Introduction

I Occasion and Context

De vera et falsa caenae dominicae administratione (On the True and False Administration of the Lord’s Supper) was published on the 6th of April 1546 at Neuburg-an-der-Donau. As its long title indicates, the work forms part of an initially civil, though finally acrimonious literary exchange between Bucer and Bartholomaeus Latomus, a professional rhetorician and counsellor to the Elector Archbishop of Trier, Johann Ludwig von Hagen. Bucer identifies the immediate occasion of the work as Latomus’ defence of withholding the com- munion chalice from the laity (communio sub una specie).1 However, the occasion of the book is also closely connected with three other related spheres of Bucer’s activity during this period. The first of these is the Reformation begun at Cologne in 1543. As Bucer responds to the objections raised by Latomus, he takes the opportunity to defend the reformed liturgy of Cologne (and ‘Lutheran’ worship in general) against the accusation that these represent an abandonment of the ‘fathers’ and ancient canons, which Bucer claimed to hold in such high regard. The second is the Council of Trent, which was in session for the first time as Bucer completed De vera et falsa administratione. The work opens with a long prefatory letter to the fathers at the recently opened council. Bucer’s letter defends Protestant non-attendance at the council, and expresses his doubt as to whether the prelates have the will—or the divine guidance—to amend the abuses identified by the Council’s presidents in an admonition delivered on 7 January 1546. In the main body of the work, Bucer also returns briefly to the competence of pope and council to reach decisions on matters relating to the administration of the sacraments. Thirdly, the completion of De vera et falsa administratione also coincided with Bucer’s sojourn in Regensburg, between December 1545 and March 1546, where he was preparing to participate in a religious colloquy with representa- tives of the Protestant and Catholic territories of the Holy Roman Empire. This second colloquy of Regensburg receives only passing mention in De vera et falsa administratione, however there are some allusions in the text to disputes over the doctrine of justification, the chief subject of the colloquy, which sug- gest a relationship between the book and its immediate context.

1 See below, p. 66.

The Dispute with Latomus Bucer met Bartholomaeus Latomus through the Strasbourg humanists Johannes Sleidan (1506/8–1556) and Johannes Sturm (1507–1589).2 Latomus probably first met Sleidan and Sturm at the Collegium trilingue at Louvain. All three men came to Paris in the 1530s, and all would eventually enjoy the patronage of the city’s archbishop Cardinal Jean du Bellay.3 In the summer of 1540, at the end of an itinerarium Italicum, Latomus passed through Strasbourg to visit Sturm. Bucer recalled that he and Latomus had met and spoken together in a friendly manner, and that Latomus struck him as zealous for the truth.4 Latomus, too, recalled his favourable impression of Bucer’s character, his household and his hospitality.5 During that same summer, Caspar Cruciger noted Latomus’ presence at the Colloquy of Hagenau among a group of elo- quentes iuniores that included Calvin.6

Bartholomaeus Latomus (c1500–1570) Before we turn to the controversy between Bucer and Latomus, it is worth looking briefly at Latomus’ biography. He was born towards the end of the 15th century in Arlon, and died in 1570 in Koblenz. Both towns belonged to the archiepiscopal Electorate of Trier.7 His life was ‘absorbed in educational institutions’ until he was in at least his early forties.8 He received his schooling

2 On Sleidan, see ADB 34, 454–461; On Sturm, see ADB 37, 5–38. 3 Barron, 19; Wolff, Un humaniste, 49. All at least attended the lectures of the professor of Latin, Conrad Gocleinus. See also Latomus, Responsio, CCath 8, 21; Defensio, CCath 8, 78, l. 8–12. 4 Bucer, Scripta duo, 2. According to Barron, 20 Bucer and Latomus may have met first in 1537 when Latomus, then Professor of Latin Eloquence at the newly established Collège Royal, was invited to Strasbourg to assist in the establishment of the new Latin School or Gymnasium, of which Johannes Sturm was the first rector. However, I have not been able to verify this. 5 Latomus, Defensio, C3rv, CCath 8, 35, l. 40-p. 36, l. 11. 6 Cruciger to Justus Jonas, 27.7.1540, CR3 3, 1063. See also Laemmer, 276 where Cardinal Morone mentions that Sturm and Latomus visited him to sound him out on the ownership of church property. He then summarises concessions the German episcopate was ready to make to the churches of the Augsburg Confession, suggesting that this topic may also have arisen in his conversation with Sturm and Latomus. Barron, 31, n. 75 suggests that Latomus may have been representing Trier at the Colloquy. 7 For biographical treatments see: Latomus, Deux discours, 5–12; Bakelants, 3, 678; Barron, 1–40 & passim; Benedikt, 204–213; CE 2, 303–304; HGFN 1, 391; CCath 8, xi–xx; Roersch, 132–176, Wolff. For analytical bibliographies of Latomus’ works, see Bakelants, 679–747; Wolff, Un humaniste, 93ff. ‘Latomus’ was a Latinised Greek rendering of his father’s occupation: lapi- cida or mason, hence a hypothetical surname of Masson or Steinmetz. On the conflicting evidence regarding the date of Latomus’ birth, see Roersch, 154. 8 Latomus, Responsio, CCath 8, 4, l. 12, ‘ . . . consumpsi in gymnasiis.’