Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:04:15.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Personal, Societal, and Literary Reform in John Colet's Ecclesiastical Hierarchy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2014

Daniel J. Nodes
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The English cleric John Colet (ca. 1467–1519) composed a commentary on the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy of Dionysius, the legendary disciple of Saint Paul. Colet approached the Dionysian text not as an artifact belonging to another time and place but as a living document, much as he approached St. Paul's Letters in his commentaries. His goal was to critique lapses in ecclesiastical virtue and to instill a spirit of personal and institutional reform by comparing the sacramental and hierarchical practices of the sixth-century Dionysian Church with those of his Church in England. This essay suggests a new path to understanding the distinctiveness of reforms advocated by Colet. By referring to specific elements, including the practices of baptism and the eucharist and the nature of the office of bishop, Colet was able, via Dionysius, to reveal alternative possibilities of reform by adopting patristic and, although perhaps unwittingly, Eastern Orthodox thought and practice. What has not been appreciated thus far is that Colet's Ecclesiastical Hierarchy produces for a Latin readership in England a neo-Patristic blueprint that resembles in significant details the living ecclesiology of the Christian East, which was coming to light in the West through the humanist restoration of patristic texts and debates among scholars in Italy over Union and Conciliarism.

Type
Articles
Information
Church History , Volume 83 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 547 - 570
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Lupton, J. H., ed., Enarratio in epistolam S. Pauli ad Romanos (London: Bell, 1873)Google Scholar; idem, Opuscula quaedam theologica (London: Bell, 1876)Google Scholar; idem, Super opera Dionysii (London: Bell, 1869)Google Scholar; idem, Two Treatises on the Hierarchies of Dionysius, by John Colet, D.D. (London: Bell, 1869)Google Scholar.

2 Allen, P. S., ed., Erasmi Epistolae (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1922; repr., 1992), 4:513–527Google Scholar.

3 For an account of the early polemics see Arnold, Jonathan, Dean John Colet of St. Paul's: Humanism and Reform in Early Tudor England (London: I. B. Tauris, 2007), 3–7Google Scholar.

4 Hyma, Albert, “Erasmus and the Oxford Reformers (1493–1503,” Nederlandsch Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis, N.S. (1932): 97–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Rice, Eugene F. Jr., “John Colet and the Annihilation of the Natural,” Harvard Theological Review 45 (1952): 141–163, at 142n4Google Scholar.

5 Hunt, E. W., Dean Colet and His Theology (London: SPCK, 1956), 18, 56Google Scholar.

6 Miles, Leland, “John Colet: An Appreciation,” Moreana 22 (1969): 10Google Scholar.

7 E. W. Hunt, Dean Colet and His Theology, 58ff.

8 Leland Miles, “John Colet: An Appreciation,” 10.

9 Ibid., 10–11.

10 Trapp, J. B., “The English Late Medieval Cleric and Italian Thought: The Case of John Colet, Dean of St Paul's (1467–1519),” in Medieval English Religious and Ethical Literature: Essays in Memory of G. H. Russell. ed. Kratzmann, Gregory and Simpson, James (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1986), 233Google Scholar.

11 Jarrott, C. A. L., “John Colet on Justification,” Sixteenth Century Journal 7 (1976): 60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Gleason, John B., John Colet (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), 8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Arnold, Dean John Colet of Saint Paul's, 12.

13 Gleason, John Colet, 7.

14 For recent summary and bibliography see J. B. Trapp, s.v. “Colet, John (1467–1519),” in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, January 2008, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/5898.

15 Gleason, 235–237.

16 See Arnold, 146ff.

17 Steinmetz, David C., “Divided by a Common Past: The Reshaping of the Christian Exegetical Tradition in the Sixteenth Century,” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 27, no. 2 (1997): esp. 250Google Scholar.

18 Arnold, 146.

19 Lochman, Daniel T. and Nodes, Daniel J., eds., John Colet on the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy of Dionysius (Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 2013), 2.2, 141–143Google Scholar. Hereafter cited as EH.

20 “especially that one who is highest, whom we name ‘pope’” EH 7.3, 342.

21 Arnold, 40–41.

22 Arnold, 133.

23 Arnold, 49.

24 Lochman, Daniel, “Divus Dionysius: Authority, Self, and Society in John Colet's Reading of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy,” Journal of the History of Ideas 68 (2007): 25Google Scholar.

25 Ibid., 26.

26 Arnold, 153.

27 Hunt, 60–61.

28 See Hunt, 54n1; Registrum Statutorum, 225.

29 Arnold, 16.

30 “ut abducant se omnino a sordibus huius mundi . . . et quasi aptam et expurgatam materiam se divinae reformacioni subiciant; ut, sicut in celo, quod in dominica oracione petimus, sic eciam in terra aliquando Deus regnet, et in ipsis hominibus imperium habeat” (Colet, John D.D., Joannis Coleti Enarratio in Epistolam S. Pauli ad Romanos: An Exposition of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, delivered at Lectures in the University of Oxford about the year 1497, translated by Lupton, J. H. [London: Bell, 1873; repr. Ridgefield, N.J.: Gregg Press, 1965], 58–59; Latin, 175–176Google Scholar.

31 Liturgy of Chrysostom, John, Hymn, Cherubic, in Liturgies Eastern and Western, ed. Brightman, F. E. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1896; repr. 1967), 1:377–379Google Scholar.

32 See Trapp, “An English Late Medieval Cleric and Italian Thought,” 235.

33 Nasta, M., “Quatre états de la textualité du Corpus Dionysien,” in Denys l'Aréopagite et sa postérité en Orient et en Occident, actes du Colloque international, Paris 21–24 septembre 1994, ed. De Andia, Y. (Paris: Institut des Études Augustiniennes, 1997), 64–65Google Scholar; Cristiani, M., “Dionigi dionisiaco. Marsilio Ficino e il “Corpus Dionysianum,” in Il neoplatonismo nel Rinascimento, atti del Convegno internazionale, Roma-Firenze 12–15 dicembre 1990, ed. Prini, P., (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1993), 185–203Google Scholar.

34 See the overview by Froelich, Karl, “Pseudo-Dionysius and the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century,” in Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, trans. Luibheid, Colm and Rorem, Paul, (New York: Paulist, 1987), 33–46Google Scholar.

35 Gleason, John Colet, 200; KlitenicWear, Sarah and Dillon, John, Dionysius the Areopagite and the Neoplatonist Tradition (Aldershot, U.K.; Ashgate, 2007)Google Scholar, 3; Rorem, Paul and Lamoreaux, John C., John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus (Oxford: Clarendon,1998), 99–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 “Quod iam a consuetudine decessisse ingemendum est, sane quum nos in conservandis institutis patrum nostrorum multo studiosiores esse debemus quam erant hebrei in suis traditionibus retinendis, quanto nostra excellentiora et clariora sunt quam que erant illorum et maioris veritatis purioris significamina, quorum rationem et congruitatem maxime nimirum noverunt apostoli, qu[ibus] spiritus revelavit omnia, ut non poterat esse quin illi sapienter intellexerint que singula singulis apte accommodarent; et iusta concinnitate depingerent spiritales veritates in propriis signis—que postea demutata esse haud scio quomodo sine nephario scelere contigit—quum credendum est illos a spiritu sancto doctos omnia in ecclesia instituisse” (EH 6.2–3, 306–308).

37 See O'Malley, John W., Praise and Blame in Renaissance Rome: Rhetoric, Doctrine, and Reform in the Sacred Orators of the Papal Court, 1450–1521 (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1979), 182–183Google Scholar.

38 Arnold, Dean John Colet of Saint Paul's; see also Kaufman, Peter, Augustinian Piety and Catholic Reform: Augustine, Colet, and Erasmus (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1982)Google Scholar.

39 Peters, Robert, “The Contribution of the Eastern Fathers to the Intellectual Equipment of English Clergy during the Sixteenth Century,” in Miscellanea Historiae Ecclesiasticae, vol. 4 (Louvain: Publications Universitaires de Louvain, 1972), 102–108Google Scholar.

40 See Wesche, Kenneth Paul, “Christological Doctrine and Liturgical Interpretation in Pseudo-Dionysius,” Saint Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 33, no. 1 (1989): 53–73Google Scholar.

41 Thomas Aquinas cites chapter 4 of Dionysian Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (on the consecration of oil) only ten times in all his works, chapter 2 (on baptism) twenty-six times, and chapter 3 (on the eucharist), thirty-one times. In contrast, he cites DEH 5 (on consecration of the clergy) sixty-three times, perhaps owing to its significance for the ecclesiastical institution (Durantel, J., Saint Thomas et le Pseudo-Denis [Paris: Libraire Félix Alcan, 1919], 262–264Google Scholar).

42 “Divus Dionysius,” 12.

43 “Nemo perfecte membrum est corporis christi, donec sacre communionis et vitalis alimonie particeps fuerit, cuius participatione coalescit in corpus. In prima ecclesia baptizati omnes et simul confirmati sacrosancta unctione sine delatione in communionem divini pabuli adsciscibantur. Est animadvertendum Dionysium de confirmatione loqui sic ut non id distinctum sacramentum sed quiddam ad baptismi completionem esse doceat, ut id et baptismus solum unum sit sacramentum. Est eciam non minus notandum quod erat in more prisce ecclesie ut omnes baptizati statim communicent, ut communi nutricione ex christi corpore mistico esse censeantur. Alioquin, tametsi baptizati, ex corpore videntur non esse. Nam communicatio illa colligat et convincit communi nutricione, et perficit extrema completione. Ideo erat quondam impartita eciam baptizatis infantibus, de quibus hoc legitur in antiquis misteriorum voluminibus: si episcopus adest statim confirmari oportet postea communicari. Episcopus si presens non fuerit, antequam lactetur infans aut aliquid gustaverit communicet eum sacerdos de corpore et sanguine domini ante missam eciam si necessitas ingruat, ut homo iam in christo expurgatus illuminatus et perfectus sit” (EH 2.3, 166-169).

44 J. H. Lupton, Two Treatises on the Hierarchies of Dionysius, 94n1.

45 Hunt, 66.

46 Gleason, 41.

47 “Ego vero ita amo tua studia et istam tuam novam aeditionem ita amblector, ut in eadem varie afficiar. Nam nunc dolor me tenet quod non didicerim Graecum sermonem, sine cuius peritia nihil sumus. . . . Applicabo me, si patieris, et adiungam lateri tuo, exhibeboque me tibi discipulum etiam in discendo Graece, quanquam iam provectus aetate et prope senex” (Colet, Letter to Erasmus [1516], no. 423 in Epistolae II, 257–288). That same year Erasmus attests “Coletus iam graecatur strenue, usus in ea re precaria opera Clementis mei,” no. 468, Epistolae II, 447. Trapp summarizes that Colet “never . . . had more than a few words of Greek” but he acknowledges that Colet in 1516 “was working at it with John Clement, Thomas More's pupil—servant and alumnus of St. Paul's School” (Dictionary of National Biography).

48 Gleason, 58.

49 Hunt, 88.

50 O'Kelly, Bernard and Jarrott, Catherine A. L., eds., John Colet's Commentary on First Corinthians: A New Edition of the Latin Text, with Translation, Annotations, and Introduction (Binghamton, N.Y: Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies, 1985), 27Google Scholar.

51 J. B. Trapp, “The English Late Medieval Cleric and Italian Thought,” 248.

52 “Ibi se totum euoluendis sacris autoribus dedit; sed prius per omnia literarum genera magno studio peregrinatus priscis illis potissimum delectabatur, Dionysio, Origene” (Epistolae IV, 515, no. 1211).

53 Trapp, “An English Late Medieval Cleric and Italian Thought,” 248.

54 “John Colet: An Appreciation,” 6–7.

55 Jayne, Sears, John Colet and Marsilio Ficino (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963), 41Google Scholar.

56 See Peters, “The Contribution of the Eastern Fathers,” 95.

57 Peters, Robert, “John Colet's Knowledge and Use of Patristics,” Moreana 22 (1969): 54Google Scholar.

58 Chrysostom, Homily 12 on 1 Corinthians, trans., T. W. Chambers, NPNF Series 1 vol. 12.

59 “Dimicandum est ut vincas; vincendum ut coroneris. Pugna in illo qui in te pugnat et vincit, Iesus christus, qui indixit bellum morti et pugnat in omnibus. Ille est qui vincit in nobis et nos in illo, uncti spiritu sancto, qui, debellato et everso imperio mortis, in regno lucis ipse sit omnia in omnibus. Pugnandi regula est imitari ducem, qui dominus fortis et potens est in prelio” (EH 2.3, 162–164).

60 “Erat enim mirabilis victoria, ut victor diabolus eo ipso quod vicit victus esset, et Iesus, quo victus in cruce eodem vinceret, ut aliter re ipsa esset utrinque in victoria quam appareret” (EH 3.3, 204–206).

61 “Quod deinde victa morte, fugato dyabolo, redempto humano genere ut liberam habeat potestatem, omnino sine adversarii querela, elegendi ad se quos velit, ut quos velit vocet, quos vocet justificet; quod, inquam, sic victa et prostrata morte mortisque auctore, ex morte idem resurrexit vivens ac vivum se multis ostendit, multisque argumentis comprobavit” (O'Kelly and Jarrott, eds., John Colet's Commentary on First Corinthians ch. 2, 90–91; see also 182–183, 226–227, 278–279).

62 See Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, vol. 2, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600–1700), 138–139.

63 Adversus Haereses, Book 5, preface.

64 Cited in Arnold, 57.

65 “In mente veniat, non tibi cum integro hoste rem esse, sed cum eo qui iam olim fractus, fusus, exutus atque adeo triumphatus sit a nobis, sed in Christo capite nostro, a quo procul dubio vicissim vincetur et in nobis. Tu modo cura ut sis in corpore, et omnia poteris in capite. In te ipso quidem nimis es imbecillis, in illo nihil non vales. Proinde ne anceps quidem est nostri Martis exitus, propterea quod neutiquam a fortuna pendeat victoria, sed ea omnis in manu sita sit Dei, ac per eum nostris quoque in manibus. Nemo hic non vicit, nisi qui vincere noluit. Auxiliatoris benignitas nulli defuit umquam: si caveris ne benignitati illius de sis ipse, vicisti. Pro te pugnabit, et liberalitatem suam tibi pro merito imputabit. Victoriam omnem illi feras acceptam oportet, qui primus et solus a peccato immunis, peccati tyrannidem oppressit, verum ea non tibi non sine tua continget industria.” (Enchiridion militis Christi, Epistle 1, ch. 1, [Cologne, 1536]). Translation based on the English edition of 1534 in Erasmus' Enchiridion militis Christiani: An English Version, ed. O'Donnell, Anne M. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981), 41Google Scholar. Cornelius Augustijn, citing the Ratio verae theologiae (first published in 1518), points to Erasmus's rejection of Christus Imperator and embracing of the suffering servant image derived from Isaiah (Erasmus: His Life, Works, and Influence [Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991], 77Google Scholar). But the suffering servant or sacrificial victim are not themes featured in the Enchiridion.

66 For the close association of Colet and Erasmus during the period leading up to the writing of the Enchridion see Kaufman, Peter Iver, “John Colet and Erasmus's Enchiridion,” Church History 46, no. 3 (1977), 296–312Google Scholar; esp. 296–301. Kaufman (306n46) mentions sacrifice, atonement, and propitiation as principles of Christ's salvation for Colet, citing the expositions on Romans and Corinthians; but the entire thrust of his article is, as we agree it should be, on Colet's emphasis on “total dedication to the humble virtues exhibited by Christ and an active righteousness which follows from faith” (303).

67 Aulén, Gustav, Christus Victor (London: SPCK, 1931; New York: Macmillan, 1969), esp. 81–92Google Scholar.

68 “Est enim Christus caput ecclesie ipsa integritas et perfectio” (EH 2.3, 170).

69 “Ecclesia, que personam christi agit, que quicquid aut solvit aut ligat ligatum id et solutum est in celis, que non vult mortem peccatoris sed ut convertatur et vivat, tales, quum mandatam penitentiam perfecerint, eosque satis penituerit rursum benigniter in ecclesiam recipit et fovet et quoad potest in eadem conservat” (EH 3.2, 178).

70 “Divus Dionysius,” 10n10.

71 “Ex sacerdotibus tamen statim post apostolos a primis illis discipulis apostolorum et sequacibus et ex sacerdotum numero officio et dignitate equali unus erat delectus et prepositus ad dirimendas lites et sedandas discordias et sua opinione ac sententia ad terminandas dissensiones, ut in concordia commaneat ecclesia. Ad quem erat delata ea authoritas ab universali ecclesia, ut non consentientes inter se in illius sententia conquiescant, qui officio et dignitate non tam prestat ceteris sacerdotibus” (EH 3.2, 184).

72 “nihil agit quoque sacerdote excellentius quam quadam administratione et authoritate in litibus dirimendis—ut in eo omnes qui simul cum eodem sacerdotes agunt omnia tanquam in quodam puncto sententie omnibus finitis discordiis conquiescant. Hic tum peculiariter episcopus cepit vocari, quod nomen sub apostolis omnium erat sacerdotum, donec selectus is fuerat unus de quo modo dixi et propter causam quam dixi” (EH 3.2, 184).

73 The fragmentary commentary on Romans, in Ioannis Coleti opuscula quaedam theologica (Letters to Radulphus on the Mosaic Account of the Creation, together with other Treatises, ed. Lupton, J. H. (London: Bell, 1876; repr. Ridgewood, N.J.: Gregg, 1966.), 275Google Scholar.

74 “neque vero lege naturae, neque vero lege mosayca ad vitam potuit restitui” (Lupton, Ennaratio in Epistolam S. pauli ad Romanos, 141).

75 Ibid., xxxviii.

76 John Colet and the Annihilation of the Natural,” Harvard Theological Review 45 (1952): 141–163 (at 141)Google Scholar.

77 Colet's teaching on post-lapsarian freedom is, understandably, a place where a strong debate has been waged under that shadow of the Protestant Reformation. Eugene Rice elsewhere in his article pointed, for example, to the diametrically opposed positions of Frederic Seebohm, who compares Colet's views to those of Savonarola and Albert Hyma, who notes the similarity of Colet's view on freedom to Luther's Wittenberg lecturers. See “John Colet and the Annihilation of the Natural,” 150n34. Trapp sees “little or no sign of Savonarola” in Colet (“The English Late Medieval Cleric and Italian Thought,” 236).

78 Lupton, Ennaratio in Epistolam S. Pauli ad Romanos, 142.

79 “Erant post casum hominis tenebre in mundo. Sol iusticie et veritatis per angelicam suos radios defundens eiusdem hierarchie umbram iacuit in terras. Suo tempore deinde sol ipse descendit, ut per se immediate eam umbram angelice hierarchie illustret coloribus infunderetque lucem veritatis sue, unde colorata imago et angelice civitatis clarius spectetur in terris. Sublata vero tandem umbra, penitus mera lux aliquando apparebit in gloria christi, que vita est nostra abscondita in celis, que apparebit quum apparuerit ille in gloria sua. Interea ingemiscit et parturit usque adhuc omnis creatura, adoptionem filiorum dei expectans” (EH 5.1, 234).

80 John Chrysostom, Hom. 7 on 2 Cor.; PG 61.448; trans. T. W. Chambers in NPNF Series 1, vol. 12, 314.