Wesel, John of

WESEL, v6'zel, JOHN OF: Reformer before the Reformation; b. at Ober-Wesel (26 in. w.n.w. of Mainz) in the early part of the fifteenth century; d. at Mainz after 1479. His family name is vari ously written Ruchrath or Richrath [Ruchard, Ruchrad, Rucherath], and the family itself was native to the immediate region where John was born. He first appears in history as matriculating at the University of Erfurt (1441-42), where he took the bachelor's degree in 1442, the master's in 1445,

became licentiate in 1456 and the same year doctor of theology. He was rector of the university in 1459-57, and at the end of 1457 was vice-rector for a time. In his work on the councils Luther declares that John ruled the university with his books, and these Luther himself used in preparing for his master's degree. Bartholomeeus Arnoldi of Uaingen toports in a work first printed in 1499 that John's reputation still lived at Erfurt; he apologizes also for differing in opinion from John, whose statements, he declares, do not always square with the truth, professes to give an example of this from John's commentary on the Aristotelian physics, and adds a cryptic remark to the effect that everything is not to be told to the public at large, though they may be clear to the learned. This can not be pry so far as to mean that Arnoldi charged John with teachings contrary to those, of the Church. Indeed, Johann von Lutter, many years a colleague of Wesel at Erfurt, reports that Wesel often said from his chair that he would maintain nothing which was dissonant from the teaching of the Roman Church or the doctrines of its approved doctors (N. Paulus, Der Azigustiner Bartholomieus Arnoldi von Usingen, pp. 8 sqq., Strasburg, 1893). Yet Wesel may have given utterance to somewhat bold expressions regarding the early Fathers of the Church. Toward the end of 1460 Wesel was canon at Worms; and early in 1461 he became professor at Basel, though only after protracted negotiations. Here, too, his stay was brief, for in 1463 he was preacher at the cathedral at Worms. But his sermons caused offense, now by pedantic and confusing speculation, now by bold attacks upon the Church, its sacraments, teachings, and tendencies. Bishop Reinhard was compelled to depose him, after warning him at Heidelberg in the presence of the theologians. Yet Diether von Isenberg, archbishop of Mainz, called him as pastor to the cathedral. Here, too, he aroused suspicions by 'relations with a Bohemian adventurer who had been accustomed to meet him at Worms and had followed him to Mainz, to whom he gave a little treatise for his companions in Bohemia. This came by a circuitous route into the hands of the archbishop, and, after it had been submitted to the professors of the university, brought punishment upon the Hussite and upon Wesel. The latter was put upon his defense before a board of theologians from Cologne and Heidelberg; he was then an old man of eighty, but it was reported that his answers before the inquisitors were indifferent, confused, suspicious, and evasive. On Sunday, Feb. 21, 1479, he recanted in the cathedral, his writings were burned, and he was himself condemned to lifelong repentance in the Augustinian monastery at Mainz, where soon afterward he died.

During the trial Wesel designated as his own four tracts: (1) Super modo obligationis legum humanarlcm ad quendsm Nieolaum de Bohemia; (2) De potestaEe ecclesiastics; (3) De indulgentiis; and (4) De jejuniis. Of these only one can now be positively identified; the Disputstio sdversus indulgentias is extant in a manuscript, in the royal library at Berlin, bearing the date 1478, and has been printed both by C. W. F. Waleh in Monuments medii cevi, i. 1, pp. lii-156

305

(Göttingen, 1757) and by H. von der Hardt about twenty years earlier in Septem coronamenta supra septem columnar aeademice regim Georgia Augustw, quce Goetingce est, pp. 13-23. The central part is contained in the disputation-theses (chaps. 3-10), which belong probably to the year 1475. The second document acknowledged by Wesel has been sought in the Opuseulum de auetoritate, officio et potestate pastorum ecclesiasticorum, which was published without place or date (possibly Zwolle, 1522). But this is in style fundamentally different from the work on indulgences, professes to be by a layman, and can not be by Wesel. From the period of Wesel's teaching at Erfurt there has come down in manuscript Qutestiones de libris physicorum Aristotelis, the manuscript being at Erfurt, and a commentary on the "Sentences" of Peter Lombard, this being at Berlin. From his period at Basel there is a lecture on logic and a commentary on Aristotelis libros de omnia, the manuscripts having been copied in 1462-1463 and being found in the Munich library. In the library of the University of Würzburg there is a copy of an exchange of polemical writings between Wesel and John of Lutter, debating the question whether the pope is the vicar of Christ and whether pope or council have authority in case of deadly sin; in both cases Wesel took the negative.

As a source for the teaching of Wesel only the Disputatio adversus indulgentias can be used. His answers during his examination would be pertinent, if only they were clear and consistent. Wesel stood with the general teaching of the Church of the Mid dle Ages and with Augustine and Thomas Aquinas in his doctrines of sin, grace, forgiveness of sins, and penance. In connection with the sacrament of pen ance Wesel was a Scotist and nominalist, holding that the priest can not principaliter et effective forgive sin, but only through divine assistance, and the priestly forgiving of sin is only a sacramental min istry to the penitent sinner. The one who alone forgives sin is God, who has called the priest to take part therein; the gift of grace in the sacrament of penance is the remission of guilt and punishment in hell, remission of divine punishment is not an accom paniment. Indulgences are a pious imposture upon the faithful; yet so far as pilgrimages and alms and the like good works are done in love to God, they are in themselves useful and contribute to the obtain ing of eternal life. Remission is serviceable only in remitting ecclesiastical penalties. Wesel taught of the Church that it is the aggregate of the faithful joined together in love, known to God alone; it is the bride of Christ, is ruled by the Holy Spirit, and in matters essential to salvation can not err. As to Scripture he held that it alone is to be trusted, and neither Fathers nor general councils. To the test of agreement with Scripture all ecclesiastical dog mas and ceremonies are to be submitted. Contrary to Scripture are the Roman Church's teachings re specting indulgences, original sin, transubstantia tion, the ftlioque, feasts and fasts, long prayers, cere monies of the mass, holy oil, consecrated water, and the like. A sentence at the end of the Paradoxa sums up the man: "I despise pope, Church, and councils; I love Christ. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly."

Otto Clemen.

Bibliography: C. Ullmann, Reformers Before the Reformation, i. 277-374, Edinburgh, 1874, cf. his Johann Weasel, e$nVorptingerLuthers, Hamburg, 1834 (comprehensive, includes in the treatment the entire environment, and discusses the principal personages with whom Wesel was connected); N. Serrarius, in Moguntiarum rerum scriptores, ed. G. C. Joannis, i. 107 sqq., Frankfort, 1722 (for selection of "heretical" declarations of Wesel); G. Schade, Easai our Jean de Wesel, Strasburg, 1856; J. C. L. Gieseler, TexEBopk on Church History, ed. H. B. Smith, iii. 481-465, New York, 1888 (quotes extensively from documents); N. Paulus, in Der Katholik, 1898, i. 44-57; idem, in Zeitschrift für kathoZische Theologie, xxiv (1900), 846-858, axvii (1903), 801-802; J. Falk, BibeLstudien, Bibelhandschriften and BibeLdrucke zu Mainz, pp. 60 sqq., 1lainz, 1901; F. Kropatsehek, Das Schriftprinzip der lutherischen Kirche, i. 407 sqq., Leipsic, 1904; O. Clemen, in Historische VierteLjahrschrift, iii. 521-523; Deutsche Zeitschrift für Geschichtewissenschaft, new aeries, ii. 143-173 (by O. Clemen), 34448 (by J. Haussleiter); Schaff, Christian Church, v. 2, pp. 681-882; Harnack, Dogma, vi. 170, 199, 222, 262, 268-289, vii. 18; ADB, xxix. 439-444; KL, vi. 1786-89.

For accounts of the trial consult: C. Du Plessis d'ArgentrE, Collectio de novis erroribus, vol, i., Paris, 1728 (contains the Paradoxes-a collection of "heretical" sentences abstracted from Wesel's writings, Examen m agisErale-an account of the trial, and the author's survey, by one of the Heidelberg representatives); thin is found also in Xneas Sylvius' Commentariorum de coneilio Basileea Zibri duo, n.p., n.d.; Ortuinus Gratius, Fasciculus rerum expeEendarum et fupiendarum, pp. elxiii. sqq., Cologne, 1535.