LAUSR

Here, “Luther addressed Bucer in a rather unpleasant way; ‘You are a good for nothing,’ ‘Tu es nequam.’ And at the end: ‘You have a different spirit.’ Luther regarded Bucer as a changeable, perhaps well-meaning but unreliable follower of Zwingli and Karlstadt, a spiritualist, idealist, a political operator, supporting a non-existent and impossible unity: Your Spirit and ours do not agree with each other!” (227). But, for his part, Bucer called Luther “a specially glorious instrument of God” (236). Bucer persisted in seeking ways the reforming movements—including Anabaptism (see 395–96)—could work toward more unified understandings. A particular value of this book is the number of essays on the relationship between Bucer and Calvin. Their friendship was grounded theologically: “The communion that existed between Bucer and Calvin was based on their shared communion cum Christo” (155). After Calvin’s sojourn in Strasbourg with Bucer (1538–41), a growing “mutual influence” (164) can be discerned through a number of topics in Calvin’s developing theology. These are tracked in the essays “Prädestination bei Bucer und Calvin: Ihr gegenseitige Beeinflussung und Abhängigkeit,” “Die Lehre vom Heiligen Geist bei Bucer und Calvin,” “Bucer und Calvin,” “Bucer’s Influence on Calvin: Church and Community,” by van ‘t Spijker, and de Kroon’s, “Bucer und Calvin: Das Obrigkeitsverständnis beider Reformatoren nach ihrer Auslegung von Romer 13.” This splendid volume serves as an outline of Bucer’s theology and ethics as well as his relationships with other Reformers and reforming developments. “Behind his theology,” says van ‘t Spijker, “true devotion, piety is the keyword” (316). Despite failures to bring reforming movements together in a stronger unity, Bucer persisted with his “ecumenical and irenic activities” (317). These expressed what was deepest in the Reformer: “For only the Christian life is a happy and blessed life” (165).