Beautus Rhenanus - Tertullian PDF

Beatus Rhenanus, Tertullian and the Reformation:
A Humanist's Critique of Scholasticism*
By John F. D'Amico
The early Church Fathers constituted an important element in the editorial

work of Beatus Rhenanus ( 1 4 8 5 - 1 5 4 7 ) . ' While his contribution to classical
and historical scholarship has been generally appreciated, his work on the Fathers
has not received close attention. 2 However, it is in this material that his own
theological views become clear. His study of the Fathers resulted from his con-
tact with some of the most important thinkers and intellectual centers of North-
ern humanism. His appreciation of the Fathers began in his student days at the
University of Paris under Jacques Lefevre d'Etaples ( 1 5 0 3 - 1 5 0 7 ) and matured
* Part of the research for this study was done with a fellowship from the Newberry
Library, Chicago and completed while the author was a NEH fellow at the Villa I Tatti,
Florence. The author wishes to thank Prof. Paul Grendler and Mr. Alfred Marion, Jr.
for their helpful comments.
1. Beatus' first biography by Johann Sturm can be found in the Briefwechsel des Beatus
Rhenanus, eds. A. Horawitz and K. Hartfelder (Leipzig, 1886) (herein cited Briefwechsel),
p. 1 - 1 1 . See also Adelbert Horawitz: "Beatus Rhenanus: Ein biographischer Versuch,"
Sitzungsberichte der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Vienna), Philosophisch-
historischen Classe, 70 (1872), pp. 189-244; idem: "Des Beatus Rhenanus literarische
Thätigkeit in den Jahren 1508-1531," ibid., 70 (1872), pp. 662-672; Gustav Knod: Aus
der Bibliothek des Beatus Rhenanus: Em Beitrag zur Geschichte des Humanismus (Leipzig,
1889); P. Adam: L'humanisme ä Silestat (S6iestat, 1962), pp. 51-67; and the forthcoming,
John F. D'Amico: "Beatus Rhenanus and Italian Humanism," The Journal of Medieval
and Renaissance Studies.
2. For Beatus as an editor and historian, see Paul Joachimsen: Geschichtsauffassung
und Geschichtsschreibung in Deutschland unter dem Einfluss der Humanismus (Leipzig,
1910; rpt. 1968), pp. 127-137, and Brigitte Ristow-Steighahn: "Zur Geschichtsschrei-
bung des Beatus Rhenanus," Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Lite-
ratur, 95 (1973), pp. 362-380; I have not seen Christian Wilsdorf: "Beatus Rhenanus
et la manuscrit du Chroniqueur de Colmar," Annuaire de Colmar, 11 (1961), pp. 37-41
or G. v. d. Gönna: "Beatus Rhenanus und die editio princeps des Velleius Paterculus."
Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft, N. F., 3 (1977), pp. 231-242.
See also Henri Meylan: "Beatus Rhenanus et la propagande des 6crits luteriens en 1519,"
in his D'Erasme ä Theodore Bize (Geneva, 1976), pp. 39-45, at p. 40; Opus Epistola-
rum Des. Erasmi Roterodami, ed. P. S. Allen (herein cited as Allen) vol. 6 (1926), pp.
16-17; Walter Allen, Jr.: "Beatus Rhenanus, Editor of Tacitus and Livy," Speculum, 12
(1937), pp. 382-385; Piene Petitmengin: "Comment £tudier l'activite d'Erasme des textes
antiques," in Colloquia Erasmiana Turonensia, vol. 1 (Paris, 1972), pp. 217-222, who
at p. 220 announces his forthcoming study, "Erasme, Beatus Rhenanus et Sigismond
Gelen, 6diteurs des textes antiques." See below note 21.
37
Brought to you by | University of Arizona

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/10/15 2:09 PM
while an editor for the firm of Amerbach and Froben of Basel, which was
devoted to patristic publishing, and where he first met Desiderius Erasmus
(1514-1516). 3 He knew both the Greek and Latin Fathers, and he studied
Greek under the Dominican patristic scholar, Johannes Cuno, during his early
years at Basel.4 Beatus applied his editorial skills to a variety of patristic authors,
including: John of Damascus (1507), Nemesius of Emesa and Gregory of Nazian-
zus (1512), Basil the Great (1513), Prudentius (1520), Tertullian (1521), a
series of ancient historians of the Church (1523), Origen (1536, actually Erasmus'
edition which Beatus supervised) and possibly John Chrysostom (1540).5
This paper will examine the annotations Beatus provided for his three editions
of Tertullian (1521, 1528, 1539). It will concentrate on Beatus' use of a major
theme in Northern humanist thought - the excessive subtlety of scholastic theo-
logy - to criticize contemporary ecclesiastical institutions and practices. Specifi-
cally, Beatus' discussions of confession and the papacy show how he found in
scholasticism what he considered the roots of the formalization and corruption
of religion. While Beatus remained throughout his career hostile to scholasticism,
his annotations reveal a changing attitude toward the Reformation and the
Roman Church. These annotations provide a valuable index of a humanist's
encounter with the theological problems of his day.
The Tertullian text, the editio princeps, was the most important of all Beatus'
patristic editions. It shows him as the most faithful of Erasmus' associates, his
true alter ego.6 Beatus absorbed Erasmus' teachings on the Fathers as represent-
3. For Beatus at Paris, see August Renaudet: Pririforme et Humanisme ä Paris pendant
les Premiires Guerres d'ltalie (1494-1517), 2 ed. (Paris, 1953), ad indicem, and The
Prefatory Epistles of Jacques Lefivre d'Etaples and Related Texts (New York, 1972), ad
indicem. For Beatus' relations with his editor, see Earle Hilgai: "Johann Froben and the
Basle University Scholars, 1513-1523," The Library Quarterly, 41 (1971), pp. 141-
169; much information can also be found in Die Amerbachkorrespondenz, ed. A. Hart-
mann, vols. 2 and 3 (Basel, 1943). For an example of the press' patristic work, see J. de
Ghellinck, S. J.: "La premiere ädition imprim6e des 'Opera Omnia S. Augustini,'" in
Miscellanea J. Gessler (Deurne-Anvers, 1948), pp. 530-547.
4. See H. D. Saffrey: "Un humaniste dominicain, Jean Cuno de Nuremberg, Precurseur
d'Erasme ä Bäle," Bibliothique d'Humanisme et Renaissance, 33 (1971), pp. 19-62.
5. For details see the Index bibliographcius des Beatus Rhenanus in the Briefwechsel,
pp. 592-618 (herein cited Index). On Beatus and Gregory of Nazianus, see Sister Clare
Way: "S. Gregorius Nazianus," in Commentariorum et Translationum Catalogue, ed.
P. O. Kristeller, (Washington, D. C., 1971) vol. 2, pp. 114-115. On the Chrysostom
edition, see Andr£ Jacob: "L'edition 'erasmienne' de la liturgie de Saint Jean Chrysostom
et ses sources." Italia medioevale e umanistica, 10 (1976), pp. 291-324. Tertullian might
have been a long term interest of Beatus; see Briefwechsel, pp. 57-58.
6. See Allen, vol. 4, p. 500. Beatus' biography of Erasmus can be found in Latin in
38

Authenticated
ed in the Ratio seu methodus verae theologiae, which Beatus saw through the
press (1519). In the Ratio Erasmus opposed the theology of the Fathers to
what he considered the excessive subtlety of modern scholasticism and its
dependence on Aristotelian philsophy. Erasmus set forth the basic ideas Beatus
was to use in his treatment of Tertullian: the superiority of patristic theology
to dialectics, the need for philological and literary knowledge to interpret sacred
texts, the importance of veneration before the mysteries of religion, and the
dangers of impia curiositas to the theologian's faith. 7 But just as Beatus applied
Erasmus' ideas to Tertullian, so did Erasmus use the edition when it appeared
in revising the Ratio.8
Erasmus also presented Beatus a practical model for editing a Father in his
own edition of Cyprian, Tertullian's great Latin successor (1518). In this edition,
Erasmus emphasized the union of eloquence, doctrina, and pietas which were
to be found in the writings of Cyprian and the other Fathers but which have
been replaced by the philosophy and dialectics of the scholastics. In preparing
the edition Erasmus provided philological apparatus, a life of the Father and
the decrees of the Council of Carthage, a procedure Beatus was to imitate in
the Tertullian edition. 9
Beatus devoted much attention to the Tertullian opera (twenty-three of
Tertullian's thirty-three writings).10 The manuscripts which he used, from the
Allen, voL 1, pp. 56-61; there is an English translation in Christian Humanism and the
Reformation, ed. I. C. Olin (New York, 1965), pp. 32-54.
7. I cite from the reprint of Hajo Holborn's edition in Erasmus von Rotterdam: Ausge-
wählte Schriften, ed. W. Welzing, vol. 3 (Dannstadt, 1967), pp. 118-495. Beatus advocated
the Ratio as a university text-book to Zwingli; see Briefwechsel, p. 136. At the time
Beatus was at work on the Tertullian edition, he was in contact with Otto Brunfels. In
1520 Bmnfels sent Beatus a copy of his treatise, Confutatio sophistices et quaestionum
curiotarum. ... (Silestat, 1520), which collected sayings from the Greek and Latin Fathers,
and which attacked curiositas in theology and scholasticism. Brunfels also sent Beatus
anti-clerical materials. See Carlo Ginsbuig: II Nicodemismo: Simulazione e dissimulazione
religiosa nell'Europa del'500 (Turin, 1970) pp. 6 - 7 .
8. See Allen, voL 4, pp. 574-575.
9. See Allen, voL 4, pp. 23-26; Beatus requested a Cyprian manuscript from Leftvre
d'Etaples for Erasmus; see Briefwechsel, no. 105. On Erasmus' work with Cyprian, es-
pecially his authorshop of a false Cyprian text, see now Silvana Seidel Menchi: "Un'opera
misconosciuta di Erasmo? II trattato pseudo-cypriano 'De duplici martyrio'", Rivista
storica itaUana, 90/4 (1978), pp. 709-743.
10. The texts published were: de patientia, de came domini, de camis resurrectione,
aduersus Praxeam, aduersus Valentinianos, aduersus ludeos, aduersus omnes haereses,
de praescriptione haereticorum, aduersus Hermogenem, de corona mititit, ad martyres,
de poenitentia, de uirginibus uelandis, de habitu muliebri, de cuttu foeminarum, ad uxorem
39

Authenticated
monasteries of Hirsau and Peterlingen (Peyre), were very corrupt and required
long and tedious revision. Beatus provided a series of argumenta (summaries)
to each book and annotations on certain historical and philological matters to
the treatise, De corona militis.11 When Beatus revised the edition in 1528 and
again in 1539, he added annotations to all the other texts and expanded them
from one edition to another. In the argumenta, annotations and in his discussion
of problems in Tertullian's theology, entitled Admonitio quibusdam Tertulliani
dogmatis which he appended to the edition, Beatus expressed his own theolog-
ical views. Beatus imitated Erasmus in his use of annotations. This form allowed
him maximum freedom to comment on whatever he wished and ignore what
was problematic if he chose to do so. However, the form did not always allow
for expression of ideas in their entirety since it was limited to the topics dis-
cussed in the texts. Still, Beatus made good use of his annotations to express
his views as well as indicate his reaction to events. 12
In the annotations and the Admonitio Beatus chose to express his opposition
to contemporary scholasticism and the abuses he felt afflicted the Church as a
result of the introduction of scholastic thought. In keeping with his Erasmian
background, Beatus interpreted Tertullian as an opponent of the use of philos-
ophy in theology. This was in accord with the basis of Tertullian's thought,
which emphasized the uniqueness of Christianity and the radical break between
the rational and philosophical knowledge and Christian truth. Although well
schooled in the various ancient philosophical traditions, Tertullian regarded
philosophy as the mother of heresies.13 Tertullian could freely use philosophical
suam, de fuga in persecutione, ad Scapulam, de exhortatione castitatis, de monogamia, de

palUo, aduersus Marcionem, Apologeticus. The Apologeticus had been printed previously.
11. Beatus explains his editorial methods in his introductory letter to Bishop Stanislaus
Tiuzo of OlmQtz (1 July, 1521), Briefwechsel, pp. 282-288; also Horawitz: "Des Beatus
Rhenanus literarische Thätigkeit," pp. 662-665.
12. On Erasmus' use of annotations in his New Testament, see A. L. Janot: "Erasmus'
Biblical Humanism," Studies in the Renaissance, 17 (1970), pp. 119-152, Jerry H. Bentley:
"Erasmus' Annotationes in Novum Testamentum and the Textual Criticism of the Gospels,"
Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte, 67 (1976), pp. 33-53, and especially Georges Chantrai-
ne, S. J.: "Le mustirion paulinien selon les Annotations d*Erasme," Recherches de sciences
reUgieuse, 58/3 (1970), pp. 351-382, at pp. 354-355, for the use of the annotation format.
Humanist use of patristic authors always had a personal element; 9ee for an example from
a different time and country, Charles Stinger: Humanism and the Church Fathers. Ambrogio
Traversari (1386-1439) and Christian Antiquity in the Italian Renaissance (Albany, N.Y.,
1977).
13. There is no study of Tertullian in the Renaissance or Reformation. For background
see Η. B. Timothy: The Early Christian Apologists and Greek Philosophy (Assen, 1973);
40

Authenticated
ideas, but he always maintained that the curiosity of philosophy was a danger
to the purity of Christian teachings and the beginning of heresy. 1 4
Beatus found in Tertullian a thinker whom he judged valuable in the human-
ists' campaign to reform Christian morality, piety, and learning. For Beatus
Tertullian's priority among Latin Christian writers made him worthy of serious
attention. Since Tertullian was such an early Father so close to Apostolic times,
it was not surprising that subsequent councils of the Church should find error
in him or that Pope Gelasius (492—496) should forbid the public reading of
his books. The philosophical sophistication of subsequent theologians allowed
them to correct the defects in Tertullian's thought (Tertullian adhered to the
heretical Montanist sect in the latter part of his life). Just as in secular literature
later writers could surpass their predecessors, argued Beatus, so later theologians
could surpass previous thinkers - in certain respects.15 However, if the theolo-
gians of Jerome's time were more subtle in their theology than Tertullian and
his contemporaries, Beatus did not posit a constant history of amelioration.
The result of the increase of philosophical sophistication was not necessarily an
improved theology. Contemporary theologians had developed more acute tools
of analysis than the ancient theologians, but their teachings were greatly in-
ferior. Their logical subtlety had rendered them philosophers rather than theo-
logians and made them haughty in the face of the founders of Christian thought.
Beatus turned to the Fathers in order to reverse this decline. With Tertullian's
writings and those of the other Fathers, Beatus felt modern theologians could
dispose of their summulae and learn from the earliest Christian apologists who
were expert in all disciplines. In place of the quibbles of the scholastics, Beatus
offered the Fathers. 16
Although Erasmus was the man most responsible for Beatus' views in theo-
logy, his edition of Tertullian reflects his early involvement with the Reformation
and his essential sympathy with its goals. Luther's attacks on the Church and
especially the papacy's exploitation of Germany found a responsive cord in
Beatus' patriotism. Beatus was generally favorable to Luther's criticisms in the
Timothy Barnes: Tertullian (Oxford, 1971), and Jean-Claude Fredouille: TertulUen et la

conversion de la culture antique (Paris, 1972), pp. 301-3S7.
14. On heresy as curiositas, see Andr6 Labhardt: "Curiositas: Notes sur ltiistoire d'un
mot et d*une notion," Museum Helveticum, 17 (1960), pp. 206-224 0 am grateful to
Prof. Philip Berk for this reference); also, idem, "Tertullien et la philosophic ou la recherche
d'une 'position pure1," ibid., 7 (1950), pp. 159-180, but cf. Fredouille, op. cit., pp. 338,
344f.
15. Briefwechsel, p. 285, also pp. 250- 251.
16. Ibid., p. 285.
41

Authenticated
early years of the Reformation, including his attacks on scholasticism.17 Martin
Bucer sent Beatus a copy of Luther's criticisms of scholasticism from the
Heidelberg Disputation of 1518. In the Disputation Luther set off the Fathers
as expounders of Scripture against Aristotelian scholastic thought. (Luther
made one exception among the scholastics, Peter Lombard, whom he willingly
cited when he agreed with the Fathers, especially Augustine. 18 ) Beatus in his
correspondence with Zwingli praised Luther and supported the publication of
his writings.19 However, as the Reformation became more radical Beatus began
to distance himself from the evangelical party and finally broke with it (1S2S).
While working on Tertullian, Beatus was very much a partisan of the Reform as
the emphases he placed in his argumenta and annotations show. In his rehabilita-
tion of Tertullian Beatus felt that he had struck a blow against the papacy which
had condemned this Father and which seemed to him to be such a heavy burden
to Germany and against the scholasticism which supported it. 20
Beatus provided an important explanation of his attitude toward the develop-
ment of scholasticism in the Admonitio. This short history of Christian theology
provides an essentially humanist interpretation of the causes for the decline of
Christian thought since the time of the Fathers. (In the following translation
the sections added in the 1539 edition are in italics.)
"Formerly among the patriarchs and prophets, who were accustomed to revere
the most secret mysteries of the Divinity rather than to express them, the name
of God was ineffable; and Christ himself, our Savior, and the Apostles intrusted
to us the secret of the most holy Trinity in a very few words. But after the
temerity of the heretics began to examine all subjects with great curiosity and
to speak about everything, even calling into dispute the highest mysteries of
the faith which more rightly one should adore rather than investigate, those
first theologians, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine and the others
of those times, were forced, although unwillingly, to dispute about divine mat-
ters, which they did reverently and modestly as their writings show. Jerome
says that John the Evangelist when forced to refute the Hebronites soberly
explained the divine birth of Christ. Then about the year of salvation 1140
17. See W. Teichmann: "Die kirchliche Haltung des Beatus Rhenanus," Zeitschrift für
Kirchengeschichte, 26 (1905), pp. 363-381; see also Briefwechsel, nos. 81, 113, 138, 162.
18. Briefwechsel, pp. 106-116; see also Heiko Jürgens: "Die Funktion der Kirchenväter-
zitate in der Heidelberger Disputation Luthers (1518)," Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte,
66 (1975), pp. 7 1 - 7 8 .
19. See Henri Meylan: "Beatus Rhenanus et la propagande des 6crits luteriens en 1519."
20. See Die Amerbachkorrespondenz, vol. 2, pp. 261-262, esp. fn. 5; also in Briefwechsel,
pp. 250-251.
42

Authenticated
at Paris there were many who patched together summaries from the ancient
theologians, like Peter Lombard, Peter Abelard and John Blethus. The summary
of Lombard, who at that time taught at the University of Paris, began to be
taken up by the scholastics. The theology of Abelard, as he entitled his book,
was censured for error by certain ones, although still it was not written in-
elegantly, for recently it was found complete in a certain library. Belethus was
later than these two. After the collection of Lombard, who later was made
bishop of Paris, was accepted [as a textbook], they first began to take the title
of doctor who studied it thoroughly and lectured on it to others, who acquired
the right of teachwand (baculus). Now in the older books of the University
of Paris which contain the constitutions of the school, they are called bachelors,
a word deduced from bacilus, or so it seems, as there was the handing down
of the wand, as a certain sign of the license to teach, by which they were
distinguished from outsiders in imitation of antiquity, if not of the Romans,
certainly either of the Franks in Gaul or of the Goths and the Lombards in
Italy. But, I am speaking of promotion, at the same time in Bologna they say
that this happened in law after the establishment of the Rhapsody of Decrees
by Gratian. Soon since the number of doctors were increasing, laws of promo-
tion and of the number of years [of study] were established, and it was ratified
that those discussing divine matters not only should follow the accepted state-
ments of the school but should use the vocabulary and formulas of speech
developed in that school, regarding which they should examine the opinions
of certain old and new writers and not accuse them of heresy if they disagreed.
Moreover, this was done not without reason, namely for preserving the unity
of teaching. These are the terms used in discussing the Trinity: essence, persons,
suppositions, notions, common and personal relations, constitutive relations of
persons, the principles of generation, spiration and distinction, the relations
of origin, circumincesäon, signs of nature and order, and from the nature of
the thing and of the origin and many others of this type. And such is the
beginning of the reign of theologians. Moreover, who can say that the ancients
spoke as these speak, who divert all the philosophy of Aristotle, unlearnedly
changed, into their theology? " 2 1
21. I shall cite from the 1539 edition of the Opera Q. S. F. TertulUani, edited by Beatus,
and the reprint of the annotations, Opera ... TertulUani (Paris, 1S4S), for convenience.
See Pierre Fraenkel: "Beatus Rhenanus, Oecolampadius, Thiodore de Βέζβ et quelques-unes
de leurs sources anciennes," Bibliothique d'Humanisme et Renaissance, 41 (1979), pp.
63-81, pp. 66-67. Prof. Fraenkel's work appeared after the completion of my study.
The text is Opera, ed. 1539, f. 754 / ed. 1545, f. 302v G-K: "Apud Patriarchas et Prophe-
tas dei nomen olim ineffabile erat, abstiusissima diunitatis mysteria magis solitos reuereri
43

Authenticated
Beatus begins immediately with a theme Erasmus stressed in the Ratio verae
theologiae and which Tertullian had originated - that adoration and reverence
were the proper attitudes of a Christian toward God and the sacred mysteries
and that all impia curiositas must be eschewed. Theology, however, for Beatus
was necessary to counter this impia curiositas, which in view of Beatus' citations
in the annotations meant philosophy. Thus, theology was a proper response to
quam enunciare; et Christus ipse seniator noster et Apostoli nobis sacrosanctae trinitatis
arcanum paucisstmis commendanint At postquam haereticomm temeritas omnia curio-
sissime perscrutari coepit ac de omnibus loqui, etiam altissima fidei secreta in disputationem
uocando, quae rectius adoret quis quam excutiat, coacti sunt primi illi theologi, Tertullianus,
Origenes, Cyprianus, Hieronymus, Augustinus et illoium temponim alii quanquam subinuiti
de diuinis disputare, quod quam ab Ulis reuerenter factum sit et modeste, scripta ipsa
testantui. Ioannem sane Euangelistam, Hieronymus refert, propter Ebionitas refeliendos
compulsum diuinam edisserere Christi natiuitatem. Deinde cum circa salutis annum MCXL
apud Parisios multi essent qui Summulas consaicinaient ex antiquis theologjs, ut Petrus
Langobaidus, Petius A be Urdus, Ioannes Belethus. Summulae Lombardi, qui tum in Aca-
demia Parisiensi docebat, a scholasticis recipi coeperunt. Abelardi theologja, sic enim librum
suum inscripsit, a quibusdam est erroris notata, cum tarnen η on ineleganter scripta sit,
nam admodum nuper illam in quadam bibliotheca reperi. Belethus utroque istonim posterior
fuit. Receptis igitur Langobardi Collectaneis, qui postea Parisiorum praesul factus est, tum
primum coeperunt qui haec edidicissent et aliis item praelegissent, doctoris titulum accipere,
qui inquam primum studii autoritatem, quae per exhibitionem baculi concedebatur, iam
consequuti fuissent. Nam in uetustioribus Parisiensis Academiae codicibus, qui constitutions
gymnasii continent, Bacelarii nominantur, a bacillo, ceu uidetur, deducto uocabulo; ut
fuerit, uehit quoddam mancipations lignum in kuiusmodi aliquod Studium, baculi traditio,
quo sic ab attends distinguerentur imitatione antiquitatis, si non Romanorum certe uel
Francorum in Gallia, uel Gothorum atque Langobardorum in Italia. Quod, de promotione
loquor, sub idem tempus in iure apud Bononiam aiunt accidisse post aeditam a Gratiano
Decretorum rhapsodiam. Mox quum doctonim numerus augeretur, aeditae sunt constitutio-
nes de promotione, de numero annorum, et sanctum est ut de diuinis disserentes non
modo recepta scholae decreta sequerentur, sed et uocabulis uterentur et loquendi formulis
in ea schola natis, ad quae scriptorum quoiumlibet siue ueterum siue nouorum sententias
exigerent tan turn non haereseos arguendas si dissiderent Id autem non sine ratione factum
est, ad seruandam uidelicet doctrinae concordiam. Quod genus sunt [sic] in disputatione
trinitatis, essentia, personae, supposita, nontiones, relationes communes, personales, persona-
rum constitutiuae, principia generationis, spirationis, distinctionis, relationes originis, cir-
cumincessio, signa naturae et ordinis, et ex natura rei et originis et huiusmodi alia multa.
Atque tale quidem est initium regni theologorum. Porro, qui fieri potest ut ueteres isc
loquuti fuerint ut loquuntur isti qui totam Aristotelis philosophiam indocte uersam in
suam theologiam deriuaiunt?" (I am grateful to P. Salvatore Camporeale for helpful sug-
gestions in translating.) On this text see Delio Cantimori: "Umanesimo e hiteranismo di
fronte alia scolastica," in his Umanesimo e religione nel Rinascimento (Turin, 1975), pp.
88-90.
44

Authenticated
heresy and its antiquity is proven by the example of John the Evangelist.22 In
refuting heresies, the early Christian theologians maintained a reverent and
modest attitude toward divine matters which contrasted not only with the
heretics but also with contemporary presumptuous scholastics.
The transition from the time of Augustine to the twelfth century is an abrupt
one. Beatus does not discuss the thinkers between these two periods because
of their essential uniformity with the theology of the Fathers and their freedom
from Aristotelian dialectics. He was aware of the synodial decrees and theo-
logians of the Carolingian era and cites them in the annotations with approval.
Beatus had respect for these theologians and conceived of a continuous theo-
logical tradition originating with the Fathers and stretching to the twelfth cen-
tury.23 Beatus underlined the nature of the major change which took place in
the twelfth century - the establishment of a complete academically theological
system. The systemtization was all inclusive, and it was the accepted text-books
which both helped determine the process and which were chosen for their value
in the systemtization. Peter Abelard's theologia, which was non scripta inel-
eganter, was not acceptable as a theological text, while Peter Lombard's turgid
compilation was. In comparing this to the acceptance of the Decretum, Beatus
underscores the abandonment of the original texts for summaries and commen-
taries, a theme which occupied Erasmus in the Ratio. M The development of
academic forms around these compilations would result eventually in ossifica-
tion. The 1539 addition on the development of academic insignia demonstrates
both Beatus' historical learning and the argument concerning the complete
systematization of theology. The growth of an acedemic establishment was the
outward manifestation of a hermetic theology by which theologians ab alienis
distinguerentur by their accademic degrees.
This whole academic structure moved to enforce uniformity of terminology.
The beginning of the rule of theologians consisted in devising new words and
22. See Jerome: De viris inlustribus, ed. G. W. Herdin, (Leipzig, 1870), p. 14; see also
above note 14.
23. Opera, ed. 1539, ff. 500, 507, 542. Beatus does not discuss a Neo-Platonic tradition
uniting the pre-scholastic writers. However, at the time of his work on Tertullian he was
favorable to Neo-Platonism and had edited Italian translations of Neo-Platonic treatises;
see Index, nos. 31 and 43. Some humanists did identify these early Christian theologians
with the Neo-Platonic tradition; see Eugenio Garin: "AUe origini rinascimentali del con-
cetto di filosofia scolastica," in his La cultura filosofica del Rinascimento italiano (Florence,
1961), pp. 466-479.
24. Ratio, pp. 166, 170. Tertullian was one of the casualties of the dominance of scholasti-
cism; see J. De Ghellinck: L'Essor de la littirature Inline au Xlle siecle (Paris, 1946), vol. 2,
p. 84.
45

Authenticated
standardizing their use. In short, an ever more subtle terminology sprang from
and guaranteed theological systematization, making it more and more a pro-
fessional interest only for the initiated, excluding all those without theological
degrees such as the humanists. 2S This theological structure, glorying in its own
subtlety, enforced more and more regulae upon its participants. In his discussion
of a series of Definitiones dogmatum ecclesiasticarum drawn from various early
Christian theologians and included in his edition, Beatus contrasted scholastic
rule-marking to the simplicity of earlier times. 26 Beatus attacks the mendicant
theologians in particular since they argue less about the principles of theology
than their own opinions. 27 Sardonically, Beatus concludes his history by con-
trasting contemporary theology and its dependence on Aristotle with the lan-
guage of the ancient Christian writers.28 The professionalism and techniques of
the scholastics contradict the modest speech of the Fathers.
Beatus argued the uselessness of the subtlety of contemporary theological
terminology in the Admonitio. Tertullian's discussion of the Trinity, while
different from the scholastic one, was no less orthodox. Rather, for all their
technically philosophical terms scholastic theologians are in no way clearer
than Tertullian in explaining the mystery of the Trinity. Tertullian's theological
language is clear and direct. Tertullian's phrase aliud ab alio to explain the
relationship between Father and Son remains for Beatus a better explanation
than that of the scholastics, even if it is not without its dangers.29 The scholastics
were subtilius quam verius in comparison with the Fathers whom they had
ignored. 30 To underscore the Erasmian origins of his opinions Beatus used the
word sermo rather than verbum in his discussion of the Son.31
Beatus' attitude toward Peter Lombard's Sentences and Gratian's Decretum
was not a simple one. Upon Peter the short history of theology did not place
the full responsibility for theological decay; he was indeed the beginning but
not the end. Beatus had not been completely negative to this compilation in
his earlier work. He once found value in the Sentences even though they were
inelegant. Even Luther found in Peter closer agreement to the Fathers than
in the other scholastics.32 Beatus also produced an edition of Gratian's Decretum
25. Cf. Ratio, p. 168.
26. Briefwechsel, p. 290; cf. Allen vol. 5, letter 1334, 11. 217ff.
27. Briefwechsel, p. 291.
28. Cf. Ratio, op. tit., p. 162.
29. Opera, ed. 1539, f. 755/ ed. 1545, f. 303 r A.
30. Briefwechsel, p. 250. Beatus' statements against scholastic theology were attacked
by Jacobus Pamelius in Q. Septimi Florentis Tertulliani. ... Opera. ... (Paris, 1583), p. 63.
31. Open, ed. 1539, f. 755 / ed. 1545, f. 302v M.
32. See the introductory letter of Beatus to Paolo Cortesi's In Sententias (1513), Brief-
46

Authenticated
(1511). Even though Beatus criticized the corruptions in Gratian in the Ter-
tullian annotations, he seems to have once looked upon it as a text worthy of
saving since it at least included passages from the Fathers and the ancient
synods.33 Both were useful and Beatus felt free to cite them whenever helpful.
The real guilt for the decay of theology lies with these compilers' followers,
especially the mendicants. In his short biography of Erasmus (1S40) Beatus
compared Peter Lombard to John of Damascus as a systematizer of theological
opinions. The Lombard sought to reduce the confusion resulting from the variety
of opinions by judicious selection. (Beatus favored such as procedure and praised
Paolo Cortesi's In Sententias, a Ciceronian rewriting on Christian theology
vaguely based on the Sentences and edited by Beatus [1513], for providing short
summaries of scholastic and patristic views rather than engaging in extended
discussions of them. 34 ) However, continues Erasmus' biographer, the Lombard's
"method is looked for in vain in the commentaries of modern authors." 35 The
compilation of Peter Lombard marked the period of transition between the
patristic theology which essentially continued throughout the early Middle
Ages and the excesses of the scholastics. It prepared the way for the scholastics
but was distinct from them.
It is interesting to speculate on whether Beatus thought that in some manner
the history of Christian theology in the Middle Ages would have been different
had Peter Abelard's work been considered orthodox enough to have become
the standard university text. Since it was written with more concern for elo-
quence than the Lombard's tract, then perhaps it would have bred a different
progeny. Abelard was acquainted with classical authors and used them in his
work. 36 The implication is that it was closer to the patristic model than the
Sentences. If this is so, then it is an opinion which Erasmus might also have
shared. 37
Beatus' evaluation of the development of theology corresponded closely to
wechsel, pp. 59-61. See also for Luther, Jürgens, "Die Funktion der Kirchenväteizitate ...",
pp. 72-73, and Laurence Murphy, S. J.: "The Prologue of Martin Luther to the Sentences
of Peter Lombard (1509): The Clash of Philosophy and Theology," Archiv für Reforma-
tionsgeschichte. 67 (1976), pp. 54-75.
33. For Gratian see Briefwechsel, pp. 50-52. Beatus criticized the corruption in the
Deeretum in Opera, ed. 1539, ff. 509-510.
34. See above note 32.
35. Life of Erasmus, ed. J. C. Olin, p. 49.
36. Abelard depended on classical writers in part; see Gabriella D'Anna: "Abelardo e
Cicerone," Studi medievati, 10 (1969), pp. 333-419, and T. Gregory: "Abelard et Platon,"
ibid., 13 (1972), pp. 539-562.
37. See John B. Payne: Erasmus: His Theology of the Sacraments (Richmond, Va.,
47

Authenticated
Erasmus' ideas which, in turn, were based on patristic sources. As has been
mentioned, both Erasmus and Beatus displayed the same appreciation of the
mysterious element in Christian theology, the unspeakeable which can never
be explained through reason. The Ratio expressed these ideas and Beatus provid-
ed them with an historical form. In his introduction to his edition of Hilary
(1523), Erasmus gave a similar historical analysis of the development of theology
which might in its turn have been dependent on Beatus' outline history. The
first Christians had no need for philosophical speculations but relied on scriptural
speech, begins Erasmus. The impia temeritas of the Hebionites and other sects
obliged John the Evangelist to entrust to written form Christian mysteries,
while the curiosa subtititas of the Arians required subsequent orthodox writers
to expand their explanations of the inexplicable. Hilary was forced to speak
de rebus ineffabilibus in defending orthodoxy. Peter Lombard was moderate
in his collection of opinions but the accretions of opinions continues ad impiam
audaciam. 38 While the ancients had to defend Christianity against heretics, there
was no excuse for contemporary theologians' continuing curiosity and producing
ever more questiones. This periculosa curiositas is born from philosophy as
Tertullian has shown. 39
Beatus and his contemporaries realized the value of exploiting the testimony
of an ancient Father in the religious controversies of their day.40 Beatus there-
fore used Tertullian's attitude toward philosophy as the point of departure
for his own critique of the contemporary Church. The criticisms Beatus de-
veloped through his annotations were dynamic; he altered them as events forced
him to reassess his position via-ä-via the Church, its tradition and the more
radical turns of the Reformation. His use of the Tertullian texts to criticize
scholasticism and ihe Church and his changes in attitude can be seen clearly in
his discussions of the sacrament of penance and the papacy.41
1970), pp. 13, 65-66 for hints on the acceptability of Abelard to Erasmus; see also Garin:
"Alle origini ...", p. 478.
38. Allen, vol. 5, pp. 176-177, 1L 138-176, cf. U. 360-368; see above note 15. On the
Hilary edition see John C. Olin: "Erasmus and his edition of S t Hilary," Erasmus in
English, 9 (1978), pp. 8 - 1 1 .
39. Allen, vol. 5, p. 176, U. 172-176.
40. See P. F. Wolfs, O. P.: Das Groninger 'Religionsgespräch' (1523) und seine Hinter-
gründe (Nijmegen, 1959), pp. 32, 153-154. Patristic study constituted an important element
in reform theology; see Peter Fraenkel: Testimonium Patrum: The Function of the Patristic
Argument in the Theology of Philip Melanchthon (Geneva, 1961).
41. Any number of other examples from the annotations could be used. Beatus provides
a long discussion on the development of the Mass and the question of sacrifice in the early
Church in the annotations to the de corona militis; Opera, ed. 1539, ff. 505-507/ed.
48

Authenticated
Tertullian was one of the earliest spokesman on penance, and especially the
rite of exomologesis, or public penance. The early Church had to decide whether
a sinner could be forgiven after the initial cleansing of baptism. Tertullian gave
two opposing answers. In his Catholic period he maintained that the Christian
through a special rite of fasting and submission could be received one more
time into the Church. In his later, Montanist phase he came to restrict the
Church's ability to forgive grave sins, such as idolatry, adultery and fornication.45
Tertullian wrote his De poenitentia while a Catholic. Beatus used the Admonitio,
and the argumentum and annotations to the De poenitentia to express his own
views.
Throughout the discussion of exomologesis in the first edition of the Admoni-
tio, Beatus was anxious to defend the propriety and antiquity of the public
penance Tertullian described and its priority over private (secreta) confession.
Beatus never denied that penance was an ancient Christian rite. While the con-
temporary Church uses private and not public penance, Beatus indicates there
is a common bond between these two forms. Beatus marshals a body of auth-
orities to demonstrate the antiquity of penance in the Church, especially
Augustine's sermon 351 which he calls de medicina poenitentiae. Beatus argues
that public exposure to ecclesiastical excommunication motivated sinners to
undergo the public acts of humiliation and confession required by the rite of
exomologesis.43 This custom was maintained in his time in the form of episcopal
visitations, when grave sinners were exposed to public ecclesiastical censure,
notes Beatus. Beatus confirms the antiquity of exomologesis and public penance
to show that the modern Church differed from the ancient Church. Private
confession, while not condemned, is shown to be a later development from
public penance.
In the Admonitio of 1521 Beatus discusses a topic which was to occupy him
in greater detail in the argumentum to the De poenitentia in the 1539 edition
- the evils of confessional manuals. Medieval confessional manuals applied the
scholastic theological categories to confessional practices. By the end of the
1S4S, ff. 155v-156v. Beatus is extremely negative about the cult of the Virgin, main-
taining it is merely vestigial paganism supported by scholasticism; Opera, ed. 1S39, f. 333 /
ed. 1545, f. 103v M.
42. On Tertullian's views on penance, see Oscar D. Watkins: A History of Penance, voL
1 (London, 1920), pp. 113-129; Johannes Quasten: Patrology (Westminster, Md. 1953), voL
2, pp. 332-335, and W. P. Le Saint: "Traditio and Exomologesis in Tertullian," Studio
Patristica, 8 (Berlin, 1966), pp. 414-419.
43. Opera, ed. 1539, ff. 759-763 / ed. 1545, ff. 303v-305v. The Augustine text can be
found in Patrologia Latina, vol. 39, cols. 1533-1549; see also Watkins, op. cit., p. 385.
49

Authenticated
Middle Ages these manuals had come under severe criticism as endangering the
consciences of the penitents by their excessive concern for the circumstances,
frequency and severity of sins. Beatus severely criticized these manuals as a
danger to private conscience. In the Admonitio he cites the monk and fellow-
worker at Froben's, Johannes Oecolampadius' (1482-1531), attack on con-
fessional practices, Paradoxon, Quod nort sit onerosa Christianis confessio (1521).
In this work Oecolampadius criticized the confessional manuals and the ad-
ministration of the sacrament of penance as a grave threat to a Christian's
conscience and argued that it was not the custom of the early Church. More
important, he ephasized that a Christian should confess to God alone and that
only God can forgive sins and not a priest. Beatus praised Oecolampadius for
his diligent scrutiny consultis ueterum theobgorum monumentis in his work.44
He found it necessary to remove this discussion from later editions since Oeco-
lampadius had come under severe attack from conservative Christian theologians
and had himself become an important Protestant reformer. Beatus agreed with
Oecolampadius' criticisms but generally avoided his more radical language and
conclusions.
In his argumentum to the De poenitentia Beatus reviewed his investigation of
the relationship between public and private penance and the abuses of his day.
Here the disparity between patristic and contemporary usages becomes clearer.
Beatus finds private confession an outgrowth from public penance although he
does not deny its validity. He emphasizes, however, severe abuses in its opera-
tion. Beatus cites a variety of patristic authors to establish the legitimacy of
penance in the Church and the poenitential canons of the Carolingians which
required confession to a priest. However, John Chrysostom and Ambrose are
quoted to the effect that one confesses to God alone. This was an important
point in the early sixteenth century discussions of penance. Chrysostom gave
important testimony on early penance but he spoke only of general confession
which was public and more important than confession to a priest and must
preceed any such act. 45 Following him Beatus argued that confession takes
44. Opera, ed. 1521, p. b 8r: "Sed de his iam plus satis, cum quod hie locus plura addere
non patitur, tum quod eximius theologus Iohannes Oecolampadius non minor eruditione
quam uita prorsus inculpata de confessione nuper librum aedidit, optimi cuiusque calculo
comprobatum, quo multis subuenit, quos hactenus superstitiose quorundam traditiones
nimium uexanint." On Oecolampdius' text see Emst Stähelin: Das theologische Lebenswerk
Johannes Oekolampadius (Leipzig, 1939), pp. 121-134; also Fraenkel, "Beatus Rhenanus,
Oecolampade ..." pp. 6 6 - 6 9 .
45. Opera, ed. 1545, f. 167v L (the 1539 exemplar I used, Rome, Biblioteca Angelica
L. 16.13, lacked this page): "Caeteium soli deo confitendum esse diuus Chrysostomus autor
50

Authenticated
away sins through the sinner's confession t o God and not automatically through
the act of the priest. It is, t h e r e f o r e , t h e sincerity o f t h e sinner which elicits
forgiveness. But Beatus does n o t discuss this question in detail, leaving the full
implications of his t h o u g h t unclear, although the t e n d e n c y in the sixteenth cen-
tury was t o see a very critical stance here. H o w e v e r , Beatus does n o t deny the
validity of penance as a sacrament, rather he c o n d e m n s its execution. He accepts
Tertullian's arguments for the divine origin of penance.
That confessional practices were a scandal to Beatus is demonstrated by his
discussion of the views of Johannes Geiler von Keysersberg ( 1 4 4 5 - 1 5 1 0 ) . Beatus
cites the famous preacher's remark that the confessional theology o f Aquinas
and Scotus requiring perfect penance for forgiveness cannot be implemented
satisfactorily. 44 Although Geiler's criticism was mentioned in the 1521 edition,
it was greatly expanded in the 1539 edition. Specifically, a tendency to morbidity
and over-scrupulosity is the result o f the subtlety o f confessional manuals. 4 7
Geiler was n o t o p p o s e d t o private c o n f e s s i o n , c o n t i n u e s Beatus, b u t t o t h e
aliquae recentiorum summulae. In a c c o r d w i t h Geiler and Geiler's favorite
authority, Jean Gerson, Beatus locates the harm done t o consciences through
the contemporary penitential practices in the scholastic tendency to codify and
to make useless distinctions, thereby causing the penitent needless a n x i e t y . 4 8
est, cum inquit homilia xli, 'Non tibi dico, ostenda teipsum, nec apud alios accusa,' et
rursus homilia trigesimaprima, 'Non tibi dico, ut te prodas in publicum, neque ut te apud
alios accuses, sed ο bed ire te uolo Prophetae dicenti: Reuela domino uiam tuam.' Et idem
homilia ii in psalmum Misere mei deus 'Si confunderis alicui dicere, quia peccasti, dicito
ea cottidie in anima tua. Non dico ut confitearis conseruo tu ο ut exprobaret, dicito deo qui
curat ea.' Docet idem Ambrosius, et alii ueteres ..." Pseudo-Chrysostom texts were used by
Beatus in part; see Fraenkel, "Beatus Rhenanus ...," p. 79 and fn. 78.
46. Opera, ed. 1539, f. 545 / ed. 1545, f. 168r D.
47. See in general on criticisms of confession manuals, Thomas N. Tentler: Sin and Con-
fession on the Eve of the Reformation (Princeton, N. J., 1977).
48. Opera, ed. 1539, f. 545 / ed. 1545, f. 168r E - F , this is not in the 1521 or 1528
editions: "Nam uir ille [Geilerius] magno re rum usu praeditus, cuius ego parentalibus iam
decrepiti interfui adolescens, familiaiiter uersabatur cum coenobitis sanctioribus, cum
Cartusiis quos saepiuscule interuisebat, cum Franciscanis arctioris instituti a quibus peregre
uenientibus interuisebatur. Ab hiis discebat quibus tormentis quorundam piae mentes
affligerentur ob confessionem cui satisfacere, ut ipsis uidebatur, nequirent. Similes querelas
ad eum deferebant sanctimoniales. Proinde motus fuit ut libellum aederet in lingua ger-
manica, cui titulum fecit, uon dem beichtuue, hoc est, de morbo confessionis, quo negabant
esse tristiorem qui eo tenebantur. ... ltaque Geilerio non displicebat confessio sed morositas
ilia et anxietas quorundam quam docent aliquae recentiorum summulae, quae iustius alibi
locum habeant quam in bibliothecis. Hoc est nimirum artem tradere et methodum alicuius
rei quam ipse non probe calleas. Non quod negem in publicis ad populum declamationibus
acriter obiurgandum urgendumque et exemplis interdum quod dicas affirmandum, sed
51

Authenticated
To counter such abuses Beatus invokes Erasmus. In justification he notes that
Erasmus and Tertullian speak alike on this problem. 4 9 In opposition to the
scholastic confessional practices Beatus cites the prince of humanists and the
first of the Latin Fathers, thereby emphasizing the gap between the scholastics
and the sources of Christianity and directly connecting the humanist reformers
with the Fathers. In a subsequent annotation Beatus broadened his complaint
by focusing on the young and unlearned who are made bishops, the very office
which originally had administered the rite of exomologesis. His solution in 1539
to the bad choice of bishops is a cautious one: he leaves to a general council
the amending of the abuse. 50
There is much of importance said and not said in this discussion. Beatus did
not question the apostolic origins of penance; he accepted Tertullian's argument
that the early Church had known the rite of forgiveness in some form and that
the whole Church subsequently subscribed to it. Hence, the meaning of metanoia
(i.e. changing one's way of life) was not his concern as it was Erasmus' and
Luther's. 51 But Beatus was no biblical scholar and he did not have their speci-
fic interest in biblical questions. Obviously exomologesis is an act of doing
penance, and so perhaps this was how he understood the sacrament in general.
He draws no radical distinction between confession to a priest and the confession
to God which preceeds and is more important, but the implication is that the
former could be done without. He was in agreement with Erasmus concerning
the spiritual quality of a sacrament. Beatus accepted private penance as a de-
velopment out of public penance but did not accept it as of equal antiquity. He
shared the dissatisfaction of his day with late medieval confessional practices. 52
interim bonae mentes non sunt debito solatio destituendae, ne tyrannis et carnificina
conscientiarum inualescat, haud paulo minus nocitura quam dissolutio. Adeo modum ubique
seruari praestat." The work Beatus cites is probably Geiler's Tractatus de dispositione ad
feticem mortem, see Charles Schmitt: Histoire littiraire de l'Alsace ä la fin du XVe et au
commencement du XVIe sücle (Paris, 1870), vol. 2, p. 385. See also Fraenkel, "Beatus
Rhenanus ...", pp. 7 2 - 7 3 .
49. Opera, ed. 1539, f. 545 / ed. 1545, f. 168r F, not in the 1521 or 1528 editions,
"Caeterum sciat lector, librum hunc uisum Erasmo nostro Roterodamo, bonae memoriae,
non esse Tertulliani propter phrasin diuersam."
50. Ibid., ed. 1539, f. 550 / ed. 1545, f. 170r B, not in the 1521 or 1528 editions:
"Hodie adulescentes praeficimus ineptos et stultos, plemnque malos et petulanteis, qui
heri aut nudius tertius scholasticum puluerem relinquerunt, sacra lectione nondum instructi,
tum usu rerum carentes. Sed de hoc uiderit concilium." The Spanish Inquisition excised
this section; see Tertulliani. ... Opera (1597), p. 117.
51. On this see J a n o t t : "Erasmus' Biblical Humanism'," pp. 125-128.
52. See Opera, ed. 1539, f. 542. See Payne: Erasmus: His Theology of the Sacraments,
pp. 1 0 1 - 1 0 3 and 205 respectively.
52

Authenticated
Again, the effect of scholastic subtlety as represented by the confessional manuals
bears the burden of Beatus' criticisms rather than the sacrament itself.
Beatus chose to express his own dissatisfaction through the words of Oeco-
lampadius and Geiler. He knew Oecolampadius from their time together at
Froben's press and would have had first-hand knowledge of his views. However,
as Oecolampadius' theology became more and more evangelical in the early
1520's, Beatus decided that he would have to refrain from citing him. Since
Beatus did not wish to withdraw his criticism of confessional practices in the
later editions, he expanded the attention given to Geiler's opinions. Geiler acted
as an orthodox substitute for Oecolampadius. Beatus admired Geiler as a preacher
and priest; he even wrote a vita of the preacher in 1510.53 In this life Beatus
praised Geiler's devotion to sacred studies. Geiler spoke extemporaneously as
did the theologians of old; he had been learned and generous. Beatus made no
specific attack on penitential practices in this life, but the implicit criticisms of
the modern church were enough to have it placed on the Index.54 Geiler and
Beatus criticized the immorality of certain priests charged with caring for the
faithful but neither indicated Donatist tendencies.55 In his discussion of penance,
Beatus demonstrated both the harm done to Christian consciences through
scholastic theology and the differences between the rite and practices of the
contemporary Church and those of the Fathers' time which, in turn, were
partly due to scholastic thought.
Beatus wished to propagate the views expressed in Erasmus' Exomologesis sive
modus confidendi (1524).56 This short tract shows Erasmus' attitude toward
confession and indicates a basic similarity with Beatus, and, to an extent, with
Oecolampadius. Erasmus found in the practice of private confession a rite which
he was willing to accept on the basis of the authority of the Church. While he
could find no justification for positing its institution by Christ, he did feel that
there were definite advantages to be obtained from confession. Like Beatus he
doubted the antiquity of the practice. He was equally aware of the abuses in
53. Beatus' life of Geiler can be found in Jacob Wimfeling / Beatus Rhenanus: Das
Leben des Johannes Geiler von Kaysersberg, ed. Otto Herding (Munich, 1970), pp. 88-96,
also Briefwechsel, pp. 31-35.
54. See Jane Dempsey Douglass: Justification in Late Medieval Preaching: A Study of
John Geiler von Kaysersberg (Leiden, 1966) p. 12.
55. Open, ed. 1539, f. 760 / ed. 1545. f. 304v G; Douglass, op. cit., pp. 9 8 - 9 9 .
56. The text is in Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami Opera Omnia, ed. J. Leclerc (Leiden,
1704), vol. 5, cols. 145-170. See also Thomas N. Tentler: "Forgiveness and Consolation
in the Religious Thought of Erasmus," Studies in the Renaissance, 12 (1965), pp. 110-113.
On the differences between Erasmus and Beatus, see Fraenkel, "Beatus Rhenanus "
pp. 7 5 - 7 7 .
53

Authenticated
confession. Erasmus locates most of the abuses in bad priests, in the tendency to
hypocracy and an inciting to sin resulting from detailed explanations in con-
fession. He is also well aware o f the dangers o f excessive scrupulosity. 5 7 He
emphasized the need for sincerity in contrition and the excesses o f scholastic
subtlety. 5 8 Beatus obviously had developed his ideas on the topic along Erasmian
lines; this accounts in part for the expansion o f this discussion. Both Erasmus
and Beatus d o u b t e d the antiquity o f private c o n f e s s i o n b u t were willing t o
accept it, and therefore, their views did not correspond t o the m o r e radical
o n e s o f Luther or Oecolampadius. 5 9
Beatus throughout the various editions o f the Tertullian t e x t s maintained
that private penance grew out of public penance. However, there was a change
in his attitude toward penance in last edition — not a rejection of his previous
views but a modification. By 1 5 3 9 Beatus was willing t o admit that private
p e n a n c e also might have held a place in the a n c i e n t C h u r c h . 6 0 H e did n o t
reject his attack on the abuses of scholastic theology but did come t o feel that
private confession had a definite value for the Christian despite abuses. The
ancient penitential canons governing confession were praised: ob disciplinae
conuenientam atque concordiam, certas poenitentiae leges condere.61 While
57. See Tentler: "Forgiveness and Consolation. ...", pp. 117-118, and Payne, Erasmus:
His Theobgy of the Sacraments, pp. 193-194, 199-209.
58. Exomologesis, cols. 153 C, 152 E.
59. Ratio, ed. cit., p. 190 for the question of antiquity of confession in Erasmus; cf.
Allen, vol. 8, letter 2136, U. 2 1 4 - 2 2 0 for Erasmus' acceptance of private confession.
60. Opera, ed. 1539, f. 549 / ed. 1545, f. 169v G, not in 1521 or 1528 editions: "Eni-
muero liquere potest excitatis Cypriani locis, occultomm scelerum exomologesin etiam
fuisse secretam, quam etiamnum retinet ecclesia dum sacerdos pro modo delicti certum
ieiunium, eleemosynam, aut precationes confidenti iniungit. Vnde et in ecclesiis praesertim
Occidents antiquitas confession is secretae stabiliatur quae disiplinae ecclesaiasticae columen
est, si anxietatem demas et restituas libertatem. Amissa autem discipline, comiant omnia
necesse est." Also Opera, ed. 1539 f. 759 / ed. 1545 f. 304r A: "Caeterum non solum apud
Tertullianum, sed etiam apud eos qui multis seculis post uixerunt, fit mentio de Exomolo-
gesi, id est actu poenitentiae, quam Confessio criminum necessario praecedebat, siue publice
fieret de publicis flagitiis, siue priuatim de priuatis. Vnde nostra secreta confessio nata
uidetur; imo remansisse potius res non noua sed antiquissima. De qua tarnen tanquam de
ea quae praecepta fuerit qui loquantur, inter ueteres haud temere reperies."
61. Opera, ed. 1539, f. 542 / ed. 1545, f. 167 F - H , not in the 1521 or 1528 editions:
" ... quam (private confession] tamen saluberrimam esse nemo potest inficari, si morosi-
tatem et sciupulositatem nimiam ampules. Quid enim per deum immortalem utilius habere
possit ecclesia ad continendam disciplinam, quid commodius, quam priuatam istam con-
fessionem ad populum in necessariis erudiendum? ubi hortulae spacio plus proficit laicus
quam triduana concione. ... Quod si in ludis literariis frustra praeceptor scholasticis praele-
git, nisi illud idem paulopost ab eis exigat et ut reddant cogat; haud aliter quantumcun-
54

Authenticated
Beatus was now willing to admit the possible antiquity of private penance in
the ancient Church, he still refused to accept the scholastic forms and abuses.
He reached back to the pre-scholastic canons, thereby contrasting scholasticism
with an older theological tradition. His position had slightly modified, but his
essential anti-scholasticism had not.
These modifications were partly due to the criticisms of the Tertullian edition
at that time and Beatus1 decision to distance himself from the Reformation.
The annotations and argumenta were recognized as of critical importance in
evaluating the practice of private confession and, therefore, worthy of response
from more conservative theologians. The explicit dependence on Oecolampadius
in the first edition resulted in Beatus' being grouped with the Reformers. Jacobus
Latomus (c. 1 4 7 5 - 1 5 4 4 ) , Erasmus' opponent at Louvain, responded to both
Oecolampadius and Beatus in his treatise, De secreta confessione (1525). 6 2
Although Oecolampadius was the major object of the attack (and Erasmus
who, however, was not mentioned in the treatise was equally so), the inclusion
of Beatus indicates that his ideas were perceived as expressing heterodox views,
even if less extreme that Luther's or Oecolampadius'. 63 Latomus depended on the
traditio of the Church to defend the antiquity and propriety of private con-
fession. Beatus is mentioned by name only in the introductory letter; however,
some important arguments used by him, such as his dependence on John Chry-
sostom, are discussed, although Oecolampadius is presented as the source of
que publicis concionibus instituatur populus, nisi isto pacto examinetur, longe minus
proficient auditores. ... lam ab eo quod nos supra attigimus et in annotationibus rursum
attingemus non abhorrent iuris Pontificii interpretes quidam non incetebres quum institutam
ab ecclesia confessionem tiadunt. Nam Exemologesis publica id est actus poenitentiae
coram ecclesia, ut ueteri instnimento desumpta, ex publica priuata nata uidetur, occultorum
criminum occulta, propter quam necesse fuit in usum presbyteronim imperitiorum imo
doctorum etiam ob disciplinae conuenientiam atque concordiam, certas poenitentiae leges
condere, quibus et tempus et modus singulis peccatis expiandis praestitueretur (Canones
poenitentiales uocant) quibus ut fleret satis opus erat sacerdotum in consilium adhiberi,
praesertim a laicis." See also Fraenkel: "Beatus Rhenanus ...", pp. 71-77.
62. On Latomus see G. Chantiaine: "L'Apologia ad Latomus," in Scrinium Erasmianum,
vol. 2, pp. 5 2 - 7 5 ; Jacobus Latomus: De confessione secreta, De quaestionum generibus
quibus Ecclesia certat intus et foris. De Ecclesia et humanae legis obtigatione (Antwerp,
1525): I have used the reprint in Jacobi Latomi... Opera (Louvain, 1550).
63. Jacobi Latomi... Opera, f. 104v, introductory letter; "Accipe, mi Rudolphe, libellum
de confessione, quod respondere conor, praecipue Joanni Oecolampadio, et Beato Renano.
Quorum ille, libro aeditato, hie uero in annotationibus circa Tertullianum de ratione con-
fitendi palam in Lutheri factionem contra Dei ecclesiam descendit. Idque longe moderatius
atque desertius quam ipse Lutherus. Nam et testimonia adfenint, et rationes adhibent, quae,
nisi refutatae fuerint, atque coniunctae, facile possent simplicium animos peruertere."
55

Authenticated
these views.64 Generally, Latomus was anxious to quote extensively from patristic
sources in his defense to balance the procedure of Oecolampadius and Beatus.
Oecolampadius responded to Latomus in his Elleboron (1525). Latomus in his
counter (1525) again cited Beatus' use of Chrysostom. 65 Latomus' attacks on
Beatus must have been a factor in his decision to temper his language and excise
the reference to Oecolampadius. 64 By the time Latomus published his work,
Beatus had broken with the Reformers and was anxious not to be grouped with
them. Erasmus' Exomologesis proved to be a much more congenial work than
Oecolampadius' for Beatus.
Beatus was neither a profound theologian nor an original critic of contemporary
mores; rather, he was a philologist, historian and editor. His interest in theology
was closely bound with these other studies. Like most humanists who wrote on
theology, he could boast no theological degree. As a humanist he was prejudiced
against the summulae of the scholastics because of their dependence on logic
and indifference to literary forms. As a student of antiquity, Christian and
pagan, and as the most devoted of Erasmus' follwers, he placed his philological
and historical knowledge at the service of renewing the Church and society. But
he was unwilling, perhaps unable, to draw radical conclusions from his criticisms
of the present as Luther and Oecolampadius did. In this he was one with Erasmus;
both sought to preserve and purge and not produce something new.
Beatus utilized the Fathers to show how things had been, how they had
changed, and, at times, how they had degenerated. He conceived of Tertullian's
description of early Christian practices as orthodox and as normative and a
proper instrument for analyzing contemporary problems. Naturally such a proce-
dure could lead to a conflict between the ancient and the contemporary churches.
Beatus, however, tended to expose the divergences without always drawing con-
clusions for his readers. Beatus was historian enough to realize that things do
change and that it was natural for the Church to make certain accomodations
over the centuries. He accepted the view of tradition expounded by Tertullian
and Basil the Great: that things were handed down through the ages and not
all had been written. 67 He had a dynamic sense of the Church and her ability
64. Ibid., f. 115v.

65. Jacobi Latomi... responsio ad Helleboron loannis Oecolampadii, in Opera, ff. 118r-
132v, at f. 124v: "Quod autem hie notant Oecolampadius, et Renanus, istud factum fuisse
ante Chrysostomum, non concludit id quod ipsi praetendunt: puta quod Chrysostomus de
confessione facienda non scripersit aut decuerit, magis verisimile fit contrarium, quod scilicet
male sublatum reduxerit poenitendi modum ..."
66. Pamelius: Tertulliani. ... Opera, ed. 1584, p. 200, attacks Beatus' views.
67. Opera, ed. 1539, f. 507 / ed. 1545, f. 156v M, not in 1521 or 1528 editions: "Caete-
56

Authenticated
to deal with new problems. He affirmed this view more strongly in 1539 than
in the earlier editions. 68 While he did not accept all changes as equally valuable,
he was more and more willing to admit that a change may be for the good of the
Church. He certainly had no difficulty accepting the early medieval practices as
consistent with the ancient teachings of the Church. Only the scholastic innova-
tions remained unacceptable. In this he was one with Erasmus in respect for
tradition and a consensus ecclesiae.69 The Fathers, however, remained important
testimonies on the early teachings of the Church and the foundation upon which
to base reform and renewal.
Beatus' evaluation of the problems of his day resulting from the Reform and
the increasing respect he had f o r the tradition of the Church resulted in his
reevaluating the place of the papacy in both the history of the Church and in
contemporary life. His attitude toward the papacy shows the general develop-
ment of his religious thought in the 1520's. In the early days of the Reformation
Beatus took a very critical stance toward the papacy and its powers. He respond-
ed positively to Luther's patriotic call against the Italian papacy's exploitation
of Germany.'' 0 In the 1521 edition of Tertullian Beatus attacked papal preten-
tions especially vis-ä-vis Germany. The very choice of Tertullian underlines an
anti-papal attitude, since the popes had condemned this F a t h e r . In the 1521
argumentum to the De praescriptione haereticorum Beatus argued f r o m Ter-
tullian against the Roman Church's claims t o primacy. Tertullian was willing
to grant that the Roman Church had summas but not that it was summa, mean-
ing that Rome had some form of priority but that it held no absolute dominion
over the other churches. The basis is t h a t the summae ecclesiae were those
rum haec et alia piis ac pnidentibus scribiraus, occasionem nacti ex Tertulliani uerbis quae
ueniebant explicanda, certe non ob aliud nisi ut mutationes innumeras post iltaid tempus
factas antiquitatis ecclesiasticae studiosus contempletur, et cogitet magno sanctissimis ponti-
ficibus constitisse istam ecclesiae concordiam, rebus in melis prouectis." Ibid., ed. 1539,
f. 506 / ed. 1545, f. 156v G: "Quod non a Christo, nec fortassis ab Apostolis, sed ab
Apostolonim successoribus institutum innuit." Also Ibid., ed. 1539, f. 509 / ed. 1545, f.
157r Ε for Basil See Quasten: Patrology, vol. 2, pp. 335-337 for Tertullian's view of tradi-
tion, and E. Amand de Mendieta: The "written' and 'teeret' Apostolic traditions in the
theological thought of St Basil the of Caesarea (Edinburgh, 1965).
68. Opera, ed. 1539, f. 510 / ed. 1545, f. 157v H, not in 1521 or 1528 editions, "De
caeremoniis et ecclesiasticis quibusdam ordinationibus post primordia nascentis Christian-
ismi institutis absque scriptura haud dubie ...'
69. On Erasmus see Payne: Erasmus: His Theology of the Sacraments, ch. 8. On this
question see John F. D'Amico: "A Humanist Response to Martin Luther: Raffaele Maffei's
Apologeticus," The Sixteenth Century Journal, 6/2 (1975), pp. 37-56.
70. See Meylan: "Beatus Rhenanus et la propagande des ecrits lutdriens en 1519," and
Horawitz: "Ein biographischer Versuch," pp. 224-242.
57

Authenticated
churches f o u n d e d by the A p o s t l e s , and R o m e did n o t have a m o n o p o l y in
this. Beatus ominously remarks that if Tertullian were alive he could not hold
such a view with impunity. He concludes by noting that Germans have suffered
greatly from Rome's authority but will n o longer accept it quietly. While the
Church fights the Spirit with swords and faggots, there is always hope in Christ
and the modestia ac leuitäte euangelica.71 This attack corresponds to the German
feelings of patriotic enthusiasm which greeted much of Luther's early criticisms
of the papacy. For Beatus, Tertullian's views and the agitation of the early 1520's
1520's formed a unit.
In 1522 Beatus edited pseudonomynously Marsilius of Padua's ( 1 2 7 0 - 1 4 3 2 )
Defensor Pads, the classic medieval attack on the papal power. 7 2 This formed
part of a campaign t o publish medieval imperial attacks on the papacy by re-
form-minded Germans. Previously Ulrich Hutten had published Lorenzo Valla's
attack on the Donation of Constantine ( 1 5 1 7 ) and the anti-papal tract from the
Investiture Controversy, De unitate ecclsiae conseruanda, which was based on
Cyprian's De unitate ecclesiae.73 In his dedicatory letter to the Defensor, Beatus
gave fuller expression to his anti-papal feelings. Again, Beatus faults the scholastics
and their scholia and commentaries for distoring Christian teachings and provid-
ing the bases for papal power. 7 4
71. Opera, 1521 ed, f. 85v: "Ex hoc libro facile linquebit lcctori, qui non sit omnino
stupidus, quo pacto Rhomanus Pontifex ad istam autoritatem peruenerit, quam hodie
habet. Caetemm quanquam honorifico laudis elogio Rhomanam exornat ecclesiam, non
tamen tantam illam facit, quantam hodie fieri uidemus. Nam Apostolicis ecclesiis lllam
annumerat, non solam facit Apostolicam, hoc est summatem facit, non summam. Atque
idem scribit quarto libro contra Marcionem [V, 1 ], iis uerbis 'In summa si constat id
uerius quod prius, id prius quod et ab initio, ab initio quod ab Apostolos, pariter utique
constabit id esse ab Apostolis traditum, quod apud ecclesias Apostolorum fuent sacro-
sanctum. Videamus, quod lac a Paulo Corinthii hauserint ad quam regulam galatae sint
recorrecti, quid legant Philippenses, Thessalonicenses, Ephesii, quid etiam Rhomani de
proximo sonent, quibus Euangelium et Petrus et Paulus sanguine quoque suo signatum
relinquemnt. Habemus et Iohannis alumnas ecclesias.' Et caetera. Porro si superesset Ter-
tullianus, non istud impune diceret; nam quas tragoedias, ob similem causam, cum haec
adornaretur aeditio, uidimus excitatas? Cum Germani negarent se quorundam expilationes
diutius laturos et alias indignitates, quibus diu se pressos conquerebantur, per eos qui
maiorum suorum simplicitate forent abusi. Uli uicissim gladios et fasciculos minarentur,
qui potius debebant docere, et pugnare gladio spiritus quod est uerbum dei. Spes omnis
in Christum modestia ac leuitate Euangelica."
72. Index, no. 53. See Gregorio Piaia: "Beato Renano e il Defensor Pads agli inizi della
Riforma," Studio patavina, 21 (1974), pp. 28-79.
73. See Z. Zafarana: "Ricerche sul 'Liber de unitate ecclesiae conseruanda'," Studi medie-
vali, Set. 3, 7 (1966), pp. 617-700.
74. See Piaia: "Beato Renano," pp. 4 3 - 4 5 for appropriate citations.
58

Authenticated
When he revised the Tertullian texts for subsequent publication, Beatus made
drastic changes. He excised the section on the differences between summa and
summas. Beatus came to agree with Erasmus that summits was a proper term
for the papal power. 7 5 Where Beatus had once called on the Fathers to testify
to the usurpations of the Roman Church, he now used them to affirm the place
of the Roman Church for dealing with heretics and unbelievers. The value of
this guarantor of doctrinal concord is especially evident, comments Beatus, in
the troubles of his time. 7 6 Obviously, Beatus had drastically altered his judgment
on the papacy as a result o f the violence of the Reformation. He did not be-
come a whole-hearted papist, however; his criticisms of the abuses in the Church
remained as strong as ever. Yet he definitely wished to check the violence that
accompanied the Reformation and saw the papacy as the appropriate instru-
ment despite its abuses.
The breakdown of discipline and peace that Beatus witnessed concerned him
greatly. He gave further expression to his feelings in an annotation to Adversus
Valentinianos, one of Tertullian's anti-heretical treatises. The Valentinians, notes
Beatus, lacked all discipline w h i c h in time resulted in divisions even among
themselves. Beatus sees the very same thing occuring in his o w n time w h e n
each schismatic sect follows its own opinion. The specific example he offers is
the Anabaptists, whom he typifies as stupid and restless. For Beatus, following
patristic authorities, discipline is the guardian of faith and o f the road to salva-
tion. Without discipline there is o n l y division and a weakening o f belief in
75. On Erasmus' views see Harry J. Mc Sorley: "Erasmus and the Primacy of the Roman
Pontiff: Between Conciliarism and Papalism," Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte, 65 (1974),
pp. 37-54, esp. pp. 41-44 for Erasmus' use of summus.
76. Opera, ed. 1539 f. 99 / ed. 1545, f. 33 r B - C , revision of the section cited above
note 71: "Porro magnificae laudis elogio Romanam ecclesiam ornat quum dicit: 'Si autem
Italiae adiiceris, habes Romanam, unde nobis quoque autoritas praesto est statu. Subicitque
insigne epiphonema, 'Felix, inquit, ecclesia cui totam doctrinam Apostoli cum sanguine
suo profuderunt.' Idem facit libro quarto aduersus Marcionem [V, 1], 'Videamus, inquit,
quid etiam Romani de proximo sonent, quibus Euangelium et Petrus et Paulus sanguine
quoque suo signatum relinquerunt.' Ex quibus locis liquet unde Apostolici cognomen Ponti-
fici Romano obuenerit. Sed et in libro aduersus Praxeam, et aliis item locis non obscure
significat quantum ualerit illo quoque aeuo Romsni praesulis iudicium aliquid aut agnos-
centis aut reiicientis. Huius ecclesiae semper mansura autoritas quantum orbi Christiano
profuerit, dum dogmatum concordiam sartam tectam praestat, ac undique pacem conseiuat;
haec turbulent a tempora abunde docent. Quae praecipue causa ueteres Imperatores olim
mouit, ut istam sedem Fl. Constantinus priuilegiis, Iustinianus et Gotthorum principe!
qui primi ex Germanis Romanorum reges extitere Italiae et prouinciarum domini, atque
hos secuti Langobardi, praediis amplissimis: Caiolos Magnus, Ludouicus Pius, atque Rudol-
phus Habispurgius, terris ac prophana ditione extulerint, auxerint, ornarint."
59

Authenticated
revelation. Beatus concludes by citing a series of officio or munia of Christian
discipline, duties a Christian must subscribe to: respect for Scripture and the
priesthood, giving thanks, penance, charity and fasting. 77 Basing himself on
patristic sources, Beatus felt the necessity of singling out those duties which,
if followed, could provide order and peace among Christians.
Concord was very much on Beatus' mind when he revised the Tertullian
texts in 1539. In order to guarantee this concord Beatus was willing to accept
papal authority to settle differences within the Church. 78 The papacy must be
the defender of order since amissa autem disciplina, comiant omnia necesse
est,79 This desire for concord is even noticeable in the short history of Christian
theology quoted above. In his later edition of 1539 Beatus recognized the value
of uniformity in theological terminology - even scholastic terminology guaran-
teed concord. However, seruanda doctrinae concordia, which both Beatus and
Erasmus so sincerely desired, was within no one's power to grant.
The changes in Beatus' religious attitudes in the third and fourth decades of
the sixteenth century were mirrored in his editions of Tertullian. His reactions
to the religious upheavals of his day made him reflect upon the meaning of the
texts he was editing. Beatus displayed a dynamic attitude in his study of Ter-
tullian. He read Tertullian with constant reference to contemporary events. But
this did not conflict with his historical and philological learning; always before
him was the model of Erasmus. Beatus' editions of Tertullian provide a fine
77. Ibid., ed. 1539, f. 411 / ed. 1545, f. 127r E - F , not in 1521 or 1528 editions: "Et
disciplina non terretur - Disciplina iam ο lim usurpari coepit pro ordinatione et seueritate
castigatrice, ut quum apud Am. Marcellinum Vadomaiius Germanorum rex ad Constantium
Aug. scribit de Iuliano Caesar tuus disciplinam non habet, et quum diuus Cyprianus de
habitu uirginum (PL, vol. 4, col. 454] commentarium auspicans, 'Disciplina inquit, custos
spei, retinaculum fldei, dux itineris salutaris, fomes ac nutrimentum bonae indolis, magis-
tra uirtutis, facit in Christo manere semper ...' Dicit ergo hic Tertullianus Valentinianos
disciplina non terreri quo minus fabulis fidem habeant aut iam inuentis credendo aut
comminiscendo nouas. Nam, ut paulo post dicet, si aliquid noui adstiuxerint, reuelationem
statim appellant praesumptionem. Et quia deerat disciplina, cuius nulla munia obseruabant,
ut infra leges, non minim est si inter seipsos fuerint diuisi. Quemadmodum istis annis
proximis sublata disciplina quid non uidimus ab audaculis quibusdam tentatum, quae non
schismata inter eos nata dum unusquisque somnium suum pro oraculo amplectitur?
Vix enim ipsi Valentiniani ita inter se fitere diuisi, ut hodie sunt Anabaptistae, excors
hominium genus et inquietum. Sunt autem Christianae disciplinae officia siue munia ceu
Tertullianus appellat, Reuerentia sacrarum literarum, reuerentia sacerdotum, gratiarum actio,
Exomologesis, poenitentia, eleemosynae, ieiunia, et hoc genus alia." Beatus also compared
the religious problems of his day to the Arian controveries; see Briefwechsel, p. 325.
60

Authenticated
example of Erasmian philological and religious criteria applied to the writings
of a Christian Father for the purpose of reform. Beatus' desire for renewal
was combined with a scholar's interest in history and philology. He hoped
that this scholarship, devoted to restoring the texts of Tertullian, would aid
in reforming learning and piety. Beatus' scholarship did not exist in a vacuum.
Tertullian and the other Fathers offered the humanists a standard against which
to judge contemporary practices. The humanists employed not dialectics but
historical example and philological exactitude. In the process of establishing
the text and its historical place, the humanists felt free to pick and choose
what was valuable for further discussion. Tertullian said what Beatus wanted
him to say through the use of annotations and argumenta. Tertullian could
either be used to attack the pretensions of the papacy or to argue for its value
in preserving peace. He could confirm the antiquity of the penitential practices
of the church but also show how the contemporary church had moved away
from its ancient form. All reform has an element of polemic in it, and Ter-
tullian, like the other Fathers, provided invaluable polemical weapons for the
humanists.
With the support of texts such as Tertullian, the humanists felt free to draw
and publicize their conclusions even if they varied from the common practices
and beliefs of their day. For Beatus Tertullian helped expose what he felt were
the centuries of accumulated non-scriptural and non-patristic ideas which had
entered the Church. Further, he allowed Beatus to isolate the major offender
in this process - the subtlety of scholasticism. Beatus could identify himself
with the African apologist in locating in the vanity of philosophy the source
of what was essentially a new type of heresy. Beatus returned to the excesses
of philosophical theology throughout his work. To counter the abuses of schol-
asticism Beatus had recourse to an older theological tradition, one which in-
cluded the Fathers and the early medieval theologians. Beatus sought to revive
this theological tradition in his editing. His hope in Luther was precisely this:
he could offer an alternative to the excesses of the scholastics and aid in the
return to the older theological tradition. The chaos of the religious struggles
resulting from the Reformation convinced Beatus that some form of authority
was necessary to accomplish this revival. Beatus' revised view of papal authority
was a response to this need for an authority which could guarantee peace. 80
80. It is interesting to compare Beatus' reaction to the Reformation with that of Conrad
Pellican (1478-1556). While still a Franciscan, Pellican provided the Index for the editio
princeps of Tertullian. In his introduction to the Index (f. Ff lr), Pellican provided the
same analysis of the degeneration of Christian theology due to scholasticism as did Beatus.
61

Authenticated
His f u n d a m e n t a l analysis, that scholasticism had c o r r u p t e d t h e t h e o l o g i c a l and
ecclesiological traditions, never c h a n g e d . But like Erasmus Beatus f e l t that unity
and peace w e r e essential e l e m e n t s in the Church.
F o r t h e humanists t h e t e x t s o f t h e F a t h e r s w e r e n o t n e u t r a l o b j e c t s o f anti-
quarian scholarship but living guides that c o u l d e x p l a i n and lead. T h e i r applica-
b i l i t y t o c o n t e m p o r a r y p r o b l e m s w a s never in d o u b t . I f t h e v e r y sources o f the
Christian f a i t h c o u l d b e s h o w n t o agree w i t h t h e m , then the h u m a n i s t s felt
there was a l w a y s h o p e that the evil e f f e c t s o f the d o c t r i n e s o f the 'hair-splitting'
scholastics c o u l d b e n e u t r a l i z e d a n d r e v e r s e d . S c h o l a r s h i p thus p r o f f e r e d t h e
m o s t p r a c t i c a l o f results.
Dr. John F. D'Amico

University of Illinois
Urbana, Illinois 61801
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG
Beatus Rhenanus, der treueste Schüler des Erasmus, war ein bemerkenswerter Herausgeber
patristischer Texte wie auch klassischer und historischer Schriften. Sein wesentlichster Bei-
trag zum Verständnis der Kirchenväter war die editio princeps Tertullians aus dem Jahre
1521 und die späteren, revidierten Ausgaben von IS28 und 1539. Er folgte dabei streng
dem Verfahren des Erasmus, der bereits die Theologie der Kirchenväter als Alternative zur
eng mit der Philosophie verbundenen zeitgenössischen Scholastik dargestellt hatte. In einer
Reihe von philologischen und historischen Anmerkungen zum T e x t des Tertullian versucht
Beatus zu zeigen, wie die Scholastik die christliche Botschaft ausgehöhlt hatte. Um seine
Auffassung zu stützen, begleitete er den Text mit einem kurzen historischen Abriß der christ-
lichen Theologie. Er griff sowohl die Beichte als auch die päpstliche Machtentfaltung an.
Beide stehen beispielhaft für die Fehlentwicklung, welche die scholastische Dialektik her-
vorgerufen hatte. Beatus' Kritik der verweltlichten Kirche steht in enger Beziehung zu seiner
Unterstützung der kirchlichen Reform. Als dann allerdings die Reformation sich radikalisierte
und die religiösen Auseinandersetzungen sich verschärften, wandte sich Beatus von Luther
Since he was a Hebrew scholar, Pellican laid somewhat greater stress on the scriptural basis
o f Tertullian's thought. While not a radical in his theological thought, Pellican was un-
willing to accept the authority o f tradition and the consensus ecclesiae, as Erasmus and
Beatus did, and therefore he eventually left the Roman allegiance (by 1526) and joined
Zwingli as a reformer. Perhaps Pellican's greater concern with the biblical text fostered a
more critical attitude toward Church authority than was true f o r Beatus. On Pellican see
Paul L. Nyhus: "Caspar Schatzgeyer and Conrad Pellican: The Triumph o f Dissension in
the Early Sixteenth Century," Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte, 61 (1970), pp. 179-204.
62

Authenticated
und seinen Anhängern ab (1525) und milderte seine Verurteilung kirchlicher Praktiken. Ob-
gleich er an seinem Widerstand gegen die Scholastik festhielt, folgte er Erasmus, er blieb
in der römischen Kirche, motiviert durch den Wunsch nach religiösem Frieden und aus
Respekt vor der kirchlichen Tradition.
63

Authenticated

Beautus Rhenanus - Tertullian PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Beautus Rhenanus - Tertullian PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Beautus Rhenanus - Tertullian PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Beatus Rhenanus, Tertullian and the Reformation:

A Humanist's Critique of Scholasticism*

The early Church Fathers constituted an important element in the editorial

Brought to you by | University of Arizona

Brought to you by | University of Arizona

Brought to you by | University of Arizona

suam, de fuga in persecutione, ad Scapulam, de exhortatione castitatis, de monogamia, de

Brought to you by | University of Arizona

Timothy Barnes: Tertullian (Oxford, 1971), and Jean-Claude Fredouille: TertulUen et la

Brought to you by | University of Arizona

Brought to you by | University of Arizona

Brought to you by | University of Arizona

Brought to you by | University of Arizona

Brought to you by | University of Arizona

Brought to you by | University of Arizona

Brought to you by | University of Arizona

Brought to you by | University of Arizona

Brought to you by | University of Arizona

Brought to you by | University of Arizona

Brought to you by | University of Arizona

Brought to you by | University of Arizona

Brought to you by | University of Arizona

Brought to you by | University of Arizona

Brought to you by | University of Arizona

64. Ibid., f. 115v.

Brought to you by | University of Arizona

Brought to you by | University of Arizona

Brought to you by | University of Arizona

Brought to you by | University of Arizona

Brought to you by | University of Arizona

Brought to you by | University of Arizona

Dr. John F. D'Amico

Brought to you by | University of Arizona

Brought to you by | University of Arizona

You might also like