Views on Post-Mortem Existence in the Early Reformation Period

CHAPTER THREE

VIEWS ON POST-MORTEM EXISTENCE IN THE EARLY REFORMATION PERIOD

Introduction

To understand the debate between William Tyndale and George Joye, it is essential to put it into its proper historico-theological context, namely, an ongoing theological dialogue resulting from the attempt of the early Reformers to reformulate the Christian faith by returning to what they understood as the original message of the Bible. This attempt by the early 16th-century theologians, which touched on all subjects of theology— dogmatics, ethics, liturgy, pastoral theology, cannon law, and even church history, ultimately all rooted in exegesis—was particularly productive on issues concerning some aspects of the post-mortem existence, even if the subject is treated systematically only subsequent to the Tyndale–Joye debate. It is clear from the previous chapter that this interest in post- mortem existence in the early Reformation period was neither unique nor without precedent. What was new, however, in the early Reformation period was the unanimous rejection of previous Scholastic theology by Protestant authors. In trying to establish a new, exclusively biblical foun- dation of the theology of post-mortem existence, the Reformers articu- lated opinions that bore similarities to many earlier propositions. These similarities, in most cases, were not the result of direct dependence, but their Catholic partners in the dialogue were keen to point them out, and in that regard it is useful to connect the position of the Reformers with the previously formulated standpoints. The presentation of this ongoing theological quest will start with Wes- sel Gansfort’s views on post-mortem existence. Although he lived before the Reformation and was not a Reformer, his works were published during the early Reformation period and influenced Luther and other Protes- tant writers profoundly. After Gansfort’s ideas come the views of Catholic Reformer Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples. In his theology, an evolution can be detected from the defence of Catholic teaching to the profession of a more Protestant point of view. The positions taken by Martin Luther, Andreas Karlstadt, Gerhard Westerburg, Philipp Melanchthon, Huldrych Zwingli, Martin Bucer, Bartholomäus Westheimer, Heinrich Bullinger, Simon

Fish, William Tracy, John Frith, and William Roye are then discussed. Of the reactions by Catholic apologists to the Protestant propositions, only the views of Thomas More and John Fisher are reviewed in some detail (together with a summary of a number of Catholic books defending Pur- gatory), as only these were relevant to the Tyndale–Joye debate. Finally, a short summary of the theology of the Anabaptists (a movement rather than a single author) is presented, as they, too, played a role in the con- troversy. The section discussing this group of radical Reformers is placed at the end of the chapter due to the fact that they were treated by their contemporaries as outsiders from mainstream Christianity. Both their theological views and their threatened position in society were to play an important role in the Tyndale–Joye debate. A few methodological remarks should help the reader in following the train of thought in this chapter. (1) The ideas will be discussed by author rather than chronologically or thematically. Although this makes it more difficult to see an evolution and establish the interrelatedness of the ideas proposed (the presentation of which is not possible within the scope of this work), it will be easier to identify individual influences on the Tyndale–Joye debate itself and will make the identification of sources and judgements on their use easier. (2) None of the authors discussed treat post-mortem existence in a systematic or comprehensive way during the period examined. Protestant authors usually treated the subject of post-mortem existence in commentaries, sermons, or other, more general works. Consequently, their positions are not always clear, and not every aspect of such beliefs is cov- ered. Their Catholic opponents usually reacted to the disputed positions, and their treatment of the question is focused only on those aspects that are called into question. It will therefore be impossible to present an all- embracing and complete picture of the authors. Also, points that bore little or no relevance to the debate were left out of consideration. (3) Although it may seem at times circumstantial, some attention will be paid to a number of ad hominem arguments made in various debates in the era. The reason for doing so is to familiarize the reader with the tone of such debates at that time so he or she is able to make better assessments of ad hominem arguments in the Tyndale–Joye debate.

Wessel Gansfort

In his known works, all dating from the last ten years he spent in his home town of Groningen, the Frisian theologian Jan Wessel Gansfort (or Goesport c.1410–89), a former student of Thomas à Kempis (1380–1471),