection, 87: “The minister’s duty is to correct sinners, not with the sword or through fines, not through prison sentences or exile, but rather by his own proper function, which is through power of the word of God.” 82 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 627: “Est autem gladius ultionis duplex. Unus, quo pœna sumitur de subditis, qui malicia sua vel cæteros lædunt, vel contra Deum impie agunt: alter, quo hostes repelluntur, uterque sane ad conservandum pacem ac tranquillitate necessarius. Prior vocari potest gladius iudicij, alter gladius belli.” 83 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 627: “Commodam vitam intelligimus, quæ sit sine gravi molestia, quieta & tranquilla.” 79 80

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Loci communes

189

than the public security and peace of our lives and prosperity.84 The “honorable” life of the people is understood to refer to the moral conduct of the people and their interrelations. Musculus praises those rulers who have instituted laws that have “restrained all kinds of foulness and indecency” among their subjects.85 The third and final divine “use” of the office of magistrate is to promote and protect the godliness or piety of the citizenry. This third purpose is of the greatest controversy in Musculus’ own time, and he therefore spends much more time examining it than the other two combined. Musculus begins to explore this purpose by noting that there are essentially different approaches to the question. The first approach, identified with Tertullian, is that the magistrate is not to compel worship by his citizens, out of respect for the fact that true religion is not an external matter in the domain of the civil powers. Musculus contends that under this approach, true godliness is able to be put at risk, and the pious themselves might be afflicted while the superstitious and idolatrous rule.86 It is true, admits Musculus, that it is of great importance (magnum momentum) that men may freely observe true piety. But it is even better when men are not only free to do so, but even none are allowed to transgress true piety prescribed in the word of God for all things.87 Thus Musculus favors the second approach, and that is the one wherein the magsitrate neither allows discord from true and legitimate godliness nor allows anyone to follow false teachings or propound them to others. This method, writes Musculus, is used by all Christian magistrates, among the Papists as well as the Evangelicals.88 In defending his claim that the magistrate has the duty and responsibility for 84 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 628: “Ea non est alia quam publica vitæ ac fortunarum nostrarum securitas & pax.” On the social nature of humankind, see Augustine, The City of God, 7.28, p. 539: “For there is nothing so social by nature as this race, no matter how discordant it has become through its fault; and human nature can call upon nothing more appropriate, either to prevent discord from coming into existence, or to heal it where it already exists, than the one individual for the propagation of many, so that men should thus be admonished to preserve unity among their whole multitude.” 85 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 628: “… sacrosanctis legibus omnis generis immundiciam ac turpitudinem restrinxerunt ….” 86 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 629: “Sub his omnibus periclitari potest vera pietas, & fieri ut pij affligantur, superstitiosi & idoloatræ regnent.” 87 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 629: “Magni quidem momenti est veræ pietatis libertas: maioris vero censeri debet, si non modo liberum est, verum Deum veris ac gratis illi cultibus colere, sed iuxta nemini permittitur ut a vera pietate prævaricet, quæ omnibus in verbo Dei præscribitur.” 88 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 629: “Altero modo ad hoc facit officium magistratus, ut sub ipsius regimine pie & religiose vivatur, si nemini liberum permittat, ut a vera & legitima pietate discrepet, falsamque doctrinam vel sequatur ipse, vel alijs sequendam proponat. Et hoc receptum est inter Christianos magistratus, tam Papistas quam Evangelicos.” See also Philip Benedict, Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), 62f; 116f.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

190

Law

the care of religion, Musculus first appeals to the natural law. As we shall see in the following section, Musculus defines the natural law in terms of both religious and social obligations. To this end he observes that even the wise pagans, in accord with natural law, placed religion in first position (primus locus) in the institution of the Republic.89 Musculus does acknowledge that Christians are not bound to the dictates of natural law in the same way that the pagans are, since Christians have available the revelation of Scripture. He avers that the divine counsel inscribed naturally in our hearts, the law of nature, still cannot be simply dismissed and ought not be condemned.90 Indeed, the Scriptural witness only serves to confirm the fact that the care for our neighbor includes concern for their relationship to God.91 In this way Musculus also likens the office of the magistrate to that of the father of the family, for the magistrate is the “supreme father over all his subjects, whose power is far greater than is that of the father over his children.”92 As we have noted with regard to the commandment regarding honor for parents, Musculus affirms that there is a special or particular affection that is due to the father rather than the magistrate, and that this commandment is 89 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 630: “Nos vero cum illis sentimus, qui curam religionis publicæ ad magistratum non simpliciter & utcunque, sed cum primis pertinere docent. Agnoverunt hoc ethnicorum quoque sapientes, qui primum locum in Reipublicæ institutione religioni dederunt.” See also Vermigli, in Kirby, The Zurich Connection, 78f: “First, a certain light is ignited in the souls of men, allowing them to understand that they cannot live without a prince.” Vermigli goes on to cite the example of the pagans approvingly, since they rightly acknowledge that the civil rulers are to be concerned with religion. 90 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 630: “Licet enim in ijs quæ fidei nostræ mysteria concernunt, non sit consulenda lux naturæ, sed magis sacræ Scripturæ: simul tamen contemni non debent, quæ divino consilio cordibus nostris naturaliter sunt inscripta. Qualis est lex illa, quam naturæ vocamus ….” 91 See Augustine, The City of God, 19.14, p. 941: “Now God, our Master, teaches two chief precepts: that is, love of God and love of neighbour. In these precepts, a man finds three things which he is to love: God, himself, and his neighbour; for a man who loves God does not err in loving himself. It follows, therefore, that he will take care to ensure that his neighbour also loves God, since he is commanded to love his neighbour as himself.” 92 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 630: “Iam si magistratum consideres, quid hic aliud essen censendus est, quam supremus omnium subditorum pater, cuius potestas longe maior et quam sit patris in filios ….” Vermigli explicitly connects the commandment to honor parents and the obedience due to the magistrate, and in this connection cites the words of Aristotle’s Politics, that “fathers gave laws to their families and were like kings to them.” See Peter Martyr Vermigli, “The Civil Magistrate,” 225. Even though Musculus does not find that the text of the commandment to honor father and mother contains the injunction about honoring the magistrate, his use of the father / children image is in basic agreement with Vermigli’s position. Ford makes a compelling case for the material continuity of Musculus’ views on the civil magistrate between his time in Augsburg and Bern. Ford specifically traces Musculus’ reception of the traditional paterfamilias analogy to Bucer. See Ford, “Wolfgang Musculus on the Office of the Christian Magistrate,” 153. Bullinger also connects the honor of the magistrate with the honor of the parents, but he goes even further calling the magistrates “Elohim.” See Campi, “Rechts- and Staatsdenken,” 120.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Loci communes

191

especially about that honor and not of that due in general to other authorities. So while the power of the magistrate is in some sense “far greater” (longe maior) than the power of the father, it still is limited by the power and office of the father. This is one of a few clear examples that in Musculus’ thinking higher or greater powers do not denigrate the existence and viability of lower or lesser powers. This fits in general with Basil’s picture of authority as innate in the human being. Basil writes that “receiving the power to rule through the superiority of reason, the human being leads the most disobedient toward order like runaway slaves; those whom he is unable to draw to himself through great gentleness are of necessity enslaved. Thus everywhere the power to rule given by the Creator is innate in the human.”93 Thus when the magistrate fails to order the common good properly along the lines of religion, the care of religion falls to the priests and elders of the people (sacerdotes ac seniores populi).94 This was the condition of the early church, and it explains the difference in situation between the apostolic church and the church of Musculus’ own time. But when even the lesser civil and ecclesiastical authorities fail, the care of religion falls ultimately upon the paterfamilias, who must look after the practice of piety in his own house.95 So while Musculus affirms the scope of the magistrate’s responsibility to include the care of religion, it is not an unlimited or absolute authority. Musuclus proceeds to outline the particular duties that attend to the magis93 Basil of Caesarea, “On the Origin of Humanity, Discourse 1: On that which is according to the Image,” in On the Human Condition, §9, p. 38. See also Gregorio Guitián, “Integral Subsidiarity and Economy of Communion: Two Challenges from Caritas in Veritate,” Journal of Markets & Morality 13, no 2 (Fall 2010): 281ff, for a survey of the medieval metaphysical backgrounds concerning the doctrine of subsidarity. This has to do with the linkage between primary and secondary causality in Aquinas: “God, explains Aquinas, has not wanted to do everything for himself; though being perfectly able to do it, he wanted every agent to do his own part. As far as the human being is concerned, God has wanted to make him in his image and likeness, giving him freedom and linking him in a special way to the government of the universe, to the point that the perfection of divine providence requires that man participate in divine government.” It remains to be determined, however, whether and to what extent the doctrine of subsidiarity depends upon a particular conception of the great chain of being on the one side or political hierarchy on the other. But the inherent ruling authority of human beings, we might say, entails a kind of subsidiarity between greater and lesser authorities, limiting the scope of political authority. For the connections between the potentia absoluta / ordinata distinction and political questions, see Francis Oakley, Politics and Eternity: Studies in the History of Medieval and Early-Modern Political Thought (Leiden: Brill, 1999), especially ch. 9, pp. 276–332. 94 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 632: “Sub impijs & a pietate alienis regibus, devoluitur religionis cura ad sacerdotes ac seniores populi ….” 95 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 632: “Stupor & mirabilia facta sunt in terra, prophetæ prophetant mendaciter, & sacerdotes applaudunt manibus suis, & populus diligit talia: nihil restat aliud, quam ut quisque paterfamilias potestate fungatur religionis in domo sua, illamque secundum verbo Dei præscriptum disponat ac moderetur.”

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

192

Law

tratical care of religion, and in so doing is at pains to clearly distinguish between the duties proper to each kind of minister, whether civil or ecclesiastical. The breadth of the magistrate’s authority includes the care of religion, and the depth of this responsibility includes the duty to put in place ecclesiastical laws and to reform religion insofar as it has been corrupted.96 The institution of laws, whether civil or ecclesiastical, which bind the consciences of the subjects are solely the domain of the magistrate, and not the concern of either the people themselves or the ministers of God’s Word.97 At the core of Musculus’ position is an understanding of the corpus Christianum, the body of Christ as manifested in the people of the church, which is not restricted only to matters concerning religion or to the structures of the institutional church. Musculus writes, “The Christian people is holy in everything, and not only in temples and ecclesiastical rites, but in all life, all places, all times, in all things, with work and zeal is the name and glory of Christ consecrated.”98 Here there is no institutional or structural distinction between the sacred and the secular. And thus while there is a distinction between the object of laws, whether they refer to the church or to other institutions, there is no valid qualitative distinction between ecclesiastical and “profane” laws, for the Christian people are not “profane” but holy, and the magistrate too is holy, not profane, and his power, laws, and sword are likewise holy.99 In support of this contention Mus96 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 633: “Quemadmodum penes pium Magistratum superior est religionis potestas & cura, ita penes illum etiam est legum Ecclesiasticarum constitutio, & eorum quæ prolapsa sunt in religione reformatio.” For a survey of the different views among the Reformers, see Glenn S. Sunshine, “Discipline as the Third Mark of the Church: Three Views,” Calvin Theological Journal 33, no. 2 (1998): 469–80. See also J. Wayne Baker, “Christian Discipline, Church and State, and Toleration: Bullinger, Calvin and Basel 1530–1555,” in Das Reformierte Erbe: Festschrift für Gottfried W. Locher, ed. Heiko A. Oberman / Ernst Saxer / Alfred Schindler / Heinzpeter Stucki (Zurich: TVZ, 1992), I:35–48; and Thomas Klein, Der Kampf um die zweite Reformation in Kursachsen, 1586–1591 (Köln: Böhlau, 1962). For a survey of the distinctions between “Zwinglian and Calvinist exegetes” on these questions, see Elsie Anne McKee, Elders and the Plural Ministry: The Role of Exegetical History in Illuminating John Calvin’s Theology (Geneva: Droz, 1988), 197–209. 97 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 634: “Confidenter afferimus omnem eam potestatem, qua leges authenticæ conscientias subidtorum constringentes constituuntur, sive civiles illæ sive Ecclesiasticæ vocentur, nec ad Ecclesiam, id est fidelium & subiectorum multitudinem, nec ad illius in verbo Dei ministros, sed proprie ad solum pertinere Magistratum, cui datum est merum imperium in subditos ….” 98 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 634: “Christianus populus per omnia sanctus est, & non in templis tantum & ritibus Ecclesiasitics, sed in omni vita, omni loco, omni tempore, omnibus in rebus, factis & studijs nomini & gloriæ Christi consecratus ….” 99 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p.  634: “Quare distinctio illa legum Ecclesiasticarum  & prophanarum, locum in illo habere non debet: quia nihil in eo est quod sit prophanum, cum sit populos Domino Deo suo sanctus. Et ipse Magistratus sanctus est, non prophanus, sanctaque illius potestas, sanctæ leges, & sanctus gladius, reproborum & impiorum ultor, quo Domino supremo

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Loci communes

193

culus points approvingly to the examples of Christian Emperors (Christianum Cæsar), who made laws respecting not only civil life but also concerning church matters, including the Trinity and the Catholic faith.100 Musculus proceeds to outline a number of specific responsibilities of the civil magistrate concerning the care of religion, and these include appointment of ministers of the church where they are lacking, oversight of the proclamation of the gospel, the administration of the sacraments, ceremonies, schools, punishment of crimes including blasphemy and sacrilege, and church property.101 Concerning care for the proclamation of the “word of life and salvation” (verbum vitæ ac salutis) Musculus especially points out the failure of magistrates in the past. For if they had attended to their duties in this regard, “such a sea of errors and seductions through corrupt teaching by no means would have flooded forth in the Church of Christ.”102 Indeed, it is the duty of magistrates today to do what their predecessors could or would not, and look particularly into the reformation of religion (de reformatione religionis). The breadth of these responsibilities is immense, but the extent of the magistratical care of religion is mitigated somewhat by the mutual limitation that the various magistrates and ministers, both within and without the church, place upon each other. For instance, the civil magistrate’s duty includes appointing ministers to the church, teachers in the school, and judges in the consistory. But it is not the duty of the magistrate himself either to administer the sacraments, or to teach in the school, or to judge in the consistory.103 These responsibilities lie with the ministers, the schoolmasters, and the judges, respectively. This limitation of the extent of the magistrate’s authority also extends to the relations between various civil magistrates and the care of religion. For Musculus does not place the highest magistrate as directly responsible for administering legislatori, iudici & ultori servitur.” Compare Vermigli, in Kirby, The Zurich Connection, 90: “These two powers are in a certain way interchangeable, and deal with the same issues in various ways, and mutually reinforce each other.” 100 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 635: “Inspiciant saltem Christianorum Cæsarum sanctiones, & videant an non Ecclesiasticæ sint illarum multæ in quibus de summa trinitate & fide catholica præcipiunt, vetantque ne quis publice de illa contendat ….” 101 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 635f. 102 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 636: “Si hoc fecissent Christiani Magistratus, tantum errorum ac seductiouum pelagus per doctrinæ corruptionem in Ecclesias Christi haudquaquam exundasset. Et utinam hodie saltem huius rei necissitatem considerent Principes, præfertim illi qui de reformatione religionis gloriantur.” 103 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 636: “Relinquuntur illis ministeria, ad quæ obeunda eliguntur ac constituuntur. Neque docet Magistratus, neque administrat sacramenta, sed faciunt hæc ministri. In schola non docet Magistratus, sed docet ludi magister. In consistorio non iudicat Magistratus, sed qui ad id officij sunt ab illo constituti.” Compare Vermigli, in Kirby, The Zurich Connection, 93: “The political head does not preach, nor does he administer sacraments.”

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

194

Law

the care of religion throughout his territory. Instead, he writes, “the power of the care of religion pertains to the Magistrate in whom is the absolute authority over his subjects, and the power of the sword, and governance of human life, and the authority to compose laws, and of this no one requires the consent of the superior powers.”104 By these characteristics Musculus outlines the basic components of sovereignty that define the magistrate who bears independent responsibility for the care of religion.105 The responsibility for the care of religion does not lie with the supreme magistrate but rather with each of the lesser magistrates who exercise the powers ennumerated here. As we have seen with regard to the relation of the magistrate to other divinely ordained offices, such as that of the minister of the Word, the teacher, or the parent, the multiplication and division of authority is not intended here to produce a system in which the various authorities strive with each other for greater and greater control over the others. Instead, the purpose is for these authorities to mutually reinforce one another, and provide checks so that when one fails another can for a time take up the requisite responsibilities, at least until such time as the corrupted institution has been reformed and reconstituted.106 The situation is the same among the various levels of authority in the civil magistracy. And so Musculus writes of the magistrate, “Such powers received from God, although they are subordinate one to another, still they do not mutually destroy one another, but to a greater extent support each other. By no means is the Emperor superior so that he might impede the lesser magistrate, who uses his lesser power legitimately to the good of his subjects and to the glory of God, but more to this, that he might aid and support them.”107

Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 637: “Nostra sententia sic habet: Curandæ religionis potestatem ad eos pertinere Magistratus sentimus, quibus est merum imperium in subditos, & potestas gladij, humanæque vitæ gubernatio, ac condendarum legum authoritas, nullo ad hæc superioris potestatis requisito consensu.” 105 For Musculus’ earlier employment of the sovereignty of the magistrate (merum imperium), see Ford, “Wolfgang Musculus on the Office of the Civil Magistrate,” 163. Compare Vermigli, in Kirby, The Zurich Connection, 112: “Such matters pertain to subject, but also to the inferior magistrates. What if a superior ruler commands inferior magistrates to receive the Mass into their cities? Certainly they should not obey. A certain man may claim that one should defer to him who has the higher power. I answer that in human and civil matters, they should obey the civil magistrate as long as he commands, but in nothing against God.” 106 See also Bullinger, speaking of the ecclesiastical and civil offices, in Campi, “Bullingers Rechtsund Staatsdenken,” 122: Church and government are “ein Miteinander, ohne sich dabei miteinander zu mischen.” For Vermigli, see Kirby, The Zurich Connection, 90: “These two powers are in a certain way interchangeable, and deal with the same issues in various ways, and mutually reinforce each other.” 107 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 637: “Potestates autem a Deo acceptæ, licet aliæ alijs sint subordinatæ, invicem tamen sese non extinguunt, sed magis confirmant. Haud est superior Cæsar, ut 104

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



In Epistolam D. Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos Commentarii

195

4.2 In Epistolam D. Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos Commentarii Musculus’ commentary on Paul’s letter to the Romans was first published in 1555, in the midst of the decade of work before the publication of his magisterial Loci communes. The previous year Musculus’ massive commentary on Genesis had appeared, and stands as the epitome of Musculus’ full-blown exegetical method. The Genesis commentary, published by Musculus’ usual printer Johann Herwagen in Basel, has explicit headers for each of the categories comprising Musculus’ fourfold exegetical method (lectio, explanatio, quæstio, observatio). The Romans commentary, by contrast, is less standardized in its organization, as it does not have a separate section for each of Musculus’ exegetical categories. The Romans commentary was first published by Herwagen and subsequently reprinted by Sebastian Henricpetri, who reprinted a number of Musculus’ works throughout the latter half of the sixteenth century and early seventeenth century.108 The dialogue partners chosen for this section with Musculus’ exegesis of Romans are in part based upon those most relevant and explicitly cited by him. Therefore, in conjunction with Musculus’ Romans commentary we examine the work of John Chrysostom (ca. 347–407), Thomas Aquinas (ca. 1225–1274), and Musculus’ younger contemporary Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499–1562) on Romans.109

inferiores magistratus impediat, quo minus potestate sua legitime ad bonum subditorum, & gloriam Dei utantur: sed ad hoc magis, ut adiuvet eos, & confirmet ….” 108 Wolfgang Musculus, In Epistolam Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos: Commentarii (Basel: Johannes Herwagen, 1555). The first Henricpetri edition is usually dated as appearing in 1600. Henricpetri published another edition in 1611. See Musculus, In Epistolam D. Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos Commentarij (Basel: Sebastian Henricpetri, 1611 [1600]). 109 John Chrysostom, Hermeneia eis pasas tas tou hagiou Paulou epistolas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1849); ET: The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Romans, trans. J. B. Morris / W. H. Simcox, in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, first series, vol. 11 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995 [1889]), 329–564; Thomas Aquinas, Super Epistolam ad Romanos Lectura, in Super Epistolas S. Pauli Lectura, vol. 1, ed. Raphael Cai (Turin: Marietti, 1953), 5–230; ET: Lectures on the Letter to the Romans, trans. Fabian Larcher, ed. Jeremy Holmes (Naples, FL: Aquinas Center for Theological Renewal, 2008); Peter Martyr Vermigli, In Epistolam S. Pauli Apostoli ad Romanos (Basel: Petrum Pernam, 1558); ET: Most learned and fruitfull Commentaries of D. Peter Martir Vermilius Florentine, Professor of Divinitie in the Schole of Tigure, upon the Epistle of S. Paul to the Romanes (London: John Daye, 1568); idem, “The Civil Magistrate: From Commentary on Romans 13,” trans. Torrance Kirby, in The Peter Martyr Reader, ed. John Patrick Donnelly / Frank A. James III / Joseph C. McLelland (Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 1999), 221–237. On Musculus and Vermigli, see Rudolf Dellsperger / Marc van Wijnkoop Lüthi, “Peter Martyr Vermigli und Wolfgang Musculus,” in Peter Martyr Vermigli: Humanism, Republicanism, Reformation, ed. Emidio Campi (Geneva: Droz, 2002), 105–18. On the political theology of Vermigli and Bullinger, see Torrance Kirby, The Zurich Connection and Tudor Political Theology (Leiden: Brill, 2007).

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

196

Law

4.2.1 Romans 2:14–16 (Natural Law) In 1959 Richard Bäumlin wrote an article that takes up the question of Musculus’ doctrine of natural law, particularly in connection with the Musculus’ view of the role of the civil magistrate.110 Bäumlin’s piece, which finds essentially Thomistic antecedents for Musculus’ doctrine, is a significant contribution to our understanding of Musculus’ view of natural law, and by extension the Reformation’s appropriation of the doctrine. But for at least two reasons Bäumlin’s study does not exhaust what can be learned about Musculus’ doctrine of natural law. First, while Bäumlin’s article does refer to some of Musculus’ exegesis, it is generally in passing. Bäumlin’s emphasis is on the doctrine as presented in Musculus’ Loci communes. Given the relationship between the Loci communes and Musculus’ extensive exegetical work, more direct attention to Musculus’ commentaries is warranted. Second, Bäumlin’s treatment of natural law is rather brief, and serves primarily to set up the discussion in the second half of his article on Musculus’ opinions regarding the Christian magistrate. It is with the intent of addressing the first of these concerns that this section focuses on Wolfgang Musculus’ natural-law exegesis. This broader engagement with Musculus’ doctrine also enables us to test the conclusions of Bäumlin’s study, particularly his claim that Musculus’ doctrine of natural law is at variance with the broader Reformed tradition.111 To gain entry to Musculus’ natural-law exegesis it is worth reviewing the presentation of the doctrine in his Loci communes which we passed over previously. 4.2.1.1 De lege naturæ Musculus’ treatment of natural law in his Loci communes comes under his broader locus de legibus (locus 11). Here Musculus applies his general definition of law in a more particular fashion that better fits the law of nature (legi naturæ) as the highest reason ingrafted into human beings by which we know what is to be done and what is not to be done.112 The law is called the law of nature because it is ordained by God to human beings. It is not thus a law that springs Richard Bäumlin, “Naturrecht und obrigkeitliches Kirchenregiment bei Wolfgang Musculus,” in Für Kirche und Recht: Festschrift für Johannes Heckel zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Siegfried Grundmann (Cologne: Böhlau, 1959), 120–43. 111 Bäumlin recognizes a sharp contrast between the doctrines of Zwingli and Musculus with regard to natural law, noting that the latter’s view moves to “eine andere Welt” from that of the Zurich humanist, even though the two are in essential unity on the doctrine of the magistrate. See Bäumlin, “Naturrecht und obrigkeitliches Kirchenregiment bei Wolfgang Musculus,” 123. 112 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 11, p. 34: “Lex est ratio summa, insita in natura, quæ iubet eaquæ facienda sunt, prohibitque contraria ….” 110

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

In Epistolam D. Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos Commentarii



197

from human nature itself (per ipsam naturam nostram), but rather that which is naturally implanted (infigo) by God himself in all human beings.113 Musculus moves on to define the law of nature again as the “light and command of reason, by which we discriminate between good and evil.”114 Musculus immediately cites Thomas’ definition approvingly, “the participation in the eternal law by rational creatures,” but notes that it is incomplete. While it does properly ground the natural law in the eternal law, it does not provide content. Moreover, Thomas’ definition does not exclude the activity of rational creatures like angels. Musculus also notes another definition that the natural law consists in the common notions of humankind (sententia communis).115 In this way Musculus picks up a basically Thomistic view of natural law (although one perhaps not uniquely Thomistic), but seeks also to clarify, refine, and complement it where deemed appropriate. There are two points to make with respect to Bäumlin’s case that Musculus’ essentially Thomistic doctrine of natural law places him at variance with the broader Reformed tradition. The first is that Musculus might not be quite as characteriscially Thomistic as Bäumlin contends.116 It is true that Musculus takes over Thomas’ definition of natural law, placing it within the context of distinctions between eternal, divine, natural, and positive law. But given what we have seen concerning Musculus’ basically voluntarist impulse with respect to divine action, there is a clear difference in emphasis, if not a disconnect, between Musculus and Thomas on the definition, status, and relationship of the eternal law to the divine lawgiver, his attributes, and law as manifest in the world order. But if Musculus is perhaps not quite as Thomistic as Bäumlin portrays, then the broder Reformed tradition is also not as anti-Thomistic as Bäumlin’s dichotomy would indicate.117 It is increasingly recognized that there are significant positive appropriations of Thomas, particularly with respect to the natural law and related questions of the human faculties, in representatives of the Reformed Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 11, p. 36. Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 11, p. 36: “… lumen ac dictamen illud rationis, quo inter bonum & malum discernimus.” 115 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 11, p. 36. 116 See Bäumlin, “Naturrecht und obrigketiliches Kirchenregiment bei Wolfgang Musculus,” 123: “Wendet man sich nach Huldrych Zwingli Wolfgang Musculus zu, so gelangt man in eine andere Welt. Die in den „Loci communes“ entworfene Rechtslehre hat sich gegenüber der Rechtfertigungslehre, verselbständigt und wiederum Elemente der thomistischen Naturrechtslehre in sich aufgenommen.” 117 See Bäumlin, “Naturrecht und obrigketiliches Kirchenregiment bei Wolfgang Musculus,” 125: “Vergleicht man die Naturrechtslehre des Musculus mit derjenigen der reformatorischen Theologie, so tritt die grundsätzliche Verschiedenheit sofort zu Tage. Der Dualismus des geistlichen und des weltlichen Naturrechts wird aufgehoben in der einen lex naturae, durch die der Mensch der lex aeterna teilhaftig ist.” 113 114

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

198

Law

tradition.118 That is not to say that the Reformed are Thomistic as such, but that this variety is again representative of an eclecticism characteristic of Reformed theology in the sixteenth century. Even if there are individual representatives of Reformed theology that are at significant variance with Thomas at certain points, there are others that are more or less critically receptive. Thus Steinmetz’s judgment is significant here concerning the relevance of Luther’s paradigmatic anti-Thomistic sentiments: Of course, not everyone in the Protestant camp agreed with Luther. There were Thomists who were converted to the Protestant cause and who remained, to a greater or lesser degree, Thomists all their lives: theologians like Martin Bucer, Peter Martyr Vermigli, and Jerome Zanchi. Even Philip Melanchthon could read Thomas with profit when he wrote his lectures on the gospel of John. The story of Thomas Aquinas and Protestantism has yet to be written, and it is not identical with the story of Thomas and Luther.119

Two other points in Musculus’ treatment of natural law in his Loci communes are worth highlighting. First, Musculus makes clear that his definition of natural law refers only to the rational aspects of human nature and not simply to human nature as such (and certainly not to fallen human nature). To this end Musculus distinguishes between what he calls the “affections implanted in our nature” (affectus naturæ nostræ insitos) and the “judgments of reason” (rationis nostræ iudicia).120 Second, Musculus divides these judgments into two types according to their object: God and humankind. The rational judgments concerning God are “religious,” while those concerning humankind are related to justice, equity, and honesty connected to the common life of human beings. So for Musculus, the natural law concerns not only the horizontal plane of human association but also the vertical plane of religious obligation. Musculus follows the section outlining the social duties according to the natural law by describing the justice that can be found in the laws of the nations, using this as an illustration of the existence of the “general and common notions, inscribed on all human minds through the light of reason.”121 118 See, for instance, the treatment of natural law in relation to other types of law in Franciscus Junius, De politiae Mosis observatione (Leiden: Christophori Guyotij, 1602), theses 1–7. A translation of the first two chapters appears as Franciscus Junius, “Selection from On the Observation of the Mosaic Polity,” trans. Todd M. Rester, Journal of Markets & Morality 14, no. 1 (Spring 2011): 245–291. 119 David C. Steinmetz, Luther in Context, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 58. 120 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 11, p. 36. 121 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 11, p. 37: “… generalibus & communibus sententijs, omnium mortalium mentibus per lumen rationis inscriptis.”

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

In Epistolam D. Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos Commentarii



199

4.2.1.2 Sedes doctrinae The study of Musculus’ locus on natural law allows us to better identify the scriptural texts that function as “seats of doctrine” (sedes doctrinae) for his theological constructions.122 The “common places” of the Loci communes are, after all, not only common “topics” in a doctrinal sense, but also common passages in Scripture where doctrinal discussions could be textually grounded. When we examine the scriptural texts explicitly cited in Musculus’ locus on natural law, we find that Romans 1 and 2 are referenced to support the division between religious and social aspects of the natural law, respectively. That is, Romans 1 is read by Musculus as referring primarily to violations of the religious portions of the natural law regarding the proper worship of God. In the locus on the law Musculus refers the reader to his discussion of Romans 1, observing that “the place [locus] of the Apostle in Romans 1 is well-known, so that it is not necessary to adduce it here, and explicate it word by word.”123 And when we turn to Musculus’ commentary on Romans 1, for instance, we find a separate locus embedded in the exegesis on the true and false worship of God including lengthy discussions of idolatry.124 Romans 2 is cited in the Loci as referring to the social obligations of the natural law. What we might call antisocial behavior, such as pride, falsehood, and ungratefulness, is condemned by the Gentiles, while laudable behavior, like honesty, truthfulness, and temperance, is commended.125 In his exegesis of Romans 2:14–15, Musculus engages the exegetical tradition on the identity of the Gentiles in question, and sides with Chrysostom against Ambrose and Augustine. Aquinas, in his lectures on Romans, had noted the differing interpretations but had not explicitly favored one over the other.126 Ambrose and Augustine had interpreted nature to refer to the human nature restored through the grace of Christ, although in some places at least Augustine had allowed the viability of both interpretations, whether referring to regenerated Gentile Christians or to pagan Gentiles.127 The reference to nature (per naturam) in this verse is understood by Musculus instead as “reason and the ability to discern between good and evil,” which matches precisely the definition See Richard A. Muller, PRRD, I.2.1.B, p. 87. See also Richard A. Muller, After Calvin, 58ff; and idem, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 107. 123 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 11, p. 36. 124 Musculus, In Epistolam Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos, 23ff. 125 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 11, pp. 36f. 126 Aquinas, Lectures on the Letter to the Romans, ch. 2, lect. 4, sect. 216, p. 114. See also Dennis J. Billy, “Grace and Natural Law in the Super Epistolam Ad Romanos Lectura: A Study of Thomas’ Commentary on Romans 2:14–16,” Studia Moralia 26 (1988): 15–37. 127 See Augustine, The Spirit and the Letter, §50, pp. 233f. 122

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

200

Law

of natural law given later in the Loci communes. Chrysostom similarly notes that “conscience and reason” in the Gentile “suffice” or function in the stead of the Law.128 In noting this alternative interpretation, Aquinas defines natural law as “the light of natural reason, in which is God’s image.”129 For Musculus this ratio is a feature common to all of humanity, to both the Jews and the Gentiles outside of Christ.130 At the same time Musculus notes that the effect is that the Gentiles are left “inexcusable, if they would sin” (inexcusabiles, si peccaverint).131 In the observatio, which follow this basic explanation of the text and are typically where Musculus makes the tropological or moral application of a particular text, Musculus explores in greater detail of what the natural law of the Gentiles consists. He writes, “No one is devoid of knowledge of right. Even more all humans know what to do, as well as what not to do; no one is destroyed without fault.”132 Chrysostom’s application of this text consists in the admonition to “let each man enter into his own conscience, and reckoning up his transgressions, let him call himself to a strict account, that we be not then condemned with the world.”133 When we compare Musculus’ exposition of Romans 2:14–15 to that of Vermigli, we find them to be in broad agreement. Vermigli defines the natural law in a way similar to Musculus, as “knowledge, whiche is grafted in the myndes of men” (vim cognoscendi mentibus insitam), judging that “by the light of nature” humans might “discerne betwene honesty and dishonesty, betwene right and wrong.”134 Vermigli also sides with Chrysostom against Ambrose and Augustine, although Vermigli goes into a criticism of the latter interpretation in much greater detail and length than does Musculus. And finally, Musculus and Vermigli agree that the natural law is in the first place sufficient “only to knowledge and iudgement” (tantum facit ad notitiam & iudicium), and not to execution Chrysostom, The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, hom. 5, p. 365. Aquinas, Lectures on the Letter to the Romans, ch. 2, lect. 4, sect. 216, p. 114. 130 Musculus, In Epistolam Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos, 41. 131 Musculus, In Epistolam Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos, 41. Musculus does not mention here the claim by Chrysostom that the Apostle affirms that “God made man independent, so as to be able to choose virtue and to avoid vice.” See Chrysostom, The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, hom. 5, p. 365. The typical understanding of Chrysostom’s position by Reformed writers of this era puts him at some variance with their construal of free choice in the state of corruption. 132 Musculus, In Epistolam Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos, 42. 133 Chrysostom, The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, hom. 5, p. 366. 134 Peter Martyr Vermigli, Most learned and fruitfull Commentaries…upon the Epistle of S. Paul to the Romanes, 43r–v; In Epistolam S. Pauli Apostoli ad Romanos, 129: “Unde infert eos potuisse inter honestum & inhonestum, inter iustum & iniustum naturæ acumine discernere.” For a comparison of the written works of Musculus and Vermigli in the context of their careers, see Dellsperger and van Wijnkoop Lüthi, “Peter Martyr Vermigli und Wolfgang Musculus,” 111f. Musculus’ Romans commentary (1555), as with most of their comparable works, preceded that of Vermigli (1558). 128 129

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

In Epistolam D. Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos Commentarii



201

of righteousness that attends to fully performing the law, internally as well as externally.135 As Grabill puts it, The fact that pagans had the capacity to act in accordance with the Mosaic law should not be taken to mean that they kept the law entirely or even that their partial obedience somehow justified them. All that can be said is that they performed adequately in relation to certain external strictures of the law.136

4.2.2 Romans 13:1–8 (Civil Magistrate) In the explication in his Loci communes of the fifth commandment, which requires honoring of parents, Musculus claims that the respect due to governing authorities is not to be understood properly as falling within the purview of that commandment. Instead there are numerous other places in Scripture that address that latter kind of respect and honor. One such place is the first portion of the thirteenth chapter of Paul’s letter to the Romans, which functions as a locus classicus for the traditional exegetical discussion of the magistrate.137 In his locus on the magistrate, Musculus’ discussion is broken up into two basic parts, concerning the duties of the magistrate toward the subjects and the subjects toward the magistrate, respectively. In our previous examination of the locus de magistratibus we omitted discussion of the latter portion of the topic so that it could be more closely related to the exegesis of Romans 13:1–8. 4.2.2.1 Quid magistratui debeatur a subditis In the discussion of what is due to the magistrate from his subjects, Musculus makes a basic division between the internal affections due, namely honor and fear, and the external things due, namely tribute and subjection (or obedience).138 In determining what is due from subjects toward the magistrates, it must first be determined who are to be understood as subjects. In accord with his placement of the cura religionis within the responsibilities of the civil magistrate, Peter Martyr Vermigli, Most learned and fruitfull Commentaries…upon the Epistle of S. Paul to the Romanes, 44r; In Epistolam S. Pauli Apostoli ad Romanos, 131. 136 Stephen J. Grabill, Rediscovering the Natural Law in Reformed Theological Ethics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 117. 137 Note Vermigli’s disagreement with Musculus’ position and explicit connection of this section of Paul’s letter to the “commandment of the law” regarding the honor due parents. See Vermigli, “The Civil Magistrate,” 225. 138 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 640: “Cordis sunt honor ac timor. Exteriora concernunt tributum & subiectio, vel obedientia.” 135

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

202

Law

Musculus adamantly argues that ecclesiastical ministers are to be included as subjects. Indeed, he writes that “we certainly judge simply that all those who are not in the performance of the magistrate, should be considered as subjects.”139 Since ministers of the Word are not themselves magistrates, they too then are subjects. Musculus expands this opinion by citing all of the temporal aspects of the ecclesiastical offices that by definition place them under the purview of temporal authorities. He takes on directly the argument offered by ecclesiastical authorities that their realm is beyond the scope of the magistracy’s concern. Musculus asks, Do the pope of Rome, and bishops, and prelates, and abbots, not have money? Do they not have possessions? Do they have nothing in this world? Seeing that they would have treasures of almost everything of this age put in their fist, and would be immersed in earthly things, such that if they came to be judged by the truth, no one among Christians could more justly be bound to the obedience of the magistrate, than these very persons who suppose the meaning of the Apostle pertains to them least of all.140

In his exegesis, Vermigli discusses in great detail medieval hierocratic arguments, including the papal bull Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII, that assert the priority of the spiritual power and papal “jurisdiction over all princes.”141 Vermigli rejects these arguments as “utterly worthless,” noting in agreement with Musculus that “with respect to physical existence, possessions, lands, houses and general ethical behaviour” and “even with regard to the function of the ecclesiastical office itself they ought to be subject to a pious and religious magistrate.”142 To support his claims Musculus appeals to a variety of authorities beyond the words of the Apostle in Romans 13. He cites Chrysostom, who was “not imbued with the spirit of the Roman pontificate,” to the effect that all men, even

Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 641: “Nos vero simpliciter omnes eos qui non sunt in functione magistratus, pro subditis habendos esse censemus ….” 140 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 642: “An pontifex Romanus, & episcopi, & prælati, & abbates, non habent pecuniam? Non habent possessiones? Nihil habent in hoc seculo? Cum prope omnibus huius seculi thesauris manum iniecerint, sique terrenis sint rebus immersi, ut si iudicandi veniant ex vero, nemo inter Christianos iustius possit ad obedientiam magistratui præstandam adigi, quam hi ipsi qui omnium minime ad se pertinere sententiam Apostoli putant.” 141 Vermigli, “The Civil Magistrate,” 228. 142 Vermigli, “The Civil Magistrate,” 229. 139

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

In Epistolam D. Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos Commentarii



203

the Apostles and prophets were subject to the magistrate.143 Chrysostom writes that in the opening verse of the chapter the Apostle shows “that these regulations are for all, even for priests, and monks, and not for men of secular occupations only.”144 In this way Musculus aligns himself with a line of interpretation dating from the early church that acknowledges all people, both laypersons and clergy, to be subject to the administration of the civil magistrate. Musculus continues marshalling opinions and examples from the entire history of the church, claiming that in addition to Scripture, ecclesiastical histories, and the patristics, the example of Constantine, various imperial and canon laws, as well as the statements of some popes themselves all argue in favor of the position that “every soul ought to be subject to the supreme power, which received the sword from the Lord.”145 So while Musculus does not exempt any class of persons from subjection to civil authorities, he does make a distinction regarding the extent to which their power reaches, or rather, to what extent obedience is due. Musculus juxtaposes “temporal” (temporaria) and “everlasting” (sempiterna) goods, noting that the Christian can be called to forego the enjoyment of all temporal goods at the behest of the magistrate. The Christian is called to suffer patiently whatever temporal injuries and harm come to him. This does not mean, however, that the Christian is not free to flee or seek mitigation from persecution or violence, as long as the means by which such relief is not sought “illicitly.”146 All this is true insofar as it pertains to temporal goods.

Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 643: “Obsecro, quare non vidit hanc expositionem Chrysostomus, sed simpliciter omne homines, etiam Apostolos & Prophetas potestati magistratus subiectos esse agnovit? Scilicet, non erat imbutus Romani pontificatus spiritu.” 144 Chrysostom, The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, hom. 23, p. 511. 145 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 645: “Concludimus igitur, secundum Apostoli sententiam, & secundum Scripturas, historias Ecclesiasticas, & vetustiores patres, etiam Romanos episcopos, & leges, Imp. potestati supreremæ, quæ gladium accepit a Domino, subiectam esse debere omnem animam: hoc est omnes homines, cuiuscunque illi sint status, sive spiritualis sive secularis, idque secundum conscientiam, propter ordinationem Dei, sic ut legibus illius, edictis & statutis obtemperent ….” Contrast this with the claim of Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctam “that every human creature is subject to the Roman pontiff,—this we declare, say, define, and pronounce to be altogether necessary to salvation.” See Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume V, Part II: The Middle Ages (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), 27. 146 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 646: “Hic Christiani hominis est, patienter potius ferre quicquid iniuriarum ac molestiarum infertur, quam ut adigi se sinat ad peccandum contra Deum. Interea tamen non erit illicitum, si quis vim iniustam vel avertere, vel fugere, vel aliquousque mitigare poterit, modo id fiat rationibus haud illicitis.” 143

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

204

Law

But with respect to everlasting matters, the Christian “must not allow them to be taken from him through force.”147 Chrysostom too limits the obedience due to the magistrate by noting that every person is subject only “inasmuch as this subjection is not subversive of religion.”148 As in the case of the relation of the general covenant to the special covenant, Musculus holds the relative priority of the spiritual and eternal over the material and temporal. But from this it does not follow either that the value of the general covenant is to be derogated, or that the spiritual ministers are to have pride of place over the ministers of temporal justice.149 As an instance of when Christians have allowed spiritual goods to be taken away, Musculus makes explicit reference to the imposition of the Augsburg Interim, and addresses this argument in particular to the responsibility of the Christian magistrate to resist the imposition of the higher ruler in matters that are “against the observance of Christian religion.”150 In this concrete instance we see the application of Musculus’ doctrine of the reciprocity of magistratical power, and the relative independence of the lesser magistrate in matters concerning religion from the authority of the supreme ruler. And so even as the Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 646: “Quod vero sempiterna concernit, non feret ut illa sibi per vim auferantur.” 148 Chrysostom, The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, hom. 23, p. 511. See also Vermigli, “The Civil Magistrate,” 225: “Still, these words should be taken in such a way that we understand ourselves to be subject to the magistrate only as touching his function and office: if at any time he should deviate from and command anything outside this office that happens to conflict with piety and divine law, then we ought to obey God rather than men.” 149 This emphasis on the priority of the civil magistrate regarding the cura religionis is in continuity with the relationship between the general and special covenant outlined in chapter 2, and upsets the logic of the hierocratic position of the Middle Ages. On the coherence of the hierocratic position, see J. A. Watt, “Spiritual and Temporal Powers,” in The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought c. 350–c. 1450, 367: “The logic advances: just as the spiritual life is worthier than the temporal and the spirit than the body, just so much must the spiritual power be considered to excel in honour and dignity the earthly or secular power.” Vermigli explicitly admits that ecclesiastical power is concerned with spiritual things and that it is therefore “the greatest, because the Word of God ought to rule over all people.” And yet Vermigli overtly denies the validity of a hierocratic principle of papal or ecclesiastical supremacy. See Vermigli, “The Civil Magistrate,” 229. For a comparison of the “Dionysian” hierocratic position as represented by Boniface VIII and the “Augustinian / Aristotelian” position as represented by Vermigli, see also Kirby, The Zurich Connection, 68: “On this [Dionysian] account, the temporal authority cannot claim an ‘immediate’ relation to the divine source of power without violating the ‘order of the universe,’ for according to the lex divinitatis the due subordination of the lower things to the highest is nothing less than a cosmic law. For Vermigli, however, who follows a distinctly Augustinian logic, the first principle of order does not consist primarily in a gradual, hierarchical mediation but rather in a simple, binary distinction between two principle species of subjection, namely the political / external and the spiritual / internal.” 150 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 647: “Etenim nemo præfectus Christianus hactenus principi suo obedire tenetur, ut illi contra Christianæ religionis observantiam obtemperare ac servire debeat.” 147

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

In Epistolam D. Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos Commentarii



205

magistrate is responsible for the cura religionis, this care is normed and bounded by the word of God (verbum Dei).151 And the expositors of the word of God are not the magistrates themselves, but rather the ecclesiastical ministers, and in this way there is in place an institutional check on the power of the magistrate. 4.2.2.2 Rhetorica forma Musculus views the argument set forth in Romans 13:1–8 by the Apostle to clearly exhibit a “rhetorical form” (Rhetorica forma).152 First, the Apostle proposes what is to be taught, and second “he supports and amplifies the proposition.”153 The proposition is the same as that subject which Musculus treats in the second half of his locus on the magistrates, namely that “clearly all men are bound to this subjection.”154 So too does Musculus address here the same complaint concerning the situation of the clergy, and cites Chrysostom to the same effect here as he does Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 648. Throughout this exegesis the argument of Musculus closely follows that of Chrysostom. The more obvious correspondences will be mentioned below. But in linking the first eight verses of the chapter into an identifiable pericope, Musculus also follows Chrysostom, who treats verses 7 and 8 together in his homily. Aquinas, by contrast, treats verses 1–7 as a unity in his first lectio on chapter 13, and explicates these verses in the style of scholastic syllogism. See Aquinas, Lectures on the Letter to the Romans, ch. 13, lect. 1, sect. 1016–1043, pp. 503–515. Vermigli treats verses 1 through 4 as a distinct unit, followed by a pericope consisting of verses 5 through 10, and initiates his discussion with a discussion of the Aristotelian fourfold causes of the magistrate and proceeds by examining how each of these causes is explicated by the Apostle. See Vermigli, “The Civil Magistrate,” 223f. 153 Musculus, In Epistolam Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos, 227: “Disputationem istam de magistratibus Apostolus plane Rhetorica forma tractat. 1. Primum proponit quid præcipiat. 2. Deinde propositionem firmat & amplificat, docens quibus de causis obediendum sit magistratibus excellentibus, & quomodo illud sit faciendum, admiscens etiam argumenta persuadendi a periculo ac damno, nisi fiat, ab utilitate ac necessitate huius obedientiæ, & ab officio quoque magistratus.” More broadly on the Reformation reception of and application of classical rhetoric, see Andrew Pettegree, Reformation and the Culture of Persuasion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); Debora K. Shuger, Sacred Rhetoric: The Christian Grand Style in the English Renaissance (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988); Cesare Vasoli, “Loci Communes and the Rhetorical and Dialectical Traditions,” in Peter Martyr Vermigli and Italian Reform, ed. Joseph C. McClelland (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1980), 17–28; and Jerrold E. Siegel, Rhetoric and Philosophy in Renaissance Humanism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968). On Melanchthon especially, see Timothy J. Wengert, “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 / John L. Thompson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 103–117; John R. Schneider, “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 / M. Patrick Graham (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 20–47; and idem, Philip Melanchthon’s Rhetorical Construal of Biblical Authority: Oratio Sacra (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1990). On Calvin, see Benoit Girardin, Rhétorique et Théologique: Calvin, le Commentaire de L’Epitre aux Romains (Paris: Beauchesne, 1979). 154 Musculus, In Epistolam Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos, 228: “… aperte omnem hominem ad istam subiectionem astringens.” 151 152

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

206

Law

later in the Loci. In this place, Chrysostom’s view that Apostles, Evangelists, and Prophets are subject to the governing authorities is put in contrast to that of Origen.155 Aquinas too writes that “the words ‘every soul’ are to be taken as a synecdoche for ‘every man.’”156 Later in his exegesis, however, Aquinas writes that clerics are exempt from taxation, but only “because of a privilege granted by rulers.” Aquinas approves of this privilege as “equitable by nature,” but it is significant that clerical exemption from taxation is granted at the behest of the ruler and not pressed as a claim based on ecclesiastical superiority.157 Vermigli notes that there is an ancient error among Christians, who have sometimes thought that Christian liberty entails freedom from subjection to the civil magistrate. Vermigli names more recent offenders of this error, including “Anabapists and Libertines,” as well as the pope who “has so absolved both himself and his clergy from all public power and authority that he now has princes subjected to himself, and he allows the great monarchs of the Christian world to kiss his feet and allows most unseemly forms of address.”158 Just as Musculus had limited the application of the fifth commandment to parents, here as well he distinguishes the particular object of the Apostle’s instruction. He notes that “higher powers” might be understood to refer to any manner of various particular powers, depending on your standing and perspective. Thus, we could be led to think that the Apostle is concerned with addressing marriage for a wife, parenting for a child, or lordship for a slave.159 In this observation Musculus closely follows the opinion of Chrysostom, who likewise notes that God has “made many governments and forms of subjection; as that, for instance, of man and wife, that of son and father, that of old men and young, that of bond and free, that of ruler and ruled, that of master and disciple.”160 But, avers Musculus, this place is not concerned with that which the Apostle clearly deals with elsewhere. And so the Apostle addresses “those

155 Musculus, In Epistolam Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos, 228. Vermigli too sides with Chrysostom against Origen. See Vermigli, “The Civil Magistrate,” 225. 156 Aquinas, Lectures on the Letter to the Romans, ch. 13, lect. 1, sect. 1019, p. 505. 157 Aquinas, Lectures on the Letter to the Romans, ch. 13, lect. 1, sect. 1040, p. 513. 158 Vermigli, “The Civil Magistrate,” 224. 159 Musculus, In Epistolam Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos, 228: “Particulares potestates sunt multae, ut puta mariti in uxorem, parentum in liberos, dominorum in servos.” 160 Chrysostom, The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, hom. 23, p. 511. Vermigli cites these examples, in continuity with Chrysostom and Musculus, but goes on to discuss different types of government, such as royal power, aristocracy, constitional rule, tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy, in connection with a reference to Aristotle’s Politics. See Vermigli, “The Civil Magistrate,” 225f.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

In Epistolam D. Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos Commentarii



207

general and excellent powers” that bear the sword and to which everyone must be subject.161 The Apostle begins to support the proposition by adding reasons, of which first is the recognition that all powers are from God, which he rightly puts in the first place.162 But the nature of their ordination means that it is their proper and legitimate administration, not their abuse or misuse, that comes from God. And so by these words of the Apostle we are shown that the use and administration of power is from the wisdom and providence of God, from which nothing can exist which is not exceedingly necessary and good.163 The Apostle’s next rhetorical move is to infer from this premise God’s ordination of the powers which bear the sword, a conclusion that none of the pious would be prepared to admit: that whoever resists the powers, resists the order of God.164 The power which the Apostle is addressing most directly is the power of the Roman emperor, and the controversial nature of this kind of assertion ought not be lost on the reader. The powers should not be condemned or maligned as “external and evil visages” (externae larvae) out of human judgment, but rather seen from the perspective of the providence and wisdom of God.165 Those who are disobedient or resist the powers will be judged, and Musculus notes that the phrase in the epistle is of its own “ambiguous,” whether or not such judgment refers to the final judgment of God or to the punishment administered by the magistrate which follows such disobedience. Musculus favors the former interpretation, noting that iudicium is used rather than simply using punio, and thus not only

Musculus, In Epistolam Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos, 228: “Ideo de illis hic locus non est, de quibus alibi satis dilucidè praecipit. Hîc verò loquitur de generalibus illis & excellentioribus potestatibus, quae reliquas omnes subiectas habent, ut sunt, quotquot suis quaeque locis merum habent imperium, & administrationem gladii, praecipuè Romanae, quibus tum totus propè Orbis subiectus erat.” 162 Musculus, In Epistolam Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos, 229: “Incipit firmare propositionem adiectis rationibus, quarum haec prima est, quòd potestates omnes à Deo sunt, quam meritò primo loco ponit, maximè cùm de hac materia disputet proptereos, qui de religione Dei gloriabantur prae caeteris.” 163 Musculus, In Epistolam Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos, 229: “Ut simul intelligas usum & administrationem potestatis esse ex sapientia & providentia Dei, ex qua nihil potest esse non summopere necessarium & bonum.” 164 Musculus, In Epistolam Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos, 229: “Infert ex praemissa ratione tale quid, quod nulli piorum admittere liceat.” So too Aquinas, Lectures on the Letter to the Romans, ch. 13, lect. 1, sect. 1025, p. 507: “For if the power of rulers is from God and nothing is from God without order, it follows that the order whereby the lower are subjected to the higher powers is from God.” 165 Musculus, In Epistolam Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos, 229: “Admonet ergo, ut in potestatibus contemplemur non externas larvas, sed ipsam ordinationem Dei, iudicemusque de illis non ex nostra prudentia, sed ex sapientia & providentia Dei ….” 161

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

208

Law

will the suffering of punishment not be evaded by those who are disobedient, but neither will they avoid being judged accursed in the end.166 The argument proceeds by adding a description of the nature of the magistrate’s authority, which does not hold terror for those who do good but rather for those who do evil. Thus the Apostle briefly and succinctly describes the office of the magistrate: to bring terror to the evil and security to the good.167 For Christians, then, the magistrate is to be reckoned as a blessing and not a threat. The Apostle is speaking to Christians, and this message concerning the nature of the magistrate carries an implicit warning. Those who deny the ordination of government by God, or who unduly condemn the function of the magistrate, are those who pervert the graciousness and blessings of God, indeed the beneficience of God, to their own ruin.168 The magistrate functions as God’s visible representative, his minister, insofar as he bears the sword to restrain the evil of those who would not otherwise fear God. Those of a “carnal nature” must often be coerced by fear of punishment from committing evil, until such time as they can be taught to avoid evil “out of a proper fear of God, and to flee from hatred of evil rather than from fear of punishment.”169 The nature of this coercive power of the magistrate, represented by the sword of retribution, occasions the first of two observationes in Musculus’ exegesis. This observatio explores the extent of the magistrate’s coercive power. It is significant, says Musculus, that the civil magistrate’s power is represented by the sword (gladius) rather than by a rod (virga).170 The meaning is that it is within the authorMusculus, In Epistolam Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos, 229f: “Voluit hoc pacto non solùm hoc exprimere, quod supplicium non sint evasuri, sed quòd ista in obedientia sibiipsi ultrò sint accersuri iudicium quàm certissimè.” Aquinas also takes note of this twofold understanding. See Aquinas, Lectures on the Letter to the Romans, ch. 13, lect. 1, sect. 1027, p. 508. Vermigli favors the interpretation of condemnation as “eternal destruction,” given the later reference to obedience for the sake of conscience, but also notes the latter understanding. See Vermigli, “The Civil Magistrate,” 232. 167 Musculus, In Epistolam Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos, 230: “Pulchrè describit officium magistratus. Terrorem ac formidinem deputat malis, securitatem bonis.” 168 Musculus, In Epistolam Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos, 231: “Nostra est perversitas, qua fit, ut beneficentia divina ad nostram perniciem abutamur.” 169 Musculus, In Epistolam Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos, 232: “Loquitur hîc non cum illis, qui mero timore Dei ducuntur, sed qui adhuc aliquid habent carnalis ingenii, quibus opus est, ut timore poenae à malo coerceantur, tantisper dum discant & ipsi malum magis ex timore Dei, imò odio mali fugere, quàm ex timore poenae.” See also Chrysostom, The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, hom. 23, p. 513: “For there are a duller sort, whom things to come have not such a hold upon as things present. He then who by fear and rewards gives the soul of the majority a preparatory turn towards its becoming more suited for the word of doctrine, is with good reason called ‘the Minister of God.’” 170 Aquinas notes that magistrates bear “signs of their power,” including “a bundle of rods for whipping, and axes or swords for killing.” See Aquinas, Lectures on the Letter to the Romans, ch. 13, lect. 1, sect. 1035, p. 511. Vermigli concludes his exegesis of the first five verses of chapter 13 by associating 166

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



In Epistolam D. Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos Commentarii

209

ity of the magistrate not only to use corporal but also capital punishment.171 Under the figure of the sword is contained both the ultimate punishment of death as well as all the lesser punishments. The opponents whom Musculus has in mind in this discussion are those who on the basis of the magistrate’s power of capital punishment contend that the order of government is evil and not fit for Christian service. Instead, Musculus says that it is “the wisdom of God that the nature of evil might be restrained by the fear of punishment.”172 The death of one criminal might serve as an example to a thousand others who might do equal evil in the future.173 The second observatio has to do with the legitimate and restrained use of this sword. For while the extent of the magistrate’s ability is not limited to anything less than capital punishment, the scope of his application and use of the sword is limited. The magistrate is a minister, and therefore does not possess a free right to act arbitrarily. For just as the sword is not given to allow criminals to go unpunished, so also is it not given to be used to afflict or oppress the innocent.174 These two observationes do not find any clear antecedents in the discussion in Chrysostom, and contemporary opponents of the magistrate’s use of the sword, particularly various Anabaptist opinions, are an important context for Musculus’ consideration of these topics. The course of the Apostle’s rhetorical argument has proceeded to state the proposition and to edify it with various supporting arguments. But the Apostle knows full well that reasoned arguments alone are not sufficient to overcome human corruption, and so he continues by adding the force of threats and coercion. These additions are twofold: the fear of punishment, intended for the disobedient, and the obligation of conscience, intended for those who serve Christ. The former sort is external, while the obgligation of conscience is hidden and internal. Indeed, the conscience teaches us to be obedient “out of a true and sincere spirit” (ex animo verè ac syncerè). This is a view of the conscience that the magistrate with “swords, scourges [fasces], and axes,” and that the sword in particular is a sign of “genuine sovereignty [merum imperium].” See Vermigli, “The Civil Magistrate,” 237. 171 Musculus, In Epistolam Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos, 232. 172 Musculus, In Epistolam Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos, 232. 173 Musculus, In Epistolam Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos, 232: “… esse sapientiam Dei, ut ingenia malorum formidine poenae cohibeantur, qui virtutis amore non ducuntur, & unus sit exemplo mille aliis, aequè malis futuris, nisi sit metus poenae.” Vermigli affirms the responsibility of the magistrate to execute capital punishment, citing Genesis 9:6 for support, but in closer connection with Chrysostom’s discussion goes on to examine in some detail the order and arrangement of various powers. See Vermigli, “The Civil Magistrate,” 226. 174 Musculus, In Epistolam Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos, 232: “… gladium Magistratus non esse liberi iuris, ut possint illo vel uti vel non uti, ubi lubet. Ut enim non debent illo uti contra voluntatem Dei ad adfligendos bonos, ita non debent impunè dimittere sontes quos Deus iussit punire.”

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

210

Law

Musculus says ought to be inculcated into everyone’s understanding.175 Even though it is couched in the context of the discussion of threats and coercion, Musculus’ positive emphasis on the educative power of conscience is noteworthy. It contrasts with Vermigli’s emphasis, which is on the conscience as informing us “that the vengeance of God doth stil hang over our heds,” and as the cause of a “sicke mind continually sourged with the prickes” of conscience.”176 Having explored the motivations for obedience to the magistrate, the Apostle moves on to describe what this obedience consists in. Citing the precedent of Chrysostom again, Musculus points to the obligation of tributes, taxes, tithes, and other obligations of support that without the teaching of the Apostle might seem to be tyranny.177 Indeed this teaching regarding the payment of what is owed, whatever is owed to whomever it is owed, is the “final conclusion” (finalis conclusio) of the Apostle’s rhetorical argument. Thus the Apostle has in mind not only what is owed the magistrates but what is owed to anyone. He does not exclude, for instance, the affection that is due to each other between married spouses.178 But the Apostle points particularly to the things due most relevant to the discussion at hand. Musculus breaks up his discussion of these things due to the magistrate under the broad categories of “honor” and “taxes.” In agreement with Melanchthon, honor is understood to consist primarily in those things related to the soul more than external matters, and thus too does “honor” represent “fear” and all other internal affections that are due to the magistrate.179 Under the treatment of “taxes” Musculus handles all those external things that are owed to the magMusculus, In Epistolam Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos, 233. Vermigli, Most learned and fruitfull Commentaries…upon the Epistle of S. Paul to the Romanes, 431v. 177 Musculus, In Epistolam Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos, 234: “Vide prudentiam Apostoli, quam & Chrysostomus hoc loco, ut ferè ubique observat. Subditis, officium magistratus non intelligentibus, nec expendentibus dare tributa, vectigalia, decimas, & reliquos census grave videtur, quia putant ista nihil esse aliud quàm violentas quasdam exactiones, tyrannidis speciem praeferentes.” 178 Musculus, In Epistolam Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos, 234: “Et primùm in genere quodcunque debitum reddendum esse concludit, non solùm magistratibus, sed quibusvis: deinde distribuit debita in tributa, vectigalia, timorem, & honorem, non quòd nihil praeterea cuiquam debeatur (nam maritus uxori debet dilectionem) sed quod ista ad causam faciunt quam tractat.” 179 Musculus, In Epistolam Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos, 235: “Interea tamen non sunt aspernanda, quae hoc loco annotat doctiss. Melanchthon, timorem & honorem hîc pertinere ad animum, magis quàm ad externa.” Compare Melanchthon, Commentary on Romans, trans. Fred Kramer (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1992), 216: “Meanwhile, the Gospel teaches the godly properly about spiritual and eternal life in order that eternal life may be begun in their hearts. In public it wants our bodies to be engaged in this civil society and to make sure of the common bonds of this society with decisions about properties, contracts, laws, judgments, magistrates, and other things. These external matters do not hinder the knowledge of God from being present in hearts or fear, faith, calling on God, and other virtues. In fact, God put forth these external matters as opportunities in which faith, calling on God, 175 176

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



In Epistolam D. Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos Commentarii

211

istrate. Aquinas writes that “you should pay taxes as a sign of that subjection” to the ruler, while Vermigli affirms that such tribute “admonisheth the conscience of men, that that power is excellent to whome that tribute is geven, and that the same power is instituted of God, and set and placed amongst men in the stede of God, which also we ought to reverence and highly to esteme.”180 The legitimacy of the magistrate’s collection of taxes is in part tied to his placement of the ministers of the church, but it also legitimates the office of the tax collector.181 Musculus notably includes verse 8 in the pericope, and he does so because he sees it as the culmination of the rhetorical argument. Using the occasion of the discussion of what is owed to the magistrate, the Apostle “flows” (fluit) from consideration of the magistrate in particular to “what is owed to every person.”182 There is no one, writes Musculus, who is entirely free from debt.183 How can this be understood to be so? In the same way that Musculus linked the particular obligations of the Decalogue to the two love commandments, here too he links this sense of universal debtorship to refer essentially to the second great love commandment, to the love which is owed to everyone and by which we are “mutually bound.”184 As Selderhuis writes, the relationship between man and God is determined by love.185 The debts which we owe to God and to our neighbor, summarized respectively in the two great love commandments, are of the sort that can never be fully repaid and are therefore ongoing and perpetual obligations.186

fear of God, patience, and love might be exercised.” Aquinas concurs in this distinction between what is to be rendered externally and internally. See Aquinas, Lectures on the Letter to the Romans, ch. 13, lect. 1, sect. 1042, pp. 514f. 180 Aquinas, Lectures on the Letter to the Romans, ch. 13, lect. 1, sect. 1038, p. 512; Vermigli, Most learned and fruitfull Commentaries…upon the Epistle of S. Paul to the Romanes, 431v. 181 Musculus, In Epistolam Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos, 235: “Horum officium quia pertinet ad conservandum publicum, & à magistratibus exigitur, non est illicitum.” 182 Musculus, In Epistolam Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos, 235: “… singulis mortalibus debetur.” 183 Musculus, In Epistolam Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos, 235: “Itaque nemo prorsus est, qui liber sit à debito.” 184 Musculus, In Epistolam Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos, 236f. 185 Selderhuis, “Die Loci Communes des Wolfgang Musculus,” 318: “Für Musculus wird das Verhältnis zwischen Gott und Mensch von der Liebe bestimmt.” 186 On this perpetual debt of love, see also Chrysostom , The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, hom. 23, p. 514: “For this is the character of the debt, that one keeps giving and owing always.”; and Vermigli, Most learned and fruitfull Commentaries…upon the Epistle of S. Paul to the Romanes, 433r: “Howbeit there is one certain thing, which can never be fully payd, namely, the debt of love and charity. For although thou both hast and doth love thy neighbor, yet notwithstanding art thou still bound to love him. For there always remayneth a cause why thou oughtest to love him, namely, God, whose image he is. He made him, he gave him to thee to be thy neighbor, he hath commaunded, that thou shouldest love him as thy selfe.”

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

212

Law

4.3 Summary The final part of this study focuses on topics related to “law,” from God’s will as communicated in the Decalogue to questions of natural law and the civil magistrate. This final section brings to completion the circuit of textual study beginning with the topic of the covenant, proceeding to questions of contingency, and concluding here with discussions of law and social life. Musculus’ view with respect to law in the Christian life underscores his position within the broad Reformed tradition and its generally positive appropriation of natural law and the role of the Christian magistrate in the cura religionis. Whereas some scholarship had seen Musculus’ doctrine of natural law, for instance, to be at variance with that of other Reformed theologians, and more in accord with that of Thomas Aquinas, the eclectic nature of Musculus’ own theology is manifest again in his treatments of natural law, the Decalogue, and the civil magistrate. With respect to natural law, Musculus stands in agreement with the broad magisterial Reformed reception of the variety of medieval views, and affirms the doctrine as significant for the Christian understanding of human sinfulness and culpability. With regard to the civil magistrate, Musculus’ view is in basic accord with that of the Zürich theologians like Zwingli, Bullinger, and Vermigli, holding the magistrate to be responsible for the care of religion and to promote and defend both tables of the Law, the mandates concerning love of God and love of neighbor. Musculus’ views on matters of the law and social life, as well as on covenant and predestination and divine causality and human contingency, are important and influential on the later development of the variegated and diverse Reformed theological tradition. In these final topics related to law and social life, we see practical application of the covenant ideas in Musculus’ work and their relationship to concerns related to divine causality and human freedom and responsibility. As the current study comes full circle with this place under examination, so too does Musculus’ Loci communes conclude fittingly, since Musculus’ locus on the magistrates is the final locus (no. 69) in his massive systematic work. Where Musculus’ very first locus takes up the question of God, his final place takes up the question of God’s authoritative representative on earth, the civil magistrate.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

5. Wolfgang Musculus and the Development of Reformed Theology Wolfgang Musculus’ doctrine of the covenant, grounded in metaphysical concerns of causality and contingency and expressed in his views of social order and civil law, represents a decisive early statement of orthodox Reformed theological method, which serves as a transitional point between the reception of late-medieval trends and later developments of Reformed scholasticism. These doctrines, as understood within the context of Musculus’ exegetical work, provide formative antecedents for later doctrinal developments in the sixteenth and seventeenth century on topics including covenant, free choice, natural law, and subsidiarity. This study in the theology of Wolfgang Musculus concludes with an assessment and evaluation of his place in the history of Reformed theology, with a particular focus on the transition between the early generations of the Reformation to the increasingly complex confessionally orthodox and scholastically developed systems of the post-Reformation era. As a member of the secondgeneration of the Reformation, Musculus stands as a transitional figure, and one of particular importance given the influence of his thought on later generations of Reformed thought. Richard A. Muller has masterfully surveyed the landscape of this period, and Musculus’ work fits very well into Muller’s description of an early Reformed proto-scholastic theology.1 We have characterized Musculus’ scholastic method as anti-speculative, soteriologically-focused, and pastorally-driven, and this evaluation has been borne out in the preceding study. Musculus’ Loci communes in particular represents an important achievement in the history of Reformed theology. After all, the locus method itself is a significant point of development between the early and later generations of the Reformation period.2 This text is an early example of the increasingly 1 See in particular Muller, After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003). 2 See Muller, After Calvin, 43: “The continuity between Reformation and orthodoxy is seen, perhaps most notably in the dominance of the locus method, developed in the fifteenth century by dialecticians such as Rudolf Agricola, adapted to the needs of Protestant theology by Melanchthon, refined for Roman Catholicism by Melchior Cano, and then used quite consistently as the method of Protestant dogmatics through the seventeenth century, specifically, as the basis of moving from the exegetically examined sources of theology to a topical and systematic model.”

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

214

Wolfgang Musculus and the Development of Reformed Theology

school-oriented nature of Reformed thought in the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. These characteristics are closely related, in the sense that it is out of the concerns to provide clergy with basic theological instruction that Musculus focuses primarily on issues related to soteriology, the theological topics of the most controversy in the sixteenth century, which is manifest in turn in an anti-speculative emphasis that forgoes seemingly abstruse and irrelevant philosophical or hypothetical wanderings. In order for a theological manual like the Loci communes to be useful as a textbook for pastors, Musculus deemed it methodologically necessary to limit the scope and scale of his reflections to those issues of practical and soteriological relevance.3 As the Reformation movement expanded and focused on issues of institutionalization and stability, more technically developed and detailed systems became necessary. Indeed, it became increasingly accepted that the development and refinement of precise doctrinal statements, when rightly formed, could serve rather than hinder the sort of practical and pastoral concerns that drove Musculus’ work. And thus “it was very clear to the Reformed orthodox that rightly formulated Christian doctrine would relate directly to the life of the church and the individual believer and, conversely, poorly or wrongly formulated doctrine would not.”4 There is a close correspondence between the development of scholastic theology in the Middle Ages to the development of Protestant scholasticism in the early modern era. The early reformers, to a great degree, picked up on the scholastic methods received from the late medieval era and refined, refocused, and chastened them to fit with the pressing theological issues of the day. It is in this sense that the commitments of various reformers to the insights of humanism and the Renaissance reshaped standard medieval scholastic methods.5 We see this clearly evident in Musculus’ typical attention to linguistic concerns and in his examination of terms in various biblical and non-biblical languages, as well as references to classical sources, including literature, legal See Musculus’ “Praefatio ad lectorem,” Loci communes, 4r. Muller, After Calvin, 57. 5 See Muller, After Calvin, 30ff. See also Paul Oskar Kristeller, Renaissance Thought: The Classic, Scholastic, and Humanist Strains (New York: Harper & Row, 1961); idem, Medieval Aspects of Renaissance Learning, ed. E. P. Mahoney (Durham: Duke University Press, 1974); Erika Rummel, The HumanistScholastic Debate in the Renaissance and Reformation (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995); and idem, The Confessionalization of Humanism in Reformation Germany (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). On the opposition in the secondary literature between doctrinal and even methodological emphasis on the covenant and scholasticism, see Willem J. van Asselt, “Cocceius Anti-Scholasticus?” in Reformation and Scholasticism: An Ecumenical Enterprise, ed. Willem J. van Asselt / Eef Dekker (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 227–51. 3 4

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Wolfgang Musculus and the Development of Reformed Theology



215

texts, and history. Musculus’ own reliance on relatively early scholastic sources and codifications like Lombard’s Sentences and Gratian’s Decretum is illustrative of a bias toward these early statements of scholastic theology and against the developments of the later Middle Ages. This anticipates as similar approach among later Protestant scholastics, as Muller writes, “It was virtually a truism among the Protestant scholastics that the earlier medieval scholasticism of Anselm and Lombard was more congenial to the Reformation and less troubled by philosophical and speculative questions than the scholasticism of the later Middle Ages, particularly from the time of Duns Scotus onward.”6 So in Wolfgang Musculus’ theology we have an early representative of a burgeoning scholastic theology among the Reformed, and one that anticipates a number of developments in later Reformed theology. Muller summarizes the transition well when he writes, Where the Reformers painted with a broad brush, their orthodox and scholastic successors strove to fill in the details of the picture. Whereas the Reformers were intent upon distancing themselves and their theology from problematic elements in medieval thought and, at the same time, remaining catholic in the broadest sense of that term, the Protestant orthodox were intent upon establishing systematically the normative, catholic character of institutionalized Protestantism, at times through the explicit use of those elements in patristic and medieval theology not at odds with the teachings of the Reformation.7

As we shall see with regard to the doctrines under particular focus in this study, Musculus indeed provides an important precedent for more detailed and exhaustive systems to follow. And among the English Reformed in particular it seems that Musculus’ efforts were well received.8 Recent scholarship has provided a wealth of evidence supporting the notion of a variety of influences on English Protestantism from among the continental Reformed. As Collinson Muller, After Calvin, 75. Muller, PRRD, 1:37. 8 As one historian of the period writes of Cambridge, “Another college was rising up which was notoriously designed as a school of Puritan teaching. The standard theological textbook of the university, the Commonplaces of Musculus, which had supplanted the discarded Sentences, was an armoury from which the Puritan would have found it far easier than the Anglican to equip himself for the battle of controversy.” See James Bass Mullinger, The University of Cambridge: From the Royal Injunctions of 1535 to the Accession of Charles the First (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1884), 415. But on the Reformed reception of Lombard’s Sentences, compare Lambert Daneau, In Petri Lombardi Episcopi Parisiensis (qui Magister Sententiarum appellatur) librum primum Sententiarum, qui est de vero Deo, essentia quidem uno: personis autem trino: Lamberti Danaei Commentarius triplex (Geneva: Eustathium Vignon, 1580). 6 7

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

216

Wolfgang Musculus and the Development of Reformed Theology

aptly puts it, “English theologians were as likely to lean on Bullinger of Zürich, Musculus of Berne, or Peter Martyr as on Calvin or Beza.”9 Musculus’ popularity in Britain as well as on the continent is further evidence of the vibrant theological and intellectual commerce of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.10 After his exile from Augsburg Musculus was approached by representatives of theological schools from Cambridge to Heidelberg. A good deal of Musculus’ influence on later theological reflection is represented in the importance of his Loci communes, but given his fame and reputation as a biblical commentator, as well as the intimate connection between the Loci and exegetical work, it is problematic to suppose that only Musculus’ Loci were a significant vehicle of theological dissemination. There is strong textual evidence of Musculus’ ongoing influence in Britain, for instance, through the publications of his works and reference to them in library holdings as well as use of his texts in the work of other writers.11 On the basis of the preceding study of Musculus’ theological work in the context of his contemporaries and the history of exegesis, we can evaluate his Patrick Collinson, From Cranmer to Sancroft (London: Continuum, 2006), 92. For the important role that Bullinger played as a stable center for international discourse, see the study by Andreas Mühling, Heinrich Bullingers europäische Kirchenpolitik (Bern: Lang, 2001), and Rainer Henrich, “Bullinger’s Correspondence: An International News Network,” in Architect of Reformation: An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–1575, ed. Bruce Gordon / Emidio Campi (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 231–41.With regard to the seventeenth century bibliographic context in particular, see Muller, After Calvin, 41: “We can certainly conclude from such compilations, for example, that there was significant intellectual commerce between Britain and the continent and that, quite specifically, British writers such as Owen and Baxter cannot rightly be examined in what is literally, an insular manner—nor, conversely, can writers on the continent be understood apart from the impact of many of the British writers.” 11 Among those who take note of Musculus, in addition to those cited in the introductory chapter, are Richard Smith, Confutatio eorum, quae Philippus Melanchthon objicit contra Missae sacrificium propitiarum (Leuven: Joannes Bogardus, 1562); John Whitgift, The Defense of the Aunswere to the Admonition (London: Humfrey Toye, 1574); John Sprint, Propositions, Tending to Proove the Necessarie use of the Christian Sabbaoth, or Lords Day (London: Thomas Man, 1607); Edward Fowler, The Design of Christianity (London: R. Royston / Lodowick Lloyd, 1671); George Bull, Examen Censuræ (London: Richard Davis, 1676); idem, Apologia pro Harmonia (London: Richard Smith, 1703); and John Strype, Annals of the Reformation and Establishment of Religion (London: John Wyat, 1709). According to wills and library records, works of Musculus were reputed to have been owned by Matthew Hutton (1529–1606), Thomas Greenaway, John Jewel, John Man, Richard Clyffe, and John Garbrand. See James Raine, “Marske, in Swaledale,” Yorkshire Archaeological and Topographical Journal 6 (1881): 241; I. Gregory Smith / Phipps Onslow, Diocesian Histories. Worcester (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1883), 228f; and Christopher Mattinson Dent, Protestant Reformers in Elizabethan Oxford (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), 94–98. See also Patrick Collinson, “England and International Calvinism: 1558–1640,” in International Calvinism: 1541–1715, ed. Menna Prestwich (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), 214. In the early part of the twentieth century a historian observed that Musculus’ “works are still to be found unsought-for in second-hand bookstalls.” See James A. Henderson, “Some Elizabethan MSS. in the University Library,” Aberdeen University Review (1926): 205. 9

10

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Federal Theology



217

place in the history of doctrine in three main areas: the development of federal theology, questions concerning contingency and free choice, and the codification of Reformed legal, social, and institutional thought.

5.1 Federal Theology Musculus introduces his locus on covenant in this way: “Because in the sacred Scriptures things pertaining to the covenant and testament of God frequently occur, we do not wrongly set this place here for consideration. Moreover we judge we do this not improperly after the place on the Law, which also is itself part of the divine covenant.”12 Nearly a century later, in 1645 the Puritan theologian Edward Fisher invoked Musculus’ formula that “the word which signifieth Covenant or Bargain, is put for law,” in support of Fisher’s assertion that “the law of Works is as much to say as the covenant of Works.”13 This argument is put in the words of the evangelical minister in Fisher’s dialogue, The Marrow of Modern Divinity, a text which through the Marrow Controversy of the early eigteenth century was to have its own course of influence in the history of federal theology.14 Thus in this usage of Musculus, connecting law and covenant, we have in seminal representative form the entire compass of the development of federal theology from the middle of the sixteenth to the middle of the seventeenth century. Where Musculus had employed the linkage between lex and fœdus, he was engaged in an exegetical discussion concerning Jeremiah 33 and the transition between the old and new covenants. Musculus argues that what is prophesied about the New Testament is a new covenant (fœdus), not a new law (lex), and that the usage of a covenantal term by the prophet is employed “in the place” of law.15 Thus in the context of Musculus’ original discussion, the substitution of “law” for “covenant” was used to clarify the differences and continuities Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 14, p. 141: “Quoniam in sacris scripturis frequenter occurrunt ad fœdus ac testamentum Dei pertinentia, non immerito considerationi illorum locum hunc assignamus. Arbitramur autem nos hoc facere non incommode post locum de Lege, quæ & ipsa divini fœderis pars est.” 13 Edward Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity (London: G. Calvert, 1645), 6. 14 On the so-called “Marrow Controversy” and Thomas Boston’s role in the republication of Fisher’s work, see David C. Lachman, The Marrow Controversy, 1718–1723: An Historical and Theological Analysis (Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 1988). 15 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 13, p. 139: “Et ne quis causetur hoc loco, vaticinatum esse prophetam de novo fœdere, non de nova lege, manifestum est vocem ‫ְּתִריח‬, id est, pactum hoc loco positum esse loco legis.” 12

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

218

Wolfgang Musculus and the Development of Reformed Theology

between the old and new covenants, under the administration of Moses and Christ respectively. And yet nearly a century later, where Musculus had put “covenant” in the place of “law,” Fisher uses this identification to put “law” for “covenant,” such that the “law of works” identified not only in the administration of Moses but also in the garden of Eden could support the legitimacy of the phrase, “covenant of works.” But the reverse application of Musculus’ lexical argument is not the only fodder for the development of an explicit covenant of works that can be gleaned from Musculus’ seminally important reflections de fœdere. Indeed, Musculus himself elsewhere provides some impetus for such conceptual development. In saying this Musculus almost certainly has in proximate view the Mosaic law, as he does in his gloss on Jeremiah 33. But through such statements Musculus prepares the way for the dynamic and developing relationship between the concepts of covenant and law in the generations following his work. For instance, the lack of an explicit covenant of works in Musculus’ writing must be viewed in perspective of the great use of legal language, specifically with regard to the commandment of God, in Musculus’ exposition of the first three chapters of Genesis.16 The relationship between the law and covenant in Musculus’ thought is an intriguing one, because it is hinted at by Musculus in a number of places. The first is that which we have already cited, at the beginning of his treatment of the locus on covenant. In that place Musculus justifies his placement of the locus where it is because of the inherent relationship between law and covenant, since the law is “a part of the divine covenant.”17 Letham takes note of this comment by Musculus, and sees it as “feeding his view of the covenant of grace as conditional and contractual, a compound of promise and obligation, with law assuming a paramount and controlling function.”18 As we have observed above, Musculus does certainly view the covenant of grace as conditional, but this is not to be opposed to the gracious foundation of the covenant, or the gracious fulfillment of the conditions of the covenant on man’s behalf.19 All this vindicates Bierma’s claim about the lack of direct and facile continuity Compare with Muller’s judgment regarding Calvin on a prelapsarian covenant and legal language with regard to the creation account. See Muller, After Calvin, 182. 17 Musculus is explaining the placement of the locus de fœdere ac testamento Dei following his treatment of the law in the preceding sections. See Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 14, p. 141: “Arbitramur autem nos hoc facere non incommode post locum de Lege, quæ & ipsa divini fœderis pars est.” 18 Robert Letham, “The Foedus Operum: Some Factors Accounting for Its Development,” Sixteenth Century Journal 14, no. 4 (Winter 1983): 462. 19 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 16, p. 147: “Arbitror haud esse præter rectam theologicarum rerum seriem, si post explicationem Testamenti æterni lcoum de gratia Dei subijciamus: non quod ordine 16

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Federal Theology

219

between Musculus’ general covenant and Ursinus’ covenant of nature. Bierma writes, “The foedus naturale was contracted with Adam, not Noah, and concerned humanity’s innate obligation to obey God, not God’s revealed obligation to preserve the physical universe.”20 Musculus’ general, unconditional covenant with Noah cannot be identical as such with later doctrines of a covenant of works or covenant of nature which require an element of conditionality. The significance of Musculus’ conception of the general covenant is not that it is a direct precursor to later conceptions of a covenant of works, but rather that it appropriates late medieval, particularly Franciscan, conceptions of covenant as a volitional divine self-binding and communicates them to later generations of Reformed theologians.21 And thus the reason that Heppe, Rolston, and others are wrong to argue for Musculus’ general covenant as a precursor to the covenant of works is simply that they point to the wrong element of his twofold scheme. It is Musculus’ conception of the special covenant with Abraham that has the character of conditionality. This makes some sense, given that the correlative covenant in later federal theology to the covenant of works is the covenant of grace or faith, the similarity being the conditionality of each covenant and the difference being the conditions themselves as well as the manner in which these conditions are to be met. Since Musculus’ view of the general covenant expressed in the covenant with Noah is unconditional, it cannot in itself be a predecessor to a conditional covenant of works. But while there may not be a direct connection between Musculus’ general covenant and later formulations of a covenant of works, Musculus’ division of the types of covenants as both general / unconditional and special / conditional can be seen as a necessary, although perhaps not yet sufficient, development providing the foundation for an explicitly articulated doctrine of a conditional prelapsarian covenant. It may, at the very least, be said that Musculus’ distinction between conditional and unconditional covenants is compatible with a prius sit testamentum quam gratia, cum illud ex hac promanaverit, sed ut post rivum ad ipsum fontem accedentes, videamus cui sit deputandum æterni fœderis Dei consilium.” 20 Lyle D. Bierma, German Calvinism in the Confessional Age: The Covenant Theology of Caspar Olevianus, rev. edn (Grand Rapidsf: Reformation Heritage Books, 2005), 62. 21 The relationship between covenant, predestination, and the themes considered under the rubric of “contingency” in this study provide us with a more complicated picture of the relationship between Franciscan theology and that of the Reformers, at least in the case of Musculus, than has sometimes been made. Compare R. Scott Clark, Caspar Olevian and the Substance of the Covenant: The Double Benefit of Christ (Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 2005), 165f: “There is, however, every indication that Reformed theology, having rejected Franciscan semi-Pelagian synergism for a consistent divine monergism (predestination), reconstituted the idea of a divine pledge by placing it within the context of their forensic scheme.”

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

220

Wolfgang Musculus and the Development of Reformed Theology

conditional covenant of works, even though Musculus does not fully develop the possibility. If indeed there is some close relationship between covenant and law in the thought of Musculus as his comments seem to indicate, then this would have implications for the possibility of a connection between Musculus and the development of federal thinking in Heidelberg, particularly in the cases of Olevianus and Ursinus. Bierma critically engages Althaus’ thesis that Ursinus placed “Melanchthon’s doctrine of the law within a covenantal framework.”22 But this may be, in an extremely early and undeveloped form, exactly what Musculus is doing in his assertions of a relationship between covenant and law. It is likely that in referring to the law as a “part” or “parcel” of the covenant, Musculus is using both terms in a limited sense. In this case, the law refers to the Decalogue and the covenant refers to the Mosaic administration of the covenant of salvation. As it stands, a final resolution of the relationship between the concepts of covenant and law in the thought of Musculus may not be definitively possible. But we can be sure in saying that the use of the comment in the way that Letham does, to attempt to show that “law was prior to, and determinative of, grace,” is in this case unfounded, given the radical priority given to grace throughout Musculus’ covenantal thought.23 Although Musculus himself does not explore the possibilities, the framework of his doctrine of the covenant provides a foundation on which the doctrine of the covenant of works might be grounded. Four major types of covenants become possible if the linked pairs of general-unconditional and special-conditional covenants are not the only valid formulations. The first would be the general and unconditional sort of covenant, represented by the Noahic covenant. The second would be the special and conditional covenant, best seen in the form of God’s covenant of salvation with Abraham, but also evidenced in other specific covenants, including the Davidic.24 The possible third option would be a special and unconditional covenant, which could be understood to be manifested in the Phineatic covenant, although Musculus does not seem to develop this possibility either.25 The final option would be a covenant that Bierma, German Calvinism in the Confessional Age, 153. Letham, “The Foedus Operum,” 467. 24 For Musculus’ discussion of the covenant with David and his successors as conditional see Musculus’ exegesis of Psalm 132:11–12 in In Sacrosanctum Davidis Psalterium Commentarij (Basel: J. Herwagen, 1551), 1583: “Quamvis charus esset Domino David, posteris tamen illius successio non promittitur sine conditione hac, Si custodierint fœdus meum.” 25 For Musculus on Phineas, see Musculus, Loci communes in usus sacrae Theologiae candidatorum parati (Basel: Johann Herwagen, 1564), loc. 54, p. 509; idem, In Mosis Genesim plenissimi Comentarii, in quibus veterum & recentiorum sententiæ diligenter expenduntur (Basel: Johann Herwagen, 1554), 22 23

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

221

Federal Theology



is both general and conditional, and this is one way to describe the traditional understanding of the covenant of works with Adam as representative head, another option left undeveloped by Musculus. A modified form of a Punnett square might better visualize the covenantal possibilities set up by Musculus’ pair of distinctions:

Unconditional Conditional

General Noahic Adamic

Special Phineatic Abrahamic

Debate about Musculus’ covenantal doctrine has raged over the significance of his division between the special and general covenants. Those, like Heppe, who find Musculus’ conception of the general covenant to be a precursor to a covenant of works are at best only partially correct. In pointing to Musculus’ classification of the Noahic covenant, they find a covenant that shares the characteristic of being general, or applicable to all human beings, with the covenant of works. But they overlook the unconditional nature of the Noahic covenant in Musculus’ theology. Similarly, those, like Bierma, who deny the direct continuity between Musculus and Ursinus on this point risk overlooking the broader significance of Musculus’ covenantal divisions. We have noted that the combination of classification of the covenants in Musculus through both a general / special and unconditional / conditional scheme open up the possibility for other types of covenants beyond the basic forms represented by the Noahic and Abrahamic covenants. Given the exegetical background that gives rise to these distinctions in Musculus’ thought, there is little basis for the claim that the recognition of a “foedus operum was as much a methodological necessity as anything else,” stemming from a rampant Ramism.26 As we have seen in Musculus’ case, the categories providing the necessary development for the formation of a doctrine of the covenant of works arise out of the exegetical struggle with the differences between the Noahic and Abrahamic covenants.

228, 375; idem, In Evangelistam Matthaeum commentarii tribus tomis digesti (Basel: Johann Herwagen, 1544), 151. 26 Letham, “The Foedus Operum,” 467.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

222

Wolfgang Musculus and the Development of Reformed Theology

There is even less support for the conclusion that Musculus’ apparent linkage of covenant with law represents a placement of law over grace.27 Rather, the key factor that has been overlooked in all preceding analyses of Musculus’ covenant theology is the significance of his distinction between conditional and unconditional covenants, appearing explicitly in his Genesis commentary, as complementary and additional to the normally recognized general / special division. Musculus himself does not work out the possibilities that arise from these distinctions in a systematic fashion. It may well be that Musculus held the elements of the linked pairs of general-unconditional and special-conditional covenants to be inseperable, or that “covenant” as such had a specifically postlapsarian reference in his thinking. Another complementary explanation is that the basic thrust of Musculus’ work was not to state in exhaustive detail a complete and comprehensive system of theology. As we have noted, Musculus’ Loci is more oriented towards the basic distinctions needed to give a pastor a reliable doctrinal grounding. Far from being methodologically necessary then, a detailed and clear covenant of works is not indispensable to making the points which for Musculus need to be made regarding redemption. It is enough for Musculus’ theological aims to establish the legal obligation of Adam and Eve in Genesis and leave the exact nature of the relationship between covenant and law ambiguous. In this Musculus is no different from the innumerable theologians who preceded and followed him who did not explicitly teach a covenant of works. Indeed, Musculus’ work in the Loci is so relatively early that the clear connection between law and covenant had not yet been definitively or exhaustively articulated among the Reformed. What is also clear from Musculus’ example is that there is no fundamental or structural opposition between an emphasis on covenant and an emphasis on predestination. Musculus’ intimate linkage of the two, as the first and last place respectively in a series of loci on the ordo salutis, makes this quite evident. From earliest generations of Reformed thought on the covenant, then, we find an influential theologian giving both covenant and predestination (including a treatment of reprobation as well as election), specific topical treatments and relating them thematically with his system. Musculus’ covenantal thought and its relation to predestination within this theology is therefore strong historical Indeed, Musculus’ covenantal thought can be seen as a particular point of attraction for later Puritans. See in general Ernest F. Kevan, The Grace of Law: A Study in Puritan Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1965). 27

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Contingency, Choice, and Causality



223

evidence against interpretations that radically juxtapose theologies of predestination and covenant.28 Musculus’ influence with respect to the doctrine of the covenant is found in the foundations he provides for the further innovations of later theologians. His major methodological contribution is found in the heretofore underappreciated step of providing the locus de fœdere its own separate topical treatment, corresponding to a wealth of underlying exegetical material that provides the basis for his critical covenantal distinctions. This innovation provides a strong measure of thematic continuity between the first and following generations of Reformed thinking on the doctrine of covenant.

5.2 Contingency, Choice, and Causality If, indeed, a major point of significance regarding Musculus’ conception of the general covenant is that it represents the continuing vitality of a branch of medieval covenantal thinking, then Musculus’ doctrine of the covenant must be connected to his view of divine power and human freedom. Where Musculus’ doctrines of covenant and predestination point in a definitively Franciscan, and perhaps Scotistic direction (given the clearly anti-Pelagian impulse), Musculus’ view of divine omnipotence and human freedom tempers any direct linkage between Musculus and Scotus.29 This is true in spite of the clear realist ontology and voluntarist anthropology affirmed by Musculus. Where Musculus shares these views with Scotus, he differs on the extent to which he is willing to speculate regarding predestination and as well as in the application of the absolute power of God as an operational reality. With regard to exploration of the nature of God, Musculus shares a basic affinity with later nominalist critiques of Scotus’ perceived excesses. The basic category in theology proper for Musculus, as it is for the Franciscans in general, Such as the interpretations of J. Wayne Baker, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1980), 27–54; and McCoy / Baker, Fountainhead of Federalism: Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenantal Tradition (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1991), 21–26. Compare Geerhardus Vos, “The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology,” in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, ed. Richard B. Gaffin Jr. (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1980), 259: “It is easy to demonstrate that the theologians did not place election and covenant side by side in a dualistic fashion, but related them organically. It is a well-known fact that for many election circumscribes the extent of the covenant even in their definition of the covenant.” 29 On Scotus, see Berndt Hamm, Promissio, Pactum, Ordinatio: Freiheit und Selbstbindung Gottes in der scholastischen Gnadenlehre (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1977), 347–354. 28

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

224

Wolfgang Musculus and the Development of Reformed Theology

is the divine voluntas. But where Scotus has been read as having a radically effective sense of the potentia absoluta, Musculus sides with a more traditional or conservative, non-operationalized, reading of the dialectic of divine power.30 This disagreement with Scotus on the operationalization of the divine potentia absoluta gives rise to another and related point of disagreement. Courtenay summarizes Scotus’ position in this way: “First, the same definition of free choice applies univocally to God and man, a point that earlier theologians were reluctant to grant except insofar as they needed the analogy to defend divine freedom. For Scotus, free will has the same meaning for God as for man. Secondly, potentia absoluta is not the realm of possibility from which God created a physical and moral order; rather it is the ability to act outside of an order that is already established.”31 As we have seen in Musculus’ discussion of free choice, he is quite concerned not to attribute the quality of a human will to God, and thus is at a basic point of departure with Scotus’ position. This discontinuity on the question of free choice coheres as well with Musculus’ hypothetical or virtual conception of the potentia absoluta. The connection between these issues, namely the operationalized view of the absolute power of God and the univocal identification of the aspects of divine and human willingness, underscore the difficulty in assigning a figure like Musculus to any particular medieval tradition. The work of the Classic Reformed Theology research group at the University of Utrecht has traced out the thread of a Scotistic conception of synchronic contingency throughout the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries.32 Without engaging the validity of these claims with regard to the later Reformed scholastics, it is clear that a close identification of Musculus, representative of the second generation of Reformed theologians, and Scotus on the questions of contingency and choice is impossible to definitively support. Indeed, despite the specific differences between Musculus and Scotus outlined above, Musculus’ basic theological program militates against any identification with a particular “school” of medieval scholastic thought. Musculus 30 This latter appraoch is in broad accord with the broader Reformed tendency. See Francis Oakley, “The Absolute and Ordained Power of God in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Theology,” Journal of the History of Ideas 59, no. 3 (1998): 457–60. See also William J. Courtenay, Capacity and Volition: A History of the Distinction of Absolute and Ordained Power (Bergamo: P. Lubrina, 1990), 101. 31 Courtenay, Capacity and Volition, 101f. Compare also Alan B. Wolter, “Introduction,” in Duns Scotus on the Will and Morality, trans. Alan B. Wolter, ed. William A. Frank (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1997), 9ff. 32 Willem J. van Asselt / J. Martin Bac / Roelf T. te Velde, ed., Reformed Thought on Freedom: The Concept of Free Choice in the History of Early Modern Reformed Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010).

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Contingency, Choice, and Causality

225

purposely appeals to earlier scholastic sources like Lombard’s Sentences and Gratian’s Decretum rather than to Thomas, or Scotus, or Ockham. Wolfgang Musculus’ treatment of the doctrine of free choice emphasizes the essential nature of freedom as characteristic of the human will, whether in the state of innocence, corruption, or regeneration. Even so, the Fall introduces a dynamic of bondage, which does not eradicate freedom of choice in every sense, but does at the same time admit the necessity of sin in the life of the corrupt man. In the state of corruption, the human will remains free from external constraint or compulsion, and this is the most basic element of human freedom, sine qua non. These general conclusions about the nature of free choice place Musculus firmly within the developing Reformed tradition of the sixteenth-century. While Musculus’ treatment of the doctrine is generally less detailed and explicitly engaged with the tradition than many of his contemporaries, such as Bucer or Vermigli, there is strong doctrinal continuity between Musculus and such figures. Indeed, the absence of an in-depth dialogue with a variety of medieval and patristic sources should not lead us to conclude that Musculus’ treatment of free choice places him at odds either with his contemporaries or succeeding generations of Reformed thinkers. It is a comparatively unsophisticated analysis, and yet Musculus does make the essential distinctions that he finds necessary to establish the soteriological fundamentals of the doctrine. Musculus’ major concern is to relate the importance of distinguishing freedom as manifested in the various states of human existence: before the Fall, after the Fall, and after conversion. With these categories in place, Musculus feels that he has a sure basis for showing how human choice is in some sense both free and bound. In this, we find that Musculus is in broad continuity with Reformed thought on free choice in the sixteenth century, representing an important transitional position between the first generations of Reformers and later, increasingly detailed and developed treatments of free choice. As in the case of covenant and its shorter presentation in the Loci relative to that in the exegetical material, this can in part be attributed to Musculus’ rather limited theological purpose. His is not an exhaustive system that attempts to work out every philosophical conclusion to its ultimate terminus. His discussion of free choice is characterized by a particular lack of philosophical or technical sophistication when compared with later treatments by Reformed scholastics. This is not to say that Musculus’ treatment is unrefined or obtuse, but rather that the result of his method is more purposefully sparse. The soteriological focus is evident, as Musculus only affirms the distinctions that he

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

226

Wolfgang Musculus and the Development of Reformed Theology

feels are necessary to rightly understand the doctrine and make its relevance to salvation clear.

5.3 Doctrine and Order The picture of Musculus’ medieval antecedents remains somewhat clouded following the study of his doctrines of covenant, predestination, divine power, and human choice. Some elements incline towards a Scotistic understanding while others press toward a nominalistic position. But there is a basically Fransciscan undercurrent that is observable throughout. On first glance Musculus’ doctrine of natural law seems to further complicate matters. The major interpreter of Musculus’ thought on natural law has understood his view as basically Thomistic.33 And, indeed, the close identification of natural law with the eternal law, which are in turn linked with human ratio and divine sapientia respectively, seems to support such a conclusion. But a more detailed analysis underscores the difficulties in any facile identification of the natural law views of Thomas and Musculus. If we put Musculus in dialogue with other medieval traditions, for instance, we find even greater coherence as well as explanation for the seeming kinship between Thomas and Musculus. In Oberman’s study of the thought of Gabriel Biel, he has observed, At times Biel almost reaches a Thomistic position, so convinced is he of the immutability of natural law and its foundation in the eternal law. However, while the eternal law is for Thomas the plan of divine world government preexistent in the mind of God, Biel feels that this construction would undercut the simplicity of God. Therefore he identifies this eternal law with all the properties of God to such an extent that he can use the terms “will of God” and “eternal law” interchangeably.34

For Musculus, too, the divine attributes ought not to be played against one another, and it is in fact the divine sapientia that informs the divine will, which in turn stands between God’s absolute and ordained power. God wills wisely. So from the divine side, with regard to the identification of the eternal law with Richard Bäumlin, “Naturrecht und obrigkeitliches Kirchenregiment bei Wolfgang Musculus,” in Für Kirche und Recht: Festschrift für Johannes Heckel zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Siegfried Grundmann (Cologne: Böhlau, 1959), 120–43. 34 Heiko A. Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000), 109. 33

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Doctrine and Order



227

the mind of God himself, we have little conspicuous reason to closely identify Musculus with Thomas to the exclusion of medieval thinking on natural law more broadly. The same holds true for the human aspect of the doctrine, which emphasizes natural law as residing in the right use of reason. The definition of natural law as right reason is not particularly characteristic of a specific medieval school. Again, Oberman serves to illustrate this by showing that for Biel, natural law has an immanent rationality which enables man in principle to reach the right conclusions as to his temporal felicity. This may lead to the doctrine of the human conscience as the highest court of appeal. The fact that this decision can stand up to the scrutiny of any man is due to the universality and superindividual validity of the dictates of right reason, which in the last resort it owes to the eternal law of God.35

We see Musculus’ attempts to transcend scholastic divisions in part through his consistent appeal to earlier medieval theologians, especially Lombard, but also through his constant reference to the church fathers. Augustine’s summary statement of God’s power, will, and wisdom well characterizes Musculus’ own approach to these issues: Anything in either kind that he does not do will be without example in fact, but will have the reason of its possibility in God’s power and the reason of its non-occurrence in God’s wisdom. Such reason may be hidden from a man; but he must not forget his humanity, and attribute unwisdom to God because the wisdom of God exceeds his grasp.36

Having established Musculus’ points of continuity and discontinuity with the medieval traditions, it remains to explore his importance for the development

Oberman, Harvest of Medieval Theology, 110. Compare also Francis A. Oakley, Omnipotence, Covenant, and Order: An Excursion in the History of Ideas from Abelard to Leibnitz (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1984), 81: “Ockham and d’Ailly are notably explicit on this point, skillfully deploying the distinction between the absolute and ordained powers in such a way as to enable them to ground the content of ethical norms in the divine will while at the same time maintaining the stability and reliability of the moral order and insisting in traditional fashion that there is such a thing as a natural morality made known to all men through that natural law to which right reason is a reliable guide.” This emphasis on “right reason” as the mechanism by which the natural law relates to the eternal law would presumably not have separated Musculus from Scotus either. See Wolter, “Introduction,” 16–29; but compare Hannes Möhle, “Scotus’s Theory of Natural Law,” in The Cambridge Companion to Duns Scotus, ed. Thomas Williams (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 312–331. 36 Augustine of Hippo, The Spirit and the Letter, trans. John Burnaby, in Augustine: Later Works, ed. John Burnaby (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1955), v. 7, p. 199. 35

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

228

Wolfgang Musculus and the Development of Reformed Theology

of Reformed political and social thought.37 Clearly his main influence is through his association with what has been identified as an Erastian view of the relationship between church and state. But here as well Musculus’ view must be couched within his own self-understanding. And his basic position regarding the magistratical care of religion is set within the context of two traditions dating back to the pastristic era, identifiable with Tertullian on the one hand and Constantine on the other. To be sure, there are distinctive positions within the Constantinian stream, but it is essential to note that, whether for instance we are concerned with a Genevan or Bernese model, these are all in some sense intramural debates within a basically Constantinian view of church and state. Whether the state wields the sword at the behest or independent of the church is in some sense secondary to the question of whether the state is responsible for the care of religion. Although not unified in every detail, the magisterial Reformation answers in the affirmative. Musculus shared the view with a number of other major reformers, including Zwingli, Bullinger, and Vermigli, that the civil magistrate in some sense holds social primacy over the ministers of grace.38 It is in Musculus’ view of the pedagogical function of the law and its connection to the civil magistrate that Musculus’ own emphases are most clearly apparent. The civil magistrate is a kind of teacher and the law is the magistrate’s pedagogical instrument. Musculus links the terms magister and magistratus, such that the magistrate is a kind of teacher, the kind who is concerned with the externals of religion and social life. In the hands of the civil magistrate law functions as a kind of doctrina, or instruction in religious and civic responsibility. The Reformed and Lutheran branches of the Reformation have often been called the “Magisterial” Reformation, in part because of the emphasis placed by these traditions on catechesis, instruction, and right doctrine. Musculus’ particular emphasis within this broader “magisterial” tradition is on a kind of “magistratical” reformation

For a broad recent account of the influence of covenant theology and politics in the European and American contexts, see Glenn A. Moots, Politics Reformed: The Anglo-American Legacy of Covenant Theology (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2010). See also Daniel J. Elazar, The Covenant Tradition in Politics, 4 vol. (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1995–1998). 38 James T. Ford has provided a thorough analysis of Musculus’ views on the civil magistrate, both before and during Musculus’ time in Bern. See Ford, “Wolfgang Musculus on the Office of the Christian Magistrate.” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 91 (2000): 149–67. For Zwingli, see Robert C. Walton, Zwingli’s Theocracy (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967). For Bullinger, see Andreas Mühling, Heinrich Bullingers europäische Kirchenpolitik (Bern: Peter Lang, 2001). For Vermigli, see Robert M. Kingdon, “Peter Martyr Vermigli on Church Discipline,” in Peter Martyr Vermigli: Humanism, Republicanism, Reformation, ed. Emidio Campi (Geneva: Droz, 2002), 67–76. 37

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Doctrine and Order

229

in which the civil magistrate is primarily responsible for the cura religionis.39 This emphasis is not to the derogation of other kinds of teachers or ministers. But Musculus does affirm the special responsibility of the civil magistrate in the functioning of the corpus Christianum. There continues to be much confusion in contemporary scholarship on these points. A major recent study by David VanDrunen highlights one understanding of the development of Reformed social thought, focusing on the dynamic between natural law and the “two kingdoms.” VanDrunen’s discussion of the early generations of the Reformation focuses especially on Calvin, and generally pays scant attention to the diversity of sixteenth-century Reformed approaches to questions of the relationship between church and state.40 Thus his conclusions concerning Calvin become largely determinative of his conclusions concerning continutity and discontinuity in the post-Reformation era. VanDrunen writes that “Calvin identified only the church with the redemptive kingdom of Christ and denounced the claim that civil government was a part of Christ’s kingdom,” and this conclusion has normative strength for what it means to be Reformed and to hold to a “two kingdoms” model in VanDrunen’s analysis.41 But beyond what might be called this “Genevan” model of church / state relations, there existed a significant stream of Reformed thinking, typically associated with Zurich and later with the term “Erastian,” that has been overlooked by such scholarship. This diversity of perspectives is of no small import. Indeed, Bruening goes so far as to say that from Viret’s perspective at least, the conflict between the two models “was not just a theological battle for the Pays de

39 Although this is not a common term today, the adjective magistratical came into usage in the 17th century to denote the power characteristic of the civil magistrate. See, for instance, Richard Baxter, Church-History of the Government of Bishops and their Councils Abbreviated (London: Thomas Simmons, 1681), 4: “And therefore, though we think Churchmen usually very unfit for any Magistratical Power, yet we shall obey as his Ministers any whomsoever the King shall commit any part of his power about Church matters to; and promise them due obedience as such.” I use this term to denote especially the stream of Reformed theological church / state reflection that places primary emphasis on this power of the civil magistrate. See also John Brown of Haddington, The Absurdity and Perfidy of All Authoritative Toleration of Gross Heresy, Blasphemy, Idolatry, Popery, in Britain (Glasgow: John Bryce, 1780), 10, 28, 39, 52. 40 See the treatment of “John Calvin and His Contemporaries,” in David VanDrunen, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms, 67–118. Out of the entire chaper concerning this era, VanDrunen spends a mere three pages on figures other than Calvin, discussing Bucer (referring to Vermigli and Musculus in passing) and spending a paragraph on Zanchi. Zwingli merits nary a mention, and Bullinger is referred to only once in a footnote. 41 VanDrunen, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms, 4.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

230

Wolfgang Musculus and the Development of Reformed Theology

Vaud,” but was rather “a culture war between the French- and German-speaking evangelical movements in Europe.”42 Tracing out the differences and distinctives of the various views is of importance for properly understanding which branch of the Reformation, or indeed which individual reformers, were of particular influence on the development of church-state relations in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. There has been great debate, for instance, over the extent to which Musculus or Erastus or both were influential on the course of the Reformation in England.43 We have seen the wide dissemination that Musculus’ writings recieved in early modern Britain, and so it ought not be surprising that his views on the role of the civil magistrate had some important circulation.44 But it is also clear that there were a number of other antecedents, contemporaries, and followers of Musculus, figures like Zwingli, Bullinger, Vermigli, Erastus, and Gwalther, who held basically sympathetic views and who would have also been important touchstones for developments in Britain. J. William Black serves as a cautionary example, as he draws a curious contrast between the views of Bucer and Calvin, with the intent of arguing that Richard Baxter follows a Bucerian rather than a Calvinist model.45 He does this in part because of the emphasis placed by Baxter on the role of the minister and assemblies of pastors. But this interpretation overlooks the important fact that it was in fact in Geneva that pastoral assemblies were common practice, and it was rather the Zurich model of which Musculus was a representative (combined with the vagaries of confederal politics between Bern

42 Michael W. Bruening, Calvinism’s First Battleground: Conflict and Reform in the Pays de Vaud (Dordrecht: Springer, 2005), 207. 43 See particularly Charles D. Gunnoe Jr., Thomas Erastus and the Palatinate: A Renaissance Physician in the Second Reformation (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 396–406. 44 Condren notes the connection between Musculus and Hobbes, for instance, in the identification of a negative definition of tyranny as invalid, especially as appearing in Michael Hawke, Killing is Murder, 28. Condren writes that Hawke, “who had read Hobbes, attributes this definitional evaporation of tyranny to Wolfgang Musculus.” See Conal Condren, Argument and Authority in Early Modern England: The Presupposition of Oaths and Offices (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 205, n. 93. 45 See J. William Black, Reformation Pastors: Richard Baxter and the Ideal of the Reformed Pastor (Waynesboro: Paternoster Press, 2004). On Bucer, see De Regno Christi, in Melanchthon and Bucer, ed. Wilhelm Pauck, Library of Christian Classics, vol. 19 (Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox Press, 1981), 153–394. See also Constantin Hopf, Martin Bucer and the English Reformation (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966), 99–130; and Wilhelm Pauck, “Martin Bucer’s Conception of a Christian State,” Princeton Theological Review 26 (1928): 80–88. See also Martin Greschat, Martin Bucer: A Reformer for His Times, trans. Stephen E. Buckwalter (London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 163–205; although compare Amy Nelson Burnett, The Yoke of Christ: Martin Bucer and Christian Discipline (Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 1994).

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Doctrine and Order



231

and Geneva) that derogated the importance of such assemblies relative to the primacy of the civil power.46 This basic model, as we have seen, holds the magistrate to function as a minister of God in the civil realm, a task different from and complementary to that of the minister of God in the ecclesiastical realm. The model of “two kingdoms,” as VanDrunen presses the distinction sharply onto the sixteenth century landscape, threatens to elide the real diversity of views among the Reformed into a single framework.47 It would be much more accurate to say of the view of Musculus, for instance, representative of this other stream of Reformed thought, that there is a single sphere of society, or a single kingdom, a single corpus Christianum, within which the civil ministers or magistrates take priority, but with whom ministers of the Word work together in a complementary fashion to keep order.48 The division of labor between the spiritual and the civil ministers in Musculus’ view might be said to have a two-fold aspect, but pressing this view into a “two kingdoms” model either stretches the model too far such that it becomes imprecise (conflating both the Genevan and Zurich models) or reductive (emphasizing only the Genevan model at the expense of the Zurich position). Musculus’ view of the role of the Christian magistrate plays a part in the development of Reformed political thought, particularly with regard to the concepts of federalism and subsidiarity, which are often identified with the Dutch thinker Johannes Althusius.49 As we have seen, Musculus drew upon a On the blame placed on Musculus and Haller by Calvin and Viret for the disbanding of weekly pastoral colloquies, see Bruening, Calvinism’s First Battleground, 204ff. Calvin had complained to Bullinger that he had heard that the “Bernese brothers are behaving more imperiously than fraternally” toward the Lausanne ministers. See Ioannis Calvini Opera 13:489: “Fratres interea Bernenses imperiose, ut audio, magis quam fraterne erga eos se gerunt, ut nihil in calculum praeter ipsum ministerii nomen veniat.” On the relationship betwen Calvin and Bern, see Emidio Campi, “Calvin, the Swiss Reformed Churches, and the European Reformation,” in Calvin and His Influence, 1509–2009 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 119–121. See also Robert M. Kingdon, Geneva and the Consolidation of the French Protestant Movement, 1564–1572: A Contribution to the History of Congregationalism, Presbyterianism, and Calvinist Resistance Theory (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1967), 17–36. 47 As we have seen it is true that Musculus discusses a concept of “two swords,” but he uses this to refer not to the distinction between the physical sword of the magistrate and the spiritual sword of the minister, but rather to the internal and external function of peacekeeping associated with the civil magistrate. See Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 627. 48 On the validity of applying the name of “minister” to the civil magistrate, see Peter Martyr Vermigli on Romans 13:6: “Here we see that ‘λειτουργεῖν’ and ‘λειτουργία’ pertaine not (as some thinke) to holy services only. Yea rather those words properly signifie publique offices and functions,” in Most learned and fruitfull Commentaries…upon the Epistle of S. Paul to the Romanes, 432r. 49 On Althusius, see John Witte Jr., “A Demonstrative Theory of Natural Law: Johannes Althusius and the Rise of Calvinist Jurisprudence,” Ecclesiastical Law Journal 11 (2009): 248–265; Stephen J. Grabill, “Introduction to Selections from the Dicaeologicae,” Journal of Markets & Morality 9, no. 2 46

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

232

Wolfgang Musculus and the Development of Reformed Theology

variety of medieval and classical sources in developing his theology, as well as in his attention to specific ethical matters. The practice of collating, assembling, and editing various legal sources was introduced in the medieval era with the groundbreaking work of Gratian, but figures like Musculus were involved in the early modern era in very similar pursuits.50 James T. Ford outlines Musculus’ defense of his view of the magistratical cura religionis in a response to Melanchthon, which drew upon “Scripture, Roman law, canon law, the church fathers, and pagan philosophers” to argue that “the secular magistrate is responsible to

(Fall 2006): 403–28; Cornel A. Zwierlein, “Reformierte Theorien der Vergesellschaftung: Römisches Recht, föderaltheologische κοινωνία und die consociatio des Althusius,” in Jurisprudenz, Politische Theorie und Politische Theologie: Beiträge des Herborner Symposions zum 400. Jahrenstag der Politica des Johannes Althusius 1603–2003, ed. Frederick S. Carney / Heinz Schilling / Dieter Wyduckel (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2004), 191–223; Thomas O. Hueglin, Early Modern Concepts for a Late Modern World: Althusius on Community and Federalism (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1999); Robert M. Kingdon, “Althusius’ Use of Calvinist Sources in His Politica,” Rechtstheorie 16 (1997): 19–28; and Charles S. McCoy, “The Centrality of Covenant in the Political Philosophy of Johannes Althusius,” in Politische Theorie des Johannes Althusius, ed. Karl-Wilhelm Dahm / Werner Krawietz / Dieter Wyduckel (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1988), 187–99. See also Johannes Althusius, “Selections from the Dicaeologicae,” trans. Jeffrey J. Veenstra, Journal of Markets & Morality 9, no. 2 (Fall 2006): 429–83; idem, Politica methodice digesta of Johannes Althusius (Althaus) (New York: Arno Press, 1979); idem, Dicaeologicae libri tres (Herborn, 1617); and idem, Politica methodice digesta (Herborn, 1614). More broadly, see Brian Tierney, Religion, Law, and the Growth of Constitutional Thought, 1150–1650 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), and on Althusius especially, 71–79. 50 Given the association between Erastianism and the Remonstrants in the 17th century, a fruitful place for future attention is the matrix of church-state relations in the Dutch republic, focusing especially on the debates between the Reformed and Remonstrants. In this context, a similar collation of sources is evident, for instance, in the work of Hugo Grotius. See Benjamin Straumann, Hugo Grotius und die Antike. Römisches Recht und römische Ethik im früneuzeitlichen Naturrecht (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag, 2007). See also Christoph Strohm, Calvinismus und Recht: weltanschaulich-konfessionelle Aspekte im Werk reformierter Juristen in der Frühen Neuzeit (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008); and Christoph Strohm / Heinrich de Wall, ed., Konfessionalität und Jurisprudenz in der frühen Neuzeit (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2009). Compare also Wolfgang Reinhard, “Stadtrepublikanismus im Kirchenstaat? Ein Versuch,” in Wege der Neuzeit: Festschrift für Heinz Schilling zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Stefan Ehrenpreis / Ute Lotz-Heumann / Olaf Mörke / Luise Schorn-Schütte (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2007), 345–380; and Richard A. Muller, “The Federal Motif in Seventeenth Century Arminian Theology,” Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis 62 (1982): 102–122. For reference to Musculus in the primary literature, see especially Hugo Grotius, Ordinum Hollandia ac Westfrisiae Pietas (1613), trans. and ed. Edwin Rabbi (Leiden: Brill, 1995), §133, p. 199; and Jan Uytenbogaert, Tractaet van t’ampt ende authoriteyt eener hoogher christelicker overheydt, in kerckelicke saecken (Den Haag: Hillebrant Jacobsz, 1610), 26ff. See also Philip Benedict, Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), 306; and John Neville Figgis, The Divine Right of Kings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914), 311. For Musculus’ Isaiah commentary in Uytenbogaert’s library, see Catalogus van de bibliotheek der Remonstrantsch-Gereformeerde Gemeente te Rotterdam (Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff, 1893), 11.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Doctrine and Order



233

protect his subjects by safeguarding true religion.”51 This sort of practice, the attempt to synthesize various sources from the history of legal and religious thought, is an important forerunner to Althusius’ Dicaeologica, which itself “was an immense work (792 Latin folio pages) that sought to construct a single comprehensive juridical system by collating the Decalogue, Jewish law, Roman law, and various streams of European customary law.”52 In both theology as well as law the topical method of organization, along with attention to the various streams of traditional precedents, set the stage for massive synthetic works like Althusius’ Dicaeologicae.53 Besides the pervasive influence of a scholastic method modified by the insights provided by Renaissance humanism, Musculus represents an important theological source for the development of the concept of subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is a social, political, and ecclesiastical principle that finds its classic modern expression in Catholic social teaching, in which it takes the following formulation: “A community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.”54 Beyond the language of “mutual reinforcement” in the civil sphere that we have found in Musculus, elsewhere in the sixteenth century we also find the principle

James T. Ford, “Wolfgang Musculus and the Struggle for Confessional Hegemony in Reformation Augsburg, 1531–1548,” (Ph.D. diss.: University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2000), 237. On the development of Melanchthon’s views on the role of the magistrate, see James Martin Estes, Peace, Order and the Glory of God: Secular Authority and the Church in the Thought of Luther and Melanchthon, 1518–1559 (Leiden: Brill, 2005). 52 Grabill, “Introduction to Selections from the Dicaeologicae,” 406. 53 See Grabill, “Introduction to Selections from the Dicaeologicae,” 406; and Harold J. Berman / Charles J. Reid Jr., “Roman Law in Europe and the Jus Commune: A Historical Overview with Emphasis on the New Legal Science of the Sixteenth Century,” Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce 20 (Spring 1994): 1–31. 54 John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (15 May 1991), no. 48. See also Piux XI, Encyclical Letter Quadragesimo Anno (15 May 1931), no. 79: “Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them.” On the civil and social implications of subsidarity, see Pierpaolo Donati, “What Does ‘Subsidiarity’ Mean? The Relational Perspective,” Journal of Markets & Morality 12, no. 2 (Fall 2009): 211–243. For the theological background of the doctrine of subsidiarity, including the connection to questions of causality, see Gregorio Guitián, “Integral Subsidiarity and Economy of Communion: Two Challenges from Caritas in Veritate,” Journal of Markets & Morality 13, no. 2 (Fall 2010): 280ff. 51

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

234

Wolfgang Musculus and the Development of Reformed Theology

embedded in a resolution passed in 1571 by the synod of Emden.55 As Grabill puts it, this resolution was intended “to govern the relationship between parishes and general synods.”56 Thus, one can trace the origins of the expression of subsidiarity present in the Emden resolution through the influence of earlier texts, themselves influenced by the Reformed churches in France.57 The first article produced by the Synod of Emden in 1571, for instance, has a textual predecessor in the Wezelse Artikelen of 1568.58 This ecclesiastical context provides an important context for the ongoing cross-fertilization between church-political and civil-political deliberations. One stream of influence behind the doctrine of subsidiarity is the French and early Dutch ecclesiastical system, dependent largely on a Genevan model of pastoral primacy. Where the care of religion falls primarily to the church, it becomes of the utmost importance to define and delineate the mutual levels of ecclesiastical authority. But where the cura religionis falls within the purview of the civil magistrate, as in the view of the Zurich school to which Musculus belonged, outlining the mutual reinforcement of civil authorities is crucial.59 As Torrance Kirby writes, Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 637: “Potestates autem a Deo acceptæ, licet aliæ alijs sint subordinatæ, invicem tamen sese non extinguunt, sed magis confirmant. Haud est superior Cæsar, ut inferiores magistratus impediat, quo minus potestate sua legitime ad bonum subditorum, & gloriam Dei utantur: sed ad hoc magis, ut adiuvet eos, & confirmet ….” On the synod of Emden, see Hueglin, Early Modern Concepts for a Late Modern World, 152. 56 Grabill, “Introduction to Selections from the Dicaeologicae,” 412. 57 See Glenn S. Sunshine, Reforming French Protestantism: The Development of Huguenot Ecclesiastical Institutions, 1557–1572 (Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2003), 11: “Specifically, this study highlights some important ways in which the Eglises Réformées introduced their own elements into Reformed ecclesiastical structures, notably by establishing the first system of synodical government in which no pastor or church was permitted to have de facto or de jure authority over another (that is, the first example of presbyterial polity) in church history. This in turn set a precedent for most other national Reformed churches in Western Europe.” See also Sunshine (p. 29) on the Gallican Confession (1559) and its articulation of “the most fundamental principle of French Reformed polity: the absolute prohibition of hierarchy among churches and ministers (art. 30).” On the relationship between Geneva and the French Reformed churches, see Robert M. Kingdon, Geneva and the Coming of the Wars of Religion in France, 1555–1563 (Geneva: Droz, 1956); and idem, Geneva and the Consolidation of the French Protestant Movement, 1564–1572: A Contribution to the History of Congregationalism, Presbyterianism, and Calvinist Resistance Theory (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1967). 58 The text of note reads, “Gheen Kercke sal over een ander Kercke, gheen Dienaer des Woorts, gheen Ouderlinck, noch Diaken sal d’een over d’ander heerschappie voeren, maar een yeghelijck sal hen voor alle suspicien, ende aenlockinge om te heeschappen wachten.” See Acta Emden 1571, in P. Biesterveld / H. H. Kuyper, ed., Kerkelijk Handboekje: bevattende de bepalingen der Nederlandsche synoden en andere stukken van beteekenis voor de regering der kerken (Kampen: J. H. Bos, 1905), art. 1; and Wezelse Artikelen 1568, in Kerkelijk Handboekje, art. 4.7,9; 5.19; 8.14,20. See also Joh. Jansen, Korte verklaring van de kerkenordening (Kampen: Kok, 1923), 358ff. 59 See the description of “English republicanism” offered by Andrew Hadfield, “Republicanism in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Britain,” in British Political Thought in History, Literature and Theory, 1500–1800, ed. David Armitage (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 112: “…a 55

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Doctrine and Order

235

this development took on different forms depending on the particular context, showing remarkable adaptability. For where there was monarchy, as in Britain, the person of the king or queen functioned as the lex animata. And where the ruling authority was the council, as in Zurich, it functioned as the highest civil authority.60 And in either case, the prophetical office of the ecclesiastical authorities was of the utmost importance.61 Thus the matrix of church-state relations in the early modern era provides another element that stands behind the doctrine of subsidiarity.62 Long ago Augustine had reflected on the meaning of “neighbor,” and observed, “All people are to be loved equally; but since you cannot be of service to everyone, you have to take greater care of those who are more closely joined to you by a turn, so to say, of fortune’s wheel, whether by occasion of place or time, or any other such circumstance.”63 Once this sort of insight was applied to the responsibilities of institutions, rather than of individual conduct, another contributing factor was in place for a fully developed concept of political subsidiarity. It amounted to a question of the application of the second great love commandment to social institutions rather than merely to individual moral agents.

faith in the power of institutions to circumscribe the authority of the monarch allied to a belief that such institutions – Parliament, the law courts, local and national government – had the means to make individuals more virtuous and so better able to govern.” By contrast, Sunshine notes the relative tendency in the Bernese system to centralize ecclesiastical authority. See Sunshine, Reforming French Protestantism, 35: “The Bernese church may not have been an episcopacy in the strict sense of the term, but it was in essence hierarchical, albeit centering authority in a ‘central place’ rather than a ‘central person.’” See also Quentin Skinner, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, 2 vol. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), 1:139–192. On the complexity of social and political relations in the sixteenth century, see Daniel H. Nexon, The Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe: Religious Conflict, Dynastic Empires, and International Change (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009). 60 See Kirby, The Zurich Connection and Tudor Political Theology (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 28f, 73. For background on the formation of Bullinger’s influential views, see Emidio Campi, “Bullinger’s Early Political and Theological Thought: Brutus Tigurinus,” in Architect of Reformation: An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–1575, ed. Bruce Gordon / Emidio Campi (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 181–200. 61 See Daniel Bolliger, “Bullinger on Church Authority: The Transformation of the Prophetic Role in Christian Ministry,” in Architect of Reformation: An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–1575, 159–177. 62 A codifier such as Althusius would of course have been able to rely, and indeed intentionally did rely, on both civil and ecclesiastical sources in the formation of his system of politics. On the later development of subsidiarity and how it was applied not only in ecclesiastical but also civil contexts, see Ken Endo, “The Principle of Subsidiarity: From Johannes Althusius to Jacque Delors,” Hokkaido Law Review 44, no. 6 (1994): 553–652. 63 Augustine, Teaching Christianity: De Doctrina Christiana, trans. Edmund Hill, part I, vol. 11, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (New York: New City Press, 1996), 28.29, p. 118.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

236

Wolfgang Musculus and the Development of Reformed Theology

Ford demonstrates how a corresponding judgment was made during Musculus’ time in Augsburg, albeit over the protests of the city pastors. He relates the Augsburg city council’s decision to limit almsgiving to only native rather than to foreign beggars: “Although one should help everyone, one is more responsible to native inhabitants than foreigners, and, as St. Paul says, one is not obligated to give to others and thereupon suffer want.”64 Whereas “the pastors placed the question of the poor in a moral and religious context,” by contrast “the council saw the problem of the poor as a social matter that required police enforcement.”65 With regard to subsidiarity in a civil-political context, we have seen that Musculus identifies the sovereignty of the magistrate in terms of responsibility for care of religion not with the office of the supreme magistrate or emperor, but rather with the lower magistrate who meets the specific requirements as laid out in Musculus’ definition of sovereignty. This is but one aspect of the reciprocity between hierarchical offices that lies at the heart of Musculus’ organic view of society. Repeatedly Musculus emphasizes that the higher authority is responsible for empowering, supporting, and upholding the lesser powers, whether these be lesser magistrates or other offices of authority, such as teachers or ministers of the Word. His meaning is captured well in his statement, “Such powers received from God, although they are subordinate one to another, still they do not mutually destroy one another, but to a greater extent support each other. By no means is the Emperor superior so that he might impede the lesser magistrate, who uses his lesser power legitimately to the good of his subjects and to the glory of God, but more to this, that he might aid and support them.”66 In this way, Musculus’ doctrine of the mutual support between subordinate and superior powers stands as a formative antecedent to the development of the doctrine of subsidiarity.

Allmusen und frembd betler belangend, in Friedrich Roth, Augsburgs Reformationsgeschichte, vol. 3 (Munich: Theodor Ackermann, 1907), 194f; quoted and translated in Ford, “Wolfgang Musculus and the Struggle for Confessional Hegemony in Reformation Augsburg, 1531–1548,” 207. See also Thomas Max Safley, Charity and Economy in the Orphanages of Early Modern Augsburg (Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press, 1997). 65 Ford, “Wolfgang Musculus and the Struggle for Confessional Hegemony in Reformation Augsburg, 1531–1548,” 208. 66 Musculus, Loci communes, loc. 69, p. 637: “Potestates autem a Deo acceptæ, licet aliæ alijs sint subordinatæ, invicem tamen sese non extinguunt, sed magis confirmant. Haud est superior Cæsar, ut inferiores magistratus impediat, quo minus potestate sua legitime ad bonum subditorum, & gloriam Dei utantur: sed ad hoc magis, ut adiuvet eos, & confirmet ….” 64

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Summary



237

5.4 Summary In Wolfgang Musculus’ doctrine of the covenant, articulated in both his systematic and exegetical work, grounded in his conception of contingency and causality, and manifested in his view of the law in civil life, we find a transitional and influential expression of second-generation Reformed theology. This composite picture shows us a Reformer who does not attempt to closely follow any particular late-medieval schola, but rather one who adapts, updates, emends, and rejects traditionally-received distinctions to fit with a basically anti-speculative, pastorally-driven, and soteriologically-focused theological method. Musculus consisently tries to transcend the divisions that arose in late medieval theology, siding with particular figures or opinions where he deems appropriate, but avoiding any slavish or uncritical adherence, whether to Scotus, Ockham, or Thomas. Musculus’ theological program is thus a modification of the traditionallyreceived scholastic models according to specific humanistic (particularly linguistic and textual), but most especially exegetical and theological, concerns.67 A survey of a variety of the interrelated themes of covenant, causality, and law in Musculus’ doctrinal and exegetical works provides just such a comprehensive and reliable picture of his theology. Taken in isolation from each other, the various topics treated in this study might yield radically different pictures of Musculus’ theology. Only when they are placed in relation to one another does a discernible pattern arise, and it is not one that aligns itself explicitly or intentionally with any one of the late-medieval theological traditions. While Musculus is well-schooled in medieval scholastic theology, as is fitting for the purpose of his theological project, he does not attempt to simply reduplicate or reproduce a late-medieval theological system. Instead, Musculus’ major medieval interlocutors are sources like Lombard’s Sentences or Gratian’s Decretum, which serve his purpose of transcending divisions that became progressively

See Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 15: “… the problem of the relationship and tension between humanist and scholastic method becomes increasingly complex as we move out of the world of the philologist into the province of the theologian-exegete.” See also Muller, After Calvin, 16: “What is more, the ‘scholasticism’ of the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is shown to have been different from the scholasticism of the medieval centuries, given modifications in style and method brought about by the Renaissance and Reformation.” See also Willem van’t Spijker, “Reformation and Scholasticism,” in Reformation and Scholasticism: An Ecumenical Enterprise, ed. Willem J. van Asselt / Eef Dekker (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 79–98; and Carl R. Trueman / R. Scott Clark, ed., Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999). 67

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

238

Wolfgang Musculus and the Development of Reformed Theology

manifest in the move from the thirteenth through the fifteenth centuries.68 In dealing with these medieval sources, Musculus most often does not reject the scholastic tools and distinctions wholesale, but instead alters them and places them within the service of his own theological project. In terms of his covenant thought, once we have placed Musculus’ systematic statement of covenant within the context of his exegesis in Genesis, the composite picture resists the easy classification of Musculus as either one who “does not have three covenants, but only two,” or one for whom “there was one covenant.”69 The correlative distinctions on the one hand between the general and special covenants in the Loci and between unconditional and conditional covenants in the commentary provide a basic set of theological categories that undergird the development of later covenantal thought. In connecting Musculus’ exegetical work with his systematic Loci communes, we find the development of the locus on the covenant to be a consequence not of rationalism or the imposition of an artificial theological agenda, but instead to be the result of a close reading and struggling with the data of the biblical text. This conclusion regarding the relationship between Musculus’ exegesis and his systematic work is reinforced by the study of his commentaries on Psalms and Romans along with his loci on God’s will, free choice, law, and the civil magistrate. Wolfgang Musculus’ theological method as evidenced within his Loci communes is fundamentally soteriologically-focused, anti-speculative, and pastorally-driven, eclectically modifying and adapting traditional medieval scholastic distinctions to fit with these purposes. His doctrine of the covenant, arising from his exegesis and grounded in metaphysical concerns of causality and contingency, and finally expressed in his views of social order and civil law, is a decisive early statement of orthodox Reformed theological method, which serves as a transitional point between the reception of late-medieval trends and later developments of Reformed scholasticism. These doctrines, as understood within the context of Musculus’ exegetical work, provide formative antecedents for later doctrinal developments in the sixteenth and seventeenth century on topics including covenant, causality, free choice, natural law, and subsidiarity.

68 See Muller, After Calvin, 75: “It was virtually a truism among the Protestant scholastics that the earlier medieval scholasticism of Anselm and Lombard was more congenial to the Reformation and less troubled by philosophical and speculative questions than the scholasticism of the later Middle Ages, particularly from the time of Duns Scotus onward.” 69 See Ives, “The Theology of Wolfgang Musculus, 1497–1563,” 160; and Charles S. McCoy / J. Wayne Baker, Fountainhead of Federalism, 22.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Bibliography Musculus’ Works Ancient and Patristic Ioannis Chrysostomi Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani in Omnes D. Pauli epistolas commentarij. Basel: Johann Herwagen, 1536. Opera D. Basilii Magni Caesariae Cappadociae Episcopi Omnia. Basel: Johann Herwagen, 1540. Operum Divi Cyrilli Alexandrini Episcopi Tomi Quator. Basel: Johann Herwagen, 1546. Ecclesiasticae Historiae Autores. Basel: Hieronymus Froben / Nikolaus Episcopius, 1549. Divi Gregorii Theologi, Episcopi Nazianzeni Opera. Basel: Johann Herwagen, 1550. Athanasii Magni Alexandrini Episcopi, Graviss. Scriptoris, et Sanctiss. Martyris, Opera. Basel: Hieronymus Froben / Nikolaus Episcopius, 1556.

Exegetical In Evangelistam Matthaeum commentarii tribvs tomis digesti: qvibvs non solvm singvla qvae qve exponuntur, sed & quid singulis Marci & Lucae differentibus locis notandum sit, diligenter expenditur. Basel: Johann Herwagen, 1544. Commentariorum in Evangelistam Ioannem, Heptas prima. Basel: Bartholomaeus Westheimer, 1545. Commentariorum in Evangelistam Ioannem, Heptas altera, item tertia et postrema in eundem. Basel: Johann Herwagen, 1548. In Sacrosanctum Dauidis Psalterium Comentarij. Basel: Johann Herwagen, 1551. In Mosis Gensim plenissimi Commentarii, in quibus ueterum & recentiorum sententiæ diligenter expenduntur. Basel: Johann Herwagen, 1554. Den eersten Psalm Davids, seer fijn ende Christleick wtgheleit. Emden: E. van der Erve / Gailliart, 1554. In sacrosanctum Dauidis Psalterium Commentarii. Basel: Johann Herwagen, 1556. In Davidis psalterium sacrosanctum commentarij: in quibus et reliqua catholicae religionis nostrae capita passim, non praetermissis orthodoxorum etiam patrum sententijs, ita tractantur, ut Christianus lector nihil desiderare amplius posit. Basel: Johann Herwagen, 1573. An Exposition of the 51 Psalmen by Musculus translated. London: 1586. “Commentary on Psalm 15 (1551).” Translated by Todd M. Rester. Journal of Markets & Morality 11, no. 2 (Fall 2008) 379–460 (1–82).

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

240

Bibliography

Systematic Loci communes in usus sacrae Theologiae candidatorum parati. Basel: Johann Herwagen, 1564 [1560]. Common places of Christian religion. Translated by John Man. London: Reginalde Wolfe, 1563. Lieux Communs de la saincte escriture. Translated by Antonine du Pinet. Lyon: Charles Pesnot, 1570. Common places of Christian religion, gathered by Wolfgangus Musculus, for the vse of such as desire the knovvledge of godly truth. Translated out of Latine into English, by Iohn Man of Merton Colledge in Oxforde. Herevnto are added tvvo other treatises, made by the same author, one of othes, and an other of usury. VVith a most perfect and plentifull table. Seene and allovved according to the order appoynted in the Queenes Maiesties iniunctions. Translated by John Man. London: Henry Bynneman, 1578.

Occasional Ain frydsams unnd Christlichs Gesprech ains Evangelischen auff ainer und ains Widerteüffers auff der andern seyten so sy des Aydschwürs halben mitainander thünd. Augsburg: Philip Ulhardt, 1533. Adversus libellum Iohannis Cochlaei de Sacerdotio ac Sacrifico novae legis aeditum. Augs����� burg: Philipp Ulhardt, 1544. Auff das Büchlin Johannes Cochlei welches er zur verthädigung Bäpstlichs Priesterthumbs vnnd Meβopffers im Jar 1544. Augsburg: Philipp Ulhardt, 1545. Vom Woker. Rostock: Ludwig Dietz, 1554. Een claere ende Scriftelicke onderrichtinghe vanden Eedt. n.p.: Martin Micron, 1555. On the lawful and unlawful usury amongest Christians. n.p.: ca. 1556. Traicté de l’usure. n.p.: 1557. ΣΥΝΟΨΙΣ festalium concionum. Basel: Conrad Waldkirch, 1595. Von dem schandlichen hochschaedlichen, von Gott verfluchten unnd verdampten, by heutiger Welt aber hochgeehrtem, gemehrtem unnd allen Geytzhaelsen ausserwoehlten Schaetzlein dem Wucher so welandt. Strasbourg: Jobins Erben, 1593.

Primary Sources Ancient and Patristic Ambrose of Milan, De Noe et Arca. In Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. Edited by Carolus Schenkl, vol. 32, pt. 1. Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1897, 411–497. –, De Abraham. In Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. Edited by Carolus Schenkl, vol. 32, pt. 1. Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1897, 499–638. Aristotle, The Nichomachean Ethics. Translated by David Ross. Revised by J. L. Ackril / J. O. Urmson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986. –, The Politics of Aristotle. Translated and edited by Ernest Barker. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1958.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Primary Sources

241

Augustine of Hippo, Scala Paradisi. In Opera Omnia, vol. 6. Patrologia Cursus Completus, edited by J. P. Migne. Paris: Gaume Fratres, 1837. –, The Spirit and the Letter. Translated by John Burnaby. In Augustine: Later Works. Edited by John Burnaby. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1955. –, St. Augustine on the Psalms. Translated by Scholastica Hebgin / Felicitas Corrigan. Vol. 1. Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1960. –, Teaching Christianity: De Doctrina Christiana. Translated by Edmund Hill. Part I, vol. 11, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century. New York: New City Press, 1996. –, The City of God against the Pagans. Translated and edited by R. W. Dyson. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998. –, The Augustine Catechism: The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope, and Love. Translated by Bruce Herbert, vol. 1, The Augustine Series. New York: New City Press, 1999. –, Ennarationes in Psalmos 1–32. Edited by Clemens Weidmann. Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenshaften, 2003. –, The Confessions. Translated by Maria Boulding. Edited by John E. Rotelle. The Works of Saint Augustine, pt. I, vol. 1. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2005. Basil of Caesarea, On the Human Condition. Translated by Nonna Verna Harrison. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2005. Chrysostom, John, Hermeneia eis pasas tas tou hagiou Paulou epistolas. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1849. –, The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Romans. Translated by J. B. Morris / W. H. Simcox. In A Select Library of the Nicene and Post–Nicene Fathers. First series, vol. 11, 329–564. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995 [1889]. Maximus,Valerius, Factorum Dictorumque Memorabilium exempla. Frankfurt: Petri Brubacchij, 1555. Seneca, Naturales quaestiones. Translated by Thomas H. Corcoran. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971. Syrus, Publilius, Sententiae. Stuttgart: Caroli Hoffman, 1829. Virgil, Aeneis Buch VI. Edited by Eduard Norden. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1995.

Medieval Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Theologica. New York: Benzinger Bros, 1947. –, Super Epistolam ad Romanos Lectura. In Super Epistolas S. Pauli Lectura. Edited by Raphael Cai, 1:5–230. Turin: Marietti, 1953. –, Lectures on the Letter to the Romans. Translated by Fabian Larcher. Edited by Jeremy Holmes. Naples, FL: Aquinas Center for Theological Renewal, 2008. Bonaventure, Commentaria in Quatuor Libros Sententiarum. In S. Bonaventurae opera omnia. Edited by Collegii S. Bonaventura, vol. 2. Florence: Quaracchi, 1885. Denis the Carthusian, In Psalmos omnes Davidicos. Cologne: Petrum Quentell, 1531. Gratian, Decretum Magistri Gratiani. In Corpus Iuris Canonici, vol. 1. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1959. Lombard, Peter, Sententiarum Quatuor Libri. In S. Bonaventurae opera omnia. Edited by Collegii S. Bonaventura, 4 vol. Florence: Quaracchi, 1882–1889.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

242

Bibliography

–, The Sentences. Translated by Giulio Silano. 4 vol. Toronto: Pontifical Institute for Mediaeval Studies, 2007–2010. Nicholas of Lyra, Postilla super Genesim. Nuremberg: Anton Koburger, 1498. William of Ockham, Opera theologica: Quodlibeta septem. Edited by Joseph. C. Wey. St. Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Institute, 1986. –, Scriptum in Librum Primum Sententiarum Ordinatio: Distinctiones 19–48. Vol. 4, Opera Theologica. St. Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Institute, 1986.

Reformation and Post-Reformation Acta Emden 1571. In Kerkelijk Handboekje: bevattende de bepalingen der Nederlandsche synoden en andere stukken van beteekenis voor de regering der kerken. Edited by P. Biesterveld / H. H. Kuyper. Kampen: J. H. Bos, 1905. Adam, Melchior, Vitae Germanorum Theologorum. Heidelberg: Geydes, 1620. Althusius, Johannes, Politica methodice digesta. Herborn, 1614. –, Dicaeologicae libri tres. Herborn, 1617. –, “Selections from the Dicaeologicae.” Translated by Jeffrey J. Veenstra. Journal of Markets & Morality 9, no. 2 (Fall 2006), 429–83. –, Politica methodice digesta of Johannes Althusius (Althaus). New York: Arno Press, 1979. Aretius, Benedict, Problemata theologica continenta praecipuos Christianae religionis locos. Lausanne: Le Preux, 1573. Arminius, Jacob, Dissertation on the True and Genuine Sense of the Seventh Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. In The Works of James Arminius. Translated by James Nichols, vol 2., London ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991. Baier, Johann Wilhelm, Dissertatio historico-theologica de impanatione et consubstantiatione. Jena: Johannis Wertheri, 1677. Baxter, Richard, Church-History of the Government of Bishops and their Councils Abbreviated. London: Thomas Simmons, 1681. Bernard, Richard, The Faithfull Shepheard. London: Arnold Harfield, 1607. Brenius, Daniel, Opera theologica. Amsterdam: Irenicus Philalethius, 1666. Brouwer, Petrus, De XXVste Psalm, in eene Doorgaande Verklaaring. Dordrecht: Pieter van Braam, 1769. Brown of Haddington, John, The Absurdity and Perfidy of All Authoritative Toleration of Gross Heresy, Blasphemy, Idolatry, Popery, in Britain. Glasgow: John Bryce, 1780. Bucer, Martin, Quomodo S. Literae pro Concionibus tractandae sint Instructio (1531). In Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 26 (1946) 32–75. –, Common Places of Martin Bucer. Edited and translated by D. F. Wright. Abingdon, UK: Sutton Courtenay Press, 1972. – De Regno Christi. In Melanchthon and Bucer. Edited by Wilhelm Pauck, 153–394. Vol. 19 of Library of Christian Classics. Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox Press, 1981. –, Briefwechsel / Correspondance: Band V (September 1530-Mai 1531). Edited by Matthieu Arnold / Christian Krieger / Hans Georg Rott. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Bulkeley, Peter, The Gospel-Covenant; or The Covenant of Grace Opened. London: Benjamin Allen, 1646. Bull, George, Examen Censuræ. London: Richard Davis, 1676. –, Apologia pro Harmonia. London: Richard Smith, 1703.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Primary Sources

243

Bullinger, Heinrich, De testamento seu foedere Dei unico et aeterno. Zurich: C. Froschauer, 1534. –, Der alt gloub. Das der Christen gloub von anfang der waelt gewaert habe. Zurich: C. Froshauer, 1539. –, The olde fayth. Translated by Miles Coverdale. Antwerp: M. Crom, 1541. –, Compendium Christianae religionis. Zurich: C. Froschauer, 1556. –, Summa christenlicher Religion. Zurich: C. Froschauer, 1556. –, Sermonum decades quinque. Zurich: C. Froschauer, 1567. –, Common places of the Christian Religion. Translated by John Stockwood. London: George Byshop, 1572. –, Oratio de moderatione servanda in negotio providentiae, praedestinationis, gratiae et liberi arbitrii (1536). In Johann H. Hottinger, Historiae Ecclesiasticae Novi Testamenti, vol. 8, pp. 763–827. Zurich: Johann Heinrich Hamberger, 1667. –, The old faith. In Writings and Translations of Myles Coverdale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1844, 1–83. –, Confessio et exposito simplex orthodoxae fidei. In Bekenntnisschriften und Kirchen­ ordnung der nach Gottes Wort reformierten Kirche. Edited by Wilhelm Niesel, 219–76. Zurich: Zollikon, 1938. –, The Second Helvetic Confession. In The Book of Confessions. New York: Presbyterian Church [U.S.A.], 2002. –, The Decades of Henry Bullinger. Edited by Thomas Harding. 2 vol. Grand Rapids: Re­formation Heritage Books, 2004. –, A Brief Exposition of the One and Eternal Testament or Covenant of God. Translated by Charles S. McCoy / J. Wayne Baker. In McCoy / Baker, Fountainhead of Federalism, 99–138. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1991. Calamy, Edmund,. The Godly Mans Ark, or, City of Refuge in the day of his distresse. London: Jo. Hancock, 1657. Calvin, John, Ioannis Calvini Opera. Edited by G. Baum / E. Cunitz / E. Reuss. 59 vol. Braunschweig: C. A. Schwetschke, 1863–1900. –, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. 1. Translated by James Anderson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949. –, Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. 2 vol. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960. –, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will: A Defense of the Orthodox Doctrine of Human Choice against Pighius. Edited by A. N. S. Lane. Translated by G. I. Davies. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1996. –, Genesis. Translated by John King. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 2000. –, “Calvin’s Reply to Sadoleto.” In A Reformation Debate. Edited by John C. Olin, 43–88. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000. Council of Trent, The Canons and Decrees of the Sacred and Œcumenical Council of Trent Celebrated under the Sovereign Pontiffs, Paul III, Julius III, and Pius IV. Translated by J. Waterworth. London: Dolman, 1848. Daneau, Lambert, In Petri Lombardi Episcopi Parisiensis (qui Magister Sententiarum appellatur) librum primum Sententiarum, qui est de vero Deo, essentia quidem uno: personis autem trino: Lamberti Danaei Commentarius triplex. Geneva: Eustathium Vignon, 1580. Downame, George, Lectures on the XV. Psalme. London: Adam Islip, 1604. Eck, Johann, Tractatus de contractu quinque de centum. 1515.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

244

Bibliography

Erasmus, Desiderius, Colloquia nunc emendatiora. Amsterdam: Danielis Elzevirii, 1677. Fisher, Edward, The Marrow of Modern Divinity: Touching both the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace. London: G. Calvert, 1645. Fowler, Edward, The Design of Christianity. London: R. Royston / Lodowick Lloyd, 1671. Gerhard, Johann, Loci theologici, vol. 3. Berlin: Gust. Schlawitz, 1865. Gill, John, Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, 2 vol. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978. Grotius, Hugo, Ordinum Hollandia ac Westfrisiae Pietas (1613). Translated and edited by Edwin Rabbi. Leiden: Brill, 1995. –, De imperio summarum potestatum circa sacra. Translated and edited by Harm-Jan van Dam, vol. 1. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Hawke, Michael, Killing is Murder, and No Murder. London: Mich. Hawke, 1657. Hessus, Hermann Schottenis, Confabulationes tironum litterariorum (Cologne, 1525). Edited by Peter Macardle. Durham: Durham University, 2007. Hubmaier, Balthasar, “On Free Will.” In Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers. Edited by George H. Williams / Angel M. Mergal, 114–35. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1957. Junius, Franciscus, De politiae Mosis observatione. Leiden: Christophori Guyotij, 1602. –, “Selection from On the Observation of the Mosaic Polity.” Translated by Todd M. Rester. Journal of Markets & Morality 14, no. 1 (Spring 2011) 245–291. Kimedonicus, Jacobus, De Redemtione Generis Humani Libri tres. Heidelberg: Abrahamus Smesmannus, 1592. Leigh, Edward, A Treatise of Divinity. London: E. Griffin, 1646. Luther, Martin, De Servo Arbitrio Martini Lutheri ad D. Erasmum Roterodamum. Nuremberg, 1526. –, Luther’s Works, Vol. 2: Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 6–14. Edited by Jaroslav Jan Pelikan / Hilton C. Oswald / Helmut T. Lehmann. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999. Marlorat, Augustin, Genesis cum catholica expositione ecclesiastica. Geneva: ������������������� Henri Estienne, 1562. Melanchthon, Philip, Der Ordinanden Examen. Wittenberg: Hans Lufft, 1552. –, Examen eorum, qui audiuntur ante ritum publicae ordinationis, qua commendatur eis ministerium evangelii. Wittenberg: Johannis Richter, 1554. –, Brevis discendae theologiae ratio. In Philippi Melanchthonis Opera quae supersunt omnia. Vol. 2. Edited by C. G. Bretschneider. Halle: Schwetschke, 1833. –, Loci communes theologici. In Philippi Melanchthonis Opera quae supersunt omnia. Vol. 21. Edited by C. G. Bretschneider. Braunschweig: Schwetschke, 1854. –, Commentary on Romans. Translated by Fred Kramer. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1992. Niemeyer, H. A., ed. Collectio Confessionum in Ecclesiis Reformatis Publicatarum. Leipzig: Julius Klinkhardt, 1840. Pellicanus, Conrad, Commentaria Bibliorum, tomus primus. Zurich: C. Froschauer, 1536. Rhegius, Urban. Der XV. Psalm Dauids. Magdeburg: Michael Lotther, 1537. Sattler, Michael, The Schleitheim Articles. Edited and translated by Michael B. Baylor. In The Radical Reformation. Edited and translated by Michael G. Baylor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Simon, Richard, Histoire critique du Vieux Testament. Rotterdam: Reinier Leers, 1685.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Secondary Sources

245

Smith, Richard, Confutatio eorum, quae Philippus Melanchthon objicit contra Missae sacrificium propitiarum. Leuven: Joannes Bogardus, 1562. Sprint, John, Propositions, Tending to Proove the Necessarie use of the Christian Sabbaoth, or Lords Day. London: Thomas Man, 1607. Strype, John, Annals of the Reformation and Establishment of Religion. London: John Wyat, 1709. Uytenbogaert, Jan, Tractaet van t’ampt ende authoriteyt eener hoogher christelicker overheydt, in kerckelicke saecken. Den Haag: Hillebrant Jacobsz, 1610. Venema, Hermann, Commentarius ad Psalmos CXI–CL, vol. 6. Leeuwarden: H. A. de Chalmot, 1767. Vermigli, Peter Martyr, In Epistolam S. Pauli Apostoli ad Romanos. Basel: Petrum Pernam, 1558. –, Most learned and fruitfull Commentaries of D. Peter Martir Vermilius Florentine, Professor of Divinitie in the Schole of Tigure, upon the Epistle of S. Paul to the Romanes. London: John Daye, 1568. –, The Common Places of the most famous and renowned Divine Doctor Peter Martyr. Translated by Anthonie Marten. London: Henry Denham / Henry Middleton, 1583. –, “The Civil Magistrate: From Commentary on Romans 13.” Translated by Torrance Kirby. In The Peter Martyr Reader. Edited by John Patrick Donnelly / Frank A. James III / Joseph C. McLelland, 221–237. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 1999. –, Commentary on Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics. Translated by Kenneth Austin / Stephen Beall / Leszek Wysocki. Edited by Emidio Campi / Joseph C. McClelland. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2006. Wezelse Artikelen 1568. In Kerkelijk Handboekje: bevattende de bepalingen der Nederlandsche synoden en andere stukken van beteekenis voor de regering der kerken. Edited by P. Biesterveld / H. H. Kuyper. Kampen: J. H. Bos, 1905. Whitaker, William, Disputatio de sacra scriptura contra huius Papistas. Herborn: Christopheri Corvinus, 1600. Whitgift, John, The Defense of the Aunswere to the Admonition. London: Humfrey Toye, 1574. Witsius, Herman, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man. Translated by William Crookshank. London: R. Baynes, 1822. Zanchi, Girolamo (Jerome), De religione christiana fides – Confession of Christian Religion. Edited by Luca Baschera / Christian Moser. 2 vol. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Zwingli, Huldrych, In Catabaptistarum strophas elenchus Huldrychi Zuingli. In Opera d. Huldrychi Zuingli, vol. 2. Zurich: C. Froschauer, 1545. –, Selected Works. Translated by Lawrence A. McLouth / Henry Preble / George W. Gilmore. Edited by Samuel Macauley Jackson. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972.

Secondary Sources Adam, Gottfried, Der Streit um die Prädestination im ausgehenden 16. Jahrhundert; eine Untersuchung zu den Entwurfen von Samuel Huber und Aegidius Hunnius. Vol. 30, Beiträge zur Geschichte und Lehre der Reformierten Kirche. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

246

Bibliography

Ahačič, Kozma, “Musculus, Gwalther, Luther, Erasmus. Primus Truber as the First Slovenian Translator of Scriptural Texts.” Zwingliana 36 (2009) 115–135. Allen, Don Cameron, The Legend of Noah: Renaissance Rationalism in Art, Science, and Letters. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1949. Althaus, Paul, Die Prinzipien der deutschen reformierten Dogmatik im Zeitalterder aristotelischen Scholastik. Leipzig: Deicher, 1914. Armitage, David, ed. British Political Thought in History, Literature and Theory, 1500–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Armstrong, Brian G, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy: Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism in Seventeenth–Century France. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969. Asselt, Willem J. van, “Cocceius Anti–Scholasticus?” In Reformation and Scholasticism: An Ecumenical Enterprise. Edited by Willem J. van Asselt / Eef Dekker, 227–51. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001. Asselt, Willem J. van / Martin Bac / Roelf T. te Velde (ed.), Reformed Thought on Freedom: The Concept of Free Choice in the History of Early-Modern Reformed Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010. Asselt, Willem J. van / Eef Dekker (ed.), Reformation and Scholasticism: An Ecumenical Enterprise. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001. Bac, J. Martin, Perfect Will Theology: Divine Agency in Reformed Scholasticism as against Suárez, Episcopius, Descartes, and Spinoza. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Backus, Irena, Lectures Humanistes de Basile de Césarée: Traductions Latines (1439–1618). Paris: Institute d’Études Augustiennes, 1990. –, Historical Method and Confessional Identity in the Era of the Reformation. Leiden: Brill, 2003. –, “Calvin’s Concept of Natural and Roman Law.” Calvin Theological Journal 38, no. 1 (April 2003) 7–26. Backus, Irena (ed.), The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: From the Carolingians to the Maurists. 2 vol. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Bähler, Eduard, “Bern unde die Augsburger Interimsflüchtlinge.” Neues Berner Taschenbuch 26 (1921) 67–124. Bäumlin, Richard, “Naturrecht und obrigkeitliches Kirchenregiment bei Wolfgang Musculus.” In Für Kirche und Recht: Festschrift für Johannes Heckel zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Siegfried Grundmann, 120–43. Cologne: Böhlau, 1959. –, “Die evangelische Kirche und der Staat in der Schweiz seit dem Kulturkampf.” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte [Kanonistische Abteilung] 76 [45] (1959) 249–277. Baker, J. Wayne, “Heinrich Bullinger and the Idea of Usury.” Sixteenth Century Journal 5, no. 1 (April 1974) 49–70. –, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition. Athens: Ohio University Press, 1980. –, “Christian Discipline, Church and State, and Toleration: Bullinger, Calvin and Basel 1530–1555.” In Das Reformierte Erbe: Festschrift für Gottfried W. Locher. Edited by Heiko A. Oberman / Ernst Saxer / Alfred Schindler / Heinzpeter Stucki, 1:35–48. Zurich: TVZ, 1992. –, “Heinrich Bullinger, the Covenant, and the Reformed Tradition in Retrospect.” Sixteenth Century Journal 29, no. 2 (Summer 1998) 359–76.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Secondary Sources

247

Baker, Robert C. / Roland Cap Ehlke (ed.), Natural Law: A Lutheran Reappraisal. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2011. Ballor, Jordan J., “Wolfgang Musculus on Christian Righteousness, Oaths, and Usury.” Journal of Markets & Morality 11, no. 2 (Fall 2008) 353–77. –, “The Loci Communes of Wolfgang Musculus and Reformed Thought on Free Choice.” In Die Philosophie der Reformierten. Edited by Günther Frank / Herman J. Selderhuis. Stuttgart-Bad Canstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 2012. Barth, Karl, Die Kirchliche Dogmatik, vol. IV / 1. Zurich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1953. –, Church Dogmatics, Volume IV: The Doctrine of God, Part 1. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2004. Baschera, Luca, “Peter Martyr Vermigli on Free Will: The Aristotelian Heritage of Reformed Theology.” Calvin Theological Seminary 42, no. 2 (November 2007) 325–40. Bayer, Oswald, “Freiheit: das Verständnis des Menschen bei Luther und Melanchthon im Vergleich.” Lutherjahrbuch 66 (1999) 135–50. –, “Freedom? The Anthropological Concepts in Luther and Melanchthon Compared.” Translated by Christine Helmer. Harvard Theological Review 91 (October 1998) 373–87. Bayle, Pierre, A General Dictionary, Historical and Critical, vol. 7. London: James Bettenbam, 1738. –, Dictionaire historique et critique, vol. 10, new ed. Paris: Desoer, 1820. Bell, Gary M., “John Man: The Last Elizabethan Resident Ambassador in Spain.” Sixteenth Century Journal 7, no. 2 (October 1976) 75–93. Benedict, Philip. Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002. Berman, Harold J., Law and Revolution, II: The Impact of the Protestant Reformations on the Western Legal Traditions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006. Berman, Harold J. / Charles J. Reid Jr., “Roman Law in Europe and the Jus Commune: A Historical Overview with Emphasis on the New Legal Science of the Sixteenth Century.” Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce 20 (Spring 1994) 1–31. Bierma, Lyle D., German Calvinism in the Confessional Age: The Covenant Theology of Caspar Olevianus. Revised edition. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2005. Billings, J. Todd, Calvin, Participation, and the Gift: The Activity of Believers in Union with Christ. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Billy, Dennis J., “Grace and Natural Law in the Super Epistolam Ad Romanos Lectura: A Study of Thomas’ Commentary on Romans 2:14–16.” Studia Moralia 26 (1988) 15–37. Black, J. William, Reformation Pastors: Richard Baxter and the Ideal of the Reformed Pastor. Waynesboro: Paternoster Press, 2004. Bodenmann, Reinhard, Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563), Destin d’un Autodidacte Lorrain au Siècle des Réformes. Geneva: Droz, 2000. Bohatec, J., “Die Methode der reformierten Dogmatik.” Theologische Studien und Kritiken 81 (1908) 272–302; 383–401. Bolliger, Daniel, Infiniti Contemplatio: Grundzüge der Scotus-und Scotismusrezeption im Werk Huldrych Zwinglis. Brill: Leiden, 2003. –, “Bullinger on Church Authority: The Transformation of the Prophetic Role in Christian Ministry.” In Architect of Reformation: An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–1575. Edited by Bruce Gordon / Emidio Campi, 159–177. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004. Bornert, René, “Wolfgang Musculus und das Benediktinische Mönchtum des ausgehenden

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

248

Bibliography

Mittelalters und der Reformationszeit im südwestdeutschen Raum.” In Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563) und die oberdeutsche Reformation. Edited by Rudolf Dellsperger / Rudolf Freudenberger / Wolfgang Weber, 42–67. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1997. Boureau, Alain, Satan the Heretic: The Birth of Demonology in the Medieval West. Translated by Teresa Lavender Fagan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006. Brady, Thomas A., Jr., Turning Swiss: Cities and Empire, 1450–1550. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Bray, G, “Conrad Pellikan (1478–1556).” In Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters. Edited by Donald K. McKim, 812–815. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007. Bredvold, Louis I., “The Meaning and Concept of Right Reason in the Natural-Law Tradition.” University of Detroit Law Journal 36 (December 1959) 120–29. Breen, Quirinus, “The Terms ‘Loci Communes’ and ‘Loci’ in Melanchthon.” Church History 16, no. 4 (December 1947) 197–209. Brümmer, Vincent, “Calvin, Bernard and the Freedom of the Will.” Religious Studies 30 (December 1994) 437–455. Bruening, Michael W., Calvinism’s First Battleground: Conflict and Reform in the Pays de Vaud. Dordrecht: Springer, 2005. Burnett, Amy Nelson, The Yoke of Christ: Martin Bucer and Christian Discipline. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 1994. Camacho, Francisco Gómez, “Later Scholastics: Spanish Economic Thought in the XVIth and XVIIth Centuries.” In Ancient and Medieval Economic Ideas and Concepts of Social Justice. Edited by S. Todd Lowry / Barry Gordon, 503–62. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Campi, Emidio, “Bullinger’s Early Political and Theological Thought: Brutus Tigurinus.” In Architect of Reformation: An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–1575. Edited by Bruce Gordon / Emidio Campi, 181–200. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004. –, “Bullinger’s Early Political and Theological Thought: Brutus Tigurinus.” In Architect of Reformation: An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–1575, ed. Bruce Gordon / Emidio Campi, 181–200. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004. –, “Bullingers Rechts- und Staatsdenken.” Evangelische Theologie, 64 (2004) 116–126. Campi, Emidio (ed.), Peter Martyr Vermigli: Humanism, Republicanism, Reformation. Geneva: Droz, 2002. Campi, Emidio / Simone De Angelis / Anja-Silvia Goeing / Anthony T. Grafton (ed.), Scho­ larly Knowledge: Textbooks in Early Modern Europe. Geneva: Droz, 2008. Catalogus van de bibliotheek der Remonstrantsch-Gereformeerde Gemeente te Rotterdam. Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff, 1893. Carney, Frederick S. / Heinz Schilling / Dieter Wyduckel (ed.), Jurisprudenz, Politische Theorie und Politische Theologie. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2004. Carvalho, C., “Nicholas of Lyra, (c. 1270–1349).” In Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters. Edited by Donald K. McKim, 770–776. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007. Chafuen, Alejandro A., Faith and Liberty: The Economic Thought of the Late Scholastics. Lanham, MD: Lexington, 2003. Charles, J. Daryl, Retrieving the Natural Law: A Return to Moral First Things. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Clark, R. Scott, Caspar Olevian and the Substance of the Covenant: The Double Benefit of Christ. Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 2005. Collinson, Patrick, “England and International Calvinism: 1558–1640.” In International

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Secondary Sources

249

Calvinism: 1541–1715. Edited by Menna Prestwich, 197–223. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985. –, From Cranmer to Sancroft. London: Continuum, 2006. Condren, Conal, Argument and Authority in Early Modern England: The Presupposition of Oaths and Offices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Courtenay, William J., Covenant and Causality in Medieval Thought: Studies in Philosophy, Theology, and Economic Practice. London: Variorium Reprints, 1984. –, Capacity and Volition: A History of the Distinction of Absolute and Ordained Power. Bergamo: P. Lubrina, 1990. –, Ockham and Ockhamism: Studies in the Dissemination and Impact of His Thought. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Dahm, Karl-Wilhelm / Werner Krawietz / Dieter Wyduckel (ed.), Politische Theorie des Johannes Althusius. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1988. Dekker, Eef, “An Ecumenical Debate between Reformation and Counter-Reformation? Bellarmine and Ames on liberum arbitrium.” In Reformation and Scholasticism: An Ecumenical Enterprise. Edited by Willem J. van Asselt / Eef Dekker, 141–54. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001. Dellsperger, Rudolf, “Bucer und Musculus.” In Martin Bucer and Sixteenth Century Europe: Actes du colloque de Strasbourg (28–31 août 1991). Edited by Christian Krieger / Marc Lienhard, vol. 1, 419–27. New York: Brill, 1993. –, “Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563) Leben und Werk.” In Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563) und die oberdeutsche Reformation. Edited by Rudolf Dellsperger / Rudolf Freudenberger / Wolfgang Weber, 23–36. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1997. Dellsperger, Rudolf / Marc van Wijnkoop Lüthi, “Peter Martyr Vermigli und Wolfgang Musculus.” In Peter Martyr Vermigli: Humanism, Republicanism, Reformation. Edited by Emidio Campi, 105–18. Geneva: Droz, 2002. Dellsperger, Rudolf / Rudolf Freudenberger / Wolfgang Weber (ed.), Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563) und die oberdeutsche Reformation. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1997. Dent, Christopher Mattinson, Protestant Reformers in Elizabethan Oxford. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983. Diemer, N., Het Scheppingsverbond met Adam bij de Theologen der 16e, 17e, en 18e Eew in Zwitserland, Duitschland, Nederland en Engeland. Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1935. Dixon, C. Scott, “The Politics of Law and Gospel: The Protestant Prince and the Holy Roman Empire.” In The Impact of the European Reformation: Princes, Clergy and People. Edited by Bridget Heal / Ole Peter Grell, 37–62. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2008. Donati, Pierpaolo, “What Does ‘Subsidiarity’ Mean? The Relational Perspective.” Journal of Markets & Morality 12, no. 2 (Fall 2009) 211–43. Edwards, Kathryn (ed.), Werewolves, Witches and Wandering Spirits: Traditional Belief and Folklore in Early Modern Europe. Kirksville: Truman State University Press, 2002. Eenigenburg, Elton M., “The Place of Covenant in Calvin’s Thinking.” Reformed Review 10 (1957) 1–22. Ehrenberg, Richard, Das Zeitalter der Fugger. 2 vol. Jena: Gustav Fischer, 1922. –, Capital & Finance in the Age of the Renaissance: A Study of the Fuggers and their Connections. Translated by H. M. Lucas. New York: Harcourt, 1928. Ehrenpreis, Stefan / Ute Lotz-Heumann / Olaf Mörke / Luise Schorn-Schütte (ed.), Wege der Neuzeit: Festschrift für Heinz Schilling zum 65. Geburtstag. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2007.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

250

Bibliography

Elazar, Daniel J., The Covenant Tradition in Politics. 4 volumes. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1995–1998. Emmett, Ross B., “Exegesis, Hermeneutics, and Interpretation.” In A Companion to the History of Economic Thought. Edited by Warren J. Samuels / Jeff E. Biddle / John B. Davis, 523–37. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003. Endo, Ken, “The Principle of Subsidiarity: From Johannes Althusius to Jacque Delors.” Hokkaido Law Review 44, no. 6 (1994) 553–652. Estes, James Martin, Peace, Order and the Glory of God: Secular Authority and the Church in the Thought of Luther and Melanchthon, 1518–1559. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Farmer, Craig S., The Gospel of John in the Sixteenth Century: The Johannine Exegesis of Wolfgang Musculus. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. –, “Reformation-Era Polemics Against Anabaptist Oath Refusal.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 81 (April 2007). –, “Musculus, Wolfgang (1497–1563).” In Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters. Edited by Donald K. McKim, pp. 765–769. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007. Fesko, J. V., “Lapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dort.” In Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism, ed. Michael A.G. Haykin / Mark Jones, 99–123. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Figgis, John Neville, The Divine Right of Kings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914. Ford, James T., “Wolfgang Musculus and the Struggle for Confessional Hegemony in Reformation Augsburg, 1531–1548.” Ph.D. diss.: University of Wisconsin–Madison, 2000. – “Wolfgang Musculus on the Office of the Christian Magistrate.” ������������������� Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 91 (2000) 149–67. François, Etienne, “Konfessioneller Pluralismus und deutsche Identität.” In Wege der Neuzeit: Festschrift für Heinz Schilling zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Stefan Ehrenpreis / Ute Lotz-Heumann / Olaf Mörke / Luise Schorn-Schütte, 285–310. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2007. Friedeburg, Robert von, “‘Patrioten’ in der frühen Neuzeit: Teilhabe an den öffentlichen Angelegenheiten im Verlauf von Konfessionalisierung und europäischen Mächtekon­ flikten.” In Wege der Neuzeit: Festschrift für Heinz Schilling zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Stefan Ehrenpreis / Ute Lotz-Heumann / Olaf Mörke / Luise Schorn-Schütte, 431–456. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2007. George, Timothy, Reading Scripture with the Reformers. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011. Gerber, Roland, Gott ist Burger zu Bern: Eine spätmittelalterliche Stadtgesellschaft zwischen Herrschaftsbildung und sozialem Ausgleich. Weimar: Böhlau, 2001. Girardin, Benoit, Rhétorique et Théologique: Calvin, le Commentaire de L’Epitre aux Romains. Paris: Beauchesne, 1979. Golz, Reinhard / Wolfgang Mayrhofer (ed.), Luther and Melanchthon in the Educational Thought in Central and Eastern Europe. Münster: Lit, 1998. Gootjes, Nicholas H., The Belgic Confession: Its History and Sources. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Gordon, Bruce, The Swiss Reformation. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002. –, “‘God killed Saul’: Heinrich Bullinger and Jacob Ruef on the Power of the Devil.” In Werewolves, Witches and Wandering Spirits: Traditional Belief and Folklore in Early

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Secondary Sources

251

Modern Europe. Edited by Kathryn Edwards, 155–79. Kirksville: Truman State University Press, 2002. Gordon, Bruce / Emidio Campi (ed.), Architect of Reformation: An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–1575. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004. Grabill, Stephen J., “Introduction to D. Hieronymous Zanchi’s On the Law in General.” Journal of Markets and Morality 6, no. 1 (Spring 2003) 309–16. –, Rediscovering the Natural Law in Reformed Theological Ethics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. –, “Introduction to Selections from the Dicaeologicae.” Journal of Markets & Morality 9, no. 2 (Fall 2006) 403–28. Grabill, Stephen J. (ed.), Sourcebook in Late-Scholastic Monetary Theory: The Contributions of Martín de Azpilcueta, Luis de Molina, S.J., and Juan de Mariana, S.J. Lanham, MD: Lexington, 2007. Gray, Jonathan Michael, “Vows, Oaths, and the Propagation of a Subversive Discourse.” Sixteenth Century Journal 41, no. 3 (Fall 2010) 731–756. Grote, Ludwig, Wolfgang Musculus, ein biographischer Versuch. Hamburg: Rauhes Haus, 1855. Greef, Wulfert de, “Calvin as commentator on the Psalms.” Translated by Raymond A. Blacketer. In Calvin and the Bible. Edited by Donald K. McKim, 85–106. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Grice-Hutchinson, Marjorie, The School of Salamanca: Readings in Spanish Monetary Theory, 1544–1605. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952. Greschat, Martin, Martin Bucer: A Reformer for His Times. Translated by Stephen E. Buckwalter. London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004. Guggisberg, Kurt, Bernische Kirchengeschichte. Bern: Paul Haupt, 1958. Guitián, Gregorio, “Integral Subsidiarity and Economy of Communion: Two Challenges from Caritas in Veritate.” Journal of Markets & Morality 13, no 2 (Fall 2010) 279–95. Gunnoe, Charles D., Jr., Thomas Erastus and the Palatinate: A Renaissance Physician in the Second Reformation. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Haas, Guenther H., The Concept of Equity in Calvin’s Ethics. Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1997. Hadfield, Andrew, “Republicanism in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Britain.” In British Political Thought in History, Literature and Theory, 1500–1800. Edited by David Armitage, 111–28. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Hall, Thor, “Possibilities of Erasmian Influence on Denck and Hubmaier in their Views on the Freedom of the Will.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 35, no. 2 (April 1961) 149–70. Hambrick-Stowe, Charles E, “Where is the Middle Way: A Study of the Luther-Erasmus Free Choice Debate.” Lutheran Quarterly 29 (Fall 1977) 42–57. Hamm, Berndt, Promissio, Pactum, Ordinatio: Freiheit und Selbstbindung Gottes in der scholastischen Gnadenlehre, Beitrage zur historischen Theologie. Vol. 54. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1977. –,The Reformation of Faith in the Context of Late Medieval Theology and Piety: Essays by Berndt Hamm. Edited by Robert J. Bast. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Hansen, Klaus, “Petrus Canisius’s Stand on Usury: An Example of Jesuit Tactics in the German Counter Reformation.” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 55, no. 2 (1964) 192–204. Heal, Bridget / Ole Peter Grell (ed.), The Impact of the European Reformation: Princes, Clergy and People. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2008.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

252

Bibliography

Heckel, Johannes, “Cura religionis, ius in sacra, ius circa sacra.” In Festschrift Ulrich Stutz zum siebzigsten Geburtstag, 224–98. Stuttgart: F. Enke, 1938. Heintz, M., “Ambrose of Milan.” In Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters. Edited by Donald K. McKim, 118–23. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007. Henderson, James A., “Some Elizabethan MSS. in the University Library,” Aberdeen University Review (1926) 202–206. Henrich, Rainer, “Bullinger’s Correspondence: An International New Network.” In Architect of Reformation: An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–1575. Edited by Bruce Gordon / Emidio Campi, 231–41. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004. Heppe, Heinrich, Dogmatik des deutschen Protestantismus im sechzehnten Jahrhundert, vol. 1. Gotha: F. A. Perthes, 1857. –, Geschichte des Pietismus und der Mystik in der reformirten Kirche, namentlich der Niederlande. Leiden: Brill, 1879. Hobbins, Daniel, Authorship and Publicity Before Print: Jean Gerson and the Transformation of Late Medieval Learning. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009. Hoekema, Anthony A., “The Covenant of Grace in Calvin’s Teaching.” Calvin Theological Journal 2, no. 2 (1967) 133–61. Hof, Ulrich Im., “Die reformierte Hohe Schule zu Bern. Vom Gründungsjahr 1528 bis in die zweite Hälfte des 16. Jahrhunderts.” In 450 Jahre Berner Reformation: Beiträge zur Geschichte der Berner Reformation und zu Niklaus Manuel, 194–224. Bern: Historischer Verein des Kantons Bern, 1980. Hofmann, Beat., Abendmahl und Kirchenzucht im Spannungsfeld zwischen Bern und Genf: ein kirchengeschichtlicher und dogmatischer Vergleich zwischen Wolfgang Musculus und Johannes Calvin. Akzessarbeit: Universität Bern, 1989. Holtrop, Philip C., The Bolsec Controversy on Predestination: The Statemetns of Jerome Bolsec, and the Responses of John Calvin, Theodore Beza, and Other Reformed Theologians. 2 volumes. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1993. Hopf, Constantin, Martin Bucer and the English Reformation. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966. Hotson, Howard, Commonplace Learning: Ramism and its German Ramifications, 1543– 1630. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Hueglin, Thomas O., Early Modern Concepts for a Late Modern World: Althusius on Community and Federalism. Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1999. Huizinga, Johan, The Autumn of the Middle Ages. Translated by Rodney J. Payton / Ulrich Mammitzsch. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997. Hundeshagen, Karl Bernhard, Die Conflikte des Zwinglianismus, Lutherthums und Calvi­ nismus in der Bernischen Landeskirche von 1532–1558. Bern: C.A. Jenni, 1842. Immenhauser, Barbara Studer, Verwaltung zwischen Innovation und Tradition: Die Stadt Bern und ihr Untertanengebiet 1250–1550. Ostfildern: Jan Thorbecke, 2006. Immenhauser, Beat., “‘Hohe Schule’ oder Universität? Zur Pfarrerausbildung in Bern im 16. Jahrhundert.” In Politics and Reformations: Communities, Polities, Nations, and Empires. Edited by Christopher Ocker / Michael Printy / Peter Starenko / Peter Wallace, 143–78. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Ives, Robert B., “The Theology of Wolfgang Musculus, 1497–1563.” Ph.D. diss.: University of Manchester, 1965. James, Frank A. III., “Vermigli, Peter Martyr (1499–1562).” ����������������������������� In Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters. Edited by Donald K. McKim, 1005–1011. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Secondary Sources

253

Janse, Wim / Barbara Pitkin (ed.), The Formation of Clerical and Confessional Identities in Early Modern Europe. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Joest, Wilfried,. “Die Freiheit in Luthers Verständnis des Menschen.” Kerygma und Dogma 29, no. 2 (April / June 1983) 127–138. John Paul II., Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (15 May 1991). Jones, Norman, God and the Moneylenders: Usury and Law in Early Modern England. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell, 1989. Kaluza, Zenon, Les Querelles Doctrinales à Paris: Nominalistes et Realistes aux Confins du XIVe et du XVe Siècles. Bergamo: Pierluigi Lubrina, 1988. Kendall, R. T., Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979. Kerridge, Eric, Usury, Interest and the Reformation. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2002. Kevan, Ernest F., The Grace of Law: A Study in Puritan Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1965. Kingdon, Robert M., Geneva and the Coming of the Wars of Religion in France, 1555–1563. Geneva: Droz, 1956. –, Geneva and the Consolidation of the French Protestant Movement, 1564–1572: A Contribution to the History of Congregationalism, Presbyterianism, and Calvinist Resistance Theory. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1967. –, “Althusius’ Use of Calvinist Sources in His Politica.” Rechtstheorie 16 (1997) 19–28. –, “Peter Martyr Vermigli on Church Discipline.” In Peter Martyr Vermigli: Humanism, Republicanism, Reformation. Edited by Emidio Campi, 67–76. Geneva: Droz, 2002. Kirby, Torrance, The Zurich Connection and Tudor Political Theology. Leiden: Brill, 2007. –, “Political Theology: The Godly Prince.” In A Companion to Peter Martyr Vermigli. Edited by Torrance Kirby / Emidio Campi / Frank A. James III., 401–421. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Kirby, Torrance / Emidio Campi / Frank A. James III. (ed.), A Companion to Peter Martyr Vermigli. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Klein, Thomas, Der Kampf um die zweite Reformation in Kursachsen, 1586–1591. Köln: Böhlau, 1962. Kohls, Ernst-Wilhelm, Die Schule bei Martin Bucer: in ihrem Verhältnis zu Kirche und Obrigkeit. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1963. Kolb, Robert, “Nikolaus Gallus’ Critique of Philip Melanchthon’s Teaching on the Freedom of the Will,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 91 (2000) 87–110. –, Bound Choice, Election, and Wittenberg Theological Method: From Martin Luther to the Formula of Concord. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Kreßner, Helmut, Schweizer Ursprünge des anglikanischen Staatskirchentums. Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann Verlag, 1953. Kristeller, Paul Oskar, Renaissance Thought: The Classic, Scholastic, and Humanist Strains (New York: Harper & Row, 1961. – Medieval Aspects of Renaissance Learning. Edited by E. P. Mahoney. Durham: Duke University Press, 1974. Lachman, David C., The Marrow Controversy, 1718–1723: An Historical and Theological Analysis. Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 1988. Langenbruch, Paul Gerhard, Schriftvergleich und Schriftauslegung bei Wolfgang Musculus. Magisterarbeitet: Universität Göttingen, 1969. Langholm, Odd, The Legacy of Scholasticism in Economic Thought: Antecedents of Choice and Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Letham, Robert, “The Foedus Operum: Some Factors Accounting for Its Development.” Sixteenth Century Journal 14, no. 4 (Winter 1983) 457–67.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

254

Bibliography

Lillback, Peter A., The Binding of God: Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001. –, “The Early Reformed Covenant Paradigm: Vermigli in the Context of Bullinger, Luther and Calvin.” In Peter Martyr Vermigli and the European Reformations. Edited by Frank A. James III, 70–96. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Lohmann, Hartmut, “MUSCULUS, (Müslin, Mäuslin), Wolfgang (Dusanus).” In Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexicon, vol. 6, 381–83. Herzberg: Bautz, 1993. Lowry, S. Todd / Barry Gordon (ed.), Ancient and Medieval Economic Ideas and Concepts of Social Justice. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Lucas, Scott, A Mirror for Magistrates and the Politics of the English Reformation. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2009. Lüthi, Marc van Wijnkoop, “Druckwerkeverzeichnis des Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563).” In Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563) und die oberdeutsche Reformation. Edited by Rudolf Dellsperger / Rudolf Freudenberger / Wolfgang Weber, 351–414. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1997. –, “Wolfgang Musculus in Bern (1549–1563).” In Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563) und die oberdeutsche Reformation. Edited by Rudolf Dellsperger / Rudolf Freudenberger / Wolfgang Weber, 281–98. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1997. –, “Wolfgang Musculus und Mönchtum.” In Reformation und Mönchtum: Aspekte eines Verhältnisses über Luther hinaus. Edited by Athina Lexutt / Volker Mantey / Volkmar Ortmann, 145–171. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Maag, Karin, Seminary or University? The Genevan Academy and Reformed Higher Education, 1560–1620. Aldershot: Scholar Press, 1995. Mattox, Mickey L., Defender of the Most Holy Matriarchs: Martin Luther’s Interpretation of the Women of Genesis in the Ennarationes in Genesin, 1535–1545. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Maurer, Wilhelm, “Melanchthons Anteil am Streit zwischen Luther und Erasmus.” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 49, no. 1–2 (1958) 89–115. McCoy, Charles S., “The Centrality of Covenant in the Political Philosophy of Johannes Althusius.” In Politische Theorie des Johannes Althusius. Edited by Karl-Wilhelm Dahm / Werner Krawietz / Dieter Wyduckel, 187–99. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1988. McCoy, Charles S. / J. Wayne Baker, Fountainhead of Federalism: Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenantal Tradition. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1991. McGiffert, Michael, “From Moses to Adam: the Making of the Covenant of Works.” Sixteenth Century Journal 19, no. 2 (1988) 131–55. McKee, Elsie Anne, Elders and the Plural Ministry: The Role of Exegetical History in Illuminating John Calvin’s Theology. Geneva: Droz, 1988. McKim, Donald K. (ed.), Calvin and the Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. McNeill, John T., “Natural Law in the Teaching of the Reformers.” Journal of Religion 26, no. 3 (July 1946) 168–82. Mochrie, Robert I., “Justice in Exchange: The Economic Philosophy of John Duns Scotus.” Journal of Markets & Morality 9, no. 1 (Spring 2006) 35–56. Möhle, Hannes, “Scotus’s Theory of Natural Law.” In The Cambridge Companion to Duns Scotus. Edited by Thomas Williams, 312–331. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Moots, Glenn A., Politics Reformed: The Anglo-American Legacy of Covenant Theology. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2010.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Secondary Sources

255

Mühling, Andreas, Heinrich Bullingers europäische Kirchenpolitik. Bern: Peter Lang, 2001. Muller, Richard A,. “The Federal Motif in Seventeenth Century Arminian Theology.” Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis 62 (1982) 102–22. –, Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins. Durham, NC: Labyrinth Press, 1986. –, “Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563).” In Encyclopedia of the Reformed Faith. Edited by Donald K. McKim, 248. Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992. –, Response to Derk Visser, “Discourse and Doctrine: The Covenant Concept and Christian Iconography in the Middle Ages.” In Calvin and the State: Papers and Responses presented at the Seventh and Eighth Colloquia on Calvin and Calvin Studies. Edited by Peter De Klerk, 15–19. Grand Rapids: Calvin Studies Society, 1993. –, “Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation: The View from the Middle Ages.” In Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation: Essays Presented to David C. Steinmetz in Honor of His Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by Richard A. Muller / John L. Thompson, 3–22. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. –, The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. –, Post–Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. 4 vol. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003. –, After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. –, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004. –, “Divine Covenants, Absolute and Conditional: John Cameron and the Early Orthodox Development of Reformed Covenant Theology.” Mid-America Journal of Theology 17 (2006) 18–21. Muller, Richard A. / John L. Thompson, “The Significance of Precritical Exegesis: Retrospect and Prospect.” In Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation: Essays Presented to David C. Steinmetz in Honor of His Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by Richard A. Muller / John L. Thompson, 334–45. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Muller, Richard A. / John L. Thompson (ed.), Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation: Essays Presented to David C. Steinmetz in Honor of His Sixtieth Birthday. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Mullinger, James Bass, The University of Cambridge: From the Royal Injunctions of 1535 to the Accession of Charles the First. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1884. Murdoch, John E., “From Social into Intellectual Factors: An Aspect of the Unitary Character of Late Medieval Learning.” In The Cultural Context of Medieval Learning. Edited by John E. Murdoch / Edith D. Sylla, 271–348. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1975. Murdoch, John E. / Edith D. Sylla (ed.), The Cultural Context of Medieval Learning. Dord­ recht: D. Reidel, 1975. Nelson, Benjamin, The Idea of Usury: From Tribal Brotherhood to Universal Otherhood, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969. Neuser, Wilhelm H. (ed.), Die Verbreitung der Religionsgespräche von Worms und Regensburg 1540 / 41. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974. Nexon, Daniel H., The Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe: Religious Conflict, Dynastic Empires, and International Change. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009. Noonan, John T. Jr., The Scholastic Analysis of Usury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

256

Bibliography

Oakley, Francis, Omnipotence, Covenant, and Order: an Excursion in the History of Ideas from Abelard to Leibnitz. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1984. –, The Absolute and Ordained Power of God in Sixteenth– and Seventeenth–Century Theology.” Journal of the History of Ideas 59, no. 3 (1998) 437–61. ——, Politics and Eternity: Studies in the History of Medieval and Early-Modern Political Thought. Leiden: Brill, 1999. –, “Omnipotence and Promise: The Legacy of the Scholastic Distinction of Powers.” Etienne Gilson Series 23 (2002) 1–28. –, Natural Law, Laws of Nature, Natural Rights: Continuity and Discontinuity in the History of Ideas. New York: Continuum, 2005. Oberman, Heiko A., Contra vanam curiositatem. Ein Kapitel der Theologie zwischen Seelenwinkel und Weltall. Zurich: TVZ, 1974. –, Masters of the Reformation: Emergence of a New Intellectual Climate in Europe. Translated by Dennis Martin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. –, The Harvest of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism. 3rd ed. Durham, NC: Labyrinth, 1983. –, The Dawn of the Reformation: Essays in Late Medieval and Early Reformation Thought. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986. –, The Impact of the Reformation: Essays by Heiko A. Oberman. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. –, The Reformation: Roots & Ramifications. Translated by Andrew Colin Gow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. –, The Two Reformations. Edited by Donald Weinstein. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003. Oberman, Heiko A. / Ernst Saxer / Alfred Schindler / Heinzpeter Stucki (ed.), Das Refor­ mierte Erbe: Festschrift für Gottfried W. Locher. Zurich: TVZ, 1992. Old, Hughes Oliphant, The Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1975. –, Worship: Reformed According to Scripture. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Opitz, Peter, Heinrich Bullinger als Theologe: Eine Studie zu den «Dekaden». Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2004. –, “Scripture.” In The Calvin Handbook. Edited by Herman J. Selderhuis, 235–244. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Patton, Corrine, “Creation, Fall and Salvation: Lyra’s Commentary on Genesis 1–3.” In Nicholas of Lyra: The Senses of Scripture. Edited by Philip D.W. Krey / Lesley Smith, 19–44. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Parry, Glyn, “Berosus and the Protestants: Reconstructing Protestant Myth.” Huntington Library Quarterly 64, no. 1–2 (2001) 1–21. Pauck, Wilhelm, “Martin Bucer’s Conception of a Christian State.” Princeton Theological Review 26 (1928) 80–88. Pauls, Rob, “The World as Sin and Grace: The Theology of Melanchthon’s Loci communes of 1521.” In Christian Humanism: Essays in Honour of Arjo Vanderjagt. Edited by Alasdair A. MacDonald / Zweder R.W.M von Martels / Jan R. Veenstra, 469–478. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Pederson, Phillip E., “The Religious Colloquy of Regensburg (Ratisbon), 1541.” Ph.D. diss.: University of Chicago, 1978. Pennington, K., “Law: Law, Legislative Authority, and Theories of Government, 1150–1300.”

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Secondary Sources

257

In The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought c. 350–c. 1450. Edited by J. H. Burns, 424–53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Pettegree, Andrew, Reformation and the Culture of Persuasion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Pitkin, Barbara, “The Protestant Zeno: Calvin and the Development of Melanchthon’s Anthropology.” Journal of Religion 84, no. 3 (July 2004) 345–78. Piux XI., Encyclical Letter Quadragesimo Anno (15 May 1931). Pölnitz, Götz von, Die Fugger. 6th ed. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. Prentice, Robert, “The Contingent Element Governing the Natural Law on the Last Seven Precepts of the Decalogue, According to Duns Scotus.” Antonianum 42 (1967): 259–292. Raine, James, “Marske, in Swaledale,” Yorkshire Archaeological and Topographical Journal 6 (1881): 172–286. Ramp, Ernst, Das Zinsproblem. Eine historische Untersuchung. Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1949. Ramsey, Boniface, Ambrose. New York: Routledge, 1997. Raunio, Antti, “Divine and Natural Law in Luther and Melanchthon.” In Lutheran Reformation and the Law. Edited by Virpi Mäkinen, 21–61. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Reeves, Ryan M., “‘Ye Gods’: The Magistrate and Political Obedience in Humanism, Zürich and English Protestantism, c. 1525–1540.” Paper, Sixteenth Century Society and Conference, Geneva, Switzerland, May 30, 2009. Reinhardt, Henning, “Das Itinerar des Wolfgang Musculus (1536).” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 97 (2006) 28–82. Reinhard, Wolfgang, “Stadtrepublikanismus im Kirchenstaat? Ein Versuch.” In Wege der Neuzeit: Festschrift für Heinz Schilling zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Stefan Ehrenpreis / Ute Lotz-Heumann / Olaf Mörke / Luise Schorn-Schütte, 345–380. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2007. Ritschl, Otto, Dogmengeschichte des Protestantismus. 4 vol. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1908– 1912. Robinson, Paul W., “‘The Most Learned Discourses of the Philosophers and Lawyers’: Roman Law, Natural Law, and Property in Melanchthon’s Loci Communes.” Concordia Journal 28, no. 1 (January 2002) 41–53. Roeck, Bernd, “Rich and Poor in Reformation Augsburg: The City Council, the Fugger Bank, and the Formation of a Bi-confessional Society.” In The Impact of the European Reformation: Princes, Clergy and People. Edited by Bridget Heal / Ole Peter Grell, 63–84. Burlington: Ashgate, 2008. Rolston, Holmes III., John Calvin versus the Westminster Confession. Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1972. Roover, Raymond de, “Scholastic Economics: Survival and Lasting Influence from the Sixteenth Century to Adam Smith.” In Business, Banking, and Economic Thought in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe: Selected Studies of Raymond de Roover. Edited by Julius Kirshner, 306–55. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976. Roth, Friedrich, “Zur Kirchengüterfrage in der Zeit von 1538 bis 1540. Die Gutachten Martin Bucers und der Augsburger Prädikanten Wolfgang Musculus und Bonifacius Wolfart über die Verwendung der Kirchengüter.” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 1, no. 4 (1903–1904) 299–336. –, “Zur Geschichte des Reichstages zu Regensburg im Jahre 1541. Die Korrespondenz der Augsburger Gesandten Wolfgang Rehlinger, Simprecht Hoser und Dr. Konrad Helmit dem Rathe, den Geheimen und dem Bürgermeister Georg Herwart nebst Briefen von

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

258

Bibliography

Dr. Gereon Sailer und Wolfgang Musculus an den letzteren.” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 2, no. 3 (1904–1905) 250–307. –, Augsburgs Reformationsgeschichte, vol. 3. Munich: Theodor Ackermann, 1907. Rowan, Steven W., “Ulrich Zasius and John Eck: ‘Faith Need Not be Kept with an Enemy.’” Sixteenth Century Journal 8, no. 2 (1977) 79–95. Rummel, Erika, The Humanist-Scholastic Debate in the Renaissance and Reformation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995. –, The Confessionalization of Humanism in Reformation Germany. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Rupp, E. Gordon / Philip S. Watson (ed.), Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969. Safley, Thomas Max, Charity and Economy in the Orphanages of Early Modern Augsburg. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press, 1997. Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church, Volume V, Part II: The Middle Ages. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910. Scheible, Heinz, “Wolfgang Musculus und Philipp Melanchthon.” In Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563) und die oberdeutsche Reformation. Edited by Rudolf Dellsperger / Rudolf Freudenberger / Wolfgang Weber, 188–200. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1997. Schilling, Heinz, Early Modern European Civilization and its Political and Cultural Dynamism. Hanover: University Press of New England, 2008. Schoemaker, L. A., “Denys the Carthusian (1402 / 3–1471).” In Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters. Edited by Donald K. McKim, 362–365. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007. Schmidt, Alexander, Vaterlandsliebe und Religionskonflikt: Politische Diskurse im Alten Reich (1555–1648). Leiden: Brill, 2007. Schneckenburger, Matthias, “Die neueren Verhandlungen, betreffend das Prinzip des reformirten Lehrbegriffs.” Theologische Jahrbucher 7 (1848) 71–144. Schneider, John R., Philip Melanchthon’s Rhetorical Construal of Biblical Authority: Oratio Sacra. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1990. –, “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 / M. Patrick Graham, 20–47. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Schreiner, Susan E., The Theater of His Glory: Nature and the Natural Order in the Thought of John Calvin. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001. Schrenk, Gottlob, Gottesreich und Bund im älteren Protestantismus, vornehmlich bei Johannes Coccejus. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Pietismus und der heilsgeschichtlichen Theologie. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1923. Schwab, Paul Josiah, The Attitude of Wolfgang Musculus toward Religious Tolerance. Scott­ dale, PA: Mennonite Press, 1933. Selderhuis, Herman J., “Die Loci Communes des Wolfgang Musculus: Reformierte Dogmatik anno 1560.” In Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563) und die oberdeutsche Reformation. Edited by Rudolf Dellsperger / Rudolf Freudenberger / Wolfgang Weber, 311–30. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1997. –, Calvin’s Theology of the Psalms. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Siedlecki, Armin, “Protestant Theological Education at German Universities in the Sixteenth Century.” ATLA Summary of Proceedings 62 (2008) 250–64.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Secondary Sources

259

Siegel, Jerrold E., Rhetoric and Philosophy in Renaissance Humanism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968. Silving, Helen, “The Oath: I.” Yale Law Journal 68, no. 7 (June 1959) 1329–1390. Shuger, Debora K., Sacred Rhetoric: The Christian Grand Style in the English Renaissance. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988. Skinner, Quentin, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought. 2 volumes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978. –, “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas.” In Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and His Critics. Edited by J. Tully, 29–67. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988. Slosser, Gaius J., Review of Paul Josiah Schwab, The Attitude of Wolfgang Musculus toward Religious Tolerance (Scottdale, PA: Mennonite Press, 1933). In Church History 4, no. 1 (March 1935) 83. Smith, I. Gregory / Phipps Onslow, Diocesian Histories. Worcester. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1883. Smolinsky, Heribert, “Wolfgang Musculus und die Römisch Kirche: der Streit mit Johannes Cochläus.” in In Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563) und die oberdeutsche Reformation. Edited by Rudolf Dellsperger / Rudolf Freudenberger / Wolfgang Weber, 173–87. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1997. Spijker, Willem van’t, “Reformation and Scholasticism.” In Reformation and Scholasticism: An Ecumenical Enterprise. Edited by Willem J. van Asselt / Eef Dekker, 79–98. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001. Spurr, John, “A Profane History of Early Modern Oaths.” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Sixth Series, 11 (2001) 37–63. Stacey, Peter, Roman Monarchy and the Renaissance Prince. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Steinmetz, David C., Calvin in Context. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. –, Die Patristik in der Bibelexegese des 16. Jahrhunderts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1999. –, Luther in Context. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002. –, “The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis.” Theology Today (1980) 27–38. Stoever, William K. B., ‘A Faire and Easie Way to Heaven’: Covenant Theology and Antinomianism in Early Massachusetts. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1978. Straumann, Benjamin, Hugo Grotius und die Antike. Römisches Recht und römische Ethik im früneuzeitlichen Naturrecht. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag, 2007. Strehle, Stephen, Calvinism, Federalism, and Scholasticism: A Study of the Reformed Doctrine of Covenant. New York: Peter Lang, 1988. Streuber, Wilhelm Theodor, “Wolfgang Musculus oder Müslin. Ein Lebensbild aus der Reformationszeit.” Berner Tauschenbuch 9 (1860) 1–79. Strohm, Christoph, Calvinismus und Recht: weltanschaulich-konfessionelle Aspekte im Werk reformierter Juristen in der Frühen Neuzeit. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Strohm, Christoph / Heinrich de Wall (ed.), Konfessionalität und Jurisprudenz in der frühen Neuzeit. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2009. Sunshine, Glenn S., “Discipline as the Third Mark of the Church: Three Views.” Calvin Theological Journal 33, no. 2 (1998) 469–80. –, Reforming French Protestantism: The Development of Huguenot Ecclesiastical Institutions, 1557–1572. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2003.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

260

Bibliography

Sweeney, James Ross / Stanley Chodorow (ed.), Popes, Teachers, and Canon Law in the Middle Ages. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989. Thompson, John L., Reading the Bible with the Dead: What You Can Learn from the History of Exegesis that You Can’t Learn Alone. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Tierney, Brian, Religion, Law, and the Growth of Constitutional Thought, 1150–1650. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Timmerman, Daniel, “Bucers Verständnis von Schrift und Schriftauslegung. Ein Vergleich mit Heinrich Bullinger.” In Martin Bucer zwischen den Reichstagen von Augsburg (1530) und Regensburg (1532). Edited by Wolfgang Simon, 83–97. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Trinterud, Leonard J., “The Origins of Puritanism.” Church History 20 (1951) 37–57. Trueman Carl R. / R. Scott Clark (ed.), Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999. VanDrunen, David, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms: A Study in the Development of Reformed Social Thought. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Vasoli, Cesare, “Loci Communes and the Rhetorical and Dialectical Traditions.” In Peter Martyr Vermigli and Italian Reform. Edited by Joseph C. McClelland, 17–28. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1980. Venema, Cornelis P., Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination: Author of “the Other Reformed Tradition”? Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002. Vos, Geerhardus, “The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology.” In Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos. Edited by Richard B. Gaffin Jr., 234–267. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1980. Vuilleumier, Henri, Histoire de l’Église Réformée du Pays de Vaud sous le Régime Bernois. 4 vol. Lausanne: Éditions La Concorde, 1927–33. Wallace, Robert, Antitrinitarian Biography: or Sketches of the Lives and Writings of Distinguished Antitrinitarians. Vol. 3. London: E. T. Whitfield, 1850. Walton, Robert C., Zwingli’s Theocracy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967. Wannenwetsch, Bernd, “Luther’s Moral Theology.” In The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther. Edited by Donald K. McKim, 120–35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Watt, J. A., “Spiritual and Temporal Powers.” In The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought c. 350–c. 1450. Edited by J. H. Burns, 367–424. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Weigelt, Horst, “Wolfgang Musculus und die radikale Reformation – die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Musculus und Kaspar Schwenckfeld.” In Wolfgang Musculus (1497–1563) und die oberdeutsche Reformation. Edited by Rudolf Dellsperger / Rudolf Freudenberger / Wolfgang Weber, 159–172. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1997. Weir, David A., The Origins of Federal Theology in Sixteenth–Century Reformation Thought. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. Wengert, Timothy J., “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. Edited by Richard A. Muller / John L. Thompson, 103–117. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. –, Law and Gospel: Philip Melanchthon’s Debate with John Agricola of Eisleben over Poenitentia. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1997. –, Human Freedom, Christian Righteousness: Philip Melanchthon’s Exegetical Dispute with

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Secondary Sources

261

Erasmus of Rotterdam. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.–, “Philip Melanchthon’s Contribution to Luther’s Debate with Erasmus over the Bondage of the Will.” In By Faith Alone. Edited by Joseph A. Burgess / Marc Kolden, 110–124. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Wengert Timothy J. / M. Patrick Graham, Philip Melanchthon (1497–1560) and the Commentary. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Wesel-Roth, Ruth, Thomas Erastus: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der reformierten Kirche und zur Lehre von der Staatssouveränität. Lahr / Baden: Moritz Schauenburg, 1954. Williams, Arnold, The Common Expositor: An Account of the Commentaries on Genesis, 1527–1633. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1948. Witte, John, Jr., “A Demonstrative Theory of Natural Law: Johannes Althusius and the Rise of Calvinist Jurisprudence.” Ecclesiastical Law Journal 11 (2009) 248–265. –, Law and Protestantism: The Legal Teachings of the Lutheran Reformation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Wolter, Alan B., “Introduction”. In Duns Scotus on the Will and Morality. Translated by Alan B. Wolter. Edited by William A. Frank, 1–123. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1997. Wood, Rega, “Epistemology and Omnipotence: Ockahm in Fourteenth-Century Philosophical Perspective.” In Popes, Teachers, and Canon Law in the Middle Ages. Edited by James Ross Sweeney / Stanley Chodorow, 160–176. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989. Young, Jeffery T. / Barry Gordon, “Economic Justice in the Natural Law Tradition: Thomas Aquinas to Francis Hutcheson.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 14 (Spring 1992) 1–17. Zürcher, Christoph, Konrad Pellikans Wirken in Zurich, 1526–1556. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1975. Zwierlein, Cornel A., “Reformierte Theorien der Vergesellschaftung: Römisches Recht, föderaltheologische ������������������������������������������������������������������� κοινωνία����������������������������������������������������������� und die consociatio des Althusius.” In Jurisprudenz, Politische Theorie und Politische Theologie: Beiträge des Herborner Symposions zum 400. Jahrenstag der Politica des Johannes Althusius 1603–2003. Edited by Frederick S. Carney / Heinz Schilling / Dieter Wyduckel, 191–223. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2004.

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

Index

Subjects ability, 70–71n121, 116, 118, 129, 131–38, 176–7, 199, 209, 224, Abraham (Abram), 46, 49, 51, 54, 59–61, 66, 66n103, 81, 84–5, 89–90, 94–108, 97n238, 99n250, 147, 160, 219–20 abrogation, 180–83 administration, 53, 58, 60, 68n107, 73, 132, 179, 193, 203, 207, 218 affections, 71, 130, 162, 174, 198, 201, 210 Anabaptism, 28n37, 32, 149–53, 185, 209 analogy, 96, 119–20n37, 120, 138, 190n92, 224 angels, 61, 98, 106, 130–31, 138, 197 animals (beasts), 48–9, 83–5, 89–90, 89n207, 140, 173, 187n77 apostles, 58n63, 80, 159, 203, 206 appendages, 55n54, 59 appendices, 142, 144, 144n153, 149–58 argument, 18n8, 19, 32–3, 61–2, 122, 136, 143, 149n177, 155–6, 171n11, 172, 172n17, 183–4n65, 202, 204–5, 208–11, 217–8, 230n44 ark, 52, 82, 93 attributes, 26, 41, 55, 115, 119, 130, 139, 161, 172, 197, 226 authority, 21n22, 31, 33n53, 63, 116, 125, 170–72, 178, 184–5, 191–4, 191n93, 204, 204n149, 206, 208, 234–6, 234n57, 234–5n59, baptism, 87, 92, 141 behavior, 81n176, 85, 120, 121n44, 139, 199 belief (believer, believing), 41, 49–50, 52, 56, 59, 68, 70n121, 71–2, 75, 81n176, 88, 90, 96, 101–3, 106, 121–3, 136, 145, 214 (see also faith)

being, 119-20n37, 126, 128, 132, 171, 176, 186n71, 191n93 benevolence, 88, 90–91, 102 blessing, 70n121, 99, 104, 125, 173, 208 body, 50, 103, 128, 163, 178, 204n149 bonds (bondage), 27–8n36, 60, 88, 133–4, 206, 225 calling, 81, 97; (see also choice, election) Calvinism, Calvinist, 23n25, 25, 183– 4n65, 230 canon, 136, 203, 232 categories, 40, 41n82, 135n115, 162, 167, 174, 180, 183, 195, 210, 221, 225, 238 catholic, 32, 175, 193, 215 Catholic, Roman, 29, 36, 150, 152–3, 157, 233 causality, 15–7, 19, 22, 25–7, 73n132, 111–15, 122, 139, 144n154, 159, 165–7, 191n93, 212–213, 233n54, 237–8 choice (arbitrium), 20, 27–30, 64, 66, 69, 77n156, 98–9, 112–15, 120, 127, 129–39, 166, 169, 173, 179, 200n131, 216–217, 224–6, 238 Christ (Jesus), 25, 33n53, 49–50, 51–2, 54n50, 55n54, 57–61, 65n97, 66–7, 72n128, 73–5, 79, 90–91, 93, 99–101, 105, 107, 114, 135, 138, 152, 155, 158–9, 169, 174, 180–82, 186–7, 192–3, 199–200, 209, 218, 229 church, 7, 19–20, 24–5, 29, 31, 33, 53–4, 75, 100, 105, 124, 139, 144, 146–8, 167–8, 180, 182–3, 186–8, 191–4, 203, 211, 214, 227–30, 234–5 circumcision, 59, 91–2, 94 clergy, 187n75, 203, 205–6, 214 clouds, 51, 82–3, 85–6, 92 coercion, 134, 138, 209–10

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

264

Index

comfort, 75, 83, 93, 121, 151, 188 commands, 111, 135–6, 172, 182, 194 commandments, 131, 135, 149, 164–5, 172, 174–5, 179–80, 183, 211 commentaries, 17–19, 21, 32, 34, 37–9, 54–5, 143–4, 196, 238 commonplace(s), 16, 23, 215n8 community, 142, 146, 151, 179, 233, 233n54 conditions, conditional, 49–50, 53, 56, 84–6, 89–92, 95–6, 101–2, 108, 116, 125–7, 129, 135n115, 140, 147, 163, 170–72, 179–80, 218–22, 238 (see also covenant: conditional) confederates, 49–50, 56, 83, 85, 92, 140 confession (confessional), 23n25, 29, 74n137, 74–5n143, 78n163, 79, 100, 152n189, 153, 154n200, 157, 159, 183–4n65, 213, 234n57 conscience, 80, 149, 192, 200, 208n166, 209–11, 227 contingency, 26, 109, 111, 113–5, 124, 130n84, 138, 165–6, 180, 212–3, 217, 219n21, 224, 237–8 controversy, 26, 29, 43, 55n54, 75n144, 78n159, 144, 189, 214, 215n8, 217 corruption, 134, 138, 162–3, 178–9, 200n131, 209, 225 council, 29, 33n53, 121n44, 136n121, 144, 154n200, 235–6 covenant (foedus), 15–22, 25–7, 30–31, 41, 43–62, 65–9, 73, 81–109, 111–5, 119, 121–2, 124–5, 129, 139–41, 146–7, 150–51, 160–61, 165–7, 175–82, 204, 212–3, 217–23, 225–6, 237–8 conditional, 84, 89, 102, 108, 219–22, 238 general, 17, 25, 43, 45, 49–54, 57, 82, 85, 89, 91, 108, 140, 204, 219, 221–3 pactum, 47, 57, 89, 91, 105 special, 25, 43, 49–54, 56–7, 60, 66–7, 85, 89–90, 92, 100, 106, 108, 124–5, 129, 140, 219–21 testamentum, 47, 50, 58 (see also testament) unconditional, 85, 88–94, 108, 219–22, 238

creation, 17, 24–5, 43, 67, 71, 81, 87, 94, 111–2, 115, 124–6, 130, 132, 140, 172–3, 218n16, creator, 50–51, 101, 126–8, 132, 185, 191 creature, 15, 26–7, 48, 86, 98, 113–4, 120, 122n49, 123, 125–8, 130–32, 135–6, 165–6, 171, 173, 185, 197, 203n145 curiosity, 71, 74, 80, 123 David, 66n103, 79, 97, 100, 159, 163, 165, 220 death, 47, 50, 58, 61, 70n118, 71, 74n143, 76, 106, 146, 162–3, 178, 209 debate, 27–8n36, 31, 48, 55, 78n159, 114, 117, 149, 152, 154n200, 155, 221, 228, 230, 232n50 Decalogue, 34, 38, 46, 148, 167, 169, 174–5, 179–80, 182–3, 211–2, 220, 233 decree, 62n83, 67, 71, 73, 113n9, 117n21, 170, 172 desire, 62, 68, 88, 102, 119–120n37, 161, 167, 170 destruction, 92, 208n166 dialectic, 26, 64–5n92, 112, 118, 213n2, 224 discipline, 148, 186 dispensations, 46, 49, 53, 57, 59–61, 65–7, 145, 182 dispute, 27, 32, 42n85, 64, 71, 116, 145, 151, 153, 157, 162 distinction(s), 16n6, 17, 25, 27, 41–8, 42n85, 54, 57, 62n83, 64–7, 71–2, 76n150, 79–80, 83, 89–91, 99, 108, 111–20, 124–6, 131–41, 145–151, 154, 159, 161–3, 165, 170, 172, 181, 185–92, 197, 203, 219, 221–7, 231, 237–8 diversity, 21n22, 78n159, 111n2, 148, 157n212, 229, 231 doctrine, 15–9, 22–35, 39, 43–8, 51–8, 62–79, 92, 104, 108–9, 113–5, 121, 129–30, 137–40, 144, 150, 157, 164, 166–8, 183–4n65, 191, 196–9, 204, 208, 212–27, 234–8 dominion, 125–6, 173 doubt, 75, 105, 151 duties, 31, 185, 187, 191–3, 198, 201 earth, 49–53, 60–61, 81, 83–8, 92, 98, 106, 173, 184, 202, 204, 212

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Subjects

election, 26, 45–6, 45n9, 58, 62, 66, 68–78, 98–100, 107–8, 121, 165, 222 equity, 145, 170, 174, 198 eternity, 50, 66–7, 71–7, 90, 111, 117, 124 everlasting, 49–53, 61, 66n101, 76, 83, 89–90, 97, 203–4 evil, 63, 71, 77, 85, 89n207, 90, 117, 122n49, 123, 126, 133–7, 155–6, 171n12, 179, 182, 186, 197, 199, 207–9, 233n54 exegesis, 17, 19–20, 34, 37–8, 43, 46, 82, 84–5, 88, 94, 100, 108, 115, 140, 142–9, 155, 158–60, 167, 172, 195–6, 199–202, 205n152, 206–8, 216, 220n24 existence, 52–3, 108, 112, 122n49, 123, 137, 171n11, 189n84, 191, 198, 202, 225 explanation (explanatio), 80–84, 93–7, 143–4, 161 faith, 32, 50, 52, 56, 58n63, 60, 64, 68, 71–4, 83, 88, 90–93, 96, 100–107, 121, 124, 129, 138, 145, 149, 160–61, 183, 187, 193, 210-11n179, 219, 235 fall(en), 17, 66n101, 67, 70, 76–7, 81, 86, 129–30, 133–9, 166, 177, 179 federalism, 231 flood, 81–7, 92 foreknowledge, 68n107, 71, 74–5n143, 104, 117, 121, 121n44, 138 free choice (liberum arbitrium), 27–30, 64, 112–5, 120, 127, 129–39, 166, 169, 179, 200n131, 213, 217, 224–5, 238 freedom, 15, 22, 31, 56, 88, 90, 101, 111, 113–5, 118, 120, 126–7, 129–38, 165–6, 191n93, 206, 212, 223–5 free will. See choice; free choice; freedom; will fulfillment, 61, 71, 73, 95, 100, 166, 218 Germany, 29n38, 38–9n69, 79 gift, 51, 56, 62, 67, 85, 99, 104–5, 187n78, glory, 53, 60, 76–7, 92, 99, 117–8, 159, 192, 194, 236 godliness (pietas), 72, 138, 187n78, 189 (see also piety) good, 89n207, 126n64, 133, 136, 197, 199 goodness (bonitas), 63, 89–90, 103, 105, 107, 125, 127, 171, 175

265

goodwill, 62, 67, 88, 106 gospel(s), 34n55, 36–8, 41, 55, 58, 60–61, 73, 79, 135, 158–9, 161, 181, 193, 198, 210–11n179 government, 184, 186, 191n93, 194n106, 206, 206n160, 208–9, 226, 229, 234–5 grace (gratia), 62–8, 108, 120, 125n60, 135–6, 146, 188 cooperating, 27n35, 65, 67, 108, 135n115 operating, 27n35, 65, 67, 108, 135n115 prevenient, 64–5, 64–5n92, 120n40 135n115 proponing, 65–8, 135n115 subsequent, 64–5, 120n40 Hagar, 97, 99, 101, 104 heart, 50, 61, 67, 71, 72n127, 83, 88, 91, 101–2, 162n229, 163, 169n6, 170, 177, 179, 181, 190, 210n179, 236 heavens, 80–81, 87–8, 92, 159 history, 7, 16, 17n7, 18–9n9, 19, 19n12, 21n23, 23, 25, 32, 34, 52, 54, 66, 73, 73n132, 84, 117, 145, 153, 154n200, 155, 157–8, 176, 182, 203, 213, 215–7, 223n28, 224n30, 233, 234n57 holiness, 132, 146–7, 161–2, 187, 192 Holy Spirit, 62, 70–71n121, 74, 162n229, 169n6, 177, 180 (see also spirit) honor, 33n53, 38, 173, 177–8, 188–191, 190n92, 201, 210 hope, 48, 121–2, 150–51n182, 152, 156, 156n206 humanism, 183–4n65, 214, 233 humankind, 17, 46, 63, 66–7, 89–90, 128n79, 130, 132, 138, 169, 173, 177, 179, 189n84, 197–8 image of God, 67, 85 impossibility, 118 instruction, 39, 173, 178, 183, 186, 206, 214, 228 judgment, 33n53, 63, 65, 69, 70n118, 80, 91, 99, 122n49, 127, 132, 135, 164, 186, 188, 198, 207, 210–11n179, 236 justice (iusticia), 27, 63–4, 70, 70n118, 72, 111, 117, 124–9, 133, 135, 145, 148–9, 154–5, 158, 160, 164, 170–71, 175, 182, 187–8, 198, 204 kindness, 89–91, 125n60, 149

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

266

Index

king(s), 80, 97, 99–100, 104–7, 125n60, 165, 182, 187, 190n92, 229n39, 235 (see also magistrate, ruler, sovereignty) kingdom, 60, 99–100, 145, 149, 152, 229, 231 knowledge, 71, 79–80, 101–2, 117, 120, 130, 138, 147, 159–60, 169, 182–3, 200, 210–11n179 law (lex), 15–25, 30–31, 35, 41, 44, 46, 49, 55, 59–61, 67, 70, 113–5, 127–9, 136, 145–7, 154–5, 158–201, 203, 204n149, 210–11n179, 212–3, 217–22, 226–9, 232–3, 237–8 lectures, 36, 198–9 lending, 145, 155, 156n206 (see also usury) liberty, 63, 131–3, 137, 206 Loci communes, 15, 16n5, 18, 21, 25, 33–4, 38–42, 46–78, 115–41, 169–94, 214, 216, 238 Lutheran, 35–6, 150, 228 magistrate (magistratical), 21–2, 30–31, 115, 148–9, 154, 167–9, 172, 178–9, 181n56, 183–96, 201–12, 228–38 (see also king, ruler, sovereignty) majesty, 48, 88, 96, 99, 106, 150n181, 177 marriage, 99, 104, 173, 206 means, 55n54, 85, 98, 156, 167, 179, 203, 234–5n59 medieval, 17, 19–27, 30–32, 36n63, 46–8, 64, 71, 85, 89n205, 108, 111, 113–7, 121–4, 136, 139–41, 144, 149, 155–8, 165–72, 183–4n65, 191n93, 202, 212–5, 223–7, 232, 237–8 metaphysics, 15 method (methodus), 17–8, 20, 39–42, 41n80, 45, 47, 54, 54n52, 55, 57n60, 58, 58n65, 62, 113, 115, 119n36, 141, 143–4, 145n157, 158, 160–61, 165, 174, 183, 185, 189, 195, 213–14, 221–5, 233, 237–8, 237n67 ministry, 39, 61, 70, 188 monasticism, 35, 103, 114, 136, 140–42, 140n135, 151n185, 203 morality, 147, 227n35 Moses, 49, 57, 58n63, 59–61, 66, 84, 93, 158, 180–83, 218

narrative, 23n25, 81–3, 90, 94, 99–101, 145n156 nation, 49, 70, 97–100, 104–5, 161, 165, 181, 198, 234n57, 234–5n59 nature, 26, 46, 48, 50, 54, 63, 82, 85, 88, 90, 92, 106–8, 116, 119, 119-20n37, 127–9, 132–3, 139, 155n203, 165, 170, 176n31, 178, 185–6, 189n84, 197–9, 207–9, 221–5 necessity, 48, 56, 73n133, 105, 115, 117, 132, 135, 138, 148, 150n181, 171, 173, 191, 221, 225 neighbor, 129, 146, 148–9, 152, 174–7, 190, 211n186, 212, 235 New Testament, 37, 41, 47, 54, 57–62, 58n63, 61n80, 100, 107, 145–6, 152, 158, 180–2, 186, 217 Noah, 44, 46, 52–3, 66, 81–5, 88–94, 108, 124, 173, 219–21 nominalism, 22–3, 85, 112–3, 112n4, 120–125, 121n44, 124–5n59, 128, 223, 226 oath, 47–8, 88, 105, 114–5, 120, 125n60, 139–44, 148–53, 157–8, 165 obedience, 50, 55–6, 84, 88, 90, 94–5, 131, 141, 145, 159–60, 175, 177–8, 182, 185, 190n92, 201–4, 207, 208n166, 210, 229n39 obligation, 48, 50, 95, 105, 111, 114, 125n60, 132, 150, 160, 174, 183, 190, 198–9, 209–11, 218–9, 222 observation (observatio), 80–82, 86, 88–94, 100–105, 107, 129–30, 143–7, 161–2, 175, 182, 195, 200, 206, 208–9 offices, 184, 194, 194n106, 202, 231n48, 236 Old Testament, 35n58, 36–8, 41, 49, 51, 54, 57–62, 58n63, 61n80, 79n168, 82, 100, 107, 145–6, 152, 158, 180–2 omnipotence, 15, 22, 27, 101, 111, 116–121, 223 parties, 36, 49, 76, 106, 149, 154n200, 155, 170 pastoral, 38–9, 69n110, 70–71n121, 75, 154, 178n41, 213–4, 231n46, 234, 237–8

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Subjects

patristic, 19, 19–20n13, 32–4, 38, 89, 89n205, 143, 155, 168, 203, 215, 225 perfection, 100–102, 162, 171, 191n93 piety, 90, 102, 121, 130, 145–6, 162, 174–7, 187–191, 204n148; (see also godliness) philosophy, 174 politics, 31, 228n37, 230, 235n62 poor (poverty), 142, 145, 153, 155, 214, 236 possibility, 120, 124, 133, 135, 173, 220– 21, 224, 227; (see also impossibility) potestas, 63, 116, 125–6, 183–4; (see also power) power (potentia), 22, 26, 48, 61, 63, 64n92, 69, 88, 96, 100–101, 103–4, 111–12, 116–120, 123–6, 125n60, 132–3, 135, 137, 150n181, 153, 165, 167, 171, 171n13, 183–6, 183–4n65, 188n81, 189–192, 192–3n99, 194n105, 194n106, 202–11, 204n149, 206n160, 207n164, 208–9n170, 209n173, 224, 224n30, 226, 227, 227n35, 229n39, 231, 234–5n59, 236; (see also potestas) absolute (absoluta), 111–2, 118–9, 125n60, 126, 165, 167, 223–4, 226 ordained (ordinata), 111, 116–7, 119, 123, 125, 125n60, 132, 165, 226, 227n35 precepts, 84, 162, 174, 179–80, 182–3, 190n91 predestination, 17, 19, 24, 27, 45–6, 45–6n11, 66–8, 68n107, 69n110, 70–71n121, 71, 72n128, 73, 74–75n143, 75, 75n144, 77–8, 77n158, 78n159, 109, 113, 121–2, 121–2n44, 126–7, 126n64, 130, 212, 219n21, 222–3, 226 princes, 155, 184, 202, 206 privilege, 131, 153, 177, 206 profit, 70n121, 138, 141, 153n197, 155–8, 187n78, 198 promise, 26, 44, 48–52, 54n50, 56, 59n67, 60n72, 60n74, 61, 66, 73, 73n133, 83, 85, 88, 92–107, 124, 140, 150–51, 150–51n182, 156, 160, 178n41, 181, 218, 229n39, prophet, 58n63, 59, 66, 80, 96, 107, 146, 162–5, 181, 203, 206, 217, 235

267

Protestant(ism), 22–3n24, 24, 29–30, 34–5, 39, 151n185, 153, 155n203, 157–8, 198, 213n2, 214–5, 238n68 providence, 24, 57, 68n107, 69n110, 92–3, 100, 108, 137–8, 191n93, 207 punishment, 179, 193, 207–9, 209n173 pure, 48, 50, 63, 84, 127, 140, 150, 161, 164, 177 question (quaestio), 80–81, 84–90, 98–100, 102, 162, 195 rainbow, 83–7, 86n197, 91–3 realism (realist), 128, 133, 165, 223 reading (lectio), 80–82, 95–6, 143–4, 160–61, 195, 205n152 reason (ratio), 80, 87–8, 120, 123–4, 123n50, 128, 165, 169–71, 191, 197–200, 209, 227, 227n35 redemption, 46, 61–2, 65–6, 73n132, 93, 113n9, 182, 222 (see also salvation) reformation, 15, 17, 20, 22–32, 45, 114, 149–50, 157, 183–4n65, 193, 196, 205n153, 213–5, 213n2, 228–30, regeneration (regenerate), 137, 139, 163, 199, 225 religion, 50, 95, 148, 175, 177, 184, 187, 189–94, 201, 204–5, 212, 228–9, 232–6 Renaissance, 103n273, 214; (see also humanism) reprobation, 45–6, 58, 68–79, 127, 222 (see also judgment) responsibility, 15, 22, 113, 142, 148, 179, 187n75, 189, 191–4, 204, 209n173, 212, 228–9, 236 revelation, 30, 88, 96, 160, 190 rhetoric, 205–11 righteousness, 51, 56, 65n97, 72n127, 81, 90, 103, 111, 137, 139, 141, 144–9, 154, 161, 163, 166, 176–9, 182–3, 201 rule, 33, 33n53, 48, 145, 147, 181n181 ruler, 60, 80, 99, 101, 126n64, 173, 178, 183–7, 187n77, 187n78, 189, 190n89, 191, 194n105, 204, 204n149, 206, 206n160, 207, 211 (see also king(s), magistrate, sovereignty) sacrament (sacramental), 24, 55, 55n54, 59, 87, 91–5, 193 sacred, 63, 69, 79–80, 91, 192, 217

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

268

Index

salvation, 25, 50–51, 61, 62n83, 63, 64–5n92, 65–75, 65n97, 72n128, 80, 85, 89, 111, 121–2, 124–5n59, 138, 141, 166–9, 182, 193, 203n145, 220, 226 (see also redemption) Satan, 29, 60, 133–4, 185, 185n68 scholastic(ism), 22–3n24, 39, 42, 51, 54, 64–71, 89, 89n205, 111–3, 114n11, 119,–22 119n36, 125n60, 135n115, 136–41, 155, 155n203, 157n212, 170, 174, 183, 183–4n65, 205n152, 213, 214n5, 215, 224–7, 233–8, 237n67, 238n68 scripture(s), 36–9, 47–53, 58n63, 62–3, 69–70, 70–71n121, 75n144, 76, 79–81, 87, 91, 93, 105, 108, 122, 129, 134, 138, 144, 190, 199–203, 217, 232 secular, 79, 192, 203, 204n149, 232 sentences, 188n81 Sentences, Peter Lombard’s, 19, 19n10, 27n35, 40, 71–2, 77–8, 77n155, 78n162, 113, 117, 117n20, 117n24, 118n29, 119n33, 119n34, 122, 122n49, 123n50, 123n53, 139–40, 215, 215n8, 225, 237 signs, 75, 87, 91–2, 208–9n170 sin, 25, 29, 41, 41n82, 58, 59n67, 60, 63–4, 70n118, 75–79, 81, 85, 93, 103, 132, 182 slave(ry), 133–4, 137, 156, 164, 186n72, 191, 206 soteriology, 16, 64, 66, 125, 214 sovereignty, 122, 125–6, 172, 194, 194n105, 208–9n170, 236 (see also king(s), magistrate, ruler) soul, 50, 62, 83, 85, 93, 103–4, 146, 163, 174, 178, 178n43, 190n89, 203, 206, 208n169, 210 speculation, 39, 42, 113, 113n9, 119–20, 138, 183–4n65 spirit, 61, 74, 80, 99, 128, 156, 156n206, 172, 186, 202, 204n149, 209 (see also Holy Spirit, spiritual) spiritual, 53, 60, 80–81, 99, 104, 106–7, 136, 142, 161, 163, 165, 180, 186, 202, 204, 204n149, 210–11n179, 231, 231n47 (see also spirit)

subsidiarity, 191n93, 213, 233–8, 233n54, 235n62 sword, 179, 188, 188n81, 192, 194, 203, 207–9, 208–9n170, 228, 231n47 taxes, 206, 210–11 teaching, 21, 27–8n36, 30, 36, 54, 70–71n121, 79, 81, 107–8, 161, 166, 179, 183, 189, 193, 210, 215, 215n8, 233 testament, 47, 50, 56–7, 59n67, 62, 182, 217 (see also covenant: testamentum) topics, 15–6, 19, 21n22, 26, 39–42, 41n82, 42n85, 46, 54–5, 57n60, 58, 62, 65, 68, 84, 107–8, 115–6, 138, 144, 150, 167, 199, 209, 212–4, 237–238 tradition(al), 16, 17n7, 20, 23n26, 30, 32–3, 36, 42, 78, 82, 89, 107–8, 112–20, 128n79, 130n84, 133, 136, 145–6, 152, 152n189, 155, 158–9, 164–7, 172, 176, 180, 187n75, 190n92, 196–201, 212, 221, 224–8, 227n35, 233, 237–8 trust, 50, 52, 88, 102, 126, 164 truth, 61n80, 87, 97, 103–7, 138, 146, 171, 179, 199, 202 types, 61 (see also signs) universal, 70–71n121, 85, 92, 107, 116, 126, 173, 175, 211, 227 (see also covenant: general) usury, 142, 144–9, 144n153, 145n156, 145n157, 145n158, 152–8, 154n202, 155n203, 156n206, 157n209 vow, 114, 139–42, 150–52, 151n185, 166 Vulgate, 47, 92n215, 143, 160, 176 wealth, 153, 156, 187, 215, 223 will (voluntas) – 111, 119n34, 120–22, 132–8, 224 wisdom (sapientia), 23, 74, 79, 100–101, 119–20n37, 120–24, 128, 163–4n240, 167, 171–2, 187, 207, 209, 227 world, 24–5, 48–54, 54n50, 66–7, 66n101, 71, 73–4, 77, 79, 81, 85–6, 86m197, 90–4, 100–101, 106, 113, 117–8, 121, 124–6, 124–5n59, 126n64, 132, 152–4, 159–60, 197, 200, 226 worship, 98, 102, 129, 182, 187, 189, 199

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367



Names

269

Names Althusius, Johannes, 31, 231, 231–2n49, 233, 235 Ambrose of Milan, 19–20, 19–20n13, 46, 82–6, 93–104, 175, 199–200 Aquinas, Thomas, 21, 154–5n202, 169, 170n8, 191n93, 195, 198–200, 205n152, 206, 207n164, 208n166, 208–9n170, 210–11n179, 211–2 Aristotle, 149n176, 170n8, 180, 183, 186n72, 190n92, 206n160 Asselt, Willem J. van, 29n40, 30n42, 114n11, 130n84, 214, 224n32, 237n67 Augustine of Hippo, 19–20, 33n54, 53, 57, 64–5n92, 72n127, 100, 114, 117, 122–3, 124n55, 136, 139n133, 145–8, 146n161, 159, 162n229, 164, 168, 169n6, 171n12, 175, 177n37, 179, 182–3, 186n71, 187n78, 189n84, 190n91, 199–200, 227, 235 Baker, J. Wayne, 26n32, 44, 44n6, 45–6n11, 154–5n202, 192n96, 223n28 Basil of Caesarea, 19–20, 33, 140n135, 168, 171n13, 173, 178, 191 Bäumlin, Richard, 31, 168, 183–4n65, 196–7, 226n33 Benedict, Philip, 78, 189n88, 232n50 Biel, Gabriel, 64–5, 125n60, 126n64, 139n133, 153n197, 226–7 Bierma, Lyle D., 9, 26n32, 44, 47, 218–21 Bodenmann, Reinhard, 9, 35n59, 36n61 Bolliger, Daniel, 23n26, 235n61 Brady, Thomas A., Jr., 153 Bruening, Michael W., 45n9, 229, 230n42, 231n46 Bucer, Martin, 23n25, 28, 35–8, 77n158, 79n168, 153, 154–5n202, 190n92, 198, 225, 229n40, 230 Bullinger, Heinrich, 16n5, 19, 28, 31, 45–7, 50–63, 66n101, 68n107, 69n110, 70–71n121, 71, 71n125, 72n127, 73–8, 107, 153–5, 160, 168, 185n68, 190n92, 192n96, 194n106, 195n109, 212, 216, 228, 229n40, 230, 231n46, 235n60

Calvin, John, 18n8, 19–20, 23–4, 27, 29n38, 29n40, 31–3, 44n6, 45, 50n30, 51–65, 70–78, 107, 114, 143–8, 153–5, 159–65, 168, 183–4n65, 216, 218n16, 229–34 Campi, Emidio, 9, 21n22, 23n25, 38–9n69, 140n135, 170n8, 185n68, 190n92, 194n106, 195n109, 216n10, 228n38, 231n46, 235n60 Chrysostom, John, 21, 33, 169, 195, 199–211 Courtenay, William J., 25–7, 111–2, 224n30 Dekker, Eef, 29n40, 214n5, 237n67 Dellsperger, Rudolf, 15–6n3, 21n22, 24n29, 28n37, 34n57, 35n59, 44–5n8, 113n10, 140n135, 195n109, 200n134 Denis the Carthusian, 20, 114, 145–8, 159, 162n233, 164n243 Eck, Johann, 153 Erasmus, Desiderius, 27, 27–8n37, 181 Erastus, Thomas, 31, 168, 230 Farmer, Craig S., 7, 18–9n9, 24n28, 33n54, 34n57, 35n59, 36, 38, 43n1, 143, 146n161, 147, 150, 152 Fisher, Edward, 35, 217–8 Ford, James T., 24n28, 31, 139, 168n3, 228n38, 232, 233n51 Gordon, Bruce, 69n110, 185n68, 216n10 Grabill, Stephen J., 8, 30–31, 157n212, 201n136, 231–2n49, 233n52, 234 Gratian, 19, 113–4, 136, 139, 155, 168, 215, 225, 232, 237 Grotius, Hugo, 35, 232n50 Hamm, Berndt, 111n2, 112, 113n10, 116n15, 119n34, 122, 127n68, 223n29 Heppe, Heinrich, 26n32, 29, 43, 219, 221 Ives, Robert B., 24n28, 39, 44 Kingdon, Robert M., 228n38, 231n46, 231–2n49, 234n57

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367

270

Index

Kirby, Torrance, 7, 21n22, 184n66, 187n75, 187n77, 188n81, 190n89, 192– 3n99, 193n103, 194n105, 194n106, 195n109, 204n149, 234–5 Lee, Brian J., 16, 44n6 Lillback, Peter A., 44n6, 47n16, 54n51, 56n57, 57n60 Lombard, Peter, 19, 27n35, 40, 64n89, 64–5n92, 71–2, 76n150, 77, 78n162, 113–4, 117–8, 119n33, 119n34, 122, 123n50, 123n53, 139–40, 168, 215, 225, 227, 237, 238n68 Luther, Martin, 23–4, 27–31, 41n82, 86n197, 151n185, 198 McCoy, Charles S., 26n32, 44, 45–6n11, 53, 223, 231–2n49, 238n69 Melanchthon, Philip, 23, 27–8, 31, 36, 40–41, 55, 58, 115, 169, 183–4n65, 198, 205n153, 210, 213n2, 220, 232, 233n51 Muller, Richard A., 9, 15n2, 15–6n3, 16n4, 18n8, 18–9n9, 19n12, 22–3n24, 23, 24n27, 36n64, 37n65, 37n66, 39, 40n78, 42n85, 44, 45n9, 54n52, 55–67, 70n118, 70–71n121, 73n132, 73n133, 76n151, 89n205, 122, 135n115, 139n133, 144n155, 145n157, 146n161, 154n200, 183–4n65, 199n122, 205n153, 213, 214n4, 214n5, 215, 216n10, 218n16, 232n50, 237n67, 238n68 Nicholas of Lyra, 19–20, 46, 82–3, 84n187, 87–8, 94, 95n225, 96, 97, 99n247, 101–2 Oakley, Francis, 27, 112, 120–21, 191n93, 224n30, 227n35 Oberman, Heiko A., 23n26, 27, 32, 64–5n92, 112–3, 118n29, 119–20n37, 121n41, 121n44, 122, 124–5n59, 126n64, 153n195, 154n200, 176, 192n96, 226–7

Pellicanus, Conrad, 19–20, 46, 82, 91–5, 97n239, 97n240, 98–107 Schilling, Heinz, 79n166, 231–2n49 Scotus, John Duns, 22–3n24, 112, 114, 120, 121n44, 122, 130, 139n133, 154–5n202, 166, 176, 180n52, 215, 223–5, 227n35, 237, 238n68 Selderhuis, Herman, 7, 15–6n3, 23n25, 38, 39n70, 40–41, 52–3, 66n102, 69n110, 78n159, 113, 119n36, 128, 139n133, 145, 161n224, 176n31, 177n38, 178n41, 211 Steinmetz, David C., 18–9n9, 27n34, 28n37, 33n54, 45n10, 76n151, 124–5n59, 125n60, 198 Thompson, John L., 18–9n9, 19n12, 205n153 Ursinus, Zacharius, 25, 43–4, 219–21 VanDrunen, David, 31n46, 229, 231, Vermigli, Peter Martyr, 21, 23n25, 28, 30–1, 47n16, 140n135, 151n185, 169, 170n8, 184n66, 187n75, 187n77, 188n81, 190n89, 190n92, 192–3n99, 193n103, 194n105, 194n106, 195, 198, 200, 201n135, 201n137, 202, 204n148, 205n152, 205n153, 206, 208n166, 208–9n170, 209n173, 210–12, 225, 228, 229n40, 230, 231n48 Wengert, Timothy J., 27–8n36, 205n153 William of Ockham, 22–3n24, 112–3, 118–20, 225, 227n35 Zwingli, Huldrych, 23, 31, 45n9, 51n37, 52–3, 62, 77n158, 154–5n202, 160, 183–4n65, 192n96, 196n111, 197n116, 212, 228, 229n40, 230

© 2012, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550366 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550367