A Translation and Analysis Andreas Osiander’s

Reception of Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of the Lord’s SupperAs Expressed in His Letters to Bucer of July 30, 1533 &

September 5, 1534 in AOG 5.184 & 196

A Paper Presented to

Dr. Schumacher

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

H851: Osiander & Justification by Faith

by

Curran D. Bishop

November 2011

Introduction

There are many parallels between the careers of Andreas Osiander and Martin Bucer.

Both had begun their careers in holy service, and both were led by Luther’s writings to embrace

and promote the teachings of the Reformation in its early years. Both became involved as junior

leaders of the Reformation in independent Imperial cities, and then rose to become the primary

leaders of the movement in their respective cities. Osiander and Bucer both were active

participants in the broader movement of the reformation beyond their cities, maintaining a lively

correspondence with important figures and participated in various colloquies with other

Reformers as well as with Catholics. With the imposition of the Interim both were forced to

leave the cities they had spent their entire careers serving and retired from primarily pastoral and

administrative roles to take theological professorships in lands distant from their chosen homes.

Both died in relative unhappiness in their exile contexts.

Here, however, the comparison stops. While Osiander possessed, “a rare talent for

making real enemies out of potential friends,”1 Bucer’s career was marked by his desire to bring

the various camps together, and even to bring reconciliation and reform to Rome. Osiander

tended to pick up on seemingly insignificant differences and make them essential issues of

contention, while Bucer’s theology had a multifaceted and occasional approach that allowed him

to consider even significantly different opinions with an eye toward appropriation and consensus.

Despite these differences, Osiander remained firmly within the Lutheran camp throughout his

career, despite his rather open criticisms of Luther,2 while Bucer was always perceived as an

outsider, even after his rapprochement with Luther in 1536.

1 David C. Steinmetz, Reformers in the Wings (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), 91.2 WA, TR 4: no. 4763, p. 478, 6-20.

1

It is odd then, given Osiander’s vitriolic denouncements of the Zwinglian party with

which Bucer was often perceived as an associate, and also given Osiander’s “shoot first and ask

questions later” approach to theological discussion, that the two appear to have remained on

friendly terms throughout their careers. In their first recorded interaction, at the Marburg

Colloquy, they carried on friendly intercourse even after negotiations had broken down between

the leaders of the camps. Also, in their infrequent correspondence (four letters of Osiander to

Bucer survive from the period between July 1533 and July 1548), they remained on friendly,

even somewhat intimate,3 terms, despite fluctuations in the Sacramental debate which was their

primary difference. This issue makes their cordiality even more remarkable as it is doctrine of

the Eucharist which marks the primary difference between Bucer—who was held in some

suspicion throughout his career despite being in accord with Luther’s teachings on almost every

other issue as well as his constant overtures for concord—and Osiander—who was held as a

fellow Lutheran despite his critical personality and his theological differences, which Luther

himself was aware of early on. It was not until after their parallel exiles that Osiander’s Lutheran

orthodoxy came into serious question when even Melanchthon, the Gnesio-Lutherans and

Bucer’s disciple Calvin joined forces in denouncing Osiander’s teachings. It appears from this

that Lutheran identity—as a distinction from Reformed identity—in the early years of the

Reformation focused on the doctrine of the Sacraments. That the specific details of the doctrine

of justification and possible differences of interpretation had not become apparent prior to the

late-1540s, but even when they did, they did not become issues of identity among Reformers.

Osiander’s view was roundly condemned as heresy by all and justification did not come to be a

3 See discussion of Osiander’s first letter, below.

2

significant distinguishing mark between the two camps: because of Osiander’s sacramental

theology he died a Lutheran heretic.

The importance of the issue of Eucharistic theology is seen in Osiander’s correspondence

to Bucer. Two of the four letters from Osiander to Bucer—the earlier two, sent in 1533 and 1534

—deal with Bucer’s sacramental theology which, as I will outline below, was the central issue of

difference between the two men. After these two letters, the next record of their correspondence

does not come until January, 1547 when Osiander wrote Bucer to ask him to aid a Wittenberg

student as he passed through Strasbourg on his journey home. The last letter is from July, 1548

and reports schisms within the city council; Osiander wrote Bucer to reaffirm he would not join

the ‘renegades’ even if faced with death or exile. The schisms Osiander referred to are, not

doubt, the council’s debates over Nürnberg’s acceptance of the Interim and, true to both his word

and the parallel experience of Bucer, Osiander chose exile over accommodation to the Romanist

demands when the council accepted the terms of the Interim. As the earlier two letters shed

more light on the issue of Lutheran identity and sacramental theology this paper will present a

translation and analysis of them.

Translation

AOG 5.1844 Osiander to Bucer [Nürnberg], 1533, July 30

[German:] We Lutherans were confident that you would soon be returned again to our doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, but the Kempten events destroyed this hope. Still, we did not despair because your letter in which you present a very opposite interpretation of the Lord’s Supper, shall be treasured by Luther. In Nürnberg we had a dispute over private absolution, whose practice I searched to obtain. Therefore my colleagues fear concerning the continuance of the church and slander me in the worst way.5

[Latin:] [Adresse: 448:] Good and learned honorable Dr. Martin Bucer, minister of the church in

4 The text of this letter is found in AOG 5.184, p. 381-383.5 This summary of the letter is probably the work of Konrad Hubert (see AOG 5.184, p. 381, footnote 1).

3

Strasbourg, uncommon friend.

[447:] Salutations. With yourself so properly offering warning, oh learned Bucer, I am unwilling to unite, as letters cannot bear such weight, especially if neither summary nor

381, 5 fact is available. We were recently hoping to be [there], when Bucer so agreeably returned at length to our home, bringing several colleagues and students, that he might

382, 1 not think to depart for good.6 In truth, nothing shook hope among us in him, who Kempten recently laid hands on. To that indeed, with disagreement, ministers consult7 us, accepting your response8 to them, which they perceive—with us—does not bind them: this is no light argument to us to hope for in vain; nor do we despair, especially with

382, 5 several letters—as if pledges—of this, our hope among Lutherans, to be kept sacred. Even if all this controversy may happily bring to the fore, is that, with respect to that which at a distance may be doubtful, may the Word of God alone rule. For nothing is good in every part. Indeed it also happened recently among us, a certain minor controversy to preserve what has always been: having to be absolved by the office of the keys through private examination. All my colleagues so much withdrew from me to such

383, 5 an extent that not even having been mistrusted,9 they conspire against me, justifying profanity and abuse [of the office of] the keys (one may know that having to be absolved by a minister, one may be absolved by being forgiven, without having been seen, nor examined, and without repenting—and that in public assemblies), and nothing in me has not struggled [at this], yet they supposed me entirely heretical. God may yet forgive a

383,10 person but let us not die unabsolved. For a long while they hated me without cause, and at this time it is suitable to think that those who disapprove of my cause [do so] in order that church discipline cannot truly be restored; and the universal hatred they have poured out is not without effect: they construct a falsehood, just as erroneous as those who confess to me alone but are not able to be imparted [forgiveness]: based on only rumor they have revoked more than 60 from my assembly within ten years.

6 AOG notes: “Osiander gave the meaning of the Lutheran [position] again, which, conditionally, through the accommodating behavior of Bucer in the question of the Lord’s Supper in the years 1530-32, had given hope that Strasbourg would reverse altogether with other Southern Germans to the Lutheran teaching concerning the Alter Sacrament.”

7 AOG notes: “The Kempten events were particularly pictured by Erhard, Sakramentsstreitigkeiten [Sacramental Differences], 160-167... the Lutheran and Zwinglian interpretation influenced analysis of the Lord’s Supper to profound disagreement, and the council [presumably the Kempten city council] requested [several theologians] to write and submit an essay on the meaning of the Altar Sacrament. These Confessions (a short summary in Erhard, Kempter Reformationsgeschichte [Kempten Reformation History], p. 34ff) were submitted by Nürnberg, Augsburg and Strasbourg theologians for review. The Clerical Statement was completed on Dec. 13, 1532; unfortunately the original copy cannot be found. One may assume from the composition (that) Osainder was the main author.... Bucer sought with his assessment to mediate between the parties in a formula with the essentials preserved but likewise still to allow leeway for individual conceptions; the antagonists joined to this—an advance which the Kempten council much accommodated. It therefore held the Nürnberg and Augsburg survey back. The Kempten preacher declared himself in agreement with the council, based on the potential for peace Bucer’s Formulation had.” Also see Pollett, 95 and 116, note 2.

8 AOG notes: “The answer of the Strasbourgers was Bucer’s formulation and had virtually the extent of a book....”

9 AOG notes: “The Nürnberg preachers with the exception of the Kartäuserpriors Georg Koberer.”

4

383, 15Yet God will see the innocent and will confuse the arrogance of those who act thus with me, when it appears easy [and] good for all, not to wish being corrected by my quenching them. Nothing more nearly unhoped for appears to me at this time, even if sometimes I may search for, or I may dream, or in fact may act thus. Yet excessive, serious business does not happen in a dream, if we teach “Let us refuse to have confidence in man.”10

383, 20Farewell. 30th of July, 1533And. Osiander

AOG 5.19611 Osiander to Bucer [Nürnberg], 1534, September 5

[German:] Thanks for the letter of Bucer, (I) agree to the conception of the Lord’s Supper, which allegedly also Bullinger accedes (to). His petition had been presented in Nüremberg – but it is still without answer.

[Latin:] [Address:] Honored teacher, Dr. Martin Bucer, preacher of Strasburg, my own brother in Christ.

Salutations. Gratefully I have your letter to me, oh learned Bucer, together with other things, besides and beyond which encouraged me to read your pamphlet. I understand

518, 5 from this your vision and also now indeed our faithful brotherhood. However I had already read [it] once, when still pretty well wet from the press. Although you grieve, my judgement [is]—[and] not only mine, [but] truly now even many friends have been convinced—that your opinions are tolerable. And if those who are discovered, who wish to exercise curiosity, if you will always think this way and accept this opinion in your words, they will be able, in the same way I am so greatly able [to accept it]—for I dismiss

519,5 those ill-timed, truly I may say destructive, criticisms. And I hope that it will be, if many having been led by your authority follow your opinion, that there will not be [similar] controversy before they perceive what you mean. More so, let us urge if you hold this manner of holy sacrament then mutual agreement may remain and be increased. If Bullinger indeed subscribes to your opinion as I hear from others, if it is without

519,10 trickery, then I rejoice to an even greater extent. For otherwise no unfaithfulness is seen. Nothing is new with us, except for this: I have reported my duty and demanded my mission on account of many inconveniences; [however] the senate has not yet responded. Whatever the response may be, I do not know. If I succeed, I trust God will send me somewhere, where great profit of my labor may be itself with fortification. I have not yet adjudged anything specific from me.

519,15 Be strong and greet each of your remaining colleagues with diligence and quickly write back in reply. Date: 5 September, year 1534Andreas Osiander

10 AOG here references Jer. 17.5, Ps. 146.311 The text of this letter is found in AOG 5.196, p. 518-519.

5

Background: the Development of Bucer’s Eucharistic Theology

Because the two letters deal with Osiander’s reception of Bucer’s Eucharistic theology,

and because Bucer’s sacramental theology underwent significant development during the late

1520s and early 1530s, it is important to understand that development particularly as it pertains

to the time of the two letters. Examining the development of Bucer’s views serves to illustrate

the extent to which Eucharistic theology was at the center of the debates concerning Protestant

unity—and thus Lutheran, as well as Reformed identity—a project which was one of Bucer’s

chief goal throughout his career.

As a Dominican monk and scholar Bucer held traditional medieval views of the

Eucharist, though he wrote in his later career that he had always harbored doubts about the

physical presence of Christ in the sacrament.12 Yet in 1523 Bucer defended Luther’s statements

in the Sermon on the Holy Sacraments and De Captivitate Babylonica, calling the bread Christ’s,

“own true body.”13 In the fall of 1524, prompted by a letter Hinne Rode brought from the Dutch

spiritualist Cornelius Hoen to the pastors at Strasbourg—and quite likely under some pressure

from his superior, Capito14—Bucer discarded the doctrine of the physical presence, accepting

Rode’s exegetical argument that the “is” of the words of consecration should be interpreted as

“means” or “signifies.” This view supported Bucer’s concern for the role of the Holy Spirit in

12 Martin Greschat, Martin Bucer: A Reformer and His Times, trans. Stephen E. Buckwalter (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 72. Greschat does not note at what point in Bucer’s career this “later” statement comes from. Because his views were acceptable to Luther by 1536, it is likely that this statement was made prior to the developments in his thinking reflected in his sacramental publications of 1534 (see below).

13 Martin Bucer, Martin Bucers Deutsche Schriften. Robert Stupperich, ed. (Gütersloh: Gutersloher Verlagshaus, 1960-) (hereafter abbreviated BDS), I, 117-118, quoted in James M. Kittleson, “Martin Bucer and the Sacramentarian Controversy: The Origins of his Policy of Concord,” Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte 64 (1973), 170.

14 Kittelson, 173-4. Kittelson suggests that the timing of Bucer’s endorsement of Rode’s exegesis—and his dependence on John 6:63 in doing so, just a few short moths after defending Luther’s De Captivitate Babylonica which rejects John 6:63 as applying to the Lord’s Supper—indicates the heavy influence of his senior colleague who was himself already firmly within the Zwinglian camp.

6

working faith in the believer; Bucer “gave utmost importance to the Holy Spirit, who kindles in

people’s hearts trust that God will justify sinners, thus not only giving them joy and consolation

but also moving them to love their fellow human beings.”15 As this was his focus, Bucer could

not understand either the importance Luther attached to the external elements, nor Zwingli’s

adamant opposition to such emphasis. As Greschat states, this stance placed Bucer in Zwingli’s

camp with respect to physical presence, but also at odds with Zwingli “in that he never ceased to

attribute the greatest importance to faith in Christ’s reconciling act and the renewed life of the

justified sinner—only these were decisive and therefore sufficient for church unity.”16

The important point of this is that, as Kittlelson suggests, it is likely that, “the exact

nature of the elements may never have been the paramount issue in Bucer’s theology of the

Lord’s Supper.”17 Rather, he wrote about them because they were the essence of the debate for

Luther and Zwingli, and he had to engage these issues if he wished to have a voice in the overall

controversy. The relative insignificance of the actual nature of the elements in Bucer’s theology

led him to believe that the debate really came down to a matter of semantics, and he spent

enormous effort in trying to find an articulation of what he believed to be the basic doctrine that

all agreed on that would satisfy both sides. This led to problems in 1526 when, in his German

translation of Bugenhagen’s commentary on the Psalms, and in his Latin translation of Luther’s

Psotils, Bucer misrepresented the Lutheran position. While the reason for the misrepresentation

was most likely due to Bucer’s misunderstanding of the nature of the debate, his actions were

viewed by the Wittenberg theologians as intentional chicanery, and he lost their trust.18

15 Greschat, 74.16 Greschat, 74.17 Kittleson, 169.18 Greschat, 75.

7

Bucer attended the Marburg Colloquy in 1529 and, after negotiations had collapsed

between Luther and Zwingli, Jacob Sturm, the leader of the City Council of Strasbourg, arranged

a meeting between Luther and Bucer, in hopes that the Strasbourg theologians would abandon

their ties to the Swiss, thus freeing the city to pursue political ties with the northern Germans.

Luther, however, did not trust Bucer due to the publications of 1526 and rejected any consensus,

stating “we do not have one and the same spirit.”19 However, Bucer dialogued with Osiander and

Brenz and was willing to make considerable concessions—though he probably did not actually

endorse the Lutheran position as Osiander later claimed.20 These discussions no doubt played an

important part in the openness of Osiander’s first letter—of July, 1533—in that Osiander was

willing to continue dialog with Bucer, if warily.21 It also lay the groundwork for his later

enthusiasm for the possibility of consensus in the second letter—of September, 1534.

In 1534 Bucer published two treatises which represented changes in his doctrine of the

sacraments, and it is most likely the first of these treatises to which Osiander refers in his second

letter. The two treatises were Bericht aus der Heiligen Schrift (Report from Holy Scripture) and

Defensio contra axioma Catholicum (Defense against the Catholic Axiom). Ian Hazlett suggests

19 BDS 4, p. 355, 12ff quoted in Greschat, 93. Luther was implying that Bucer and he did not participate in the same Holy Spirit—and hence, one at least was not a true Christian. This interaction no doubt helped Bucer to see the significance of the issue for Luther.

20 Greschat, 93. Greschat does not state specifically where or when Osiander made the claim that Bucer had endorsed the Lutheran position at Marburg. Ian Hazlett, however, makes reference to this in “The Development of Martin Bucer’s Thinking on the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper in its historical and theological Context, 1523-1534” (Ph.D. diss., Westfälische Wihelms-Universität zu Münster, 1975), 285-6, and in footnote 167 cites WA 30/3, p. 150, 29-36. This is in Osiander’s report on the Colloquy. The particular statements he made, however, do not indicate a full endorsement of Luther’s position, but rather certain concessions which Bucer later incorporated into his theology. Osiander stated that he and Brenz met with Bucer and Hedio, and that Bucer conceded that Christ’s body was in the bread for the believer, but not for the unbeliever. Claiming the presence of Christ in the elements certainly represents a move toward the Lutheran position for Bucer who had previously argued for a Zwinglian understanding; but his insistence that Christ was not present for unbelievers would continue to pose a problem for consensus for several years. It seems that understanding Osiander’s statements as a claim that Bucer was fully endorsing the Lutheran position is an overstatement.

21 Gottfried Seebaß, Das Reformatorische Werk des Andreas Osiander (Nürnberg: Selbstverlag des Vereins für Bayerische Kirchengeschichte, 1967), 171.

8

that Bucer’s continued conflicts with Anabaptist, who had made Strasbourg their home due to its

reputation for religious tolerance, had led him to a greater appreciation for Luther’s

understanding of the Lord’s Supper and the role of external elements in the reception of grace.

The Anabaptists shared Bucer’s concern for the role of the Holy Spirit in administering grace to

the believer, but took this concern to a level of denying any place for the external world in the

economy of grace. This spiritualist thinking sometimes took the attitude of,

indifference, leading to a form of quietism. Sometimes it was an aggressive contempt, based on an extreme dualism, leading to the wish to abolish and destroy; and even to overthrow the moral order. Sometimes it was a form of monism, which led to the making of impossible demands form the flesh, and a perfectionism, which in the end was also destructive.22

Such spiritualistic thinking undercut the ministry of the Church, and with it the ministry

of the Word and Sacrament. “In some cases even Scripture could be dropped, in favour of

asserting the direct and exclusive relationship between the Spirit and the soul.”23 Bucer,

recoiling from such a position, wrote in Bericht, “the sacraments are divine acts of the church,

instituted by God so that through them God’s gifts and our salvation—accomplished by our Lord

Jesus Christ—may be, on the basis of God’s promise, administered and given with words and

visible signs to those whom the church recognizes as fit, on account of God’s promise, for this

salvation.”24 This definition of the sacraments shows considerable development from Bucer’s

earlier unwillingness to ascribe more to the Eucharist than its being a human rite. The

sacraments are, “divine institutions, and the Church has been entrusted with their administration.

The gifts are decreed and bestowed by Christ, but the Church... can act on his behalf.... In the

sacraments, the redemption of Christ is offered.”25 This view underscored the importance of the 22 Ian Hazlett, 376.23 Ibid., 377.24 Bucer, Bericht aus der Heilgen Schrift, in BDS 5, p. 160, 5-9, quoted and trans, in Greschat, 102.25 Hazlett, 379.

9

sacraments as works of God, which alleviated some of the the Wittenbergers’ concerns about

Bucer’s position while still avoiding attributing too much to the external rite for Bucer’s

convictions. In Defensio, perhaps the most significant development in Bucer’s thinking was that

he formulated a way of approaching unworthy eating which differentiated between worthy and

unworthy believing participants—both of which Bucer claimed received Christ in the sacrament,

and unbelieving participants which Bucer denied received Christ in the sacrament. This

distinction provided for his concerns in a way that at the same time prepared the way for future

talks with the Wittenbergers.26

The peace of Kaaden placed further pressure on the souther Germans to sort out their

differences with both the Swiss and the Wittenbergers. This treaty between King Ferdinand of

Austria and Landgrave Philip of Hesse, restored the Dutchy of Württemberg to Duke Ulrich and

specifyed that no “sacramentarians” were to be allowed in the Dutchy.27 Determining what it

meant to be a “sacramentarian” was now more important both theologically and politically.

Bucer’s recent publications, together with his cautious endorsement of the Stuttgart Concord of

August, 1534 prepared for very productive talks with Melanchthon in December of that year—

this would allow for more dialogue between the southern Germans and Wittenberg. Delicate

maneuvering on the parts of Bucer, Capito and Melanchthon led to a plan for all parties to meet

for verbal negotiations—heavily focused on the Lord’s Supper—that might lead to theological

concord and clear the way for political alliance. Despite skepticism from the other southern

Germans and Swiss, the plan went forward in Wittenberg in May of 1536, though the Swiss

ultimately refused to participate. At this meeting Capito, Bucer and Melanchthon worked

26 Ibid., 395.27 Greschat, 132-3.

10

carefully to keep the discussion focused on the actual claims of the parties in their own writings,

not the representations of their views made by polemicists. Bucer’s distinction between

unworthy participants—who received Christ—and unbelieving participants—who did not—

proved sufficient to address Luther’s remaining concerns about his position: after receiving

confirmation from every person present that they believed that the congregation did not just

receive bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper Luther conferred with the Wittenbergers and

declared,

Worthy lords and brethren, we have now heard every one of you answer and confess that you believe and teach that the true body and the true blood of the Lord are given and received in the Holy Supper, and not just bread and wine.... You take exception to including unbelievers, but you do confess, as Saint Paul does, that the unworthy receive the body of the Lord.... We do not want to quarrel over this. Since this is how matters stand with you, we are in agreement, we recognize and accept you as our dear brethren in the Lord, as far as these articles are concerned.28

While this affirmation did not represent a full endorsement on Luther’s part of all aspects

of Bucer’s Eucharistic theology, it was significant in that Luther felt there was sufficient

agreement on essentials to embrace Bucer as a brother in Christ—a distinct change from his

reaction to Bucer at the Marburg Colloquy seven years earlier. With this agreement we have

examined Bucer’s sacramental development as far as necessary for the consideration of

Osiander’s correspondence with him on the matter, and also to the point at which Ian Hazlett

considered his sacramental theology to have reached its final form.29

28 BDS 6/1, p. 154, 1ff., quoted in Greschat, 138.29 Hazlett concludes his consideration of Bucer’s development with the Concord of Stuttgart. He sees the

outcome of the Wittenberg Concord as inevitable in light of Melanchthon’s and Bucer’s discussions surrounding Stuttgart (Hazlett, 412).

11

Analysis of the Letters:

Letters in general, and these letters in particular, tend to provide much more contextual

and psychological information than theological content, as compared to polemical writings or

doctrinal statements. As such they inform us as to how specific events—both domestic to

Nürnberg and foreign—directed Osiander’s thinking and his openness to dialogue concerning

theological issues. He does not include in these letters, however, any specific theological

argument, and even specifically notes his unwillingness to cary out such discussion in the limited

medium of correspondence.30 This analysis will attempt, therefore, to set the letters in their

historical context, and to demonstrate what perspective the letters offer of Osiander’s reception

of Bucer. It is unable, however, to offer much perspective of the specific differences between

Osiander’s and Bucer’s theology, or how those differences affected the course of events. This

analysis will also attempt to fill in some gaps using the historical context laid out above.

The First Letter: July 30, 1533

After a cordial greeting, Osiander opens his letter expressing his concern about coming to

sacramental agreement through so imperfect a form of communication, and expresses a hope to

meet with Bucer in person for discussion. He explains his cautiousness by referencing his

continued trust in the person “who Kempten recently laid hands on.” This is most likely a

reference to the incident in Kempten the previous winter when, upon reviewing statements on

the Lord’s Supper which the city council had requested from the theologians of Augsburg,

Nürnberg and Strasbourg, the Kempten council decided in favor of what Seebaß describes as a

Zwinglian interpretation of the Eucharist31 and expelled the city’s Lutheran preacher. In the

30 See AOG 5.184, p. 384, 4.31 Seebaß, 171.

12

AOG, Müller and Seebaß give a more nuanced interpretation of the event, stating that the city

considered the statements of the three cities, and that the council chose Strasbourg’s statement—

which was prepared by Bucer—because it provided the most room for differing interpretations of

the doctrine.32 As Osiander was the leading writer of the Nürnberg statement,33 it is easy to see

why he would feel the need for caution in his dealings with Bucer, who he could easily perceive

as stealing Kempten from him by his arguments. It is interesting that Osiander, renowned for his

ability to distance himself from colleagues over seemingly inconsequential matters, maintains

such open lines with Bucer in this letter. His acknowledgment of his unwillingness to enter into

a theological agreement through written correspondence is polite and balanced by the hope for

future dialogue in person, rather than simply dismissing Bucer as incorrect; which would be what

one would expect in this context.

Because the explanation of circumstances in Kempten in the AOG is in a footnote

attached to Osiander’s reference to ministers consulting with him, it seems to suggest that these

ministers are in Kempten, and seeking to interpret Bucer’s statement which the city council had

adopted.34 Osiander is careful to note that they do not perceive the document as binding. This

further points to the complexity of the situation. The probable presence of pastors in Kempten

who were seeking the guidance of the author of one of the rejected documents and who did not

see the Strasbourg document as binding make it seem that the “Lutheran preacher” which Seebaß

refers to in Das Reformatorische Werk35 may have been exiled less for holding a Lutheran

position, than for unwillingness to accept the council’s taking a broader position.

32 AOG 5.184, 382, note 7.33 Ibid.34 Ibid.35 Seebaß, 171.

13

This would make more sense, as it would be a lesser insult to Osiander than the city

council deciding in favor of Bucer over Osiander and throwing out any dissidents. Even so,

Osiander’s treatment of Bucer here shows admirable restraint and seems the treatment of a friend

who disagrees over a point, rather than a theological opponent, which is more characteristic of

Osiander’s treatment of his doctrinal adversaries. As noted above, Osiander and Bucer had

entered into dialogue at Marburg and, while they could not come to agreement, they had parted

on good terms. It seems there must have been some personal connection to overcome Osiander’s

usual approach to dissenters, even if just the connection of both being southern Germans seeking

to navigate the political turmoil associated with being an imperial city while remaining true to

one’s own theological convictions. Despite the fact that Bucer and Osiander had often taken

different attitudes in this struggle, there seems to have remained a friendship in the ensuing

years. Two aspects of the letter could be interpreted to support such a connection. First,

Osiander’s use of the term amico non vulgari (“uncommon friend”) in his address to Bucer, and

second, the fact that after discussing his cautiousness concerning doctrinal agreement he spends

the rest of the letter—indeed the majority of the letter—relating his personal problems with his

colleagues in Nürnberg; a move we would expect between good friends, but not one we would

look for between acquaintances and sparing partners.

In the first place, the use of the term amico non vulgari probably should not be taken to

necessarily denote a particular friendship. In a letter of January 18, 1534,36 Osiander addressed

Bernhard Ziegler as amico suo candidissimo, “His own kind friend,” a term he also used in

addressing Melanchthon in a letter of February 15, 1534.37 While not the same expressions, they

36 AOG 5.192, 508.37 AOG 5.193, 511.

14

are both endearing-sounding terms, and probably should be viewed as conventions of the time,

which indicate nothing more than generally positive comportment toward the addressee, not

close companionship. Osiander’s most common address to Bucer was some form of “brother in

Christ,”38 “brother in the Lord”39 or “beloved of the Lord,”40 all terms of address he used

frequently for others as well.

In the second place, it is difficult to say whether Osiander was confiding in a close friend,

or being rather open in his complaints about his colleagues views of private absolution. It

appears that he also brought the issue up in a letter to Brenz41 and Luther mentioned Osiander’s

having confided the difficulties to him as well.42 However, in the controversy over absolution in

Nürnberg, Brenz was a central character and a relatively close associate. Brenz and Osiander

were the co-authors of the Brandenburg-Nürnberg Church Order which the city council had

adopted, and they had not written public confession into it. This move can be seen to have both

political and pastoral motivations. By this “seemingly innocent omission” in the Church Order

Brenz and Osiander were requiring the people to come to their pastors for Christ’s forgiveness,

which naturally increased the power of the clergy.43 However it was a pastoral issue as well:

Osiander believed that public absolution would make private absolution redundant in the eyes of

the people. He also believed that a pastor could not truly absolve someone without examining

individually if they had genuine sorrow and faith—a point made explicit in Osiander’s letter to

38 AOG 5.196, 518. See above.39 AOG 8.340, 495.40 AOG 8.349, 617.41 AOG 5.180, 348-353.42 AOG 5.494-496.43 Ronald Rittgers, The Reformation of the Keys: Confession, Conscience, and Authority in Sixteenth Century

Germany (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004), 139.

15

Bucer. Further, he claimed that public absolution made the layperson’s faith a condition of

forgiveness, and thus “was no absolution at all.” Osiander thought that this “robbed the laity of

the consolation” that could only be found in private absolution.44 While Osiander may have

meant well, the loss of public absolution—and perhaps the obvious increase in clerical power—

caused outrage in Nürnberg. Luther’s particular opinion was sought by the Nürnberg council. In

light of these developments it would be natural for Osiander to contact both Brenz and Luther

about it, and his having done so does not indicate that he was in the habit of discussing his

problems with whoever he happened to be writing to.

In his letter to Bucer, Osiander only mentioned the specifics of the argument in a

parenthetical statement (that in public absolution a person may receive a pronouncement of

forgiveness without ever having been examined to see that they are actually repentant) and

focused instead on the way he had been abused by his colleagues, hated, lied about and conspired

against without cause. It seems from this that Osiander was being nearly as open with Bucer as

he was with those closest to the debate. Thus, it is difficult to say whether his confiding in Bucer

was more a matter of personal indiscretion, or of particular friendship.

To summarize, at the time of this letter Osiander was cautious about the possibility of

theological consensus, but did not reject it and, in fact, desired to meet in person to explore the

possibility. If he had understood Bucer to have in fact endorsed the Lutheran view of the

Eucharist at Marburg, this letter indicates that he is not so sure any more. However, in light of

his report of Bucer’s position at Marburg, it seems unlikely that Osiander saw Bucer as a

Lutheran at that time. Assuming this, the letter simply indicates that they had continued their

44 Ibid., 140.

16

friendship as distant colleagues who disagreed theologically but did so without personal

animosity toward each other. In Osiander’s career this seems to have been somewhat unusual.

The Second letter: AOG 5.196 – September 5, 1534

This letter displays significant enthusiasm for consensus. The pamphlet Osiander

mentions in the opening clauses45 is no doubt Bucer’s Bericht aus der Heilgen Schrift, just

published a few months earlier in March. As noted above, the increased value Bucer placed on

the sacraments in this document, acknowledging them to be works of God which truly offer

redemption, alleviated some fears that he placed too little value in the external order. Bucer

made specific condemnations against Anabaptist claims that the sufficiency of Calvary did away

with the need for the sacraments. He also directly addressed the symbolist doctrines of Munster

as being misinterpretations of the teachings of others, himself included.46 This document truly

represented a move on Bucer’s part from the Zwinglian understanding and toward the Lutheran

view; Bucer also specifically addressed and denied individual doctrines which would have

concerned Osiander and which would likely have associated with Bucer’s views. In light of

these facts it is understandable that Osiander received his new position positively. If Osiander

fully understood the document, however, his pronouncement that there is no unfaithfulness to be

seen47 would be more akin to Luther’s later statements at the Wittenberg Concord—agreement

that the remaining differences need not threaten fellowship, rather than as a statement of full

agreement, as indicated by his pronouncement that Bucer’s opinions are now “tolerable.”48

45 See AOG 5.196, p. 518, 4.46 Hazllet, 382-3.47 See AOG 5.196, p. 519, 10.48 See AOG 5.196, p. 519, 2.

17

His understanding that Bullinger subscribed to the views Bucer expressed in the

document comes at a time when its accuracy is difficult to discern. Bullinger may well have

been sympathetic to Bucer’s view as expressed in the Bericht in March but, in the wake of

Bucer’s cautious support for the Stuttgart Concord of August, Bullinger began to feel mistrust

towards the Strasbourg theologian. Bullinger saw himself as the chief heir of Zwingli’s legacy,

and Stuttgart’s use of a formula Zwingli had specifically rejected at Marburg would mean

problems for the relationship between the Swiss and Strasbourg theologians in the coming years.

Taking into account, however, the time required for news of the Stuttgart Concord to reach

Strasbourg, for Bucer to assess the results and affirm them, and then for this news to reach

Zurich, it may well have been the case that Bullinger had neither heard of nor responded

negatively toward Bucer’s endorsement of the Stuttgart Concord by the time of this letter, written

as it was, little more than a month after that Concord was reached.

In light of the later events of the Wittenberg Concord the tone of Osiander’s letter is not

surprising. Bucer had taken significant steps in his journey to a position which Luther found

acceptable. What is surprising is to realize that by the time of the Wittenberg Concord, Osiander

had begun to have doubts about the possibility of consensus and did not even attend. There are

several possible explanations for this seeming reversal of opinion. As Seebaß presents the

incident in Das Reformatorische Werk, it appears that Luther’s letter of invitation was only a

general letter to the preachers of Nürnberg, and Osiander did not take it to mean that his presence

was particularly desired. For this reason Osiander did not pass the letter on to the city council.

When he eventually realized his mistake it was too late to begin the journey.49 Yet Seebaß also

notes that Osiander had doubts about what the meeting could achieve and this no doubt led to his

49 Seebaß, 173.

18

lack of care in handling the invitation; viewing his absence at Wittenberg as a simple

misunderstanding seems incorrect.50

As Greschat presents the political and theological landscape leading up to the spring of

1536 the complexity of the picture is prominent. Bucer, Capito and Melanchthon had to

overcome huge skepticism on many fronts and ultimately failed to do so with the Swiss. Even in

the opening sessions of the council Luther’s behavior indicated that he anticipated a replay of

Marburg and was not at first really seeking negotiation and understanding so much as

capitulation and apology.51 It is possible that Osiander did not judge that the time was right for

much to come of the negotiations, not because he had changed his mind about the possibilities

presented by Bucer’s position, but because had sensed the atmosphere and did not want to wast

his time making a journey that he thought could only serve to increase the tension.

A third possibility, and one hinted at in this letter, presents itself. At the end of the letter

Osiander noted that he had “reported his duty” to the council and “demanded his mission,” a

mission that would send him somewhere where his labor would be of great profit. This seems to

be a reference to his application for a professorship at the University of Tübingen. Hirsch notes

a letter from Luther of September 9, 1532 which suggested that he expected that Osiander would

seek to leave Nürnberg, given the struggles he was having there. With the absolution

50 I should not note that Seebaß is not arguing that Osiander’s actions should be viewed as a simple misunderstanding; he presents a nuanced picture.

51 Greschat, 137. Greschat notes that the council was originally intended to take place at Eisenach, but that Luther was too sick to attend. Knowing that a meeting without him present would accomplish nothing, the delegates traveled from Eisenach to Wittenberg in order to include him. Upon their arrival, however, Luther went on the attack, “expressly including Bucer, and asserted that meaningful talks could take place only if the Southern Germans first publicly recanted their false understanding of the Lord’s Supper and henceforth taught that unbelievers as well as believers actually received the body and blood of Christ in their mouths with the Lord’s Supper” (Ibid.). Capito tactfully responded while Bucer was regrouping but Luther became ill enough to have to adjourn the meeting until the following day. Bugenhagen revived Bucer’s formula from the Defensio the next day and Luther found it sufficient basis to continue discussions—leading quickly to his statement noted above.

19

controversy of 1533 Osiander’s difficulties only deepened. So it was no surprise that Osiander

sought a professorship at Tübingen in 1534. Hirsch states, however, that Bucer and Ambrosius

Blarer, seeking to draw Melanchthon from the “rarefied air” of Wittenberg so that he might be

more open to consider the Swiss teaching on the Lord’s Supper, worked to obtain the

appointment for the Wittenberger. While their plan did not work, the maneuvering proved

sufficient to turn the university in a different direction than Osiander.52 The third possibility to

explain Osiander’s change in attitude toward Bucer’s theology and his absence at the Wittenberg

Concord, then, could be that it was the result of his hurt or anger at Bucer’s supporting another

candidate for the professorship. After what would have appeared to him a personal slight it

would be natural for him to reassess Bucer’s theology from a less charitable perspective. This

solution would not comport well with the apparent cordiality of his later letters to Bucer, but it

must be remembered that there is no record of correspondence between them until more than

twelve years later; after so much time old wounds could have healed. Ultimately it does not

seem that we have sufficient records at this time to accurately speculate as to the causes of

Osiander’s apparent reversal. While several plausible options exist, the favorable attitude of this

second letter does make whatever happened to cause the change somewhat surprising.

Conclusions

Osiander’s letters demonstrate the extent to which lines between camps were still being

drawn in the 1530s, and the importance of sacramental theology to these identity markers. They

also likely demonstrate the unusual way in which Reformers from different camps could work

together across lines of both theological alliance and personality. The letters, however, are

generally only useful in suggesting how Osiander felt towards various developments, not in

52 Emanuel Hirsch, Die Theologie des Andreas Osiander und ihre geschichtlichen Voraussetzungen. 273-5.

20

contributing significantly to our understanding of the theological content of those developments.

They do not make arguments, nor critique the arguments of others. They do present a picture of

the complexity of the negotiations for unity which helped to form the identities of the various

camps involved. These negotiation involved theological, political, and personal factors in a

complex and multifaceted web or matrix. Through the insights of such personal letters we are

able to gain small, thought helpful insights into that matrix.

21

Bibliography:

Anrich, Gustav. Martin Bucer. Strassburg: Verlag con Karl J. Trübner, 1914

Bucer, Martin. Martin Bucers Deutsche Schriften. Robert Stupperich, ed. Gütersloh: Gutersloher Verlagshaus, 1960-

Ells, Hastings. Martin Bucer. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1931

Greschat, Martin. Martin Bucer: A Reformer and His Times. Trans. Stephen E. Buckwalter. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004.

Hazlett, Ian. “The Development of Martin Bucer’s Thinking on the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper in its historical and theological Context, 1523-1534.” Ph.D. diss., Westfälische Wihelms-Universität zu Münster, 1975.

Hirsch, Emanuel. Die Theologie des Andreas Osiander und ihre geschichtlichen Voraussetzungen. Göttingen: Vandenhoed & Ruprecht, 1919. Reprinted from the collection of the University of Michigan Library.

Kittelson, James Matthew. “Martin Bucer and the Sacramentarian Controversy: The Origins of his Policy of Concord.” Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte 64 (1973): 166-183.

-- Toward an Established Church: Strasbourg from 1500 to the Dawn of the Seventeenth Century. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Sabern, 2000.

Luther, Martin. D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Vol. 3.3 Weimar: Herman Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1910.

-- D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Tischreden. Vol. 4. Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1916.

Müller, Gerhard and Gotfried Seebaß, eds. Andreas Osiander D. Ä. Gesamtausgabe, Band 5: Schriften und Briefe 1533 bis 1534. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1983.

-- Andreas Osiander D. Ä. Gesamtausgabe, Band 8: Schriften und Briefe April 1543 bis Ende 1548. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1990.

Pollet, J.V. Martin Bucer, Études sur la Correspondance. Vol. II. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1962.

Rittgers, Ronald. The Reformation of the Keys: Confession, Conscience, and Authority in Sixteenth Century Germany. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004.

22

Steinmetz, David C. Reformers in the Wings. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971.

Seebaß, Gottfried. Das Reformatorische Werk des Andreas Osiander. Nürnberg: Selbstverlag des Vereins für Bayerische Kirchengeschichte, 1967.

Van de Poll, G.J. Martin Bucer’s Liturgical Ideas: the Strasbourg Reformer and His Connection with the Liturgies of the Sixteenth Century. Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorum & Comp., 1954.

Wright, D.F., ed. Martin Bucer, Reforming Church and Community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

23