Logo DBNL
The Modern Devotion (1968)

The Modern Devotion

(1968)–R.R. Post–rechtenstatus Auteursrechtelijk beschermd

Confrontation with Reformation and Humanism


Vorige Volgende

Chapter Ten
John Pupper of Goch. Wessel Gansfort. Gabriel Biel. Frederik of Heilo.

Since the relationship of each of these persons to the Modern Devotionalists, and in particular to the Brethren, differs, it must be more closely examined and defined. Although, as we shall presently show, John Pupper must, according to the archives, have been a secular priest of the Utrecht diocese, he cannot be passed over in this book. This chapter, indeed, also comprises a general problem. Supposing that these theologians were members of the Brotherhood or were at least in close contact with the fraters or with the Windesheimers, is one then justified in assuming that the individual opinions of these theologians are characteristic for the fraters or for the Devotionalists in general? Such an assumption seems to me indefensible. It might very well be that the fraters or their leaders did not accept these men's ideas or forbade the young Brothers to read or study their books. In other words it must be shown that the person in question already embraced and proclaimed these personal concepts either before or during these contacts and not later and in other circumstances. It must also be proved that the Brothers or the Windesheimers adopted some at least of these opinions, that they welcomed them, or at least did not condemn them. It is even possible that the Brothers were so little versed in theology that they did not understand the full import of some of the tenets of the afore-mentioned theologians. They or the rectors may quite simply have said: ‘Do not brother me or the young Brothers with such matters. We are trying to learn to know Christ as our model through reading the Bible and the ascetic writings, and to imitate His life and passion. We do not trouble our heads with questions like the value of indulgences, the effect of the sacraments, the meaning of purgatory, or the relationship of grace and freedom, with predestination or the papal authority.’ Such a situation is indeed possible and it is this which complicates the question in hand. Assuming that Wessel Gansfort proclaimed his singular ideas in Zwolle, that John Pupper preached his in Malines, with the Sisters, and Gabriel Biel his in Butzbach and Urach and at the university of Tübingen, did the fraters of all the houses adopt them? Were these new concepts

already welcomed by the fraters of the first two periods, roughly before 1475, and before these theologians had achieved any renown? Were the fraters who preceded them familiar with these ideas? Did these ideas find an echo among the fraters of the sixteenth century who had to absorb the shock of the Reformation? Or was it the other way about? Was it the fraters who embraced these ideas and handed them on to the three theologians in question? Were the fraters their instructors? Did the fraters' doctrines come to light because they were set down by capable theologians who could write? Were they no more than the mouthpieces of the Brothers, whose voice we hear re-echoing in the words of Peter of Dieburg, rector of Hildesheim? This may well be, but at the same time it is remarkable that only these three, or two of them, taught and studied at a university, and more especially, that these concepts do not entirely agree with each other. Moreover, it is well known that various university professors held and proclaimed these ideas, without ever having been in contact with the Brothers. It was precisely at the universities, where the Brothers did not go, that factions existed, factions adhered to on their own testimony by Wessel Gansfort and Gabriel Biel. However this may be, it is first necessary to determine exactly what connection existed between the theologians and the Brothers, or Devotionalists, and what contacts they maintained with each other.

The John Pupper of Goch we are concerned with here is named as the author of certain theological works discovered around 1520 and afterwards published. According to the finder and publisher of the works, he was rector of a convent in Malines and died there in 1475. In actual fact, a John Pupper of Goch can be discovered for this period in Malines. According to the archiepiscopal archives he founded a convent there in 1459 and was previously rector in Sluis. The documents also give further information on this John Pupper of Goch. There is admittedly no record of his birth date, but it is established that in the fifteenth century a fairly well-to-do family of Capupper1 popularly shortened to Pupper, lived in the city of Goch, from which he evidently derived his name. To this family belonged dominus Johann Pupper of Goch, diocesis Coloniensis, law student at Cologne, enrolled in Cologne in 1453 by the rector Gerard of Venlo.2 Is this our John Pupper of Goch? Several have thought and still think that it is. They

are also convinced that the theologian John Pupper of Goch was a Brother of the Common Life. A. Knaake especially undertook to prove this from the similarity between Pupper's writings and those of the other Brethren, but O. Clemen, in his detailed and profound study of John Pupper of Goch has taken over1 Knaake's arguments, retaining what in his opinion was acceptable. In fact this amounts only to the vague conclusion: ‘dass Johann Pupper aus Goch höchstwahrscheinlich durch enge Beziehungen mit den Brüdern verknüpft war; wenn er ihren seinen jugendbildung zu verdanken hat, so dürfte er sie in Zwolle erhalten haben.’2 There is no evidence at all for the latter statement and the first contributes virtually nothing to our investigation. Even assuming that it is true that this John Pupper, ‘durch enge Beziehungen mit den Brüdern verknüpft war,’ does this bring us any further with our problem? May we on the basis of these close relations, attribute John Pupper's theological ideas to the Brothers or, contrariwise, assume that he is indebted to the Brethren for these ideas? People have searched zealously for a John Pupper of Goch among the Brothers. Several Johns of Goch are mentioned in the documents of the fraters, but no John Pupper of Goch. It is impossible to discover our man.

Could he be the aforementioned student of Cologne? Enrolment as a law student in 1454 is somewhat late, since it is established that our John Pupper founded the Augustinian convent of Thabor in 1459 with several others and that before this he was rector of the Sisters in Sluis.3 It is not however entirely impossible, even though, on the basis of his later works, we should be more inclined to assume that he studied theology, rather than law. In addition, the statement that he was a priest, and from the archdiocese of Cologne, must be treated with reserve. The word dominus indicates that he was a priest. This would then mean that he was a priest of the archdiocese in question. This statement must perhaps be viewed merely as a geographical indication, just as in the case of non-priests only the place of origin is given. With the priests, however, the situation in such matricles was different, since a priest has to have a benefice and this can link him to a particular diocese. In all probability therefore, the enrolled student of 1454 was a priest of the archdiocese of Cologne. We find now that the

chapter of Malines, which gave permission in 1459 for the founding of the convent of Thabor in that town, refers to the priest on the spot as Johannes Pupper, sacerdos Trajectensis.1 This increases the doubt that the Cologne law student could be our Malines theologian. It is clear for the following reasons that he was not a Brother of the Common Life at the time of his enrolment in Cologne: firstly, no Brother ever studied at the university, unless it was before entering, and the number of such Brothers was very small indeed. In the second place he would most likely have been enrolled as a member of the congregation and not as a priest of the diocese of Cologne. The same rector a few days earlier had enrolled a Norbertine as: Johannes a Kreveldia O. Praem.2 Since there is now considerable reason to doubt whether the Malines theologian and convent-founder of 1459 and the Cologne university law student and priest of 1454, are one and the same person, and since the latter was certainly never a Brother of the Common Life, we have no grounds at all for thinking that the Malines theologian of 1459 and following years was ever a Brother of the Common Life! The chapter document we have quoted mentions Johann Pupper sacerdos Trajectensis and states further that the rector was a secular priest.3 It is also prescribed in other documents that the rector should be (presbyter seu sacerdos secularis).4 The author of the extant theological treatises was thus a secular, not a frater, a priest of the diocese of Utrecht. We do not know how he ended up here, having been born in Goch. He probably acquired a benefice in the diocese of Utrecht on the basis of which he was ordained and was thus received into the diocese. His benefice in Sluis was of no use to him in this since Sluis belongs to the diocese of Tournai, not of Utrecht.

In my opinion all conjectures must give way before these factual data from contemporary archives. Other considerations are also quoted in an attempt to prove that John Pupper had a particular relationship with the Brethren of the Common Life. Reference is made to a text concerning the communal life which occurs in his book De quatuor erroribus circa legem evangelicam exortis et de votis et religionibus factitiis dialogus.5 Here one finds a recommendation of communal life

and communal possessions as practised by the Brothers. This page, however, refers to something completely different from the Brethren's communal life. Communal life, says John Pupper, requires an abandonment of love for possessions but not of the right to them. In the first period of Christianity, Pupper states, the Jerusalem Christians did indeed renounce their property, while the Christians of the pagan world retained theirs, but assisted the poor with their incomes. The vita communis has no value as a virtue, nor any significance for supernatural bliss, unless it proceeds from love. Pupper thus is not concerned with community as such, but with the spirit, with detachment from money. This may exist along with personal possessions, provided that the poor are helped.

In the second place reference is made to the nature of the priestly office which he exercised, i.e. the rectorship of a convent. Several fraters did indeed fulfil such functions, most of them, however, with Sisters of the Common Life. But the Sisters in Malines were not Sisters of the Common Life but Augustinesses and strict at that. Many seculars also acted as rector in such convents, and the Malines chapter gave them the preference. With this, then, I might be justified in regarding the matter of John Pupper in this book as closed. There is no reason for classifying him as a Devotionalist, and certainly not as a Brother, and his theories thus have no bearing upon the mentality of the Brothers or of the Devotionalists. He may have thought them out for himself, or have acquired them at one of the universities and from books lent by the university teachers. However, since his name is so closely linked with the Brothers, I am unwilling to dismiss this question so easily, all the more since he is an interesting personality himself.

It is not known whether John Pupper studied theology at a university. In all probability he did not hear those theories attributed to him at the university of Cologne around 1450. O. Clemen, however, quotes one fact which makes it seem likely that John Pupper of Goch studied in Paris. During the time when John Pupper was living in Malines, a rather violent dispute was in progress at the neighbouring university of Louvain, between the professors Henry of Someren and Peter van den Beeken. In describing this dispute John Pupper quoted the text of a letter whereby bishop Stephen of Paris condemned 219 theses on March 9th 1278. It appears however, that the text quoted by him differs on five points, besides the date, from the manuscripts known from the period before Pupper lived, whereas his text on these

same five points coincides with the original, as printed by d'Argentré: Man darf wohl aus diesem Indicien folgern - says Clemen - dass Goch seine Kenntnis von diesen Begebenkeiten aus einer quelle schöpfte, die auf den originalakten direckt zurückging, wenn er nicht diese gar selbst eingesehen hat. Dazu würde sich ihn bei einen studienafenthalt in Paris wohl Gelegenheit geboten haben.1 This may well be, although the question does arise of whether medieval archives were accessible to students. I prefer the theory that during the dispute, which also extended to Paris, between the supporters of the via antiqua and the via moderna, and which led in 1473 to a prohibition forbidding the teaching of the via moderna, a new publication of the 219 theses was distributed. Such a publication was important for the Nominalists, the supporters of the via moderna, on account of the condemnation of St. Thomas' theses. It was also grist to Pupper's mill, for his leanings towards Nominalism are evident from his expressed ideas.

We possess four works by John Pupper of Goch. Chief of these is De libertate religionis christianae, written after April 1473, but never completed. The missing parts, of which the author gives the titles in the introduction, may perhaps be replaced by the other works, the Fragmenta which might be considered as a preliminary study for the missing sections. De quatuor erroribus circa legem evangelicam exortis et de votis et religionibus factitiis dialogus, deals with the same subject as the missing section of the main work, and finally, Epistola apologetica, like the missing part IV, is a reply to a Dominican.2 The manner of their transmission arouses some suspicion, for these books have come to us through the Humanists and first supporters of the Reformation, Cornelius Grapheus and Nicolas of 's-Hertogenbosch, who were both active in Antwerp in the years 1521-1522. O. Clemen had already observed that the style of the Dialogus differs from that of the other three. It seems to me that this might be attributed to a revision by the 16th century Antwerp Humanists. It is difficult to decide whether or to what extent the content suffered from this revision. On one notunimportant point at least, the hand of the Humanists seems to me clearly revealed. In the Dialogus the canonica veritas on which the expositions of De libertate and De epistola are based has been replaced by evangelica veritas and in one place even by sola fons scripture canonice

(cuius auctoritas sola est infragabilis)1 in which the Lutheran scriptural principle is attributed to John Pupper. The canonica veritas, which occurs again and again in De libertate, contains the canonical scripture together with the pronouncement of the general church.2 Pupper recognizes the Bible as the source of faith, but it must be interpreted by tradition and the pronouncements of the Church. He rejects unconditionally the writings of the pagan philosophers. They are books, not of life, but of death, and lead to heresy, as appeared in 1277. Pupper also stresses freedom of will, which remains even when the will, fortified by grace, performs ‘good’ works. The merit, however, is caused (causatur) by the Holy Ghost in man and on the other hand is rooted in God's affection. For Pupper,3 therefore, Thomas Aquinas' doctrine on the merit of works is in conflict with canonical truth. In his opinion Thomas errs in assuming that the cooperation of man has any significance, since it is occasioned by grace; and also in thinking that the reward could be required ex debito institiae, that God could become man's debtor; that one good deed could have more value than another, and finally that any proportion exists between the deed and the reward.4 On the contrary, if a meritorious deed performed with the correct intention is to have its effect, it must be accepted by God.5 This idea approaches the acceptance theory of Duns Scotus and Ockham. Only in Christ are all the conditions for merit according to the canonica veritas fulfilled. He alone is free. He alone can exercise his rights. His act is accepted and the necessary proportion exists between his death and the heavenly reward.

Another extremely important question is the meaning of the monastic vow. In Pupper's view this is unknown in the Holy Scriptures and among the earliest Christian writers, and is in conflict with the evangelical law. For this is a law of freedom, having no place for compulsion or obligation; it is a law of love.6 He finds it Pelagian to say that the vow imparts a special, higher value to good deeds. This concept closely approaches Phariseeism.7

In my opinion this view of the votum cannot be equated with the decree of the Brethren's founder, nor with the Brothers' custom of not

taking any vows. They do not reject private vows and even consider it permissible to take a vow of obedience to the rector.1 However, they consider a vow superfluous. They think that religious life without a vow presupposes greater dedication, since the particular precepts of their religious life are constantly being performed voluntarily. The sacrifice of their life is greater than that of those who take a vow. Among the regular orders the complete giving and abandoning of self occurs only once in their life, whereas among the Brethren and Sisters it is perpetually recurring.

In the Dialogus John Pupper combats four errors with regard to the evangelical law: that the Mosaic law must still be observed; that all is permitted to those who believe; that no good works are required of these; and the modern Pelagianism of those who place too much reliance on their own natural powers with regard to justification and reward. They forget that there is something needed to bridge the great chasm between natural action and merited reward. This something is grace. Among these people Pupper includes the religious orders and notably the Observants who attach great value to ceremonies and often plead their own work. Among the Pelagians he includes Thomas Aquinas, with his views on the vow.2 Anyone hearing these ideas for the first time must regret that they only came to light in 1521-22, especially since they are supposed to have been written by a rector of Sisters who helped considerably in founding a Sisterhouse and in whose hands the Sisters made their vows.

 

In order to determine whether and to what extent this opinion must be considered as exclusive to the Brothers, it is important to know what Wessel Gansfort and Gabriel Biel thought of it. Accordingly it must first be established in how far they can be included among the Modern Devotionalists on the basis of personal relations. For Wessel Gansfort we can consult, not only his own principal works, but also modern studies about him.3 Wessel, born in 1419 in Groningen, where he died in 1489, had various contacts with the Devotionalists during his lifetime. The first of these was with the Brothers, during

his youth. He began his school career at one of the two parish schools in Groningen and was then sent to Zwolle, with the financial assistance of Oda Jargis. The date of this transfer is not certain. The year most usually quoted, 1432, is based on the one hand on his age, deduced from his date of birth - he had now attained the age of 13 - and on the other on the fact that the Brethren only returned to Zwolle from their exile in Doesburg in 1432. Both dates are uncertain, for the school in Zwolle will have continued to function even when the Brothers were in Doesburg. As regards the first calculation, it is not known at what age Wessel Gansfort commenced school, nor how far he got. It was usual for a city boy to start school at the age of nine, in the first Latin class, or at the eighth or seventh in the preparatory class. Wessel Gansfort's career, however, remains uncertain. Assuming that he began in the seventh class as a boy of nine, in 1428, and completed five classes, from the seventh to the third, which was normal, then he would have been 14 on finishing the third class and the transition probably took place in 1433. Although this is probable, two years earlier or later starting in Zwolle is of no particular importance. It seems likely, however, that Wessel went to Zwolle because the school there had the two top classes, second and first. These had already been introduced by John Cele at the beginning of the 15th century. Since he was not able to undertake all the teaching himself, he took on two supplementary teachers, one as head of the first class and the other for the second. These were incidentally Cele's only teaching assistants. Pupils of the first class (primarii de primo loco)1 taught in the other six classes. This situation was probably unchanged when Wessel arrived. Jacobus Traiecti, alias de Voecht, says clearly in his Narratio de Inchoatione domus clericorum in Zwollis2 that: Wesselus, qui cum prius fuisset primarius vel secundarius Zwollensis etc., gave lessons. It may probably be deduced from this that Wessel went to Zwolle to complete the two top classes, and perhaps only for this. He lived in Zwolle in the parva domo, the house of the poor schoolboys, also called domus vicina and domus pauperum, and situated next to the domus divitum in the Begijnenstraat.3 He dressed in habitu nostro, the grey calf-length woollen robe with openings for the head, arms and legs, and a black cap. This was the customary dress of such hostel dwellers and was adopted by the inmates of the Brethren's hostel in Deventer and in that founded

by Nicolas of Cusa.1 After completing the highest (first) class, Wessel's extraordinary zeal and application led to his appointment as lector tertianorum, teacher of the third class.2 Everything continued thus as in the time of John Cele. There was probably an ‘ambulant’ rector and two qualified teachers, each at the head of one of the top classes. The fact that Wessel was given charge of the next highest class is proof of the esteem in which he was held. Our next question then will be what did he learn and what did he teach? On the basis of statements by John Busch, who wished to go to the university from the top class and had meanwhile taught in the lower classes, we must assume that the subjects taught in the two top classes diverged somewhat from the ordinary school curriculum. Busch speaks once of philosophy and once of ethics and philosophy. This was thus the matter of a university Arts faculty, all that remained of the former quadrivium.3 The material for the third class was nothing but Latin and dialectic (logic) from Petrus Hispanus. Having thus completed his school course, as a boy of 15 or 16, Wessel Gansfort must have known rather more of philosophy than the pupils who stopped their studies after the tertia, as indeed most of them did. He continued to teach for fifteen years and in that time had plenty of opportunity for practising his Latin, and perhaps too for enlarging and deepening his dialectical knowledge when expounding Petrus Hispanus' book. The chronicler narrates further that Wessel went with the other boys from the domus parva to the collation given by the procurator of the Brotherhouse, Rutger of Doetinchem, as the least of them, but that he asked questions as for the oldest (et faciebat ibidem examen pro majoribus).4 He was extremely devout and zealous and assisted the procurator Rutger in the evenings when he held his pious discourses for the boys. This collaboration incited the youth to virtue and the combat of vice. It also appears that this Rutger was not yet a Brother at this time; he was only admitted later. There is one rather charming snippet of information. John of Cologne, who had been an excellent painter and goldsmith during his career in the world, came to Zwolle to ask the advice of Dirk of Herxen and to find out how he should serve God.

He too was admitted to the ‘little house’ and was given a room next door to Wessel's so that they could converse with each other through a window pierced in the wall. Wessel imparted his learning to John, but John, who was completely zealous for God, taught Wessel fear of and love for God. There were evidently a couple of guest rooms in this small house for schoolboys, for Wessel remained here long after he had completed his studies, perhaps even until he transferred to Cologne in 1449, at about the age of thirty. It is extraordinary that the chronicler suggests that Wessel acquired his fear and love of God from the devout layman and not from the Brothers. His participation in the Brothers' collations, however, indicates that the Brethren did influence him. His ‘scientia’, however, his knowledge of Latin and philosophy, he owes, not to the Brothers, but to the school and his own studies. In 1449 he left Zwolle in order to enter the university. He was enrolled in the Arts Faculty of Cologne in 1450. From then on his studies progressed rapidly: he was baccalaureus artium on Dec. 1st 1450 and probably magister artium by March 1452. The fact that he commenced his studies in Cologne, the ‘bulwark of Realism’, proves that he left Zwolle as a Realist and wished to pursue his studies in the same direction. He was still a convinced Realist when he quitted the studium generale of the city on the Rhine, and also after a short sojourn in Louvain and Paris, and he was still a Realist when he taught in the Arts faculty in Cologne and in Heidelberg (1455-1458). In Paris he subsequently went over to the Nominalists, around 1459-60, as a result of discussions held with the Nominalists in order to gain them for his opinion. He remained in Paris for about 15 years, circulating constantly in university milieus, and enjoyed a very good reputation there as a scholar. He was witness there of the violent dispute between Realists and Nominalists in 1470, and made the journey to Rome in 1471, since he had had some acquaintance with Pope Sixtus before his election. He was back in Paris in 1473 when the king forbade the Nominalists to teach their theories, which again led to considerable conflict, and returned to Rome in 1474. Both these Roman journeys may have been connected with the dispute in Paris. He himself, or his party, may have thought that he would be in a position to do something for the Nominalists on account of his former acquaintance with pope Sixtus. It is not necessary to examine here what doctrine the Nominalists actually held. It is sufficient to make it clear that only after leaving Zwolle did Wessel enter academic circles in Cologne, Louvain, Heidelberg and Paris, and that he acquired his theological ideas there,

and not at the school in Zwolle, and still less with the Zwolle Brothers. After the Rome trip of about 1475-76, he returned to the Netherlands a famous man, magister contradictionum, renowned as a physician, theologian and Humanist. He was known as a man of liberal opinions so that he was held to be in danger from the inquisition. He was protected by bishop David of Burgundy who obtained medical advice from him. From our point of view it is important to know that he stayed for some time in Zwolle during this period. He was in Zwolle when the rector of the Brotherhouse, Albert of Kalkar, lay on his death-bed, too ill to attend the colloquium (he died soon afterwards, in 1482) and he at once offered his medical services, which Albert, however, declined.1 Wessel was thus aware of the rector's illness but it is not known if he had particular contacts with the Brothers. He was in contact though with the Canons Regular of the St. Agnietenberg,2 but spent most of his time in Groningen. He lodged in the convent of the Poor Clares, from whence he paid frequent visits to the monastery of Aduard.3 At the Agnietenberg he will have met John Mombaer who wrote the so-called scala meditatoria about 1485 in his Rosetum, for which he had recourse to Gansfort's work: Tractatus de cohibendis cogitationibus et de modo constituendarum meditationum. The visit to St. Agnietenberg, the writing of this book and its dedication to the Brothers of the St. Agnietenberg, all prove that Wessel Gansfort in his old age still valued the devotion which he had acquired from the Brothers in his youth, and wrote some works in this trend. Wessel, however, was never actually a member of the Brethren. In Zwolle he only lived in one of the Brothers' hostels, not in a Brotherhouse. It is clear, moreover, that apart from his interest in the devotion he did not acquire his ‘singular’ ideas - to use his own words - from the Brothers. It is thus not possible to equate the ideas held by the Brothers with the concepts proclaimed by Wessel Gansfort. We should therefore be able to confine ourselves to the pious works of Wessel Gansfort,4 quite simply omitting the theological writings, were it not that similarity to, or divergence from, the works of John Pupper and Gabriel Biel may nonetheless throw some light upon the question embarked upon here.

The ascetic works, and those intended to assist in meditation and pious reflection, form by far and away the greatest portion of Wessel Gansfort's oeuvre. The titles of these works already to some extent reveal the purpose for which they were written: De oratione et modo orandi cum lucalentissima Dominicae orationis explanatione.1 Tractatus de cohibendis cogitationibus et de modo constituendarum meditationum, with three examples.2 De causis incarnationis, De magnitudine et amaritudine Dominicae passionis libri duo.3 De sacramento Eucharistiae et audienda missa.4 The number of pages given in the notes, and the extremely compressed 17th century edition, already indicate the considerable extent of these works. Compared with them, the theological works collected in the Farrago Theologicorum are small treatises of 25 to 40 pages, while the extant letters comprise another 68 pages.

Although the first four titles given here consist chiefly of pious reflections and will thus be discussed in more detail when we are dealing with Wessel's spirituality,5 it is evident that they also express some of Wessel's theological concepts. This is especially true of the last mentioned on the Sacrament of the Eucharist and the hearing of Mass.

The theological works included in the Farrago lend themselves better to a description of Wessel's personal ideas and to a comparison of these with views held by Gabriel Biel and John Pupper.

They are: De benignissima Dei providentia.6 De causis, mysteriis et effectibus Dominicae incarnationis et passionis.7 De dignitate et potestate ecclesiastica de vera et recta obedientia, et quantum obligent subditos mandata et statuta praelatorum.8 De sacramento poenitentia et quae sunt claves ecclesiae; De potestate ligandi et solvendi.9 Quae sit vera communio sanctorum, De thesauro

ecclesiae, De participatione et dispensatione huius thesauri, De fraternitatibus.1 De purgatorio, Quis et qualis sit ignis purgatorius, De statu et profectu animarum post hanc vitam2 Epistolae.3

Even the most cursory comparison of these titles will show that Wessel Gansfort deals with many more subjects than John Pupper. Wessel also differs from Pupper in quoting texts from Proclus and Plato in the very beginning of the first work on the divine providence. Pupper refused to cite the pagan writers as testimony in such questions.

There was also a great gulf between Wessel and Pupper's ideas on the sources of revelation. Whereas Pupper, as we saw, clung to the canonica veritas, whereby the Church fulfils an important task, Wessel here rejects the role of the Church. Pupper recognized one rule: the conjunction of Bible and tradition and whatever could be deduced therefrom with common accord as a necessary consequence. Wessel too will have to concede some cooperation on the Church's part in this latter. Instead of the one rule we might also speak of three sources: 1. Holy Scripture; 2. Oral Tradition; 3. The interpretation of both.4

There is not, however, a great deal of difference between what Pupper writes on freedom and God as Prime Cause, and Wessel's exposition on divine providence. Both retain freedom of the will and even laud it as a gift of Christ, but recognize God's operation in creation, in the whole of nature and in man's actions, both good and bad, to such an extent as virtually to nullify the contribution of the so-called second causes. They are reduced to occasions for God to work. The fire of the Babylonian furnace did not really burn the Chaldean, any more than it refreshed the three young men. God operated on both occasions.5 As we saw, Pupper applies this theory to man's cooperation in the matter of attaining justification and gaining heaven as a reward, and denies any meritorious collaboration on the part of man. Man indeed cooperates, but impelled by grace; in fact God does all. The human act is merely the occasion by which God works. Wessel does not go so far, although on the basis of this

principle he denies that the sacraments have any causality to acquiring grace; sacraments can only be occasions which God pours grace into the soul.1 He does, however, recognize the merit of man's good works.2 Unlike Pupper, who denied that the vow played any part in the increase of virtue, and considered it to be contrary to the Gospel, Wessel recognized the significance of a vow, including that of celibacy (votum virginitatis).3

Despite these points of difference both John Pupper and Wessel Gansfort belonged to the same theological school which gained much support in the 14th and 15th centuries. It was based on the teachings of Scotus and Ockham, is sometimes called the Nominalist school, but is mostly known as that of the via moderna, the new way. Not only in logic and epistemology did they hold different theories from their opponents the Realists, but also on various points of theology. This is already evident from the fact that the two groups sometimes denounced each other as heretics, as when King Louis XI forbade the teaching of the via moderna in Paris in 1473. Wessel Gansfort's allegiance to this party appears not only from his transfer from one to the other in 1460, but also from repeated testimony in a letter to deacon James Hoeck of Naaldwijk.4

John Pupper reveals his preference for the new way by eliminating pagan philosophy as an authoritative factor in the practice of theology. He is also very opposed to St. Thomas and the Thomists who retain the old way, and continually accuses them of Pelagian ideas. Furthermore in the story of the conflict between the Louvain professors Henry of Zomeren and Peter van den Beeken, he unhesitatingly chooses the side of the Nominalist Henry of Zomeren.5 In this conflict he shows solidarity with Wessel Gansfort who followed the struggle at the University of Paris, where the supporters of the new way chose the part of Henry of Zomeren who was a personal friend of Wessel.

This partizanship, however, did not prevent John Pupper from holding a theory of grace, merit and the value of the human act for justification and for the gaining of the heavenly reward, which diverged from that of Ockham and most of the supporters of the via moderna. He does not, it is true, deny the cooperation of man, but this

is not taken into account in the determining of justification and reward. Although differing from Ockham in this he again approaches Ockham's school by his reference to God's free will to accept or reject a human act performed in a state of grace. Gansfort does not follow him in this.

Wessel also differs completely from Pupper in the last three works included in the Farrago. In the first place he considers Church dignity and power to be extremely relative. The authority of the pope and the bishops is also slight, even on the point of doctrine and whether or not they are united in council. The individual, in fact the simplest of the faithful, need only accept the decisions of the pope if these correspond with Holy Scripture; the final decision rests with the individual. The obligation on a member of the Church to obey the orders and statutes of pope or bishops is not absolute.1 He must decide for himself whether or not they are justified. This theory does not correspond with John Pupper's line of thought. Pupper states clearly that he does not wish to go counter to the Church's ruling, even in the matter of monastic vows, although he considers the taking of a vow to be contrary to evangelical freedom.2

Of the Sacraments Wessel deals extensively with the Eucharist, not so much in the Farrago but in the separate work: De sacramento Eucharistiae. This work includes some extremely devout stimulants and assumes the real presence of Christ, but he considers such piety, such a lively faith and such a vivid representation of Christ's passion necessary for the reception of the fruit of the Holy Sacrament, that the spiritual communion does not differ greatly from the sacramental, and the spiritual communion is just as fruitful for the faithful as the sacramental consumption of Christ's body.3

Wessel's treatise on confession is included in the Farrago. By Christ's giving of the keys he understands the same as the conferring of the Holy Ghost and of love through the Holy Ghost. This is given to all. Confession is not absolutely necessary and need only be done if it can be done with ease. The priest cannot judge and cannot grant forgiveness.4 Sin, moreover, is forgiven by the ‘contritio’ which usually precedes confession. Since then absolution has no effect and

satisfaction is only the perfect life in God, little remains in Gansfort of the Sacrament of confession.1

The treatise, ‘What is understood by the communion of saints,’ is of great importance for Wessel's view of the church. All saints are in communion with each other through a true and real union, so many as are joined to Christ by one faith, one hope, one love. It makes no difference under which prelate they stand, however ambitiously these may fight and differ from each other or embrace error or be heretics. Nor does it matter by what distance of place or time they are separated. This is the communion of which it is said in the symbolum: ‘I believe in the communion of saints.’ The unity of the church under the pope is a purely incidental matter.2 Perhaps he does not go so far as Wyclif who draws an unsurmountable barrier between the visible and the invisible church. The pope becomes an obstacle in attaining to Christ. He is the devil's vicar, the anti-Christ. Wessel too gave this name to those prelates who gave scandal.3 It is no wonder that Wessel, in the same treatise, discusses the meaning of the treasure of the church (thesaurus ecclesiae). The treasure of the church is the love of Christ; to share in it is synonymous with ‘possessing the love of Christ.’ Similarly, to be a member of the invisible church means to be a sharer in the treasure, while the communion of saints has a similar meaning. It follows from this that the Church has no right to dispose of this treasure. The most she can do is arouse love by preaching. Excommunication is impossible and even to attempt it is already sin.4 This also removes the basis for indulgences. In a letter to deacon James Hoeck, Wessel challenges the latter's ecclesiastical view on this point, expressly citing the opinions of the Nominalists.5 Wessel continues to recognize the existence of purgatory, although the fire there in his opinion is not punitive but purifying.6 It is, for the rest, not a material fire, for this has no effect of itself; it is the ardent desire for God.7

The opinions of Wessel and John Pupper thus differ considerably, although they both considered themselves Nominalists, supporters of the via moderna. Gansfort deals with many more points than Pupper and gives his personal opinion. The divergent views of these persons

should already be sufficient to prevent us from simply attributing those of their opinions which differ from Church doctrine to the Brethren or to the Modern Devotionalists. We have already established, moreover, that Pupper did not belong to the Modern Devotionalists, and Gansfort not in the strict sense. It is certain that he acquired his theological opinions elsewhere, and most probably in Paris after 1460, where Gallicanism and Nominalism had adopted an anti-papal character. Their views bear no resemblance to what we know of the Brothers, whose theological knowledge was very slight and whose life diverged completely from Gansfort's theories on the Eucharist, confession and indulgences.

 

The third theologian who was associated with the Modern Devotion, and notably with the Brethren of the Common Life, or is at least brought in connection with them, is Gabriel Biel. Biel was born in the village of Biel near Speier, but the date of his birth is unknown. It is usually thought to be the first quarter of the fifteenth century, taking into account his ordination and the commencement of his academic studies in Heidelberg in 1432.1 Here he took his degrees in the Faculty of Arts, being made Bachelor on July 21st 1435 and Master on 21st March 1438.2 ‘He remained at the University of Heidelberg for at least three subsequently years, and, served as an instructor in the faculty of arts.’ As was customary he probably studied theology at the same time. At this period the University of Heidelberg was entirely Nominalistic in its outlook. We do not know how long he stayed in Heidelberg, but he is on record as having attended the university of Erfurt in 1442 and 1443 and again in 1451, and he was in Cologne in 1453.3 It is almost certain that he will have continued his theological studies at these universities, but there is no indication of where and when he took his degrees. That he did so is evident from a papal document dated 3rd December 1374, in which he is called licentiatus in theology. It is interesting to remember that at this time the theology course normally took eleven to twelve years. Meanwhile it is certain that the via moderna determined Biel's course, although

in Cologne at least he had had the opportunity of hearing professors of the via antiqua.1 This explains his later knowledge of both systems. Having completed his academic studies, he became cathedral preacher in Mainz, where he continued to work until joining the Brethren of the Common Life in Marienthal (± 1364/65). As we have already explained, this was a rather special kind of Brotherhouse. It was a chapter of which the canons had adopted the communal life, and as such will have sought contact with the Brotherhouse in Cologne. We have seen that at this period the development from Brotherhouse to chapter, recommended by the pope, had not yet made much progress. From now on, however, the tempo increased. Hildesheim took the plunge in 1463, followed in 1469 by several Dutch houses. In 1470 it was the turn of Münster, Cologne and Wesel. What happened in Marienthal therefore, followed by the houses with which Gabriel Biel was associated, was not so exceptional as one might at first think.

In 1468 Biel transferred to Butzbach, where he became the first prior of the chapter of the Church of St. Mark, of which the canons had adopted the communal life. He continued in this office until 1479, and in 1477 played a major part in transforming the chapter of Urach into a Brotherhouse. This initiative was followed, first in Württemberg and soon by others. In 1479 he succeeded the first provost of Urach, became a professor in Tübingen in 1484, and acted as rector there in 1485 and 1489, while still retaining his function in Urach, to which he retired on leaving the university in 1489. His influence gained the theological faculty of Tübingen for the supporters of Ockhamism or the via moderna, whereas the majority had formerly oscillated between the two trends. After 1489 he acted as provost to the peculiar foundation of Einsiedel, already described, until his death on December 7th 1495.2

Two facts have importance for us, the first being the possibility of a meeting between Wessel Gansfort and Gabriel Biel in Cologne in 1453. If this meeting did take place, it must be remembered that Biel had already completed a long course in theology, whereas the young Wessel was only beginning. Secondly, when Gabriel Biel adopted the common life as a canon, defended and applied it, he was already a fully trained scholarly theologian and a preacher of some experience. He thus owed nothing of his training and development to the Breth-

ren. They, however, - not the Dutch Brothers but the canons of Marienthal, Butzbach, Urach, Schönbuch and Sindelfingen - were greatly indebted to him. Those in contact with him adopted certain of his ideas, probably the devotion in particular. Some also absorbed his theological views, for instance Wendelin Steinbach, his successor as provost of Schönbuch and Professor of Tübingen, who later published Biel's works.1

Biel's theological opinions have been analysed in all their aspects by H.A. Oberman, to whose studies I must refer here. We are merely concerned with Biel's opinion on those points which were also dealt with by John Pupper and Wessel Gansfort, since these are considered as theological representatives of the Modern Devotion.

In the first place Biel's theory on the devotion agrees with what we know from the writings of Florens Radewijns, Gerard Zerbolt and others, but Oberman points out that in the various studies - commencement, progress, perfection or purification, illumination or union - the devout man must, according to the Ockhamist principle, do what he can; facere quod in se est.2 Like Pupper, Biel criticizes the presumptuous legalism which found expression in a niggling observance of the rules and in the many self-gratifying prayers. On this point it is noteworthy that he makes a distinction between the first and second generation of Devotionalists; the latter lay more emphasis on the formal side. Biel esteems the creation, perceives dangers in self-humiliation and still considers inner piety to be of greater decisive value than outward observance.3 He will have learned by experience just how far it was possible to carry this out with canons living in community and without personal possessions. He further retains the lectio, meditatio and oratio which with him culminate in contritio and not in contemplatio. This contritio renders the sinner fit for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.4 At this point Biel is preaching a strongly anti-Pelagian doctrine of unmerited love5 and is approaching the concept we have already discerned in Pupper, notably regarding the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which is the habitus of man and the basis of the supernatural act. Biel, however, also shares with Pupper the acceptance theory6 and the value of the right intention. In the matter of the sources of faith Biel,7 who accepts tradition as well as the

scriptures as a religious doctrine, approaches Pupper with his veritas canonica.1

This, however, is the full extent of their agreement. Not only did Biel pay little attention to the votum which forms one of the two main subjects of Pupper's oeuvre, but in the process of reward he repeatedly stresses the value of human actions for justification and for gaining heaven. In this he goes considerably further than the opinion of St. Thomas on merits. If Pupper reproached St. Thomas with Pelagianism, how much more from his point of view does Biel deserve this accusation of heresy on the basis of the latter's doctrine of justification. Man must always do his very best and have the intention of confessing as soon as possible.2 Biel is of the opinion that man, of his own powers, can love God above all things.3 He cannot earn the first grace de condigno through an act of love performed with natural powers, but he can merit it de congruo. Meritum de condigno is also possible if the deed is performed in a state of sanctifying grace and is accepted by God.4 Doing his utmost in these circumstances entitles him to heaven. God is obliged to grant it by virtue of the order once chosen and regulated by himself. ‘It is therefore evident,’ says Oberman, ‘that Biel's doctrine of justification is essentially Pelagian.’5

Let this suffice here to show that Biel and Pupper - although they undoubtedly belonged to the same school or trend, the via moderna - differ so greatly on important points that they cannot serve to characterize the doctrine of the Brothers. There is the additional fact that Pupper was a secular and that Biel only came into contact with the Brothers after his theological views had already been formed. Compared with Biel, who discusses almost the entire field of theology, Wessel Gansfort concentrates on certain extremely topical questions of the time. Wessel, however, also expresses an opinion on the sources of the faith and it has been thought that, unlike Biel, he supports Wyclif in rejecting the extra-Biblical oral tradition (which Oberman calls Traditio II).6 It is true that Wessel usually relies on the scriptures alone, but in a letter to James Hoeck he recognizes the lawful existence of an unwritten tradition, handed down by the Apostles.7 The concept of the absolute power of God plays a much greater role in Biel than in Wessel, but although the latter does not employ the term, the con-

cept itself is revealed in the introduction to the Providentia divina.1 Neither has any high opinion of the causality of the so-called second causes, but Wessel expresses his opinion more clearly.2

However, much that is characteristic for Wessel, is missing in Biel, including contempt for the Church's dignity and authority, minimizing of its value and extent and of the corresponding duty of the members of the Church. He does not deny either the efficacy of confession, or indeed consider superfluous the absolution of the priest for anyone who feels contrition. He holds different views on the independent existence of the spiritual church, on the rejection of the thesaurus, on excommunication and indulgences, and has a completely different concept of purgatory.

These are all personal ideas of Wessel's which were not necessarily held by the school of Nominalists. He probably acquired them, however, in Paris, for the most part, among the Gallicans and the extreme Nominalists. It is precisely their divergence from those of Biel, who at the time of Gansfort's productivity was a Brother-canon of the Common Life, which shows that they were not common to all Devotionalists or all Brothers. Biel admittedly was an extraordinary member of the fraternity; never before had the Brethren numbered a professor among their members, nor even a doctor.

 

To a certain extent Frederik of Heilo3 may also be considered as a writer of the Modern Devotion, although he was not in the same class as the previous writers. He was probably a secular priest and subsequently rector of Sisters in Warmond, Leiden and Beverwyk. Having occupied this function for some time he was admitted as Donatus to the monastery of Canons Regular of the Visitation, near Haarlem, which was a member of the Windesheim congregation. The transfer to this particular form of monastic life probably took place in later life, around 1445. Only the convent at Beverwyk directed by Frederik of Heilo had any connection with Windesheim. It was founded in 1431 on the instigation of J. Busch, who with his fellow Brothers was responsible during the first few years for the Sisters' pastoral care from the nearby Windesheim monastery of Sion. The chapter of Windesheim eventually put an end to this and the Sisters then chose Frederik of Heilo as rector and pastor. He fulfilled this task for some time, but

was at length impelled by scruples to relinquish it and to end his life as a Donatus preoccupied with his own salvation. He gives his motives for relinquishing his rectorate in his treatise Apologia super resignatione regiminis sororum,1 one of the six works to survive of the nineteen attributed to him. If this work may be dated around 1445, then the next year: Epistola contra pluralitatem confessorum et de regimine sororum,2 a letter to a priest who had been appointed rector of Sisters,3 must have been written before that year, and probably also the Letter to the prior of the Regular monastery at Amsterdam, who had obtained the enclosure in 1443.4 When Frederik was already a Donatus, after 1445, he wrote the Tractatus de peregrinatione sive contra peregrinantes5 in which he expressly mentions that cardinal Nicolas of Cusa was appointed papal legate for the German Empire in order to proclaim the jubilee indulgence. This, therefore, cannot have been written earlier than 1451.6 He was also the author of the Liber de fundatione domus regularium prope Haarlem,7 of which the fragments preserved cannot have been set down before 1452. Among other things they contain a good historical account of the visit of the cardinal in question to Holland, and of his efforts to introduce a strict observance in the Benedictine monasteries and convents. He also mentions the cardinal's preference for the Windesheim observance.

Although this collection of works may faithfully reflect the ideas of Frederik of Heilo, it is not necessarily characteristic of the Modern Devotion. The closest approach is found in the Letter to the prior and the Rule of the Monks,8 probably written during the last years of Frederik's life, since they insist on the inner devotion which might suffer if the prior undertakes too much work outside the monastery. The Rule of the Monks presents the ideal of the monastic life: to live for Christ, to keep the passions in check, to fulfil the duties of love, voluntarily and not from fear of punishment.9 Three of the first writings refer to the pastoral work which Frederik carried out. He advocates a strict spiritual direction for the Sisters, given by one

person who can impose his will on them without competition from another confessor. This was the only way to prevent dissension in the Sisterhouse, but he forgets that he is hereby severely curtailing the Sisters' freedom of conscience. He has no high opinion of the Sisters, who are prey to all kinds of sensual inclinations. It was this which made the rectorship an extremely responsible, difficult and dangerous function. Here we have the real reason why Frederik relinquished it.

The Treatise on pilgrimages and against pilgrims shows the author to be a moderate man who does not reject pilgrimages out of hand.1 To his mind they were unnecessary for the monastic and not the best way for others to obtain forgiveness of sins. The indulgences to be gained on pilgrimage are counterbalanced by the dangers of the journey and the company. Contempt for the world is more commendable and safer. In this connection he touches upon the then topical question of indulgences. He does not wish to belittle them, but only to inform the reader of their real meaning and use. The faithful may gain the indulgence offered by fulfilling four conditions: the indulgence must be given by a competent authority and from a reasonable motive; the person wishing to gain the indulgence must be in a state of grace and perform the prescribed act with the right intention.2 A pilgrimage undertaken for love of spiritual progress may be useful, but not if it is made in order to escape from one's normal tasks.

These are by no means dogmatic writings, and the important questions of the day are scarcely touched upon. Frederik thus is not on the same level as Gansfort, Pupper or Biel. He subscribes to the generally accepted doctrines and may be reckoned among the Devotionalists, not only on the grounds of his function and relations, but also in view of his exhortation to inner piety and his esteem for the Windesheim observance which Nicolas of Cusa so strongly recommended to other monasteries.


Vorige Volgende

Over dit hoofdstuk/artikel

auteurs