¹ De causa Dei contra Pelagium et de Virtute causarum, ed. Savile, H. (London 1618)Google Scholar Praefario b. 1^r.

² ‘Veteres illi theologi videncur mihi velut apes quaedam in longinqua edam pascua volitantes, dulcissima mella, cerasque miro artificio condidisse. Recentes vero formicis similimi quae ex proximo sublata furto grana, in laribulis suis abscondunt. At ego (quod ad me attinet) non modo malim apes quam formica esse, sed edam sub rege apum militare, quam formicarum exercitum ducere.’ Lorenzo Valla, Praefatio in quartum librum Elegantiarum (1444); in Valla, Laurentius, Opera Omnia I, (Basel 1540, Photomech. reprint Turin 1962; Monumenta Politica et Philosophica rariora Ser. 1 Nr. 5), 117f.Google Scholar

³ Opera Omnia (Basel 1540) fol. 434. This quest is pursued in the volume edited by Zimmermann, W., Antiqui und Moderni, Miscellanea Mediaevalia 9 (Berlin 1974).Google Scholar

⁴ For the best documented and carefully argued interpretation of the 1339 Ockhamist crisis in Paris see two related articles Courtenay, W.J. and Tachau, K. H., ‘Ockham, Ockhamists, and the English-German Nation at Paris, 1339-1341,’ History of Universities 2 (1982) 53–96Google Scholar; Courtenay, W.J., ‘The reception of Ockham’s thought at the University of Paris,’ in Preuve et Raisons à l’université Je Paris: Logiaue, ontologie et théologie au XIV^e siècle, ed. by Kaluza, Z. and Vignaux, P. (Paris 1984) pp. 43–64.Google Scholar

⁵ See Courtenay, W.J., ‘The role of English thought in the transformation of university education in the late Middle Ages,’ in Rebirth, Reform and Resilience—Universities in Transition 1300-1700, ed. by Kittelson, J. M. and Transue, P.J. (Columbus, Ohio 1984) pp. 103–02Google Scholar; 146, fn. 5.

⁶ Urban, Wolfgang, ‘Die via moderna an der Universität Erfurt am Vorabend der Reformation’, in Gregor von Rimini, Werk und Wirkung…, (as below in note 58), p. 311–30Google Scholar. To explain the tide inceptor sacrae scholae invictissimorum nominalium in the Bologna 1496 (1522) edition of the Expositio aurea, Helmut Junghans suggests that ‘Ockham irrtümlicherweise im 15. Jahr-hundert ais inceptor im Sinne von Begründer gefeiert wurde, weil man den akademischen Titel nicht mehr kannte’, Ockham im Lichtederneueren Forschung (Hamburg 1968) p. 148. This hypothesis deserves the razor of Ockham. Cf. Böhner, Philotheus, The Tractatus de successivis attributed to William Ockham (New York 1944) p. 3.Google Scholar

⁷ Cf. my article ‘Headwaters of the Reformation’in Lutherandthe Dawn of the Modem Era, ed. by Oberman, H.A. (Leiden 1974) p. 56.Google Scholar

⁸ See most recently—and revealingly!—the survey in Verkündigung und Forschung 2 (1984) pp. 31—59. A significant ‘Ausgleich’ in Zumkeller, Adolar OSA Erbsünde, Cnade, Rechtfertigung und Verdienst nach der Lehr der Erfurter Augustinertheologen des Spätmittelalters, Cassiciacum 25 (Würzburg 1984) p. 12.Google Scholar

⁹ Thus Luther can refer to his ‘party’ in Erfurt as terministen, whereas Melanchthon is described (by Camerarius) as embroiled in Tübingen in the debates between the Platonic reales and the Aristotelian nominales: ‘Nominales appellati fuere et moderni’. Appendix IV. I and IV. 2 only in the first edition of my Werden und Wertung der Reformation: Vom Wegestreit zum Glaubenskampf (Tübingen 1977) 424f.

¹⁰ The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy. From the Rediscovery of Aristotle to the Disintegration of Scholasticism 1100-1600, ed. Kretzmann, N., Kenny, A., Pinborg, J. (Cambridge 1982).Google Scholar

¹¹ Weisheipl, James A., O.P., ‘The interpretation of Aristotle’s Physics and the science of motion’, ibid. pp. 521–36; 22.Google Scholar

¹² See Rokita, Gottfried, ‘Aristoteles’ in Archivfür Begriffsgeschichte 15 (1971)pp. 51–93Google Scholar; separatum, , Luther: Sol, ratio, erudio, Aristöteles. Probeartikel zum Sachregister der Weimarer Lutherausgabe (Abt. Schriften) (Bonn 1971).Google Scholar

¹³ See The Scope of Renaissance Humanism (Ann Arbor, Mich. 1983)esp. 151—5; 443 f

¹⁴ See his review article ‘Erasmus, Athens, and Jerusalem’ in Erasmus of Rotterdam Society Yearbook 3 (1983) pp.166-75 (an acute critique of the findings of Marjorie Boyle, O’Rourke, Christening Pagan Mysteries: Erasmus in Pursuit of Wisdom (Toronto 1981)).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁵ Cambridge, Mass. 1963 p. 34 f.

¹⁶ Courtenay, William J., ‘Nominalism and Late Medieval Religion’ in The Pursuit of Holiness in Late Medieval and Renaissance Religion: Papers from the University of Michigan Conference, ed. Trinkaus, C., with Oberman, H. A. (Leiden 1974) pp. 26–59; 39.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Studies in Medieval Science and Natural Philosophy. (Variorum Reprints, London 1981) Art. XIII, pp. 211-44; 217.

¹⁸ See Harvest p. 38. Francis Oakley sees ambiguity already with Ockham, : Omnipotence, Covenant, and Order. An Excursion in the History of Ideas from Abelard to Leibniz (Ithaca 1984) p. 52–6Google Scholar. Courtenay, William J. has called attention to a statement by Gregory of Rimini which might have accelerated a development, initiated by Scotus. See his article ‘The Dialectic of divine omnipotence’ in Covenant and Causality in Medieval Thought (Variorum Reprints, London 1984) Art. IV pp. 13Google Scholar; 32, fn. 42; 36 fn. 52. For a revealing extension by Biel’s successor in Tübingen’s via moderna, Wendelin Steinbach, see his Commentary, Hebrews (1516/17) in Wendelini Steinbach. Opera Exegetica Quae Supersunt Omnia, ed. Feld, H., II (Wiesbaden 1984) pp. 85, 19–23.Google Scholar

¹⁹ This development does not go from ‘clarity to unclarity’. Already in the thirties of the fourteenth century, the dialectic could be applied in one respect and rejected in others. Though Bradwardine can admit that ‘cooperation’ in justification is necessary ‘secundum legem statutam’—required by the Augustinian adage ‘qui fecit te, sine te, non iustificat te, sine te,’—he passionately rejects it when applied to the question whether revealed future events are bound to take place. De causa Dei I. 43, 407 D; III. 49, 805 B. Gregory of Rimini is clearly aware of possible abuse when he underscores twice that God’s action ‘de potentia ordinata’ should be understood ‘ad intellectum recte intelligentium’, or safeguarded by the clause ‘ad bonum intellectum communis dicti de potentia ordinata dei.’ I Sent. Dist. 42-44, ql; fol. 162 N; ed. Trapp, D. and Marcolino, V. III (Berlin 1984) 368, 6Google Scholar; q. 2 fol., 166 E; III. 316, 4 f

²⁰ Oakley, op. cit., pp. 93-118;Courtenay, The Dialectic of Divine Omnipotence, p. 17 f.

²¹ ‘Itaque Sorbonicum illud dogma, in quo sibi plaudunt papales theologastri, deteston quod porenriam absoluram Deo affingit. Solis enim lucem a calore avellere, imo suum ab igne calorem, facilius erit, quam Dei potentia separare a iustitia. Facessant ergo procul a pus mentibus monstrosae illae speculationes: plus aliquid Deum posse quam conveniat, vel eum sine modo et ratione quidquam agete.’ De aeterna Deipraedestinatione (1552) (CO 8, 361) Cf. Inst. III, 23, 2 (1559) (OS IV, 396, 16-19) ‘Neque tamen commentum ingerimus absolutae potentiae: quod sicuri profanum est, ita merito detestabile nobis esse debet. Non fingimus Deum exlegem, qui sibi ipsi lex est.’ Petrus d’Ailly finds this distinction already with Lombardus and some antiqui: ‘… quaedam deus potest de potentia quae non potest de iustitia’. Quaestiones super libros sententiarum cum quibusdam in fine adjunctis (Strassburg 1490, reprint Frankfurt 1968) I q. 13 D. He needs this appeal to authority—impatiently brushed aside before (1 q. 6 T)—since he has to defend his new definition of the ‘potentia ordinata’ ‘magis large’ as that which God can do ‘stante ventate legis seu scripturae divinae’ (I q. 1 JJ).

²² “Summa, frustra disputatur cum scholasticis de his rebus sibi incognitas et inusitaris. Impossibile est apud eos intelligi, quid sit peccatum, promissio, fides, iustificatio, imputado, lex et impierio eius. Non sunt haec in eorum libris, sed contritio, sarisfacrio et opera humanis viribus granam Dei merenda. Ignorant, imo negant peccatum originale post bapdsmum et tantum de actualibus disputant. Hac ignoranda stante velie Theologiam tractare est aliud nihil quam asinum velie lyra canere.’ Contra Satanam et Synagogam ipsius, WA 59. 722, 23-723, 6.

²³ Collectanea (1500), Nr. 125, see Collected Works of Erasmus 31, Adages (Toronto 1982) p. 344 f.

²⁴ ‘… quae non potest ea capere et tradere, quae sunt Chrisri et Spiritus eius.’ WA 59. 722, 1 f.

²⁵ WA 59.722, 5-8, with reference to Neh. 13.24.

²⁶ WA 43.67,15-21. Lecture on Genesis (19.14); c. March 1539. Cf. WAT 4, nr. 4407.

²⁷ For the significance of this issue, see my analysis of the history of ‘curiosity’: Contra Vanam Curiositatem. Ein KapitelderThéologiezwischen Seelentvinkel und Weltall (Zürich 1974) p. 48 f.As far as I can see the only other reference to this Luther passage is to be found with Francis Oakley, whose important study is at this point misleading in dating and interpretation. See Omnipotence, Covenant and Order p. 57; 138, note 49.

²⁸ The ira Dei, and the approaching dies irae, is neither believed by ‘the Pope and his cardinals,’ nor by Luther’s own former close associates, the antinomians: ‘Nos quoque contionamur de filio Dei, venturo ad iuditium, et aeternis flammis subiecturo impios. Sed haec cum vel legit vel audit Papa cum suis cardinalibus, rident tanquam in re impossibili. Quid, inquiunt, si coelum ruat?’ WA 43. 67,11-14. Cf. ‘Memorabilis prefecto historia, praedicanda in Ecclesia Dei saepe, quantumcunque simus iustificati, ne in Antinomorum insaniam incidamus, qui legem ex Ecclesia tollunt, quasi vero in Ecclesia omnes sint sancti, nec opus sit talibus exemplis irae divinae. Mundus quidem tales Doctores amat…’, WA 43.67, 34-8. The lucid article by Ernst Koch ‘Johann Agricola neben Luther. Schülerschaft und theologische Eigenart’, seems to me to provide the key to the question, why Luther at the end of his exposition of this verse 14 feels the need to warn specifically against Johannes Gerson. Agricola’s Drey Sermon (Wittenberg 1537), which caused the final break with Luther, invokes the authority of the great Parisian chancellor, see Koch, E., Lutheriana. Zum ¡00. Gehurtstag Martin Luthers (Archivzur WeimarerAusgabe 5), (Köln 1984) pp. 131–50Google Scholar; 149.

²⁹ In the parallel passage Luther explicitly refers to De servo arbitrio. See WA 43.458,35-40.

³⁰ WA 18.685,6 f. For the most recent, careful analysis, see Matsuura, Jun, ‘Zur Unterscheidung von deus revelatus und deus absconditus in De Servo Arbitrio’, in Archivzur Weimarer Ausgabe 5 (1984) pp. 67–85.Google Scholar

³¹ ‘Quae supra nos, nihil ad nos. Dictum Socraticum deterrens a curiosa vesrigarione rerum coelestium et arcanorum naturae. Referrur proverbii vice a Lactantio libro tertio, capite vigesimo: Ex his, inquit, unum eligam, quod ab omnibus sit probatum. Celebre hoc proverbium Socrates habuir. Quod supra nos, nihil ad nos. Torqueri potest et in illos, qui de negociis principum aut theologiae mysteriis temere loquunrur. Vertere licebit et in contrarium: Quae infra nos, nihil ad nos, ubi signiflcamus res leviusculas, quam ut nobis curae esse debeant.’ Rotterdam, Erasmus von, Ausgewählte Schriften VII, ed. Payr, Theresia, (Darmstadt 1972) pp. 414, 416Google Scholar. Cf. Firmiani, L.Caeli Lattanti Divinae Institutiones III. 20 (CSEL 29) pp. 246, 15.Google Scholar

³² WA 43. 73, 3.

³³ LB X. 1527 Trinkaus, C., The Scope of Renaissance Humanism (n. 13)pp. 174–301Google Scholar; 282. Erasmus can fall back here on the solution to the problem of predestination as presented in the via moderna —traceable from Ockham to Biel. See Harvest p. 191 f.

³⁴ In his Quaestio Disputata (1517) Gabriel Biel’s editor and successor in the Tübingen via moderna, Wendelin Steinbach, formulates the exegetical principles which subordinate the search for the proprietas sermonis to ethical considerations. The clause ‘propter hominis profectum’ is also the chief argument of Erasmus contra Luther ‘Scriptura aliquas loquuciones admittit, alias non admittit…. In scripturis omnia erant propalanda, que Deo vere conveniunt, propter hominis profectum, ut timeat et diligat. … Hec congruit nobis significare in scripturis, non ea, que facile possent esse scandalo pusillis.’ Opera exegetica II, (n. 18) 424, 11; 18, 19; 425, 17 f The key to Steinbach’s knowledge about what ‘Deo vere convenit’ implies is reflected in his revealing definition of the iustitia Dei: ‘lusricia est voluntas divina volens ex sua libera sponsione seu pacto dare tantum pro tanto, ut condecet suam bonitatem et hominis merita vel demerita secundum taxam racionis recte in Deo.’ Ibid. 357, 16-18. This passage—completely in keeping with his mentor Gabriel Biel—provides an illuminating backdrop for Luther’s point of departure.

³⁵ Op. cit., p. 295, n. 28.

³⁶ See Luther’s evaluation in 1525: WA 18. 715, 2 f.

³⁷ ‘Omnino enim hoc verum est, quod Deus mundum hunc visibilem gubernat non tantum per homines, sed edam per Angelos. Posset quidem occidere fures sine carnificis opera, et sine Magistratus civilis sententia: sicut nonnunquam facit, praesertim cum homicidis. Sic posset homines creare sine coniunctione maris et foeminae, sicut creavit Adam et Euam: sed divinae maiestati placuit hominum ministerio et opera uri: Ut scilicet ostenderet mirabilem et divinarli suam potenciam in creaturis suis, quas non voluit esse ociosas. Ideo Paulus vocat nos omnes ‘cooperarios Dei’. Utitur enim nostro ministerio ad varias res, sic ceiam Angelorum ministerio utitur, quos instruxit tanta potentia, ut propria virtute seu concreata possint perdere terras et populos, si Deus sit apud eos.’ WA 43.68, 17-27.

³⁸ See here especially Hamm, Berndt, Promissio, Pactum, Ordinatio. Freiheit und Selbstbindung Coites in der scholastischen Gnadenlehre (Tübingen 1977) pp. 279–90Google Scholar; 388, note 200.

³⁹ See, however, WA 43.73, 3 ‘Ordinatam potentiam, hoc est, filium incarnatum …’

⁴⁰ ‘Manet igitur regula, de qua supra etiam dixi [cf. 68, 24], quod Deus non amplius vult agere secundum extraordinariam, seu, ut Sophistae loquuntur, absolutam potestatem: sed per creaturas suas, quas non vult esse otiosas. Sic dat victum, non ut Iudaeis in deserto, cum coelitus daret Manna, sed per laborem, cum diligenter facimus opus vocationis nostrae, nee vult amplius homines ex gleba fingere, sicut Adamum, sed coniunctione maris et foeminae utitur, quibus benedicit. Hanc vocant Dei ordinatam potestatem, cum scilicet utitur ministerio vel Angelorum vel hominum.’ WA 43.71,7-14.

⁴¹ ‘Ideo ante omnia hoc considerandum est: an externa ista fiant secundum institutionem et voluntatem Dei, vel non. Si verbum seu insritutio Dei non adest, tunc recte dicis externa nihil prodesse ad salutem, sed ctiam nocere. Sicut Chrisms Matthaei 15. dicir, “frustra me colunt mandaris hominum”.

Sed si vides externa ista nifi verbo, et divino mandato institura esse, ibi genu flexo tacitus adora ista externa, et die: hoc non iubet fieri meus Pastor, non Petrus, non Paulus, sed meus Pater in coelis, igirur in humilitate obediam, et credam obedientiam hanc profuturam ad salutem.’ WA 43. 70, 23-32.

⁴² ‘Si qua autem nonnunquam fiunt extra ministerium vel Angelorum vel hominum, ibi recte dixeris: Quae supra nos: nihil ad nos. Nobis enim ad ordinatam potestatem respiciendum, et ex ea iudirium sumendum est. Potest Deus salvare sine Baptismo, sicut credimus infantes, qui nonnunquam parentum negligentia, aut alio casu Baptismum non consequuntur, non ideo damnati. Sed nobis in Ecclesia secundum ordinatam Dei potestatem iudicandum et docendum est, quod sine Baptismo illo externo nemo salvetur. Sic ordinata potentia Dei est, quod aqua humectat, ignis urit etc. Sed in Babylone in medio igni Danielis socii incolumes vivebant. Haec fuit potentia Dei absoluta, secundum quam rum agebat, sed secundum hanc nihil nos iubet. Vult enim nos facere secundum ordinatam potentiam.’ WA 43. 71, 17-28. This turn interprets WA 18.685, 23 f, and therefore clarifies the conclusion of E. Jüngel; see below note 58.

⁴³ WA 43. 70, 29.

⁴⁴ See CR 100;ZW 13.289 f.

⁴⁵ CR 101; ZW 14. 872.

⁴⁶ In the Amica Exegesis (1527) definite steps in this direction are made. Köhler, Walther finds here ‘in aller Form den Begriffder Realprasenz’, but must add that it remains a praesentia in mente. Zwingli una Luther. Ihr Streit über das Abendmahl nach seinen politischen und religiösen Beziehungen 1 (Leipzig 1924) p. 483.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ ‘Christi verum corpus in caena; vere eriam editur, cum panis ac vinum praebentur.’ CR 101: ZW 14. 596, 13; 597. 15 f; 599, 3.

⁴⁸ Ibid. 596, 29 f.

⁴⁹ Ibid. 597, 4 f; Cf. 596, 24 f.

⁵⁰ For the best summary to date of the Marburg alternatives, see Wöhler, Walther, op. cit. (as in note 46) 11. (Gütersloh 1953) pp. 133–8Google Scholar. Gottfried W. Locher’s brief sketch of the later Zwingli has the advantage that Köhler’s characterization of Zwingli’s position as ‘idealistisch’ (p. 138) is further clarified as ‘platonisch-augustinisch’ in the tradition of the via antiqua. See Locher, G. W., Die Zwinglische Reformation im Rahmen der europäischen Kirchengeschichte (Göttingen 1979) p. 335.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Since Johannes Eck († 1543)is apparently not familiar with Zwingli’s OT—Commentaries, he does not discuss the new ‘praesentia realis fidei’. Eck eliminates this faith, sees only the elements, and hence joins the ranks of the laughers: ‘Veteri Christiana religione obliterata’ is the description of Zwingli’s reformation, which threw out evermore to retain at the end only ‘bakers bread’ on the altar—’non nisi pistorium panem’. Repulsio articulorum Zwinglii, 1530, as quoted in the new critical edition of Zwingli’s, De Convitiis Eckii. CR 93, pars III; ZW 6. III, (Zürich 1983)250 f.Google Scholar

⁵² ZW 6. III (as in note 51) 188, 21.

⁵³ Compare Steinbach’s typical nominalistic critique of Anselm: ‘Hinc posset forte concedi, quod necesse sit redemptorem esse Deum et hominem, stante ordinacione divina de sic redimendo homine, ad sensum sepe dictum.’ II. 140, 8-10; Cf. 137,20-138, 2.

⁵⁴ CR 101;ZW 14.337,1-15;9-11.

⁵⁵ Zwingli knows the pactum concept, but this is the beginning of reformed covenant theology which could develop because the pactum is not the eternal self-limitation of God, but the historical—often conditional—’alliance’ of God with man and hence the basis of reformed ecclesiology. See the Ezckiel commentary to chapter 16 verse 61: ZW 13 706, 9-13. ZW 13. Cf. the discerning study by Baker, J. Wayne, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition (Athens, Ohio 1980) pp. 2–5Google Scholar; 24.

⁵⁶ ‘Et iam multi sunt antichristi. Expones, quid intelligat [Rev. 12.13] per antichristum. Quasi dicat: Ne putetis me loqui de aliqua persona certa, que veniat ad consumacionem seculi. Sed hoc voco antichristos, quicunque Christum persequuntur. Nunquam sic sevirum est a tyrannis sicut in Christianos. Nemo truculencius sevit in Chrisrianos quam antichristi.’ CR 101;ZW 14. 750, 23-28.

⁵⁷ For a critique of this thesis with respect to Luther, see my Werden und Wertung der Reformation (Tübingen 1979) p. 368, note 91;cf. Masters of the Reformation. The Emergence ofa New Intellectual Climate in Europe (Cambridge 1981) p. 288.

⁵⁸ The use of the uncommon expression deus absolutus should not discredit the observation of E.Jüngel, ‘Luthers Lehre vom verborgenen Gott ist nicht einfach die Fortsetzung der spätnominalistischen Lehre vom deus absolutus, wenngleich sie erst auf deren Hintergrund recht verstindlich wird: nämlich als deren schärfste Kritik.’ ‘Quae supra nos, nihil ad nos. Eine Kurzformel der Lehre vom verborgenen Gott—im Anschluß an Luther interpretiert,’ in Evangelische Theologie 3 (1972) pp. 197-240; 220.

⁵⁹ See esp. Schulze, Manfred, ‘Via Gregorii in Forschung und Quellen,’ in Gregorvon Rimini: Werk und Wirkung bis zur Reformation (Spätmittelalter und Reformation. Texte und Untersuchungen 20) ed. Oberman, H. A. (Berlin 1981) pp. 1–126.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ See Wendelin Steinbach, II, 137,20-138,2:294, 12-22; 400,14-401,2.

⁶¹ Cf. Hagen, Kenneth, ‘From Testament to Covenant in the early Sixtenth Century,’ SCJ 3 (1972) pp. 1–24Google Scholar; esp. 15-20.

⁶² See the clear anlaysis of the development and significance of this concept by Willis, E. David, Calvin’s Catholic Christology, SMRT 2 (Leiden 1966) esp. pp. 8–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 60.

⁶³ See my article ‘The “Extra” Dimension in the Theology of Calvin.’ JEH 21 (1970) pp. 43-64; original German version in Geist und Geschichte der Reformation. Festgabe Hanns Rückert zum 65. Geburtstag, AKG 38, ed. Liebing, H., Scholder, K. (Berlin 1966) pp. 323–56.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Thus explicitly Willis, op. cit. pp. 144-52.

⁶⁵ Inst., 1. XVII, 2(OS., III.205, 12 f.); cf. ‘…quamvis nobis absconditae sint rationes’(ibid.,205, 19).‘Vray est qu’il ne fait pas cela d’une puissance absolue, comme disent les Papistes’ SC, 1605, 19 f. ‘Deum enim exlegem qui facit, maxima eum gloriae sua parte spoliat, quia rectitudinem eius ac iustitiam sepelit. Non quod legi subiectus sit Deus, nisi qua tenus ipse sibi lex est. Talis enim inter potentiam eius ac iusritiam symmetria et consensus, ut nihil ab ipso nisi moderatum, legitimum et regulare prodeat’ (CO., 8, 361); cf. sermon on Job 32, 2 (CO., 34, 339).

⁶⁶ Safley, T. M., Let No Man Put Asunder. The Control of Marriage in the German Southwest: A Comparative Study, 1550-1600 (Kirksville, Mo., 1974)Google Scholar. Although directed in the form of a question, Kingdon, Robert M. raises the very same issue: ‘My dissatisfaction [with a Calvin study by André Biéler], no doubt reflects the viewpoint of an historian who is never sure of the real impact of ideas and prefers to seek social causes for social developments,’ Renaissance, Reformation, Resurgence, ed. Klerk, P. de (Grand Rapids, MI., 1976) p. 96.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ (Cambridge, Mass., 1983).

⁶⁸ SCJ 15 (1984), 225-227; 226.