BV
32+4
.HT
With compliments of the mur
Alvert Styma


HOEN'S LETTER ON THE EUCHARIST
A. HYMA
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
3 9015 01091 9663
Reprinted from
The Princeton Theological Review, Vol. XXIV, No. 1, January, 1926
:


*
t
T
;
1
HOEN'S LETTER ON THE EUCHARIST
A. HYMA
Reprinted from
The Princeton Theological Review, Vol. XXIV, No. 1, January, 1926
NOTES AND NOTICES
HOEN'S LETTER ON THE EUCHARIST AND ITS INFLUENCE
UPON CARLSTADT, BUCER AND ZWINGLI
Cornelius Hoen, or Honius, the author of the widely discussed
Epistola Christiana tractans Coenam Dominicam, was a lawyer
at the Court of Holland in The Hague till the year 1523. Eras-
mus called him "vir optimus." He studied the works of a Dutch
humanist, named Wessel Gansfort, who had written a treatise
on the Holy Supper. He was so much impressed by this treatise
that he arrived at an entirely new view on the sacrament. It
seemed to him that Gansfort had deviated considerably from
the generally accepted view of transubstantiation. For Gansfort
had written such statements as this:
3
2
Necessarily it must be admitted that when he says, “Except ye eat the
flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood," we are to understand that
it is an inward eating and drinking, that is, of the inner man. He who
thus eats already has the benefit of the outward sacramental eating. To
eat, therefore, is to remember, to esteem, to love.4
Hoen also appears to have been greatly influenced by Luther.
It was probably in the year 1520 that he composed a short
treatise on the Sacrament of Communion, in which he seems to
betray an acquaintance with some of Luther's works." His ad-
miration for Luther undoubtedly impelled him to seek the great
Reformer's advice on the sacrament in question. He finally de-
cided to send his treatise or letter to Wittenberg, where Luther
was residing in 1520 and in the months of January to April,
1 P. S. Allen, Opus epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterodami, vol. V,
Oxford, 1924, pp. 276-277: "Cornelius Hoen, vir optimus, ut audio, fuerat
restitutus per aulam." Allen indicates that Hoen was a good friend of
Erasmus.
2 The best work on this humanist is M. Van Rhijn, Wessel Gansfort,
The Hague, 1917. An excellent translation of Gansfort's most important
works is found in: E. W. Miller and J. W. Scudder, Wessel Gansfort,
New York, 1917. His name originally was Goesevoyrd, but it never was
John Wessel, nor was he a doctor.
3 The title of this treatise is: De Sacramento eucharistiae.
4 From E. W. Miller and J. W. Scudder, Wessel Gansfort, vol. II, pp.
28-30.
5 E. L. Enders, Dr. Martin Luther's Briefwechsel, vol. III, Coln and
Stuttgart, 1889, p. 424.
Le
LL
7-19-192
125
1521. We have two sources which seem to prove that the letter
was sent in 1521. One of the two is the Life of Wessel Gansfort
by Albert Hardenberg, which is in itself, however, by no means
a reliable source. Here we read that Hinne Rode, rector of the
school conducted by the Brethren of the Common Life at
Utrecht,-the school where Hoen himself had been taught—
visited Luther in person and presented the letter to him, to-
gether with some of Gansfort's writings. Luther was greatly
pleased with the latter, but condemned Hoen's treatise.
This part of Hardenberg's account is very probably correct,
for although the whole of it has been rejected by several author-
ities in Germany, we have a second source which clearly cor-
roborates the first part. This source is the title-page of the first
printed edition of Hoen's letter, written by Zwingli, who edited
the letter in 1525, and had it published at Zurich in the same
year. It reads as follows:
NOTES AND NOTICES
EPISTOLA CHRISTI-
ANA ADMODUM AB ANNIS QUATU-
OR AD QUENDA (M), APUD QUEM OMNE
IUDICIUM SACRAE SCRIPTURAE FUIT,
EX BATHAVIS MISSA, SED SPRETA, LO(N)-
GE ALITER TRACTANS COENAM DOMI-
NICAM Q(UAM) HACTENUS TRACTATA EST,
AD CALCE(M) QUIBUSDAM ADIECTIS
CHRISTIANO HOMINI PERNE-
CESSARIIS PRESERTIM HIIS
PERICULOSIS TEMPO-
RIBUS.
I. CORINTHI(UM) XI:
NON POTESTIS COENAM DOMINI-
CAM MA(N)DUCARE QUOD UNUSQUISQ(UE)
PROPRIA (M) COENAM OCCUPAT IN
EDENDO.
.M.D. XXV.
This first edition of Hoen's letter is so rare that neither H.
Barge nor O. Clemen, nor any of the Dutch authorities make
mention of it till 1917. Professor A. Eekhof of Leyden dis-
covered what appears to be the only extant copy, in the Royal
Library at Berlin, and published it in facsimile. He shows
• M. Van Rhijn, Wessel Gansfort, pp., xii-xiii.
This library is now called Preussische Staatsbibliothek.
8 A. Eekhof, De Avondmaalsbrief van Cornelius Hoen (1525), The
Hague (Martinus Nijhoff), 1917.
ܕ܂
126
THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
that the "eminent theologian" to whom Hoen's letter was sent,
and who contemptuously rejected it (the word "spreta" means
"spurned"), was Luther."
Moreover, Luther undoubtedly read those works of Gansfort
which according to Hardenberg were brought to Wittenberg
by Rode. When in 1522 they appeared in print at Basel, they
were provided with a letter of recommendation by Luther,
where we find this astonishing and much debated statement:
"If I had read his works earlier, my enemies might think that
Luther had absorbed everything from Wessel: his spirit is so
in accord with mine."10 Luther's own words, therefore, corrob-
orate part of Hardenberg's account.
12
It is not surprising, however, that scholars have hesitated to
accept any part of Hardenberg's biography. Clemen wrote in
1907: "I cannot consider it any more as a historical source."11
Hence the skeptical attitude adopted in Germany and also in
this country by writers who mention Gansfort and Hoen. H.
Eells wrote as late as the year 1925 that Bucer derived his view
on the eucharist from Carlstadt, and not from Hoen and Rode.¹
Now it is true that Bucer himself said: "When the writings
of Carlstadt appeared, I was forced to make an investigation.
What appears evident to me is, that as in baptism plain
water, so also in the supper, plain bread, was used." Bucer
went even farther than that when in 1530 he wrote to Zwingli :
"Carlstadt was the first to attack the erroneous view of Christ's
physical presence in the eucharist.”14
Nevertheless we know that Hoen's letter was sent to Luther
› A. Eekhof, I. c., p. xv.
10 From E. W. Miller and J. W. Scudder, Wessel Gansfort, vol. I, p.
232.
11 O. Clemen, Vorwort zu Wesseli epistolae 1522, in: D. Martin
Luthers Werke, Weimar edition, vol. X, Weimar, 1907, p. 315, note 1:
"Jetzt aber möchte ich sie überhaupt nicht mehr als Geschichtsquelle
gelten lassen."
12 See: The Methodist Review, March-April, 1925, p. 325.
13 Quoted in: H. Eells, The Attitude of Martin Bucer toward the
Bigamy of Philip of Hesse, New Haven, Conn., 1924, p. 13.
14 "[Karlstadt] primus . . errorem illum circa eucharistiam ex-
pugnare adortus est." Quoted from: Corpus Reformatorum, vol. XC,
Leipzig, 1914, P. 323.
127
in the year 1521, that is, one year before Carlstadt began to
teach the new view on the Sacrament of Communion. It was
not Carlstadt, therefore, who "was the first to attack the doc-
trine of Christ's physical presence in the eucharist." Zwingli
knew better than that, for not only did he publish Hoen's
letter in 1525, but in 1527 he wrote to Luther: "God sent us
Hoen's letter, with which you are of course familiar.'
"'15 In the
same year he made the following statement in his Expositio
eucharistiae negotii ad Martinum Lutherum: "This conclusion
that est stands for significat¹e I adopted from the Dutchman
Hoen, whose letter John Rode and George Saganus carried
with them.'
9917
NOTES AND NOTICES
It would indeed be futile to doubt the veracity of Harden-
berg's report where he speaks of Rode's trip to Wittenberg. We
do not know whether Rode talked to Carlstadt as early as the
year 1521. Luther left for Worms in April, 1521, and did not
return to Wittenberg from the Wartburg till March, 1522.
During his absence from Wittenberg, his friends Melanchthon
and Carlstadt instituted a number of radical reforms, most of
which were discredited by Luther upon his return to the city.
Early in the year 1522 several treatises by Gansfort were pub-
lished at Wittenberg, though not edited by Luther in person,
due to his absence. On July 30 of the same year he wrote the
letter of recommendation mentioned above. The letter was dated
"III. Calendas Augusti," and may have been composed in the
year 1521, inasmuch as it was published at Zwolle in 1522, in
an edition of Gansfort's celebrated Farrago Rerum Theologi-
carum. 18
We know that in 1522 Carlstadt for the first time disagreed
with Luther on the question of Christ's physical presence in the
sacrament of communion.19 The relations between the two re-
15 "Und nach dem allem hat uns gott die epistel Honii zugesendt, von
der du wol weist." Quoted from A. Eekhof, 1. c., p. xiv.
16 Matthew xxvi. 26; and Luke xxii. 19: "Hoc est corpus meum."
17 "Ipse ex Honio Batavo (cuius epistolam Joannes Rhodius et
Georgius Saganus, viri tum pietate, tum eruditione insignes altulerunt),
per ‘est' pro ‘significat' expedivi.” Quoted from A. Eekhof, 1. c., p. xvii.
18 M. Van Rhijn, Wessel Gansfort, p. 260. Van Rhijn believes that
Luther wrote the letter in 1522; so does Clemen.
19 Enders pointed this out as early as the year 1889 in vol. III of his
edition of Luther's letters, pp. 424-425.
128
THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
formers were not very cordial after Luther's return from Wart-
burg. This is perhaps the reason why Carlstadt now rejected
both transubstantiation and consubstantiation. His explanation
of Christ's institution of the sacrament, however, is far from
ingenious. He asserted that when Christ said to his disciples:
"This is my body," he was not looking at the bread which he
broke for them, but pointed to his own body. Hence Professor
W. Walker's remark, which the present writer supports: “The
explanation was valueless enough."20
If Bucer was influenced by Carlstadt in adopting the new
view, one might say that he was influenced by Hoen through
Carlstadt. The latter's place in the history of the Reformation
is but one of the many instances where both journalism and
history have overemphasized the importance of men who
through their spectacular words and deeds attracted consider-
able attention in their lifetime. Carlstadt's contribution to the
development of the new Protestant doctrine on the eucharist
was but slight. He himself, as Preserved Smith remarks,
adopted the symbolic interpretation from Hoen.21
The source of the Zwinglian and Calvinistic doctrine is not
Wittenberg, but the Netherlands; it is not Lutheranism, but the
Devotio Moderna. Even Luther and Melanchthon would
finally have yielded, as many of their followers did later, had
not Luther been quite so certain of being specially inspired
with the only true understanding of the Holy Scriptures.22
20 W. Walker, The Reformation, New York, 1922, p. 170.
21 P. Smith, The Age of the Reformation, New York, 1920, p. 108.
Although H. Barge has devoted three good-sized volumes to the life and
works of Carlstadt, he has not proved that Carlstadt was a great
theologian. His Frühprotestantisches Gemeindechristentum in Witten-
berg und Orlamünde, published at Leipzig in 1909, fails to show a vital
connection between the labors of Carlstadt in Wittenberg and the prin-
ciples and influence of Calvinism (pp. 189–191), but merely establishes
a frail hypothesis.
22 The present writer has often wondered why so many Protestants
know absolutely nothing about Luther's amazing audacity and conceit.
Whereas Luther asked his opponents at the Diet of Worms in 1521
whether they could prove from the Holy Scriptures that he had erred,
and whereas he placed the Bible above all human knowledge and in-
spiration, he nevertheless considered himself even better inspired than
several of the men who composed the Bible. He acted as if he had a
monopoly of the truth. Revelation he thought neither apostolic nor
129
It is interesting to observe how Zwingli responded to the
stimulus of the new teachings. In January, 1523, Rode and
Saganus arrived in Basel, where they had a conference with
Oecolampadius in the house of Andrew Cratander, the printer.
They explained Hoen's letter to him, and not without effect,
whereupon Oecolampadius suggested that they visit Zwingli.28
It was in the summer of 1523 that they met the Swiss reformer.
Zwingli readily admitted that Hoen's letter at last revealed to
him the meaning of Christ's momentous words: "This is my
body." On October 23, 1525, Zwingli wrote to Bugenhagen re-
garding the visit:
NOTES AND NOTICES
I had noted that the words "This is my body" had been said to be a
figure of speech, but I did not understand how to interpret it. Then it
happened that two pious and learned men, whose names I withhold,
came to Leo and me to discuss this question. When they heard our
opinion, they rendered thanks to God, but did not yet reveal their own,
as it was not safe to do. And they brought a letter of a certain learned
and pious Dutchman, which has now been published anonymously.
Here I found the word is to mean signifies. The figure of speech, there-
fore, was hidden in the word is.24
Erasmus confirmed Zwingli's report in the same year, saying:
"A certain Dutchman wrote this letter four years ago, but
anonymously. It has now appeared in print."25
If Zwingli could be so easily persuaded, one might expect
Bucer to have offered still less resistance. He had a talk with
prophetic. The Book of Esther should never have been written. Ec-
clesiastes rides in neither boots nor spurs but stumbles along in socks,
"as I did when I was in the cloister." As late as the year 1545 he said
that the Epistle of James was a letter of straw, while in his Table Talk
he criticized it even more severely. See: Preserved Smith, "The Methods
of Reformation Interpreters of the Bible," in The Biblical World, Oc-
tober, 1911, pp. 241-242.
23 M. Van Rhijn, Wessel Gansfort, p. 260.
24 This letter first appeared without the date and place of publication
and was published in: M. Schuler and J. Schulthess, Huldrici Zvinglii
Opera, vol. III, Zurich, 1832, pp. 605-606. It is not clear why this letter
does not appear in the Corpus Reformatorum, vol. XCV.
25 D. Erasmus, Opera omnia, Leyden edition, vol. III, part I (1703),
col. 894: "Carolstadius quum hic clanculum latitaret, sparsit libellos
Germanice scriptos, quibus contendit in Eucharistia nihil esse praeter
panem et vinum. Persuasit illico plerisque. Hujus sententiam Zwinglius
jam editis aliquot libellis confirmavit. Batavus quidam ante annos
quatuor egit idem epistola, sed sine nomine, quae nunc excusa est.”
130
THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
Rode and Saganus at Strasbourg in November, 1524, and was
greatly impressed by the arguments of the two Dutch scholars.
He wrote not long thereafter that he knew no man more pious
than Rode, not excepting Luther. Although Rode was a follower
of Luther, yet he often owed more to Gansfort. Bucer, when
Rode was his guest, tried to defend Luther's view, but could
not meet Rode's arguments. Hence he forthwith dropped his
view on Christ's physical presence in the eucharist.20
Strange to say, the letter in which Bucer so clearly expressed
his indebtedness to Hoen and Rode, was used by Eells to prove
that Bucer derived his view from Carlstadt. This letter reads.
in part as follows:
When the writings of Carlstadt appeared, I was forced to make an in-
vestigation. . . . I consulted Luther, who answered me in a friendly
manner. In the meantime there came to me a pious man, named
John Rhodius, a heart so pious and enlightened, both in deeds and in
words that I, in matters of faith and ethics, know of no one whom I can
place above him, not excepting Luther. . . . He comes from The
Netherlands, where he carries on about the same sort of work as Paul
did among the Greeks. Although he regards Luther as his teacher, he
nevertheless owes at times more to Gansfort. I am amazed that we
make so little of Gansfort.
• •
This man Rhodius was my guest. He, with the Bible in his hands,
discussed consubstantiation with me at great length. I defended Luther's
view with all the force at my command, but soon noticed that I could
not meet his arguments, and that one cannot maintain the view I sought
to uphold, if one adheres to the Bible as the final authority. So I had to
relinquish my own view on Christ's physical presence, although I was
still in doubt as to the meaning of the words ["This is my body."].
Carlstadt, for more than one reason, could not satisfy me.
Carlstadt himself was compelled by Luther in 1525 to modify
his view considerably." While he did not completely recant, he
26 J. W. Baum, Capito und Butzer, Elberfeld, 1860, p. 305.
27 W. Capito, Letter to Zwingli, October 28, 1525: "Recantavit Carol-
stadius specie declarationis sententiam suam super materia eucharistias
... Lutherus huic agenti supparasitatur, qui agnoscit inscriptiones
opinantis citra assertionem esse. O viros vere evangelicos! ... Bene
cecidit. . . . Nos edimus ridiculum libellum." This letter is published in
Corpus Reformatorum, vol. XCV, pp. 404-405. In 1525 Carlstadt wrote
a new work on the Supper. Here he expressed his modified views.
The title is: Erklärung wie Karlstadt seine Lehre von dem hochwürdigen
Sakrament und andere achtet und geachtet haben will. Luther wrote an
Introduction for it, which is published in the Weimar edition, vol. XVIII,
131
nevertheless ceased for several years to preach the doctrine
first upheld by Hoen and Rode, and after 1522 defended and
widely disseminated by Bucer, Oecolampadius, Zwingli and
Calvin. Hoen's letter remains a document of great historical
importance. Its influence on Bucer and Zwingli can no longer
be doubted. The new doctrir ere so clearly enunciated became
a hotly debated issue both ore and after the famous Mar-
burg Colloquy. It probably was the chief cause of the rift in
the harmony among Protestants east and west of the Rhine. But
though Luther and Melanchthon refused to yield to its ever in-
creasing sway, many Lutheran churches of today and practically
all other Protestants have come to consider it the most satisfac-
tory explanation of the words recorded in the Gospels of Mat-
thew and Luke: "This is my body."
Ann Arbor, Mich.
NOTES AND NOTICES
A. HYMA.
pp. 453-466. It must have greatly humiliated Carlstadt to issue such a
work, for he was neither willing nor able wholly to renounce his former
beliefs. Many reformers ridiculed him and Luther as a result.
Capito had lost a good deal of respect for Carlstadt as early as the
year 1521, when Carlstadt had been introducing radical reforms in
Wittenberg. After Luther warned Capito against Carlstadt in March,
1522, Capito had even less respect for the latter. (See: H. Barge, Andreas
Bodenstein von Karlstadt, vol. II, Leipzig, 1905, pp. 208-209). It is not
surprising that Luther banished his former colleague from Saxony. In
October, 1524, Carlstadt appeared in Strasburg, but stayed here only
four days, as neither Capito nor Bucer gave him any encouragement.
They regarded him as too erratic and too fanatical (H. Barge, 1. c.,
vol. II, pp. 210-213). Shortly after his visit Capito wrote about him as
follows: "Carlstadt has through his poisonous books thrown our church
into confusion. . . . He dares to call Luther a messenger and relative
of the Antichrist." (See: E. L. Enders, Luther's Briefwechsel, vol. V,
p. 59: "Carolostadius nobis Ecclesiam turbatam reddidit suis virulentis
libellis. .. Audet Lutherum nuntium et proximum affinem Antichristi
nominare.) In October, 1525, Capito still speaks of him as a bad man.
Very interesting is the letter written by Bucer, and sent by the seven
chief reformers of Strasbourg to Luther on November 23, 1524, (Enders,
I. c., pp. 59-68). Here the Alsatian reformers show a tolerant attitude
toward Luther and Carlstadt, but even Barge does not deduce from their
letter that Bucer was influenced by Carlstadt (1. c., vol. II, p. 231).
Bucer was a follower of Luther and later of Zwingli, but never a disciple
of Carlstadt. (See: G. Anrich, Martin Bucer, Strasbourg, 1914, pp.
47-50; Anrich also maintains that Bucer adopted his new view from
Rode and Hoen.)
ܪ
ܝ

ki


првата по
faci
J.
1.
()
L
!
2
!



18054188